House of Commons

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

Thursday 10 June 2010

The House met at half-past Ten o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

1. If he will bring forward proposals to increase the powers of local authorities to prevent infill and garden development.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

Further to the coalition agreement—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think the right hon. Gentleman should have requested a grouping with questions 9 and 15.

[Mr Pickles]

You are absolutely right, Mr Speaker. I was just so happy to be here. I hope that I do not go on too long—[Hon. Members: “So do we.”] Well, I was not thinking of putting it to a vote.

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

9. If he will bring forward proposals to increase the powers of local authorities to prevent infill and garden development.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

15. If he will bring forward proposals to increase the powers of local authorities to prevent infill and garden development.

[Mr Pickles]

Further to the coalition agreement, the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who has responsibilities for decentralisation and planning, gave notice to the House that we are changing planning guidance and that we have taken back gardens out of the definition of brownfield land. In addition, we have removed density requirements. The matter is now for local people to decide.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his welcome return to the Communities and Local Government brief. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister, not only for his recent work in developing the Government’s ambitious low-carbon economy programme, but for his long-term battle to give communities the power they need to stand up for themselves against inappropriate development.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his answer, but will he reassure the House and my constituents that he intends to repeal perverse rules that prevent local councillors from standing up for their constituents—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but I must now cut off the hon. Gentleman. From now on, questions and answers must be briefer.

[Mr Pickles]

I think I got the gist; I think my hon. Friend was referring to predetermination and I am delighted to inform the House that it is our intention to repeal those regulations. That means we can give local councils the thing that Members of Parliament so desire—that councillors with opinions can actually vote on those opinions.

[Mr Speaker]

Matthew Offord is not here, so I call Bob Blackman.

[Bob Blackman]

In Harrow East, the decision to safeguard gardens will be warmly welcomed, but another problem remains: unscrupulous developers whose planning application is turned down by councillors at local level, but who then appeal. What proposals are there to prevent the overturning of local planning decisions on appeal?

[Mr Pickles]

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. We are determined to ensure that planning remains local, but of course an applicant’s right to appeal against a decision will remain.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to his new post. What estimate has his Department made of the impact of the potential changes to planning policy implicit in this question and the other changes his Government have announced, given that Savills, the respected commentators on housing, project that on current trends and patterns there will be a cumulative shortfall of more than 1 million homes within five years?

[Mr Pickles]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome. It is entirely typical of his courtesy that his was the first letter of congratulation that I received. However, I have to tell him that it seems perverse for the Labour party to be concerned about housing numbers. After all, last year the lowest number of houses was built since 1946. Under Labour, it would appear that more damage was done to the housing industry than the Luftwaffe did.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State recognise that, stretching back to the time of Herbert Morrison, the green belt is a great Labour achievement? Does he also recognise that the urban densification policy of the past 13 years has protected the green belt and regenerated our cities? Does the policy review announced today put in jeopardy all that good work?

[Mr Pickles]

I recall hearing our former colleague John Prescott say from this Dispatch Box that the green belt was a great achievement of the Labour party and that it intended to build on it. That indeed seems to have been the case.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I understand fully the concerns about garden grabbing, but I urge the Secretary of State to adopt a careful approach to how he intends to tackle the issue, because some infill is absolutely necessary in urban areas. Can he assure me that planning policy will be flexible enough to assist and not to detract from urban renewal in constituencies such as mine?

[Mr Pickles]

I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support of the coalition’s policy, and I thank him for being part of that consensus. He should understand that these matters will now be decided locally, and the Government think that the most sensible people to decide matters of density and particular applications are the local communities that must bear the consequences of those developments.

[Lorraine Fullbrook (South Ribble) (Con)]

2. What ministerial directions in respect of an action likely to breach the requirements of financial propriety or regularity were issued to the accounting officer of his Department in the past 12 months.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

Although there were no directions in the past 12 months due to propriety and regularity issues, two directions were issued to my Department’s accounting officer due to concerns that he had about the value for money of actions proposed by the then Secretary of State: one related to implementing unitary city councils in Exeter and Norwich; the other covered the purchase of Blackpool Leisure Assets. In the interests of transparency, I am today placing copies of both directions in the Library.

[Lorraine Fullbrook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that he is aware that the First Division Association—the civil servants’ union—has reported that Ministers in the previous Government systematically ignored civil service value-for-money considerations. Can he give us an assurance that this Government will not do the same thing?

[Robert Neill]

We are fortunate in having able and experienced civil servants at our Department, and we certainly want to listen to their advice. It is worth remembering that that direction not only ignored value-for-money considerations, but contradicted stances taken by the previous Government. We will seek value for money, and we will also seek to be consistent.

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post. Can we debate Exeter and Norwich when the Local Government Bill comes to this House, although as these somewhat arrogant, high-handed and incompetent new Ministers have already lost a vote on it in the Lords before it even reached its Second Reading, we may never see it?

Does the Minister not understand that public investment through regional development agencies in towns such as Blackpool has been vital for business and jobs and should be in the future? Securing Blackpool tower and the Winter gardens for Blackpool and its millions of visitors was the right thing to do. What the House, the people of Blackpool and its Conservative council want to hear today is a promise from the Minister that he will not allow his colleagues in the coalition to undo the crucial deal that has been done. Will he give that assurance?

[Robert Neill]

The fact is that the deal is done; the money has been spent. We are not seeking to undo it.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Can the Secretary of State confirm that the new regulations to stop having to build on gardens will also apply to local authority-owned gardens, not just to privately owned gardens—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I must very gently tell the hon. Gentleman that that was the subject of Question 1, but we have moved on to Question 2, and we will now move on to Question 3.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

3. What plans he has for the future regulation of the private rented housing sector.

[The Minister for Housing (Grant Shapps)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. It is important that we strike the right balance between tenants and landlords. The current legislative framework, which I have been looking at closely, does exactly that. We therefore have no plans to take forward the previous Government’s ideas about further regulatory measures on this subject.

[Julie Elliott]

I thank the Minister for that answer. In light of the massive budget cuts announced in the Department, can he assure me that there will be no threat to the measures that the then Government introduced and, indeed, confirm that the Government have no plans to reverse the further powers that Labour has given to councils to introduce local licensing schemes, because in my experience, in my constituency, people want more regulation, not less?

[Grant Shapps]

In my experience, in my constituency and across the country, people also want a good supply of private rented sector property. Of course, getting that balance right is important. I share the hon. Lady’s concern about the extent to which homes in multiple occupation sometimes become a blight on an area. I confirm that we do not plan to overturn the rules that the previous Government introduced, but we will look at them in more detail.

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

We already face new planning applications for large-scale and inappropriate housing development in and immediately around my constituency. The Secretary of State’s letter to local authorities has been helpful, but what further steps should local authorities such as mine take to revise their housing growth figures, which now seem utterly outdated?

[Grant Shapps]

I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out that many communities feel put upon due to the regional spatial strategies and many other centrally imposed items. We will ensure—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is seeking to respond to the question, but it is outwith the terms of that on the Order Paper.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

What discussions has the Minister held with landlord organisations about possible changes to the capital gains tax regime as it relates to private landlords?

[Grant Shapps]

That is a matter for the Treasury, but the hon. Gentleman will not have to wait long because the emergency Budget, which has been made necessary by the previous Government’s profligacy, will be on 22 June.

[Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con)]

4. What steps he plans to take to end regional spatial strategies.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

10. What steps he plans to take to end regional spatial strategies.

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)]

We committed in the Queen's Speech to abolishing regional strategies. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to all council leaders saying that he expects them to have regard to that as a material planning consideration in any decisions they are currently taking.

[Chris Kelly]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and welcome him to his new position. Will he outline how the Government’s abolition of regional strategies will impact on the provision of Traveller sites of the kind that we already have in Dudley South?

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s welcome, and I welcome him to the House. I know that he has always been a vigorous local campaigner.

The point behind abolishing the regional spatial strategies is that we believe that local communities should make decisions locally and should have the ability to put them into effect. It is, of course, important to make provision for Travellers, but such decisions should be taken locally.

[John Howell]

I welcome the Minister to his post. Will he confirm that, as I set out in our radical planning paper “Open Source Planning”, the expectation is that abolishing regional spatial strategies will reinvigorate our planning system and move us away from the historically low level of house building that we have seen, which has so badly failed us?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I half expected to find a note on my desk from the previous Housing Minister apologising for the fact that there were no houses, but he did not get round to writing it.

I am glad that my hon. Friend draws attention to his role in what I think will be an important paper. He wrote in that paper that the present system

“imposes too many one-size-fits-all rules…Tragically, the very idea that development can benefit a community has…become a casualty.”

That is the reality of the system that we have been labouring under—literally “Labouring” under. The system does not work in practice or in theory; what kind of bankrupt system is that?

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

May I welcome the abolition of the regional spatial strategies? I referred in the previous Parliament to the system being akin to Soviet-style planning, and it certainly put constraints on the development of housing in my North Durham constituency. However, what will the Minister be doing on guidance and, more importantly, funding to ensure that the housing that is desperately needed in former mining villages in County Durham will be forthcoming?

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s welcome for our policy, which enjoys a degree of consensus throughout the country, if not among some of his colleagues. It is important to recognise that when things are imposed from the centre, people tend to react against it. We need to provide incentives, including funding, so that the communities that host more housing get some of the funding that they need to provide infrastructure and other things associated with it.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

With regional spatial strategies, did not local authorities at least have the chance to have some say about coming together on big strategic issues? Now, however, we presume that the hefty hand of the central controller at his expansive desk in Whitehall will be making all the decisions centrally.

[Greg Clark]

I will forgive the hon. Gentleman for that remark, because he has been absent from the House for the past five years, but if a central controller had been operating, they had been doing so from Whitehall under the previous Government. The fact is that we want to allow local communities to co-operate. Co-operation is something that people should do co-operatively, rather than by imposition. Although we will encourage co-operation, we will not tell communities what to do from the centre.

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

5. If he will review the extent to which the local authority funding formula accurately measures the funding requirements of local communities.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

As my hon. Friend is aware, this is the last year of a three-year settlement. We will consult on our proposals for 2011-12 in due course. We are of course prepared to keep an open mind about options for change in the distribution of formula grant to local authorities.

[Mr Raab]

I thank the Minister for his response. One ward in Elmbridge has double the national average of child poverty, yet we get back just one third of the national average of funding for local services. Will he consider the local funding formula as part of the local government finance review to ensure that it is based on a truly objective assessment of local needs?

[Robert Neill]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the question. I know that, very swiftly after his election to this House, he was in contact on behalf of his constituents regarding a number of related issues. I assure him that, yes, the Government are committed to a review of the local government finance formula and that, within its scope, we will of course consider the points that he and others have made.

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

The Conservative party was elected on a promise to slash public services this year—the Liberal Democrats must answer for themselves—and huge cuts affecting local government have been announced today. May I ask the Minister why what he has proposed today is so unfair? Why is it that the impoverished northern mill towns, the ex-coalfields and the struggling seaside towns will take the largest share of the cuts? Why is it that the big cities—Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds and Birmingham—will take the largest cuts? Why is impoverished Newham to have a cut of £4.6 million and wealthy Richmond one of just £900,000?

[Robert Neill]

I have no intention of taking lectures from a member of a Cabinet that left this country record levels of debt. Unless there are cuts, by 2014 we will be paying more in interest on the debt than we will in council tax, business rates, inheritance tax and stamp duty combined.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr John Denham.

[Mr Denham]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

Not on this one. I therefore call Mr Clive Betts.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Regarding today’s written statement, does the Minister not accept that local authorities have been at the forefront of making efficiency savings—2% year on year—so to ask for a further 1% part way through the year, on top of the 2% to which they are already committed, will effectively mean cuts in local authority spending part way through the year of about 4% to 5%? Rather than being about efficiency savings, this is surely the first round of the savage cuts for local authorities that Ministers promised us.

[Robert Neill]

The hon. Gentleman, who is experienced in these matters, well knows the dire financial straits the country is in and the need for all sectors to save money. However, he ought to put that in the context of what we have had to do because of the legacy of his party’s Government. We have taken steps to protect formula grant, to un-ring-fence a good deal of grant to give local authorities more financial flexibility and to remove burdens such as the expensive comprehensive area assessment inspection regime.

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

If the Government cut external funding based specifically on local authorities’ levels of deprivation—external funding available to Witney in Oxfordshire at 1.7% but to the city of Sheffield at 18.5%, for example—is it not inevitable that those in greatest need will take the biggest cuts?

[Robert Neill]

Those in greatest need ultimately bear the burden of paying off the debt which this country has been left—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know that these are high-octane exchanges, but the House must calm down, because people lower down the Order Paper deserve a chance to get in.

[Robert Neill]

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that, if we are to have sustainable, quality local government services, the first thing we have to do is get this country’s economic mess sorted out.

[Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

6. What steps he plans to take to abolish the Standards Board for England.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

14. What steps he plans to take to abolish the Standards Board for England.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)]

We shall be abolishing the Standards Board for England. The necessary legislation will be in our localism Bill, announced in the Queen's Speech.

[Dr Pugh]

I thank the Minister for that answer and welcome him to his position. He brings enormous experience of local government to the post.

We all agree that £10 million could be better spent to better effect, but what rights of appeal will there be if the local process goes wrong or goes amiss, as it sometimes does?

[Andrew Stunell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome. He is right that a safety net is needed, and we are in discussion with our local government colleagues about the most appropriate way of moving forward.

[Mr Bone]

Is the Minister aware that he is going to become the pin-up boy for every councillor in the country, and receive an enormous amount of fan mail? Will he ensure that the abolition takes place as soon as possible?

[Andrew Stunell]

I would like to claim that, for my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I already was, but I am happy to be so for others as well.

Around the country, there are councillors of every political persuasion deeply frustrated by the fact that the Standards Board remains a burden and a threat to them. It costs £7.8 million, but it dealt with only 1,000 real complaints last year, which is £7,800 per complaint. The sooner we get rid of it, the better. That will be done on a statutory basis through the decentralisation and localism Bill.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

7. What his policy is on the provision of shorthold tenancies by local authorities and housing associations.

[The Minister for Housing (Grant Shapps)]

As our draft manifesto makes clear, we will respect the tenures of social tenants. The vast majority of social tenants have a very secure degree of tenancy.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Why did the Conservative manifesto commit only to “respect” the rights of social tenants, not to protect them, as the Minister has previously stated?

[Grant Shapps]

I made it pretty clear that we intend to protect the rights of social tenants. [Interruption.] They are already protected, as Members well know. It is important to say that there are a record 1.8 million families languishing on the waiting list—a number that nearly doubled during the 13 years in which Labour was in power. It is important that we respect those rights to tenure as well.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

Interviewed in Roof magazine last year, the Minister made it clear that he was open to change in security of tenure for new tenants. Will he confirm that new tenants—people in housing need coming off the housing waiting list, as he described—will enjoy the security enjoyed by existing tenants?

[Grant Shapps]

As I have said, security of tenure is incredibly important, particularly for people in social housing, and we are keen to protect that. There are 1.8 million families languishing on that social housing waiting list, and it is right and proper that we look at the way in which we can reduce that list. It may include looking at tenure for the future.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

8. What steps he is taking to improve the co-ordination of Government policy on homelessness.

[Mr Speaker]

We need a Minister at the Dispatch Box.

[The Minister for Housing (Grant Shapps)]

That will be me then.

The most important thing is that there is an honest street count, but there has not been such a count up to now. We will introduce measures to take street counts into account. The last street count said that there were just 468 people sleeping rough in the entire country: it is nonsense, and we are going to get it sorted.

[Paul Maynard]

May I welcome my right hon. Friend eventually to the Dispatch Box? We have a fine record in Blackpool of inter-agency working to tackle systemic structural homelessness involving both the council and NHS Blackpool. Will he tell me, as part of his collaborative efforts in government, which Departments he will target and which thematic issues are important in tackling the rough sleeping that he has just described?

[Grant Shapps]

I will make sure that I am quick in reaching the Dispatch Box, to announce that Ministers across Government will be involved in helping with homelessness: there will be a named Minister in each of the key Departments to ensure that, at long last, there is some form of joined-up government to help to reduce the number of rough sleepers.

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

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to one of the best jobs in government. All of us who are passionate about housing are disappointed that the new Government have downgraded housing and that the Housing Minister no longer attends Cabinet. On homelessness, does he accept that co-ordination is fine, but we need to build more new affordable housing to tackle the problem? Some £230 million of cuts this year is a bad start. When the £6 billion of cuts were first announced, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, told the House that the Government were

“putting more money than the previous Government did into social housing.”—[Official Report, 26 May 2010; Vol. 510, c. 160.]

Is that true or false?

[Grant Shapps]

I welcome my opposite number to my former position. I feel a little bit bad: I have taken both his offices and his car, and I have even got his red tie on today. But I can reassure him that we will do all that we can to undo the mess of the lowest level of house building since 1946, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned. Indeed, if one takes out the war years, it is the lowest since 1924. That is the heart of the problem with house building in this country. Leaving us with a bill—it is highly dubious whether £780 million of it is available to the Government—was not the smartest thing to do, and it means that we are in the position of trying to rescue house building in this country, and, in particular, affordable house building.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

As a significant proportion of those who are long-term homeless are ex-servicemen and women, will the ministerial team also liaise with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that these people are properly supported as they make the transition from service to civilian life?

[Grant Shapps]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. It is incredibly important, right across Government, from the MOD to the Department of Health and the Department for Education and many other Departments, that there is proper co-ordination between Ministers. It has never been done before at ministerial level; it has always been left to the officials. We will have Ministers in charge of homelessness across the Government, including in the MOD.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

11. What plans he has for the future of the housing revenue account.

[The Minister for Housing (Grant Shapps)]

The Government are committed to reviewing the unfair housing revenue account in England, and want a funding system that gives local communities more power and responsibility. I can therefore announce that I intend to continue with the review that was undertaken by my predecessor, which reports back to me on 6 July.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Is the Minister aware that Welsh local authorities returned more than £80 million to the Treasury as a consequence of the scheme last year, and that my home local authority, Carmarthenshire county council, which has retained its stock, returned £5.5 million in 2008-09? Does he agree therefore that the scheme does not provide a level playing field between local authorities and housing associations, and that it would be far fairer for moneys to be retained locally to increase investment in public housing, help Welsh local authorities to achieve the Welsh housing quality standards and help to create jobs in the local economy?

[Grant Shapps]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there are numerous problems with how the housing revenue account operates at the moment, in England as well as in Wales. The simplest answer that I can give him is that I agree, and we will continue the review.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Kettering council, on which I serve, collects £12 million a year from its council tenants, £3 million of which is handed straight over to Her Majesty’s Treasury. How is that fair, and will the Minister receive a representation from the council on this issue?

[Grant Shapps]

I would be happy to receive a delegation from the council on the issue. It is absolutely the case that it is not fair. I think that there is cross-party agreement that the housing revenue account has become increasingly unfair over the years. That must be fixed, in the interests not only of transparency and of the tenants within those authorities that are paying in, but of efficiency. I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and his colleagues.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

12. What steps he plans to take to improve the standard of social housing; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)]

It is an astonishing but sad fact that after 13 years of a Labour Government there is a backlog of £3.2 billion to bring decent homes to all social housing, and that is in the context of the previous Chief Secretary to the Treasury leaving a note saying that he was afraid that there was no money—or, as my brief says, future funding for the decent homes programme will be decided in the context of the Government's spending review.

[John Robertson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his inept answer. Could he possibly tell me how he intends to find the money to help social housing? His party stood on a manifesto to try to help people who needed help, unlike the party that he joined in coalition, which did not give a toss about the poor people.

[Andrew Stunell]

The coalition Government and the agreement make it clear that we have a firm commitment to dealing with social and affordable housing to bring housing up to standard. We have the job of making sure that we can do that in an affordable way while getting Britain back on its feet. The hon. Gentleman’s Government caused the problem; we are giving the solutions.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a question not just of the standards of housing but of the legacy. After the last couple of decades of development in social housing, there is a desperate shortage of three and four-bedroomed family houses. There are a lot of families in my constituency and throughout the country who are crammed into one and two-bedroomed houses. It is simply unacceptable. It has an enormous impact on their lives and children’s life chances. Will the Government be addressing that as well?

[Andrew Stunell]

The question is about social housing, and of course my hon. Friend is right that we must have the right mix of accommodation in each local area. One thing that we are making clear is that local areas should take the decision, and that local bids should be made.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

May I start by congratulating the new Minister on being appointed to work in my old office? He has a great team of civil servants, and it was a privilege to work with them. I congratulate also the new Housing Minister on his promotion, but it is a real shame that he, along with the Prime Minister and, this week, the Chancellor, should choose to use their first appearances at the Dispatch Box to give such inaccurate information about the housing pledge that the previous Government announced two years ago. The Housing Minister knows full well that the costs were agreed with the Treasury and would have been met with £340 million from capital under-spends in other Departments and £540 million in greater departmental flexibilities. If that had not been the case, the Government’s accounting officer would have prevented us from making the announcement. If that pledge—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should resume his seat. I think that we have got the thrust of it. We are pretty clear.

[Andrew Stunell]

Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is wrong, and, as it will become clear when statements are made in the emergency Budget and elsewhere, we are putting the financial package back together again.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

13. What steps he plans to take to increase the supply of affordable housing in areas of high demand.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)]

We recognise that there is a continued need for affordable housing, and we remain committed to its provision. When we announced on 24 May the £6.2 billion of savings to tackle the deficit, we made available £170 million to safeguard the delivery of about 4,000 otherwise unfunded social rented homes, starting on site this year and prioritising provision for the most vulnerable. Decisions on future levels of funding for affordable housing will be made in the spending review.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Given his professed support for social housing, will he explain why the Homes and Communities Agency has put a moratorium on all spending on new council housing, including the site in central Bristol on which work was planned to go ahead?

[Andrew Stunell]

As the hon. Lady will know, the moratorium is in existence until the emergency Budget is announced, and I cannot go much further than that at this point. However, the reason why there will be an emergency Budget, and the reason why there is a moratorium, is that there is not enough money to complete the programme that was put in train by the Opposition’s Front Benchers when they were in government.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that, although the previous Government made lots of pledges, the problem is that they never lived up to them?

[Andrew Stunell]

Yes.

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

Why did Ministers not make an announcement about the first £230 million of cuts to the affordable housing investment programme instead of sneaking them out on the Homes and Communities Agency website? Do they not accept that the hardest-hit areas are the poorest, and that the poorest families will be hit first? Given that the Prime Minister said this week that the Government’s cuts will be open, responsible and fair, can the Minister not see that that fails each one of those three tests?

[Hon. Members]

Just say yes.

[Andrew Stunell]

I shall not be quite so quick to do so this time. The fact is that we have tried to do our work in a measured and careful way to protect the vulnerable, as the coalition agreement set out. That is what we are about. That is what we are doing.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

17. What timetable he has set for the ending of regional spatial strategies.

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)]

As I said in my answer a few moments ago, we and, I think, many people in the country regard regional spatial strategies as undemocratic, bypassing local authorities. They are based on artificial regional boundaries and, by imposing on local people, have increased antagonism towards development. In other words, they have not worked.

[Tony Baldry]

Regional spatial strategies were a stick that was used to beat local authorities, but what will my right hon. and hon. Friends do on incentives? Do Ministers on the Treasury Bench still intend to allow those local authorities that encourage housing applications and grant planning applications for housing to retain the council tax receipts in respect of that new housing for a period, thus giving local councillors and authorities an incentive to bring forward housing schemes and new housing?

[Greg Clark]

I could not put it any better myself. That is exactly our intention. This shows that if one works with the grain of human nature by, instead of bullying people and telling them what to do, allowing them to share in the success, then—miracle of miracles—we might have people who support development of all kinds in this country.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

19. What estimate he has made of the effect on the number of affordable homes of planned reductions in spending under the Kickstart and national affordable housing programmes.

[The Minister for Housing (Grant Shapps)]

The national fiscal position is severe, and we have had to make some very difficult decisions on savings. That is why on 24 May we announced that the Government would be making £6.2 billion of savings this year. We have estimated that planned savings in the housing programme will reduce the number of affordable houses. That is why we brought forward another £170 million to ensure that 4,000 could be completed.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mary Creagh.

[Mary Creagh]

Thank you, Mr Speaker; it is an honour finally to be called by you. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. People should not be so unkind. I know that the hon. Lady was not criticising the Chair—she would not do that.

[Mary Creagh]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would never dare to criticise you, as you well know.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new role. The residents of the Lupset estate in Wakefield are anxiously scanning the horizon for the sounds of his private plane jetting in to tell them which of their homes are going to survive the cuts to the decent homes standard. We are also very concerned about what calculation is made as regards the impact on the construction sector of the net cut of £60 million in the affordable housing programme. How will that cut affect the 1.8 million families he is so concerned about who are languishing nationally on the council lists?

[Mr Speaker]

That was three questions, but we will have one answer from the Minister.

[Grant Shapps]

Those of us on the Government Benches who care about things such as homelessness and affordable housing provision do not need to take lectures from a Government who, during their 13 years in office, produced less affordable housing than the Thatcher and Major Governments. The simple fact is that we want this stuff to go ahead, and that is why the £170 million has been brought forward. The reality is that if one runs the country like the money is never going to run out, one ends up in exactly this position. Rather than blaming us for it, it would be good to look closer to home.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

20. What recent discussions his Department has had with Lancashire county council on levels of funding for community services in Sunderland Point, Morecambe.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

My Department has had no representations from Lancashire county council in relation to the matter that my hon. Friend raises.

[David Morris]

Thank you for that answer. [Interruption.] Behave yourselves across the Floor there.

Sunderland Point is a community that must be protected at all costs. It is a very historic area of this country, and Lancashire county council should help in any way it possibly can. I hope that the Minister’s Department can help accordingly.

[Robert Neill]

I am conscious of the sensitivities involved in Sunderland Point and the areas to which my hon. Friend refers. Predominantly, the works there are dealt with by the Environment Agency, but Lancashire county council would stand ready to assist as far as it can.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

21. What his policy is on changes to the funding formula for local authorities.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

As my hon. Friend will know, and as I said in relation to an earlier question, this is the third and final year of a settlement. Yes, we will be consulting in relation to future funding arrangements, and that certainly includes a willingness to consider any options that may be put forward.

[Claire Perry]

Will the Minister confirm that the plans we set out in our manifesto to make the funding formula more transparent—[Interruption.] Excuse me—I would like Opposition Members to listen. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady is entitled to be heard, and I want to hear her.

[Claire Perry]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will start again.

Will the Minister confirm that the plans to make the funding formula more transparent and independently audited are still intact? That is a matter of great concern in my constituency of Devizes and all the Wiltshire constituencies, because we receive the lowest amount of funding from central Government of any unitary authority.

[Robert Neill]

I can confirm that the Government remain committed to a review, and we are more than happy to examine the points that are raised.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

The Minister seemed to suggest earlier that the poorest communities would bear the brunt of the cuts. What is he doing to protect the poorest communities, such as those in Halton, from the cuts?

[Robert Neill]

The important thing that we have done is to protect formula grant, which is the largest single grant paid to local authorities. As I said, we have given local authorities considerably more leeway in how they use those moneys by ring-fencing a significant number of grants and removing significant burdens such as the inspection regime, which is estimated to cost local authorities something in the order of £2 billion a year.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

I and my ministerial colleagues have already announced new powers for councils to resist unwanted garden grabbing; the abolition of Labour’s cumbersome comprehensive area assessments; the vetoing of a proposed salary package of nearly £250,000 for the chief executive of the Audit Commission; a new era of town hall transparency for councils to be able to show the people of this country the money; the burying of John Prescott’s regional spatial strategies and the unwanted regional assemblies; the abolition of the red tape of Labour’s home information packs; and the end of Labour’s hated bin taxes.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I am shocked that in that list, the Secretary of State did not refer to the cuts announcement that he has just made in his written statement. I have just calculated that in his plans, 90% of cuts in the diverse and deprived town of Slough, which I represent, will land on education and children’s services and community safety initiatives. If someone is not protected or dies as a result, whose fault will it be, Slough council’s or his?

[Mr Pickles]

If the hon. Lady is complaining about a 0.91% cut, goodness knows what she must have said about Labour, which allocated cuts of £50 billion, and the effect that that would have had on communities. If the hon. Lady wants to make complaints about anybody, she should look to herself.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

T3. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether the Government intend soon to go ahead with their policy of giving the power of general competence to local councils, which my colleagues and many councils will warmly welcome?

[Mr Pickles]

I am very pleased to confirm to my hon. Friend that that is exactly what the Government intend to do, and the matter will be included in the new localism Bill.

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to his post. He and I have known each other since we worked together at the British Youth Council, which will give the House some idea of how long ago it was. I wish him well in his new role and hope that he does a great deal better in the months ahead than he has in his first month, because has he not failed to defend his Department, meaning that local communities and local services will bear the biggest share of the cuts, and introduced a package of cuts to services and housing that will fall unfairly on the communities with the greatest need? He needs to do better than that. He has failed in his job so far, and he will have to be a great deal more careful in what he does in the future.

[Mr Pickles]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his words of welcome. We have indeed known each other for a very long time, but at least he is still recognisable from his photographs from those days, unlike myself. I wish him well in the forthcoming elections to the shadow Cabinet.

The right hon. Gentleman operated an extremely effective burnt earth policy within the Department. He left a legacy in which the cupboard was bare. All that was missing was a note of apology. The cuts that we have had to make have been imposed on us by him. We have managed to ensure that formula grant has not been touched and that no authority will face a revenue cut greater than 2%. That is much better than the £50 billion of unallocated cuts that was the legacy left to our Department.

[Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

T4. I understand that, notwithstanding the announcement that the Standards Board will be abolished, the big cheeses of that organisation have written to chief executives of local authorities asking them to supply more business in the form of complaints against accountable and elected representatives. Has the Treasury Bench considered making an example of this quango for its impertinence?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)]

I have already told the House that the cost of dealing with every successful complaint is approaching £8,000. The hon. Gentleman is right that something needs to be done about that quickly. We have indeed, in the proposals that the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) was criticising a few moments ago, drawn back on spending by that quango. As soon as legislation permits, we will get rid of it completely.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

T2. Can the Secretary of State explain to people in Chesterfield, who suffered so badly from unemployment under the last Conservative Government, why one of the first measures that he has taken is to move £160,000 out of the working neighbourhoods fund? That money was being well spent by our council helping unemployed people back into work. Was not the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), right when he said that the poorest people will bear the cost of the cuts under this Conservative Government?

[Mr Pickles]

The hon. Gentleman’s council faces cuts of 1.36%. If his council cannot cope with that, it should ask him why the Labour party spent the country’s money without making adequate allocations and why the then Government planned cuts of £50 billion, of which local government’s share would have been about £13 billion.

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

T5. The coalition programme for government pledges to incentivise local business growth. Will that involve giving local authorities back a greater share of the tax revenue raised locally from business rates?

[The Minister for Housing (Grant Shapps)]

It is our intention that areas that promote business within their communities should benefit in some way from doing so. The manifesto and coalition agreement make it clear that that is our intention.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

T6. Because this Government have deliberately chosen to cut the budget for housing, and that will have an inevitable effect on jobs and training in construction, does the Housing Minister now regret his words in opposition that it would be ridiculous and counter-productive to insist on apprenticeship training in publicly funded housing schemes?

[Grant Shapps]

The hon. Gentleman knows about the huge deficit—£780 million was promised from other budgets but never existed—and building homes with imaginary money is not possible, so compromises need to be made. We have said that £170 million will go to support 4,000 homes—as the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) said—and 3,500 jobs.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

T7. I very much welcome the ending of the regional spatial strategy. My constituents, who are fighting inappropriate proposed developments in Micklethwaite and Menston, would like to know more detail about how the Government’s new planning policy may enable them to fight off those developments. Will the Minister visit Shipley and meet local residents to discuss with them how the Government’s new planning policy may help them in those particular cases?

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)]

My hon. Friend extends an enticing invitation that I will be delighted to take up, so that I can meet his local community and tell them that they are now free to set community plans in accordance with their interests without any fear that those plans will be revoked by national, unelected officials.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The mantra that it is all down to the last horrible Labour Government that there is no money will not wash if this Government make the poorest people in our country pay. When the Secretary of State took office, he inherited one of the biggest council housing building programmes for 20 years. Will he guarantee that council housing will form part of his future affordable housing strategy?

[Grant Shapps]

First, after one month, frankly it will still wash; and, secondly, over 13 years, while in government, the Opposition built on average half the level of affordable housing per year of the previous two Conservative Governments, so we will be proud to put the situation right again.

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

T8. I apologise for asking this question earlier. On regional spatial strategies, what advice can the Secretary of State give to local authorities such as mine in Swindon about revising housing growth figures that now seem utterly outdated?

[Greg Clark]

My understanding is that, in the hon. Gentleman’s part of the world, the plan has not yet been submitted to the inspectors, so he should be able to go back and tell his councillors that they now have the opportunity to put forward plans that are in keeping with the needs of his area.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Can the Minister give Bolsover council an assurance that the plans concerning the 108 prefabricated Tarran bungalows occupied mainly by elderly people will receive the go-ahead? We already have the plans. There were plans to get rid of 20 in the first tranche, and to get rid of the lot in the future. We received a nice letter from the then Housing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey). Surely, in a deprived area, this Government will not cut those plans to replace the prefabricated bungalows for elderly people in Bolsover.

[Mr Pickles]

I am sorry that, after 13 years of a Labour Government, people in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency are still living in prefabs—I can recall them from my youth. I do not know about the particular scheme, but I will ensure that he is written to.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I welcome the answers given to questions 1 and 4 earlier. What advice and guidance will be given to local authorities, and particularly the Planning Inspectorate, when dealing with applications prior to the new legislation going through?

[Greg Clark]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the Planning Inspectorate to inform it that the Government’s stated policy on such matters is now a material consideration when it reviews applications that have been made and gone to appeal.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

This morning, the Minister for Housing stated that he did not wish to overturn the use classes order changes concerning houses in multiple occupation, but that he would look at them in detail. During the election, he stated that Southampton city council should have all the powers it needed to deal with homes in multiple occupation. It has all the powers it needs as a result of those changes. Is it therefore his intention to water down those changes as a result of looking at them in detail?

[Grant Shapps]

As I said, I recognise the scale of the problem, and we will ensure that councils in areas such as Southampton maintain those powers. My only concern is to ensure that we do not have a system in place for homes in multiple occupation that is so overarching that it applies to areas where HMO students are not a problem.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

Has the Secretary of State had a chance to estimate the change in the number of unauthorised Traveller sites since Labour came to power in 1997?

[Mr Pickles]

By a weird coincidence, I happen to have with me the figures for unauthorised sites—because my hon. Friend’s question was on the Order Paper. The number of caravans on unauthorised developments has increased from 887 in 1997 to 2,395 in 2010, which is an increase of 170%.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

How can the Secretary of State reconcile his pre-election commitment to localism with his subsequent ministerial diktats, and why did he snub the Conservative-dominated Local Government Association over his Government’s cuts programme?

[Mr Pickles]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The first person who came to see me was Dame Margaret Eaton from the LGA. It has been informed throughout the process, and we have a very constructive relationship, not surprisingly because the Government intend to pass substantial powers down to local authorities. That represents a new constitutional settlement in which local people have power.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Is the Minister aware of how many messages of support I have received today for the plans to allow council buildings to fly the England flag during England games, and will he tell us more about what he intends to do to allow that to happen?

[Grant Shapps]

In line with the localism that we have just discussed, this is, of course, a local matter. However, I hope that local authorities throughout England will take the logical and sensible approach, and be proud of the nation’s being able to come together to celebrate England’s—we hope—great success, and we encourage them to do so.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

The recently announced cuts of £230 million to the Homes and Communities Agency include £50 million of cuts to housing market renewal, of which Liverpool has to take the burden of £4 million. Will the Secretary of State give his assurance that there will be no further cuts to vital housing market renewal projects, including those in Liverpool, Wavertree?

[Grant Shapps]

I have visited many of the housing market renewal areas, and we are passionate about ensuring that they can go ahead. In all the cuts that have been made, those in areas such as housing market renewal are the most concerning of all. Again, we have to get the budget deficit under control, but we will consult the areas involved to try to ensure that the impact is minimised. I look forward to a time when the economy is back on its feet again and we can really help the most needy communities in this country.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the great failures of the previous Government was to wrap local authorities up in a bureaucratic top-down performance-management regime from which local government needs to be liberated?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why we have indicated our intention to get rid of the CAA regime, which has been estimated to cost the sector in the region of £2 billion. That is why we are committed to abolishing the Standards Board and why we want to give genuine power back to local authorities.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

There is a need for a more strategic view of how we can have Gypsy and Traveller encampments around the country, as well as in specific regions, but how can we do that when the Government have just cut the budget for the Gypsies and Travellers programme by £30 million?

[Mr Pickles]

It is certainly our intention to encourage local authorities to have Gypsy and Traveller sites, and we will be announcing an incentive scheme. This is an important issue, and I want to ensure that we treat Gypsies and Travellers with respect. However, the hon. Gentleman must understand that we are in this position only because of the inheritance that we received. We had to take that money out, and if we had not done so, the prospect of our being able to provide sensible accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers would have been diminished, because of the profligacy of the Labour party.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but all good things come to an end. We must now move on.

Speaker’s Statement

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

11:32

[Mr Speaker]

Nominations for Chairs of the 24 Select Committees set out in Standing Order No. 122B, as amended by the Order of the House of Monday 7 June, closed on Tuesday 8 June, and elections were held by secret ballot on Wednesday 9 June. No ballot was necessary for eight Committees for which a single nomination had been received as follows:

Business of the House

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

11:35

[Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)]

The business for the week commencing 14 June will include:

Monday 14 June—General debate on UK policy on the middle east, followed by general debate on emerging economies.

Tuesday 15 June—The House will be asked to approve motions relating to the establishment of a Back-Bench business committee, September sittings, private Members’ Bills, deferred Divisions, Select Committee sizes and sittings of the House.

Wednesday 16 June—Opposition day [1st Allotted day]. There will be a full-day’s debate on Government support for industry. This debate will arise on an Opposition motion.

Thursday 17 June—General debate on building a high-skilled economy.

The provisional business for the week commencing 21 June will include:



Monday 21 June—General debate on strategic defence and security review.

Tuesday 22 June—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.

Wednesday 23 June—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Thursday 24 June—Continuation of the Budget debate.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall will be:

Thursday 24 June—A debate on the future of local media.

May I offer my congratulations to the new Deputy Speakers who were successful in the ballot this week: the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr Hoyle), my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) and the right hon. Member for Bristol South (Dawn Primarolo)? May I wish them every success in carrying out their important duties and pass on the thanks of the House to those they replaced for the undoubted service they offered over many years? May I also pass on my congratulations to those Members who you, Mr. Speaker, have just announced as having been successfully elected as Chairs of Select Committees? This is undoubtedly a landmark in the history of the House. I warmly congratulate those who have secured the approval of their colleagues to undertake the vital task of scrutinising Government Departments. This is an important reform—part of a process of transferring power from the Executive to the House, which I intend to progress in my role as Leader of the House.

[Ms Winterton]

I thank the Leader of the House for setting out the forthcoming business and I add my congratulations to the new Deputy Speakers and the new Chairs of Select Committees.

With regard to Tuesday’s business, the Government have today tabled proposed new Standing Orders on the new Back-Bench business committee. Frankly, however, no proper consultation took place with the Opposition on the detail of those before they were tabled. Would it not be right for the new Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, whose Chair has just been announced, to look at those before they are debated by the House? I hope the Leader of the House will give a detailed response to that.

Business questions always provide a good opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to bring us up to speed on how his leak-prevention strategy is going. Last week, he said it was going splendidly, but I am afraid that I must draw his attention to what he might regard as a slight seepage rather than a leak, although it is nevertheless alarming. The BBC seems to have been told by “sources” that the Liberal Democrats are doing a deal with the Government so that they continue to receive Short money, which was designed specifically for Opposition parties. On top of that, the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) has been elected deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats. Many congratulations to him; he was here a minute ago. In his manifesto, he said

“For those departments where there is no Liberal Democrat minister, we should have a shadow secretary of state in the Commons… For those departments where there is a Liberal Democrat minister and a Conservative Secretary of State, then there should be a Liberal Democrat lead spokesperson in the Commons… For those departments where there is a Liberal Democrat Secretary of State, there should be a Liberal Democrat MP outside of government with particular responsibility for that department's business.”

There was a time, I believe, when the Tory and Labour parties agreed that the Liberal Democrats tended to say one thing but do another. This has taken that to a whole new level. The Liberal Democrats say that they are in opposition, but actually do government. The new deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats cannot have it both ways, and I hope that the Leader of the House can assure us that there are no such shenanigans going on with the Short money.

Will the Leader of the House ask the Justice Secretary, when he comes to the House for Question Time on Tuesday, to put right the comments made by the Home Secretary during the Queen’s Speech debate on Monday? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the British crime survey, which is widely recognised as the most effective way of measuring long-term crime trends, shows that under the Labour Government crime fell by a third. Violent crime fell by 41%, burglary by 54%, and car crime by 57%. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Home Secretary to explain why she is still trying to avoid using the survey? Of course, the Tory party has form in this regard: the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) was rebuked by the chairman of the UK Statistics Authority for damaging public trust by manipulating crime figures. Not only is the Home Secretary in danger of misleading the House, but she is being very unfair to all those who worked so hard to reduce crime under the Labour Government.

I do not think the Leader of the House was in the Chamber to hear the Adjournment debate initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who spoke eloquently and effectively about the Conservative-Liberal Democrat proposals for defendant anonymity in rape cases. The response of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), was frankly disappointing, and showed very little understanding of the message that he was sending to rape victims. He did say, however, that the Government wanted informed contributions, and would consider all the options before formulating the proposals.

Given that legislation is not ready in a number of cases, and that we are having a number of general debates, may I urge the Leader of the House to allocate one of the future general debates to discussion of this important issue? If the Government are serious about listening before the proposals are presented, I really cannot see why Government time cannot be allocated to it.

[Sir George Young]

I was disappointed by the right hon. Lady’s first request. She asked for the establishment of a business committee to be delayed yet further. The reason that the matter is on the Order Paper for next Tuesday is that the previous Government failed to make progress. We are honouring a commitment made in the last Parliament by me and by my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House, to set up a Back-Bench business committee as soon as possible. Referring the matter to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee would simply redo the work of the Wright Committee, and would further delay the establishment of a committee on which I want to make progress. What we are doing is relinquishing the grip of the Executive on the agenda of the House, and giving Back Benchers the power and the time to schedule debates on the matters that they believe are important. When we reach the debate next Tuesday, I hope the House will seize the opportunity with both hands and make real progress with parliamentary reform.

On the right hon. Lady’s second point, there has been no leak. I make it absolutely clear that Short money is available to Opposition parties. The Liberal Democrats are a party of government and therefore Short money is not available to them. I have no ministerial responsibility for what the newly elected deputy leader of the Liberal party wants to do in rearranging the internal machinery of that party.

So far as the Home Secretary is concerned, I was present when she made a fantastic speech to wind up Monday’s debate, in which she dealt with all the issues regarding crime and crime statistics and set out some robust policies from the Government to deal with crime.

Finally, on the Adjournment debate, I was not present but I have read it. The issue is serious and we want to get things right. We agree entirely with the Stern review that serious consideration of the issue is needed, but there is ample time to debate it because no legislation on it is proposed for this Session. One of the objectives of setting up a Back-Bench business committee is to enable it to respond to requests for debates on important issues such as rape, so that they can be debated without the House continuing to be wholly dependent on the Government to find time to debate them.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

May I draw the Leader of the House’s attention to early-day motion 188 in my name?

[That this House looks forward to the 2010 Trooping the Colour ceremony on Saturday 12 June 2010 to mark the Official Birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II; notes with pride that the flags of all the nations of the Commonwealth are always displayed in and around Horse Guards Parade for this great occasion; calls on the Government to ensure that the flags of all Her Majesty's Territories are also flown in time for the ceremony, including Her Majesty's Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and Sark, together with Her Majesty's Overseas Territories of Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands, St. Helena, Ascension Island, Tristan da Cuhna, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands.]

My right hon. Friend will recall that on numerous occasions under the previous Government, I raised the issue of the failure to fly the flags of the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies on the occasion of Her Majesty’s birthday parade Trooping the Colour. Will the Government change that policy and ensure that the flags will fly this Saturday, and will he ask the relevant Minister to make an urgent statement on this before Saturday?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, but he presents me with a challenging time scale if he wants me to do something by Saturday. He will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said from the Dispatch Box yesterday, and I hope that he draws heart from that. I will raise with the appropriate authorities my hon. Friend’s robust request, which is backed up by others who have signed his early-day motion, and I will make sure that he gets a response.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House tell us when we can expect a debate on the revised police grant? As he will know, a £125 million in-year reduction has been made to the grant I agreed as the relevant Minister in only February of this year. I am anxious to explore how the Liberal Democrat promise of putting 3,000 extra police officers on the street is matched by the Conservative Government’s cut of £125 million.

[Sir George Young]

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have seen today’s written ministerial statement on the subject. He will find that it says that the matter is subject to the approval of the House.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

The coalition agreement says:

“We will bring forward the proposals of the Wright Committee for reform to the House of Commons in full”.

Does the Leader of the House understand the concern of many MPs that the motion he has put forward does not represent the Wright reforms in full, particularly in the loss of days in the Chamber for Back-Bench business? Will he be open to representations on the issue with a view to improving the motion on the Order Paper?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. If she reads the Wright Committee report, she will see that it says right at the beginning that the proposals need to be implemented “in stages”. There is a real issue with moving straight to having 35 days in the Chamber: there would be implications regarding the amount of time for which the House sits and, more seriously, it would run the real risk of squeezing out time for the Report stage of Bills—an issue that concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that we can debate the matter more extensively on Tuesday, but I can say that at least 27 of those 35 days will be on the Floor of the House. That is an improvement on the 12 days for set-piece debates that we have at the moment.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

I have recently received a letter from my local Age Concern expressing its deep concern about the axing of the future jobs fund. When can an early debate on the issue be timetabled?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Lady might have seen today’s written statement from the Minister with responsibility for employment, which sets out our strategy to move away from the current raft of different schemes, many of which do not provide good value for money, to a single work programme this time next year. We have set out our strategy. There is a debate on poverty that she might be able to use ingeniously to raise the issue. There are 5 million people on out-of-work benefits. We inherited a situation with rising long-term unemployment and we genuinely believe that the single work programme that we are introducing, with a tailor-made package for individuals, is a better way forward than the raft of regimes that we inherited.

[Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

Given that Labour left university funding in a mess and problems persist with the Student Loans Company, but record numbers are applying for university places, may we have a general debate on higher education in the near future?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend makes a forceful case. He will have seen the thoughtful speech that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science made today. It would be good if we could find time for a debate on those issues. Of course, we will need to hold a debate in any case when we have the report from Lord Browne, who is considering future funding for higher education.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about the Liberals applying for Short money. Every parliamentarian knows—including hon. Gentlemen sitting behind the Leader of the House; we all believe the same thing—that the Liberal Democrats are all things to all men. The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that no money is available for them. May I press him to say that no money will be available for them? In due course, if there is to be a change, will the Conservative Government also apply for that money?

[Sir George Young]

Short money is available only to Opposition parties; we have no plans to change that.

[Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement that we will get the Back-Bench business committee, but I am concerned that the proposals of the Wright Committee, on which I sat, will not be implemented in full and we will not get the full 35 days. Will he reassure me that, if the business committee recommends that the remaining eight days in Westminster Hall should be transferred to this Chamber, the Government will accede to that request?

[Sir George Young]

I take the opportunity of congratulating my hon. Friend on his election to the Chair of the Treasury Committee. There is a resolution on the Order Paper, asking for a review of the scheme at the end of the Session. I am happy to have that debate. It is important to have it with the business committee because the more days we have in the Chamber, the greater the pressure on Report stages or on the House to sit for longer into August. We need a sensible debate between the business committee and the House about how exactly we re-engineer the House’s time to get the best possible outcome. I do not rule out having more than the initial 27 days, moving up to 35, but I want the House to be aware that there are real problems with putting a quart into a pint pot.

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

Some £5 billion has been wiped off BP’s share price this morning as a result of the US Administration’s seeking to restrict dividend payments. May we have an emergency statement from the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister about the crisis that engulfs BP? With the company paying £1 in every £6, a serious crisis faces millions of pensioners in the UK. We need to say to our US allies that, yes, a British company made the mistake, but if it had been subject to a regulatory regime in the UK, it would not have been able to do that, and that the world’s insatiable appetite for oil is responsible, not British pensioners.

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman makes a forceful point. My understanding is that there are more American than UK shareholders in BP. Although the company is called British Petroleum, the dividend policy has as much impact in the United States as it does here. What happened in the gulf of Mexico is a human and environmental tragedy. The Government will do everything possible, in consultation with BP and the American Government, to help in whatever way we can. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s question will have been heard by the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor—all those who may be having a dialogue with the American Administration.

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

Right hon. Members and hon. Members have entered into contracts of employment with their staff. We are legally obliged to ensure that their terms are obeyed, but they were imposed on Members by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. Does the Leader of the House agree that that is unjust, unfair and potentially a legal minefield?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend raises an issue that, I know, is of concern to all hon. Members. Earlier this week, the shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House and I held a meeting with the acting chief executive of IPSA. It was a constructive discussion and we outlined several possible solutions to the problems that confront hon. Members. There is a debate in Westminster Hall for an hour and a half next Wednesday, when my hon. Friend may want to raise the matter again.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to a debate on the consequences of the moratorium on and eventual cuts in social housing, which were discussed earlier, on urban regeneration, and the practice that that encourages in registered social landlords to engage in property speculation by sitting on land that they are not developing, thus leaving it empty?

Will the Leader of the House also ensure that his ministerial colleagues agree, as a matter of urgency, to a meeting with me and the Save our Stow campaign to ascertain what can be done to prevent the iconic Walthamstow dog track from being left derelict, given the persistent commercial interest in restoring it and the 500 local jobs that represents?

[Sir George Young]

I will pass on to my right hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for housing the request for a meeting. The hon. Lady may have just attended Communities and Local Government questions, when social housing was raised.

Perhaps a half-hour Adjournment debate on the future of the Walthamstow greyhound track is a suitable opportunity to share with Ministers the hon. Lady’s concern about its future.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

May we have a reaffirmation by Health Ministers of the statement made in opposition that fluoridation would not be imposed on Southampton and Totton without the approval of the majority of the people concerned, given that South Central strategic health authority has put aside £400,000 to fight a court case, despite opposition to fluoridation from 72% of the community?

[Sir George Young]

The coalition Government have no plans at this stage to change the legislation under which the health authority is proceeding with its plans to add fluoride to the water in Southampton and the surrounding district. My constituency verges on that district, and I am aware of the strong local feelings and the unhappiness among some people about the consultation exercise that was undertaken before the decision was made to go ahead. However, I would mislead my hon. Friend if I said that we were planning to do anything in the short term to change the legislative framework in which the decisions are made.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate to clear up the mess that is Government policy on further powers for the Welsh Assembly? Yesterday, the Prime Minister was unable to tell us whether he was in favour. The Deputy Prime Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) that he was in favour, but that was a slip of the tongue, and it turns out that, he, too, did not know. In the main, Liberal Democrat Members are in favour and Tory Members are not. Is all that any surprise when we have the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), who does not even know who the First Minister in Wales is, as Secretary of State for Wales?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard what the Prime Minister said yesterday. The referendum cannot be held in October because the outgoing Administration made no preparations for it, so it will be held next year. How people vote in that referendum is a matter for the people of Wales.

[Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

Many of my constituents were outraged when my predecessor, who was elected as a Conservative, defected to the Labour party and did not stand down to cause a by-election. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on whether hon. Members should be required to cause a by-election if they defect to a different party from the one on whose manifesto they were elected?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend says that many of us were outraged. I think that many people in the Labour party were rather surprised when that transition happened. He proposes a major constitutional reform of the role of Members of Parliament and their independence, and I do not think we should embark on that without thoroughly considering the implications. At the moment, we have no plans to do that.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Does the Leader of the House agree that, in this week of world oceans day, it has been strange not to have a debate on the state of the world’s oceans, particularly given the current state of the gulf of Mexico? Will he make time for such a debate so that we can consider the marine recovery strategy that international legislators agreed at the global forum in the House of Commons earlier this week?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman, who has a long-standing interest in the matter, makes a forceful case for a debate. Without giving any commitments, I agree that it is the sort of issue we ought to look at, and against a background of other demands I shall see what I can do.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

May we have a debate on overseas territories? Perhaps then we could discuss the ongoing financial crisis on Ascension island, whose only school is facing closure. The cause is an internal dispute between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, and although it is very much a legacy of the last Government, will the Leader of the House join me in pressing Ministers to make an early resolution of the problem?

[Sir George Young]

It sounds to me as though the matter might be a suitable candidate for a debate in Westminster Hall, where my hon. Friend will be able to raise his concerns at greater length.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

In response to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on affording anonymity to those accused of rape, the Prime Minister said that proposals would be brought forward, enabling debate. That led me to think that the Prime Minister believes that the debate should take place in Government time, in the House. Given the grave anxiety that the proposals are causing not only in the House, but in the wider community, the sooner that debate can take place, the better. Will the Leader of the House commit to holding such a debate, and very soon?

[Sir George Young]

I heard what the Prime Minister said:

“we are promising…to bring proposals forward so that they can be debated.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 329.]

When we introduce the proposed legislation, that will be the opportunity for debate that my right hon. Friend referred to. However, I recognise the serious concern of Members on both sides of the House and it may be possible before we set up the Back-Bench business committee to find time for a further debate.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

May I supplement the question put last week by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds)? I would like a debate in the House to reconsider the question whether a Member who was elected to the House should be able to use its facilities, and possibly take allowances from the public purse, without him or her taking the Oath of Allegiance.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think a statement, not a debate on the matter is sought by the hon. Gentleman.

[Sir George Young]

Indeed. This reply may not make my hon. Friend’s pulse race. Nevertheless, issues about allowances are no longer a matter for the House. Issues about allowances, including to Members who may not have taken their seats, are now a matter for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Given that the Department for Communities and Local Government has just announced the end of ring-fencing for stroke strategy money, can the Leader of the House arrange for any Department of Health advice on the increase in disability and the number of hospital admissions that that is likely to cause to be placed in the Library? Will he allow time for a debate on the stroke strategy in Government time, given that stroke is a major cause of death and disability?

[Sir George Young]

I am in favour of giving local government the maximum freedom to use its resources intelligently, without constraining its decisions by directions from central Government. I have no doubt that the hon. Lady and her colleagues who share her views will be able forcefully to make the case to the local authority in her area about the importance of providing resources for those who suffer from stroke.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The new chairman of the Sentencing Guidelines Council has called for hefty cuts in sentences to people who plead guilty to the police, which does not bode well for his term in office. May we have a debate about the Government’s approach to sentencing? Given that people already get a considerable discount for pleading guilty and prisoners are automatically released halfway through their sentence, many of my constituents would like the Government to move towards ensuring that prisoners are serving their sentence in full, rather than softer sentences or letting people out of prison even earlier.

[Sir George Young]

That is a typically robust proposition from my hon. Friend. On 15 June there are oral questions to Justice Ministers, which may be an opportunity for him to raise the matter again.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate on the importance of diversity in news broadcasting in the UK? There is real concern in Wales, Scotland and the regions of England about the Government’s decision not to proceed with pilots for regional news programmes. What is the Government’s position and how will they ensure the diversity in news broadcasting that is so important?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue and I think it best that he comes along on 21 June and puts the question to Ministers from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

The September G8 in Canada will pay particular attention to how the international community takes forward the millennium development goals. Between now and the rise of the House for the summer recess, will my right hon. Friend try to make time for a general debate on international development so that both sides of the House can reinforce the need for the international community to take forward the MDGs, as set out in early-day motion 179?

[That this House recognises the important contribution and commitment the UK has made to the progress of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); welcomes the Government’s commitment to spend 0.7 per cent. of gross national income on overseas aid and to enshrine this commitment in law; further recognises that development benefits often remain out of reach of those who are poorest, most marginalised and affected by conflict; acknowledges that many of the MDGs are off track, especially those relating to maternal, infant and child health; further acknowledges the importance of the G8, G20 and MDG Review in mobilising the international community to achieve the MDGs; and trusts that the Government will show strong international leadership in encouraging others in the international community to work towards an MDGs’ rescue plan with clear political and financial commitments, and with every G8 country providing solid national commitments and timetables.]

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend makes a forceful case. I will see whether between now and the summer recess we can arrange a debate along the lines he has proposed.

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

I thank the Leader of the House and his deputy for bringing forward with great expedition the proposals for a Back-Bench business committee. Sadly, that stands in contrast to the delay we experienced over the last year or so. Before we have too much of a love-in, however, I must tell the Leader of the House that there are a number of omissions in the decision of the whole House last year about how the committee should be constituted. To maintain consensus next Tuesday, and to keep all Back Benchers behind his proposals, will he meet me and a number of interested colleagues from all parties to discuss serious amendments, which we can table tomorrow?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I congratulate him on his election to the chairmanship of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform.

The debate on Tuesday is House business, and it will be for the House to decide whether it wants to proceed with the motions I have tabled or agree to amendments. Amendments to some of the motions have already been tabled. I should be more than happy to see the hon. Gentleman after business questions if he is available, to explain why we have constructed the motions as we have, why this is not the last word on implementing Wright, and why I believe that on Tuesday we should take an important step forward and build on it.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

Last week, the Leader of the House told us that the Mayor of London had applied to the High Court for an injunction in respect of the demonstration in Parliament square. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the situation?

[Sir George Young]

The Mayor did indeed apply for an injunction. The case has been adjourned. My understanding is that more people appeared wishing to make their case than was originally anticipated, so it is taking longer for the High Court to hear many of the people now on Parliament square before it reaches a decision, but I shall try to keep the House informed.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Members on both sides of the House who attended the annual meeting held by the all-party group on learning disability and Mencap will know that research was published showing that it costs £7,000 per place to support people with learning disabilities to go into employment. This morning, it was announced that there would be a £30 million cut in the supporting people element of the local government area-based grant. That will obviously fall on some of the most vulnerable people with learning disabilities, including those in my area, and will undermine their efforts to find employment. If we contrast that with the £17,000 cost per place for day care, we see that it makes no sense in economic terms, so may we have a debate on fairness and supporting people, and how to make the big society more inclusive?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case. He will know the background to the decision to reduce the resources available. Before the last election, the outgoing Chancellor said that the cuts that would be necessary would be deeper than those imposed by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, but I am afraid we have heard no details at all from Opposition Members as to how those economies might be made. Turning to the point the hon. Gentleman made, he says that the cuts will inevitably fall on the most vulnerable. I hope that the local authority will protect the most vulnerable from the impact of that decision and not seek economies from the client group he has just referred to.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will know that my constituents and those of Members throughout the House have welcomed the proposal to abolish the regional spatial strategies set up by the previous Government. May we have a statement and a debate about when regional spatial strategies will be abolished in legislation?

[Sir George Young]

If my hon. Friend had asked that question an hour earlier, he would have received a definitive response from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Later in the Session, there will be a planning Bill, which may be a forum for changing the planning regime. There has been a statement about regional spatial strategies. Speaking from memory, I think the guidance is being altered, but I shall arrange for a definitive reply to be forwarded to my hon. Friend.

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

It is my desire to help the Leader of the House to save money wherever possible. To that end, has he seen my suggestion that we hold the September sittings in Birmingham, rather than in the building site that the House will be in September? May we have an early debate on the obvious benefits and cost-effectiveness of moving Parliament to Birmingham?

[Sir George Young]

Whether it would save money to sit in Birmingham, rather than in London, given some of the costs involved for some Members, is a moot point. So I am afraid that the motion on September sittings, which I have tabled, presumes that the House will continue to sit here. But may I commend the hon. Gentleman? He is the first Opposition Member who has made a proposal to save money.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will be aware of the significant concerns among hon. Members about the business practices of banks, in which, of course, we now hold a substantial stake. The Royal Bank of Scotland in Partington—one of the most deprived areas of my constituency—has just announced closure plans. Will he ensure that there is time to debate the future of the banking sector and to discuss economic and social responsibilities, and emphasise to his colleagues in the Treasury team that the House will want that to be covered?

[Sir George Young]

I was sorry to hear about the proposed closure of the bank in the hon. Lady’s constituency. She will have heard me announce that the Budget statement will be made on Tuesday week, after which there are a number of days to debate Budget resolutions. That will provide an opportunity for her to raise this concern with Treasury Ministers.

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

It might surprise the House to know that, among the letters that I receive, there are many asking me what I am doing to uphold the hunting ban in inner-city Hackney. They at least equal the number of letters that I receive about urban foxes. In the past week, nine-month-old twins in my constituency were the very unfortunate victims of a nasty attack by one of those urban foxes. Given that we have some idea of the Government’s plans about how to deal with fox hunting, have they any plan to consider either guidance or, if necessary, legislation on urban foxes?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Lady raises a serious issue, and the whole House has sympathy for the family of the twins who were mauled by a fox a few days ago. I will raise with the Home Secretary the issue of whether further guidance or, indeed, a change in the legislation is necessary, but I hope that there may be ways to deal with those risks other than primary legislation.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Surely the Leader of the House is washing his hands, Pilate-like, of the responsibilities that the House ought to have when it comes to the payment of Members’ allowances to a party and to Members who deliberately abstain and fail to do the work that they ought to do on behalf of their constituents. Surely, there should be not only a debate in the House but a statement by the Government and, indeed, an admonishment of those Members who fail to turn up to the House and to do the job as elected Members, but who are paid full allowances for coming here and for failing to do that job.

[Sir George Young]

I understand the concern, but it was a unanimous decision of the last Parliament that decisions on the salaries and allowances of Members of Parliament should be taken no longer by the House, but by an independent organisation. That is where the responsibility rests. As I said a moment ago, there is a debate on Government policy on IPSA on Wednesday, and that may provide the hon. Gentleman with an opportunity to raise the issue again.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

I wonder whether the Leader of the House is aware that, in Ealing, the Post Office is engaging in yet another consultation on a major proposal to close down a post office in one place and move it to another. Even while the consultation is going on, it appears that some of the preparatory building work is taking place at the proposed site. I wonder whether we can have a further look at how the Post Office conducts some of these so-called consultations.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Ealing is an area with which I am not unfamiliar. I am looking forward to sharing with her the party in my former constituency later today to celebrate her election to the House. I will raise with Business, Innovation and Skills Ministers the issue that she raises about whether the Post Office has gone through the appropriate procedures in apparently pre-empting a decision on closing one office and moving it to another location.

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

Returning to the economy, in view of today’s forecast that unemployment will rise substantially and stay there for the duration of the Conservative-dominated Government, will we have regular statements by the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary on the misery that will be undoubtedly inflicted on so many of our constituents?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman can raise that matter in the Budget debate. We inherited the largest fiscal deficit in the EU. Everyone agrees that we must take some measures to get it under control. The sooner that we get it under control, the better for securing a long-term, sustainable recovery and the better the prospect for interest rates. Unless we take those decisions to rebalance the economy and promote growth in the private sector, the situation will not improve.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Although I welcome the Government’s proposals to introduce individual voter registration, I wonder whether the Leader of the House could grant us an early debate on restricting postal and proxy votes, which have brought the electoral system in this country under so much criticism in the past.

[Sir George Young]

The Electoral Commission is, I believe, doing a review of the recent election that will be published. It would be sensible to await the outcome of that review before we consider any decision on restricting postal or proxy votes. I recognise the concern that my hon. Friend expresses, but we need a debate set against the background of the work that is now under way.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I am sure that, as a very distinguished former Housing Minister, the Leader of the House will be disappointed in the appalling complacency of some of the answers and, frankly, the frightening delay in getting to the Dispatch Box of some Housing Ministers during Communities and Local Government questions today. May we have a debate in Government time on housing and planning policies, so that we can ensure that they are based on the needs and aspirations of those who live on council estates, not those who live on country estates?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman was also a good Housing Minister. Housing completions in the year that has just ended were the fewest since 1946. The last Labour Government built 26,000 fewer houses per year than the previous Conservative Government. That is not a record to be proud of, and as the hon. Gentleman will have heard from the Housing Minister who was at the Dispatch Box, he found that promises had been made to spend money that did not exist. That is why we had to take some tough decisions. None the less, when the Chancellor considered savings to be made in year, £170 million was found to make progress with social rented housing. We hope to do a lot better than the outgoing Administration in meeting housing need.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

There is great concern in Cleethorpes, particularly among those who are employed in the tourism trade, about the spread of the salt marsh on Cleethorpes pleasure beach, and there is anger at the attitude of the Government agency, Natural England—an unaccountable and unelected body—in respect of overruling the local authority, which is, of course, democratically accountable and elected, in its desire to manage the beach. Will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the role of agencies, such as Natural England, and their ability to overrule democratically accountable bodies?

[Sir George Young]

My extensive briefing does not cover salt marshes in Cleethorpes, but my hon. Friend raises an important issue about the role of elected local authorities and that of the unelected quangos that sit above them. There may be an opportunity on 24 June, during Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions, for him to press Ministers in more detail, and I will give them advance notice of his concern.

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

We will all have been horrified by the brutal murder on 28 May of nearly 100 Ahmadiyya worshippers in two separate attacks in Lahore. Britain’s Ahmadiyya Muslims work hard and contribute greatly to this country, and their belief in peace and religious tolerance is an example to us all. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore find time for Parliament to debate how we can help to stop the persecution of the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan and what we can do to reassure them that they are safe to practise their faith in the UK?

[Sir George Young]

Freedom of religious worship is an important principle, which I hope that this country will always defend. May I suggest that the hon. Lady find time for a debate in Westminster Hall, where this serious issue can be debated at more length and an appropriate Foreign Office Minister can respond?

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

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 so that a Minister can give us the Government’s views on the review set up by the previous Administration and hon. Members can set out in the Chamber what they believe are the benefits and disadvantages of the existing legislation?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his question and I am aware of a serious case in his constituency. I will, of course, contact the Home Secretary to ask where the review to which the hon. Gentleman refers has got to and to ensure that its findings are available to the House.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

May I welcome the Leader of the House’s indication that he has some sympathy with the idea of an early debate in Government time about their proposal to extend anonymity to defendants in rape cases? When he decides how early a debate we may have, will he take account of the fact that the policy was in neither the Conservative nor the Liberal Democrat manifestos, but appeared in a mere nine words in the coalition agreement?

[Sir George Young]

That is an ingenious approach on the case for a debate. I just say to the hon. Lady that a Labour Government adopted such a policy in 1976 when they introduced anonymity for rape defendants, so this is not wholly without precedent. However, regardless of whether the proposal was in the manifestos, this serious issue should be debated on its merits.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on industrial relations in the aviation industry? Most reasonable and rational people recognise that the British Airways cabin crew dispute has run its course and that serious discussions should be taking place. Earlier this week, several hon. Members met a cabin crew member who told us about the bullying, harassment and vindictiveness that is going on in British Airways, and an early debate would allow us to expose the corporate thuggery that is taking place in the company.

[Sir George Young]

I hope that the dispute can be brought to a conclusion. It is a matter for British Airways, the trade unions and the staff to resolve, perhaps with the assistance of ACAS, but I note the hon. Gentleman’s request for a debate.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

In Swansea, where I am meeting the chief of police tomorrow, there is growing concern about the relationship between increased job cuts and crime, and between education cuts and drug abuse. Given the plans to cut the police grant by £125 million, when will the Leader of the House find time to debate those issues, especially given that the previous Government reduced crime by a third, whereas the former Conservative Government doubled it?

May I thank those people who supported my Select Committee candidacy, even though I was unsuccessful?

[Sir George Young]

There will be more resources available to police authorities this year than last year, despite the reductions that have been referred to. As I said earlier, the written ministerial statement indicates that the grant reduction requires the approval of the House, so that might give the opportunity to debate it.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) on her election as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

May we have a debate soon, in Government time, about Network Rail’s contracts for rail track renewal? The Leader of the House will be aware that the rail track renewal firm Jarvis went into administration in April with the loss of 1,100 jobs, including 350 in my constituency. Network Rail has signed a contract with Babcock that will allow 25 of those 350 who were made redundant to be re-employed, but that is not good enough. Rail track needs to be renewed for reasons of public safety, and those skilled workers need jobs, especially if the Government are to fulfil their obligation to build new railways.

[Sir George Young]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the loss of jobs in his constituency. A week today—on 17 June—we will have Transport questions, and I believe that he still has time to table a relevant question on the matter.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Did the Leader of the House knock any sense into IPSA when he met its representatives? Did they give an apology for the breach of security by sending these e-mails to the wrong Members of Parliament, because there was none in the letter that I received? Next time he sees them, will he tell them that a strange paradox is occurring in the House of Commons, as the Back Benchers are taking power to themselves—he referred to that today, right?—yet an oligarchy called IPSA is moving in the opposite direction? Tell it to get in tune!

[Mr Speaker]

I think that the hon. Gentleman is seeking either a statement—preferably now—or indeed a debate.

[Sir George Young]

I raised the issue that the hon. Gentleman mentions, which should not have happened, with the interim chief executive of IPSA, who is apologetic about it. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets a letter from the interim chief executive to confirm what he said to the shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House and myself.

We are doing what the hon. Gentleman’s Government failed to do by taking power away from the Executive and giving it to the House of Commons and the Back-Bench business committee. On the question of setting up IPSA, if he looks at the voting record, he will see that he either supported it or abstained—he did not object to it.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

Yes, the Labour Government made a terrible mistake more than 35 years ago with what they tried to do on anonymity for rape defendants. I do not think that this is about party political point scoring because more than 50 hon. Members, including 18 Government Members, attended a late-night Adjournment debate on the matter, which is pretty rare. It is becoming clearer day by day that there is confusion about the Government’s policy, where the priority came from and the basis for their approach, so may I entreat the Leader of the House to think about providing Government time to discuss something that is a Government plan?

[Sir George Young]

The position of the Government is that we have put forward a proposal in the coalition agreement. That proposal will require the assent of both Houses before it comes into effect. We have made it clear that we would like a debate before we proceed with the proposal. I take seriously the right hon. Lady’s point, which has also been made by her colleagues, that we ought to find time as soon as possible to debate the matter at greater length.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Further to that, there is a lot of confusion about the Government’s position. The agreement says not, as the Leader of the House suggested earlier, that the Government will give “serious consideration” to introducing the proposal, but:

“We will extend anonymity in rape cases”.

Would he care to propose an amendment to the coalition document to reflect what he said, and perhaps to publish a White Paper or Green Paper on the proposal? Given what the Prime Minister said recently, is he suggesting that there will be consideration of a free vote on the issue when the Government introduce legislation? The coalition’s programme for government states that it “will extend anonymity”, so he cannot get away with saying that he is just running this idea up the flagpole—that is fag packet politics.

[Sir George Young]

That, if I may say so, is a distortion of what I said. I said that the coalition Government have made a proposal, which is in the coalition agreement. That proposal cannot reach the statute book unless it goes through both Houses. Before it can do that, it is clear that there needs to be a serious debate about the pros and cons. I have taken on board requests for a debate before we make progress, and I will try to respond to them.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I listened with interest to the Leader of the House when he responded to my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton) about Short money and the proposals made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), the new deputy leader of the Liberal party. However, may we have a debate about the seating arrangements in the Chamber, as some of us remain concerned that although the Liberal party is a signatory to the coalition document, its Members want the right to set out statements against certain policies, for example on nuclear power, and to make a principled abstention? As a precursor to that debate, may I suggest that we build a fence down the middle of the Chamber so that when the Liberals are sitting on it, we can at least see that they are doing so?

[Sir George Young]

I am delighted with the new seating arrangements and so are my hon. Friends. May I amplify what I said earlier about Short money? It is for the Clerk of the House, as accounting officer, to ensure that Short money payments are made in accordance with resolutions of the House. As for the voting record, the hon. Gentleman will find that Members of the last Parliament who sat on the Government side of the House very occasionally voted against the Government.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Patients and NHS staff would have been as concerned as I was to learn yesterday that decisions on capital projects in the NHS that had already been announced, such as the vital rebuild of the Royal Liverpool hospital, will not be forthcoming until the autumn. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or one of his Ministers comes to the House to make an urgent statement about the delay?

[Sir George Young]

That is probably better raised with the Secretary of State for Health, but I say to the hon. Lady that we were the only party at the last election to pledge an increase in real terms in spending on the NHS, so whatever the prospects are for her hospital, they are better than they would have been.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House said last week and again today that he has had meetings with IPSA, and I thank him for the overtures to IPSA that he has made on behalf of the House. Is there any point where he can make a statement to the House on the results of those discussions, before the byzantine bureaucracy of IPSA stops and prevents Members of this House from serving their constituents?

[Sir George Young]

I understand the concern and repeat that, as Leader of the House, I would be concerned if the allowance regime stood in the way of Members discharging their responsibilities as constituency MPs. In addition to the meeting with the interim chief executive, the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton), my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House and I held a meeting with the chairman of the 1922 committee, the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party and the leader of the parliamentary Liberal group. Discussions are ongoing about how we improve the dialogue with IPSA. I add as a footnote that, if the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) looks at the list of ministerial responsibilities, he will see that Government responsibility for policy towards IPSA rests with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, and the debate in Westminster Hall will be answered by the Parliamentary Secretary from the relevant Department.

Points of Order

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

12:31

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I ask your advice? Today, two contradictory statements have been made on the Floor of the House—and just repeated by the Leader of the House. It was stated that the decision by the last Government to build 20,000 new homes was not properly funded and there was a black hole, but we also heard the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), say that no ministerial direction was given in the Department for Communities and Local Government in the past 12 months. Both statements cannot be true, because if the policy was not properly funded, the permanent secretary would have asked for a letter of direction. Will you advise on whether it would be possible to have a Treasury spokesman come here to explain the true picture?

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think I can offer any advice on that point. What I say to the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), who is a very experienced Member, is that what he has just put to me is not a point of order, but a point of debate. He has put his views and concerns very clearly on the record and that may be an object lesson to new Members in debating points, although probably not in points of order.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps you can advise me, even if you could not advise my hon. Friend. In the course of business questions, the Leader of the House made a statement that absolutely no preparation at all had been undertaken by the last Government for a referendum on extending powers to the Welsh Assembly—something that is strenuously denied by those concerned. Is there any way Members can require Ministers to provide evidence for statements made when they are trying to rewrite history?

[Mr Speaker]

Such a strict requirement would create an entirely new precedent in the way in which debate is conducted in the House. As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is asking me to insist that, in future, any statement by a Minister or another Member should require evidence before it can be made. That, I think, would be an extremely dangerous and risky precedent to set. However, he has put his views on the record and I am sure the House is grateful to him.

Tackling Poverty in the UK

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

12:33

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of tackling poverty in the UK.

Helping people in the UK to escape poverty is one of the key challenges for the new Government and something that we are passionate about achieving. Although this Administration face one of the biggest financial challenges in our peacetime history, we are determined that we will not act in a way that leaves behind some of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. Before Labour Members contribute to this afternoon’s debate, I hope that they will think back to their 13 years in power in times when they felt able to spend money freely, and remind themselves just how little progress was made with so much money.

Within days of taking office we saw the release of official poverty statistics, and what a bleak picture of progress they painted: 18% of people in the UK today live below the official poverty line, defined as a typical family, comprising a couple with two children under 14, having an income before housing costs of less than £342 a week. Official research has shown the number of children who live in families where even the most basic needs cannot be met. Of children in households with incomes in the bottom 20%, more than half live in families who cannot afford to replace worn-out furniture or broken electrical goods, and about two thirds cannot afford to make a saving of £10 a month. Of course, families under pressure to meet their daily needs are likely to see making provision for their retirement as a relatively low priority, which adds further to poverty down the line.

We believe that the last Government went wrong because they simply did not understand the nature of the poverty problem in this country. With one or two notable exceptions—I shall return to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) later in my speech—they seemed to believe that Whitehall knew best: they always talked about poverty simply in terms of money and seldom demonstrated a clear understanding of the far deeper problems that can leave so many people struggling. Behind the facts and figures—beyond the statistics and the measures of material deprivation—lie incredibly complex and challenging issues.

Poverty is not just about income. Family breakdown, a lack of experience of work and education in the home, a lack of experience of parenting in the home—all contribute to a climate of poverty. Some children are brought up without even a single stable family home or in households that are ridden with the challenges of addiction. All of that shapes someone’s chances of getting on or not getting on in life.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

A debate on child poverty, which I introduced, was held yesterday in Westminster Hall. Will the Minister confirm that, according to Barnardo’s, at the conclusion of 13 years of Labour Government the number of children living in poverty totalled 3.9 million?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point very well and I commend him for the work that he has done to highlight the subject. One of the most disappointing things about the last Administration is that, despite talking as much as they did about child poverty, they missed their 2010 target. In their later years in office, child poverty was rising, and not simply as a result of the recession.

The reality is that being in poverty shapes those children’s lives and too often ends the lives of too many people. On average, people living in the poorest neighbourhoods in England will die seven years earlier than those living in wealthier neighbourhoods. Health inequalities today are worse than they were in the 1970s and the gap in educational attainment between children from rich and poor backgrounds remains persistently great.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that one form of poverty that is little mentioned is poverty of aspiration for young people who come from very deprived backgrounds? They do not see further or higher education as something that is for them. That is why it is important that we continue to put money into education: if we do not, that gap will worsen.

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman is right. What he says about higher education is one reason why I am proud that the present Administration will provide more university places this year than were planned by the previous Administration. He makes a valid point. I remember the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) saying in the House some years ago that in his constituency, a person was seen to be weird if he or she stayed on in education past the age of 16. That underlines the challenge in communities where there is too little experience of educational achievement. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami): there is a need to break down the barriers and to raise aspirations.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that evidence also shows that children from the poorest families are unable to make the most of their education? At as early as 22 months, children from poorer backgrounds are doing less well than children from better-off backgrounds and that gap continues to widen as they go through the school system. Does he agree that efforts to address both educational attainment and aspiration and family incomes need to go hand in hand if children are to make the most of their schooling?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady has extremely extensive experience of these matters and she is absolutely right. We remain firmly of the view that early intervention is important. I mentioned parenting skills earlier; when talking about these matters, I always pay tribute to the charity Home-Start. Enabling people who have good parenting experience to mentor those who do not makes a valuable contribution to helping young people who grow up in more challenging environments to do better than they might otherwise have done. That is hugely important because we have massive divides within communities, between people living side by side.

Here in Westminster, for example, we have the largest difference in life expectancy of any London local authority. In areas such as Knightsbridge and Belgravia, people can expect to live into their mid-80s, but just up the road in Queens Park life expectancy is just over 70—a gap of nearly 15 years. For every two minutes on the tube between Knightsbridge and Queens Park, the life expectancy of the communities through which one travels drops by a year.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

As a resident of Queens Park, this is an opportune moment to seek to intervene.

On the issue of health inequalities, poverty has to be understood as a relative as well as an absolute issue. Before the right hon. Gentleman goes too far in dismissing everything that the Labour Government were doing, does he agree with the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which said:

“Tax and benefit measures implemented by Labour since 1997 have increased the incomes of poorer households and reduced those of richer ones, largely halting the rapid rise in income inequality that we saw under the Conservatives”?

What measures that the Conservatives took—or failed to take—in those years will he now say will not be reintroduced if we are to make further progress?

[Chris Grayling]

Of course, we have not been in office since 1997. One of the tragedies of the past 13 years is seeing the amount of money spent leading to so little in the way of results. The point made by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside about poverty of aspiration is a crucial one. I shall come on to discuss worklessness, but a lack of experience of work or educational achievement in a household, and other factors, can make such a difference. The divides are enormous. If one goes to a city such as Liverpool, one only has to walk for 20 minutes from one of the smartest, newest shopping centres in the country to streets where almost no one is working. Worklessness is central to the challenges faced by many of our communities.

[Mark Tami]

What are the right hon. Gentleman’s views on the comments made earlier by the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who said that local authority cuts will fall hardest on the poorest areas?

[Chris Grayling]

We have to look at this in a far more three-dimensional way. It is about changing educational achievement, which is why we have said that it is important to focus on a pupil premium for the most deprived areas. It is also why we have said that it is important to ensure, as the economy recovers and as the employment market picks up, that we do not make the mistakes of the past 10 years. Too many of the jobs that were created went to people coming into the country from overseas, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead has identified on more than one occasion. We have to make sure that we break down the culture of worklessness and educational failure, which is as essential to dealing with poverty as any other factor.

[Ms Buck]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. To approach the question that I asked earlier from a different angle, the IFS confirmed that Labour’s measures had largely halted the rise in income inequality, which increased dramatically under the Conservative Government. Does he accept that the measures that he has to put in place must not repeat the errors and mistakes, with deep roots in unemployment and social breakdown, that characterised the Conservative years and led to rising income inequality and poverty?

[Chris Grayling]

We should always seek to learn from the past. We will seek not to make the mistakes of the past 10 years, when billions of pounds were spend on employment programmes that failed to break down the culture of worklessness in many of our communities.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is speaking very well about the inequalities between rich and poor, mainly in an urban context. Does he agree that nowhere is that difference more stark than in rural locations? Despite their rhetoric on rural-proofing over 13 years, the Opposition did absolutely nothing to narrow that divide. Will he provide an assurance sought by my constituents, and confirm that the plight of the poor in rural locations—they tend to be among the poorest in our society—will be addressed during our coalition Government?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. As we prepare the Work programme, I shall seek to ensure that it includes scope for the voluntary sector organisations that specialise in local communities and individual groups in our society that can make a difference. Groups that best understand rural areas can make the biggest difference to ensure that we help people in rural communities into prosperous and successful working lives, and not leave them stranded on benefits. I certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance.

We have a moral duty, even in difficult times, to do what we can to break down the cycle of deprivation that affects many of those communities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and his team have committed years to identifying the challenges that face those deprived communities and how to solve them. We have demonstrated a willingness to look at ideas across the political spectrum. I am delighted that we can take advantage of the expertise of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead in his review. He is highly regarded in all parts of the House for the knowledge and insights that he has built up, and we look forward to seeing his conclusions, particularly on how we measure poverty and capture a more accurate understanding of it in all its forms. That work enables us to understand more clearly how to develop solutions for the problems that we face.

I hope that we can maintain dialogue with Members such as the hon. Member for Nottingham North, who is a leading thinker on how to use early intervention to tackle deprivation. He has worked closely with my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and we believe that this is an issue that should capture expertise wherever it lies. In addition, we have established for the first time a cross-departmental Cabinet Committee under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend to ensure that we join up all the thinking and work that we do on social justice across government.

All of that will require radical reforms. It is about stimulating economic growth by moving more people into work; providing more effective routes into truly sustainable jobs; establishing clearer links between work and reward; and helping people to make responsible choices and save for their retirement. And ultimately, in these straitened times, we must ensure that we are using the money available to the best possible effect, both for those individuals and the taxpayer.

[Kate Green]

I agree strongly with the Secretary of State that leading people to, and enabling them to sustain, well-paid jobs is an important route out of poverty, but with only about 0.5 million vacancies—and, as his Government have said, about 5 million on inactive and unemployment benefits—can he confirm that an adequate safety net for people who cannot be in paid work will be sustained, and in particular, that there will be no freezing or cutting of benefits on which families who are out of work rely?

[Chris Grayling]

I am not going to announce the Budget today, but it will remain a Government commitment to provide a security or safety net for people who find themselves in difficulties. That safety net must not be a place in which people simply live their lives. No one benefits from sitting at home on benefits doing nothing, whether it is people with incapacities, people with disabilities or lone parents. There is general agreement—between ourselves, and between representative groups outside—that if we can help people into work it gives them a more fulfilling life, and it provides a job for their families. We regard breaking down the culture of worklessness as a huge priority.

The hon. Lady is right about the economic situation, but we must not make the mistake that has been made over the past 10 years. The previous Government presided over a situation in which jobs that were created tended to go not to people who were stranded on benefits in this country but to people moving here from overseas. That must not happen in the coming decade.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Further to the Secretary of State’s comments on the balance between work and benefits, will he take into consideration a letter from a constituent that I received this morning? She is a single mother trying to support her children, but she pointed out she was not eligible for a grant for a uniform for one of them because she works.

“Why”,

she writes,

“should I be penalised for not claiming benefits, for going out to work to try and better myself when I am in fact worse off. I am in two minds to give up my job so that I can get more perks.”

I urge the Secretary of State, in reshaping policy, to take into consideration people such as my constituent who are trying to do the right thing but who find that people on benefits are better off.

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is right. We have to make sure that people benefit financially from going back to work. We will do everything that we can as an Administration to ensure that people who do the right thing genuinely benefit from doing so, and that no one is incentivised to say, “There’s no point in getting a job. I’ll stay at home.” That does not do them, or any of us, any good whatsoever.

We are talking not just about individuals but about whole families: two or three generations of the same family who not only do not work but have never worked. That is not simply the result of a lack of opportunity. In many of our most deprived and challenged communities, the culture of dependency and the sense of exclusion from mainstream society has resulted in a sense of hopelessness and poverty of ambition, as the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside said, which we have to break down. We will do everything that we can to meet that challenge.

I want to set out five key areas that are central to helping people to escape from that poverty trap. First, all the evidence shows that early-years experiences are crucial in determining life chances. A stable home life can make a huge difference to the health and well-being of our children. Family breakdown has been linked to mental health problems, addiction and educational failure, and there is no doubt that the impact of families on life chances seems to be more pronounced in the UK than in neighbouring areas. The earning potential of a child in the UK is more closely related to that of their parents than it is in countries such as the United States, Germany or France. The rate of family breakdown is much higher in the UK than in other major countries, and we have one of the highest proportions of single-parent families in the OECD and the highest rate of teen pregnancies in the EU.

The reality of the links to poverty is clear: 34% of children in families with just one parent in their home were in poverty in 2008-09—a much higher proportion than the national average, which is 22%—and we know that a family with just one parent is twice as likely to have an income in the bottom 20% as families where there are two parents. We want to create a system that supports families, creates a stable environment for children and improves social mobility. That is why we will work to strengthen families by investing in effective early-years provision, including expanding the availability and accessibility of health visitors, so that all parents have access to expert support and advice in the crucial early days of a child’s life. We will recognise marriage in the tax system, and, as soon as we can we will tackle the couple penalty in tax credits. We will encourage shared parenting from the earliest stages of pregnancy, including the promotion of a system of flexible parental leave. We want to restore aspiration, allowing parents to hope for their children and children to dream for themselves. Education plays a central role in that, and it is the second key area that we wish to address.

Education is vital. We know that people with five or more GCSEs at grades A to C earn more than those without, and they are around 3% more likely to be in work. But we also know that of the 75,000 children who receive free school meals every year, almost half do not get a single grade C at GCSE—more than a thousand classrooms of children each year let down by the system. We have some of the most disadvantaged children in the UK. Of the 6,000 children leaving care every year, only 400 are in higher education by the age of 19. Children in care should be a particular priority for us. Every child should have access to good quality education. Too many of the poorest children are stuck in chaotic classrooms in bad schools, so we will give teachers more power over discipline, bring in a pupil premium and provide extra funding for the poorest children so that they go to the best schools, not the worst.

But we are concerned not only about preventing the next generation falling into a cycle of poverty and worklessness. We also have to deal with the challenges that are there right now. So the third area that we will address is the problem of worklessness and welfare dependency. Each week, if one includes tax credits and child benefits, 12 million working-age households receive benefits at a cost of around £85 billion a year. About 5 million people claim out-of-work benefits, and around half of those have spent at least half of the last 10 years on some form of benefit. We know that many of those on out-of-work benefits cannot work for reasons of health, but many with the right help could get back into work.

At its worst, the current system divides people and assigns support based on the type of benefit claimed rather than need. It fails to recognise people who need extra help and it refuses up-front support, allowing people to become so entrenched in the benefit system that they cannot see a way out. Many Members who represent some of the most challenged communities and talk to those people know that we must help them to break out of the environment in which they live, raising their aspirations and showing them that there is a better way forward.

During the last 10 years, an array of programmes was set up by the last Government. They believed that the answer was to create top-down, closely designed programmes, which they imposed on the system. That did not work, so we will do something different. When we introduce our single work programme next year, it will create an environment in which the support that we offer will be tailored to the needs of individuals, not designed in Whitehall by Ministers and officials. Everyone who can work should get the help and advice that they need to get a job and move into sustainable work. That will be our focus and those who deliver that support will be paid on the basis of the success that they have in delivering that support and getting people into work.

Britain is a nation of opportunity. It must be a nation of opportunity. As we tackle the deficit and get the economy back on its feet—I keep returning to this point—we must ensure that the jobs that are created in the next few years go to those who are in the most need, who can get off benefits and make more of their lives. We cannot make the same mistakes all over again. That is what our welfare reforms are all about.

I want to talk briefly about another group—those on incapacity benefits. More than 2 million people claim incapacity benefits, nearly half of whom have been out of work for the last 12 years. They, in particular, need fresh opportunities. Not all will be able to work, but very many can work, and very many would be much better off in work. All of those who work with people with incapacities and disabilities say that if we can get them into mainstream employment, return them to a normal working life, it will do them a power of good, improving their quality of life and making a real difference to them. That can and will be a big priority for us.

As we design the work programme, we will ensure that we have a system and a structure in place that encourages the people who deliver that programme to provide the specialised, tailored support that we need to steer those people who have been on incapacity benefit for so long down a better path and get them into employment. In particular, we recognise that the most disabled, those who have the biggest challenge in their life, will need additional help and support to get into work. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), will no doubt be talking later about some of the ways in which we hope to deliver the best possible support to those people.

[Kate Green]

Many disabled people would welcome the opportunity to be in paid employment. What efforts are being made not just to concentrate on supporting them to find suitable work, but to work with employers to ensure that they respond to the particular needs of disabled people in the workplace?

[Chris Grayling]

That is an important point. We must encourage and work with employers, and we should start at home. Whitehall and Government Departments and agencies should be at the forefront of finding the best ways to provide opportunities for people with disabilities, and that will be a priority for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. If we do not lead from the front, no one else will, and that is something that we certainly want to see happen.

[Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

How will the Minister encourage employers to employ people with mental health problems when the stigma is so great? We have had recent examples of discrimination against people who have disclosed mental health problems.

[Chris Grayling]

First, I congratulate the hon. Lady on her election to the Chair of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. My colleagues and I look forward to being grilled by her in the months ahead, but I hope that we will have a constructive relationship. I hope that we can listen openly to the ideas that come from her Committee and that we can work together to make a difference on some of these issues.

I very much agree with the hon. Lady on mental health issues. One thing that I hope will come through the Work programme, where we have established providers with specialist skills working with employers and people who have had mental health challenges in their lives, is that we will have the kind of partnership that will break some of these barriers down. Once a provider starts to work with a group of employers, starts to bring good people to them, and that works well, more doors will be opened. The hon. Lady makes an important point; more than 2 million people are on incapacity benefit and many have supplemental health problems, and they must be looked after in the Work programme and we must ensure that it delivers opportunities for them.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Can the Minister explain what the future holds for Remploy?

[Chris Grayling]

Remploy does some very good work. We have been in office only three weeks, so there is still a lot of work to be done, but we recognise the importance of Remploy. In particular, I pay tribute to Remploy for doing some of the work that the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Miss Begg) would like to see, such as getting people who have various forms of disability routinely into workplaces alongside members of society as a whole. That is particularly important. I want to see as many people as possible with either mental health problems or physical disabilities in workplaces as a matter of routine, and Remploy’s work in getting more people into work has been extremely valuable.

May I also welcome you to your Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker? This may or may not be your first session, but it is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair today. If you will forgive me, I shall move on quickly and make way, because many Members want to make their maiden speeches.

On pensioner poverty, we are concerned to see that older people enjoy dignity and security in their old age, and that means ensuring that those in work are able to put money aside for their future. We have far too many pensioners living in poverty today, about 1.8 million people, so we need a system that works for our pensioners. We need a fair, decent and simple system that is supported by a vibrant private pensions landscape, too.

As a first step in doing the right thing for our pensioners, we will from April next year restore the earnings link with the basic state pension, and there will be a triple guarantee that pensions will be raised by the higher of earnings, prices or 2.5%. That is a big step forward for state pension provision, and I am very proud to be part of an Administration who intend to deliver that change.

We will also do everything that we can to ease the burden on pension funds, to encourage companies to offer high-quality pensions to their employees and to stop drowning pension funds in the red tape that has been symptomatic of the past 13 years of government. We also need to put people back in control of achieving their retirement aspirations, instead of being reliant purely on the state, and that involves creating the savings culture that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has talked about.

We need to address another area—debt, the single biggest challenge facing the UK. This week we have talked extensively about the national challenge that we face, but we should not forget the challenges that individual families face with debt. People in lower-income families are the most vulnerable; they have nothing to fall back on in an emergency; and the debt that they have to take on is twice as expensive as that for most other people because of the risk that they are perceived to represent. Debt creates tensions in families, it can be a disincentive to work and it leads to worry and stress-related illnesses. We will consider ways of alleviating some of the credit and debt challenges that our poorest communities face. That is essential if we are to deal with some of the issues in those communities, and we hope to bring forward thoughts and ideas in due course.

Drug and alcohol misuse and addiction is closely linked to some of the biggest challenges that we face, whether they are social challenges, educational failure, family breakdown, or even crime. Problematic drug and alcohol users are frequently unable to hold down a job or form relationships that do not revolve around their habit, and such addiction can ruin lives and destroy families, often leaving little room for anything else. Poverty and deprivation are a cause and effect of addiction, born out of the fact that 80% of problem drug users are in receipt of benefits, often for many years, with little realistic prospect of finding employment. Addiction in the home can do huge damage to children too, so as we design the work programme’s detail, we will also be mindful of how we address the deep-rooted problems of addiction in our welfare state and our most deprived communities.

The past decade has been a wasted opportunity for this country. Promise after promise was not kept; hopes and expectations were dashed; and the jobs that were created went to people entering the country from overseas, not those on benefits. The reality is that billions and billions of pounds were spent to relatively little effect. We are determined to ensure that our most deprived communities are not left behind as they were over that decade. We will strive to get people back into work as the economy recovers; we will strive to improve the chances of those people getting a good education; we will work to strengthen families; we will work to break down the barriers between our richest and poorest communities; and we will work to raise the aspirations in those communities.

This is a Government who believe in opportunity, and we will work tirelessly to deliver it for all our citizens.

13:04

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I say what a pleasure it is to see you in the Chair this afternoon?

I welcome the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), to his new post. I know that on 5 May he thought he would become the Home Secretary, but the Department for Work and Pensions is a great Department, with excellent officials and a fantastic network of dedicated public servants throughout the whole country, and I hope he enjoys his time there as much as I enjoyed mine.

I have been trying to picture how the new ministerial team meetings are going, and I guess that the right hon. Gentleman has a pivotal role in mediating between the Secretary of State, who believes that family breakdown is a key issue that must be addressed, and their new colleague, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), who said:

“To hear Conservative Front Benchers suggest that they even care about this subject...is…unbelievable.”—[ Official Report, 20 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 625.]

I was wondering why the right hon. Gentleman had been given that job, and whether it was because of his famed diplomatic skills, but then I remembered that it was in fact because he used to be a member of the Social and Democratic party—until he was swallowed up by the Conservatives. So he really is the prototype for the new coalition politics.

We have said that we want to be a constructive Opposition, supporting when we agree and criticising when we do not, and I must say that the Minister has not given a fair or accurate account of the Labour Government’s achievements in tackling poverty. Over the 13 years in which we were in power, we reversed the trend of rising poverty and lifted 900,000 pensioners out of poverty and 500,000 children out of relative poverty. On the statistics published only last month, we see that 2 million children were also lifted out of absolute poverty.

[Bob Russell]

Is the hon. Lady aware of early-day motions 61 and 62? The first is on the Joseph Rowntree Foundation audit of poverty, which shows that poverty is at the same level as it was in 2000. The second is on a study by the Fabian Society and the Webb Memorial Trust, which shows that 20% of the population lives in poverty. Is that really a triumph of new Labour’s 13 years?

[Helen Goodman]

The latest year for which we have figures is 2008-09, and the hon. Gentleman must take account of the fact that since then two things have been going on: first, we have had to face the global recession; and secondly, the Labour Government have put in train all the measures from the 2007 Budget. Our calculations were that they would lift a further 500,000 children out of poverty, so the hon. Gentleman slightly overstates his case.

[Bob Russell]

The hon. Lady suggests that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Fabian Society and the Webb Memorial Trust, all of which are nominal supporters of new Labour, have got it wrong.

[Helen Goodman]

No, I do not suggest that at all. I suggest that those statistics are selective and that, if we take the decade as a whole, we see an extremely positive record on poverty across the board.

[Mark Tami]

Will my hon. Friend express a view on the comments of the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill)? I asked about them earlier and did not receive an answer, but the Under-Secretary said that the poorest would bear the brunt of the cuts.

[Helen Goodman]

That is the big worry, and if even Government Back Benchers can see it, I hope that Government Front Benchers will take that concern very seriously. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) said earlier, the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies also stated that Labour’s tax and benefit reforms have reduced income inequality. If we had maintained the policies that we inherited in 1997, there would have been a much greater degree of income inequality.

The Minister before us this afternoon also overstated his case on worklessness. In fact, the number of people on inactive benefits is now 350,000 lower than the number that we inherited, and the number of lone parents in work has increased substantially from 46 to 58%, because of the positive measures that we took. I hope he does not mind my saying that he will find the problems rather more intractable than he implied in his speech.

We welcome the commitment to restoring the earnings link to pensions, and we are extremely pleased that the Government have decided to maintain the winter fuel allowance and free bus passes, which we introduced. As the Minister said, encouraging a savings culture is obviously important, but Labour Members cannot quite marry that with the halt that seems to have been put on the auto-enrolment programme.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

May I, for the record, ensure that the hon. Lady understands that there is no such halt? We are committed to auto-enrolment, but we are reviewing how it is done within the whole NES—new entrepreneur scholarships—programme.

[Helen Goodman]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

The Minister talked about the importance of the problem of debt facing the very poorest people, and the Secretary of State mentioned credit unions in his speech on Tuesday night. The Labour Government introduced a growth fund for credit unions, and we put £86 million into credit unions across the country. I very much hope that the new Government will maintain that level of support in the public spending round that they are going to undertake.

[Mark Tami]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very important that we keep that support for credit unions, because if they are not there, such people will, yet again, have to turn to loan sharks and others who demand very high interest rates, often with menaces?

[Helen Goodman]

That is absolutely right. It is vital that we prevent the poorest people from being exploited in the way they have been. There is a lot of work to be done on this subject.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

Has my hon. Friend had the same experience as I have in my constituency, where the Financial Services Authority is regulating credit unions in the way we wish it had regulated the big banks, thereby putting their future at stake? As my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) said, credit unions play a vital role in giving poorer people an alternative way of getting cheap credit.

[Helen Goodman]

I do not know whether my experience in my constituency has been exactly the same as that of my right hon. Friend, but he reinforces the significant role that credit unions can play, and we urge the Government to maintain support for them.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

In my constituency and around the county of Gloucestershire, the three credit unions that still exist—in Stroud, Forest of Dean and Gloucester—are all very small and only scratch the surface in trying to reach those on housing estates who are most vulnerable to loan sharks. Under this Government, we will try, with the help of a community foundation and social enterprises, to consolidate those three credit unions into a county-wide credit union that will be bigger and more solid and sustainable, and will reach more of the most poverty-stricken people.

[Helen Goodman]

I am of course interested to hear about what is going on in Gloucestershire. I do not know whether DWP Ministers have yet had time to engage with their colleagues at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but the regulatory issues mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) clearly need to be addressed in conjunction with that Department.

I should like to turn to the issue of free school meals, on which I hope to be able to offer the new ministerial team some constructive advice. I do not know if they have seen the letter that the Secretary of State for Education sent to my right hon. Friend the shadow Education Secretary on 7 June, in which he says that he plans to discuss the whole issue of free school meals with DWP colleagues. Labour Members are disappointed that the Secretary of State has decided not to go ahead with extending the eligibility of free school meals to the 500,000 children in primary schools whose parents are on working tax credits. He says in his letter:

“I am sympathetic to the arguments for extending eligibility—though surprised that a decision to do so was taken before any evidence on the impact on attainment could be collected from pilots.”

That argument is not wholly unfamiliar to us. However, I would like the Minister to understand that we decided to go ahead with extending eligibility to those 500,000 children not only because we expected it to have a beneficial impact on their performance in school but because it is estimated that it would lift 50,000 children out of poverty and would be a serious improvement to the quality of work incentives. I strongly urge him to ask his officials if he could look at the analysis of the most cost-effective measures for addressing child poverty, because I believe he will see, as we did, that this is one of the most effective things that could be done. As the Education Department team are not here, I point out that another advantage of the measure is that it does not come off the DWP budget. This delay will be seriously disappointing for large numbers of families across the country. I urge the Government not to begin their tenure by repeating Mrs Thatcher’s snatching of the milk.

[Bob Russell]

I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Lady’s point, but I have to tell her—I researched this for an Adjournment debate that I had in the last Parliament—that it was the legislation of the last Labour Government that paved the way for the withdrawal of school meals services. Certainly, the Tories in Essex used that legislation to go down the route of removing the school meals service. Perhaps she should look at the Education Act 1944, and then she will see what a proper Labour Government used to do.

[Helen Goodman]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman look at the Child Poverty Act 2010, in which we extended the eligibility of free school meals—that was a proper action by a proper Labour Government.

I said earlier that in our 13 years we had a political objective of decreasing poverty together with the policies to make it happen. I welcome the fact that the coalition has said that it will maintain the objective of ending child poverty, and that those living in poverty will be protected as the Government deal with the deficit. Indeed, the Prime Minister has said:

“The test of a good society is how…you protect the poorest, the most vulnerable, the elderly, the frail.”

The Deputy Prime Minister has even said that the cuts will be “progressive”. Labour Members will hold them to that, but I have to say that the omens are not good.

[Kate Green]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Child Poverty Act has provided for the relative poverty measure to continue to be an element of the way in which we measure success and progress on poverty? Does she agree that that is the most meaningful measure for determining that we are ensuring that living standards for all, including the poorest, keep up as society’s wealth improves?

[Helen Goodman]

I certainly do; my hon. Friend anticipates one of the points that I was going to make.

As I was saying, the omens are not good, and I fear that the rhetoric is not matched by the reality. Only this morning, the independent Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development forecast a rise in unemployment to almost 3 million as public sector workers, mainly women and the low-paid, are thrown on to the dole. In fact, it is difficult to see exactly what the strategy of Her Majesty’s Government is. So far, the two coalition partners can agree on getting rid of the child trust fund and the future jobs fund, but what will be the effect of those cuts? The child trust fund was the first serious attempt to tackle intergenerational poverty by enabling low-income families to build up assets for their children. As the Minister said, it is vital to encourage a culture of savings, and it was designed to do precisely that, but it is going to go.

The coalition Government were also able to agree to cut the future jobs fund, despite the fact that before the election both coalition parties said they would continue it. That means that 80,000 young people will lose their chances of work this year, and perhaps 150,000 next year. The whole reason why we introduced the fund was that we saw the scarring effects of youth unemployment in the 1980s and ’90s. Because we took measures over the past 18 months during the recession, long-term youth unemployment is now one tenth of the level that it was then. However, the coalition parties have clearly learned nothing and care less. One must ask oneself why that is, so let us examine where the cuts in the future jobs fund will fall most heavily—the west midlands, the north-west, Wales and Scotland. The future jobs fund is about real jobs.

[Chris Grayling]

May I point out to the hon. Lady how proud I am to have many new colleagues on our Benches from the west midlands, the north-west, Wales and so on? Will she confirm to the House that a couple of weeks ago, this Administration announced tens of thousands of new apprenticeships, which are likely to have a much longer-lasting impact on securing proper careers for the future for young people?

[Helen Goodman]

Of course Members from the coalition parties could be elected in those areas, given that they did not say before the election that they would cut the future jobs fund. They promised that they would continue it, and now they have cut it. That is the problem. I suspect that the Government’s real agenda is to make young people do the same work that they were doing under the future jobs fund, but whereas everybody was paid at least the minimum wage through that fund, under the schemes that the Minister and the Government are proposing they will have to live on benefits. What will that do for poverty levels, and where does it leave the Liberal Democrats’ commitment to raise the minimum wage for people under the age of 24?

It is ironic that the one thing the partners in the coalition really cannot agree about is the role of the family. The Tories want to reintroduce the married couples allowance, but that is one of the few matters on which the coalition agreement allows the Liberal Democrats to abstain. Who will benefit from it? Not the widow, the abandoned mother or the woman who has left her husband because of domestic violence. The Liberal Democrats should have the courage of their convictions, and they should vote against it. It is a wholly regressive and retrograde step. As the Deputy Prime Minister said during the election campaign, it is

“a throwback to the Edwardian era”

and “patronising drivel”.

The Secretary of State, who unfortunately is no longer in his place, revealed on 27 May that he was still looking to the Treasury for an extra £3 billion to reform the benefits system. The coalition agreement states that

“initial investment delivers later savings through lower benefit expenditure…based upon the DEL/AME switch”—

the departmental expenditure limits/annually managed expenditure switch. That is obviously based on the work of the Centre for Social Justice, which we examined in some detail when we took evidence on the Child Poverty Bill. The Secretary of State even seemed to be laying his job on the line later on 27 May when he said that he had not taken the job to be a “cheeseparer”, and stated:

“If somebody tells me I have to do something different then I won’t be here any longer.”

I suspect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be telling him to do something different right now, because he says that tackling the deficit is the priority. If Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions can persuade the Treasury that the extra £3 billion is the goose that will lay the golden egg, we shall be extremely surprised.

A further complication in trying to tease out the Government’s strategy is that No. 10 has appointed my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). We have not yet seen his terms of reference—I do not know whether they are to think the unthinkable—but there seems to be something strangely familiar about the situation. Last Saturday The Guardian said that he was going to look again at the definition of poverty. That really would be unthinkable. What is the point of it?

[Mr Frank Field]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Helen Goodman]

I will, because I would like my right hon. Friend to answer two questions. Is the purpose of moving away from the definition agreed in the European Union and the OECD to tell poor people that they are not really poor, or to avoid future embarrassing comparisons?

[Mr Field]

I am disappointed that my hon. Friend does not know the Labour Government’s record better. If she examines the last publication that we produced, she will see that we said there was a choice of four definitions of poverty. I shall go into them more if I catch your eye later, Mr Deputy Speaker, but that document asked for views on the balance among the four and whether we should add others. By all means let us have a go at each other about this on a personal level, but let us also be clear where the Labour Government left the debate.

[Helen Goodman]

I think my right hon. Friend ignores the fact that it is less than three months since the Child Poverty Act 2010 received Royal Assent. It committed any Government to eradicating child poverty and set out the four measures that will be used to make that judgment, which are of absolute poverty, relative poverty—that is the one agreed in the EU and the OECD—persistent poverty and material deprivation. Everybody in the House supported that Act, and I hope that the Government will not renege on that support.

The main problem with the Government’s position is that it is incoherent. They are divided on family policy and welfare strategy. Everyone knows that worklessness is one of the key drivers of poverty, but the proposals that we have heard from the Government so far will increase unemployment and the north-south divide.

[Ms Buck]

Was my hon. Friend surprised that the Minister made no mention of child care, which is critical to employment levels, particularly of lone parents? Does she share my disappointment that just before the election, the Mayor of London chose that moment to abolish child care from the London Development Agency’s work and to start unpicking measures such as the child care affordability programme? Does she agree that affordable child care must be at the heart of the wide range of programmes and policies that we use to tackle poverty?

[Helen Goodman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I hope that what the Mayor of London has done is not a precursor of what the Government intend to do. The Labour Government increased resources for child care significantly. We provided for three and four-year-olds to have 12 and then 15 hours of free provision, and we provided an element in the tax credits for people to pay for the child care that they found convenient. Our manifesto set out a commitment to extend child care provision to two-year-olds as well, because of the importance of the developmental needs that the Minister talked about so eloquently little more than 15 minutes ago.

The proof of the pudding will be whether the Government commit the policies to match the rhetoric. We fear that that will not be the case, and that there is now a serious risk of a double-dip recession. I urge DWP Ministers to be very careful indeed, lest they frustrate their no doubt good intentions by agreeing to cuts in the coming Budget.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Just before we move on, may I point out that Mr Speaker has stated that Back Benchers will be limited to 10 minutes?

13:29

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye so early in this debate. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, and I think that you are the first successful Labour candidate I have ever voted for. I have to confess that, as I voted for you and for my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), I realised that as a Yorkshireman I had cast my ballot for two Lancastrians. I was consoled by realising later that I have at least silenced two Lancastrian Members for some time—[Laughter.]

As the first Back Bencher to speak in this debate, I have no previous maiden speeches to commend, but I have spent the last week and a half in my place, and I hoped to be called in the education debate last week. I heard more and more maiden speeches, and there were some fantastic examples. I only hope that I set the bar sufficiently low that everything that comes after me today is an improvement.

I pay tribute to my predecessor in Brigg and Goole, Mr Ian Cawsey, who was indeed my only predecessor, as the constituency was created in 1997. I also wish to apologise to the House, not for ridding the country of a Labour Member of Parliament, which I think was rather a good thing, but for helping to break up the world’s only parliamentary band, MP4. Mr Cawsey served the group with some distinction as its lead singer. I have been approached by one or two of the remaining members to take his place, but alas that is not to be. Ian served the constituency incredibly well. He was very decent in the election campaign and in my dealings with him in the past three and a half years. I genuinely wish him and his family, who are extremely loyal to him, all the very best for the future.

As I said, the Brigg and Goole constituency has only existed since 1997, and before then the area was covered by other constituencies and represented by several distinguished Members, including—I am pleased to say—my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who served the Boothferry constituency between 1987 and 1997. The Brigg part of the constituency was served by Michael Brown, who will be remembered on both sides of the House and is still active in public life today. The previous Member for Scunthorpe also served a portion of my constituency for a time.

Since my election, several people have asked me, “Where exactly is Brigg and Goole?” My job today is to enlighten the House about the delights of the constituency. Mine is a difficult task, because I represent one of the few constituencies that cross county boundaries. The constituency is two thirds in North Lincolnshire and a third in the East Riding of Yorkshire, where I was born and bred. Being a Yorkshireman representing a Lincolnshire seat can have its challenges, and I have to tread a careful path. My predecessor had the same problem, especially as Brigg Town football club often play Goole Town football club—a potentially dangerous situation for a Member of Parliament. My predecessor had a clever approach to the problem, courtesy of the communications allowance, and regularly sponsored both clubs’ matches—a pleasure that will not be open to me.

The constituency was formed when the dreaded Humberside authority existed, and we are all delighted to have seen the back of that—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am grateful for support on that point. However, the Humberside name still exists, and I will probably have more to say on that in the weeks and months to come.

The constituency has a long history, going back centuries. Brigg is a small historic market town in north Lincolnshire, with a famous fair that dates all the way back to 1205. Brigg is also the gateway—depending on which way one enters—to the beautiful Lincolnshire wold villages, many of which have played an important role in the history of this country. I also have the pleasure of representing a unique area of the country called the Isle of Axholme—a portion of land bounded on all sides by major rivers that was actually marshland until it was drained by Cornelius Vermuyden in the 17th century. In an early example of English jobs for English workers, Mr Vermuyden was a Dutchman who brought Dutch workers over and came into conflict with the locals. The King had to intervene and ensure that half the work force was English—something that the previous Prime Minister was unable to achieve.

The Isle of Axholme also houses the beautiful market town of Epworth, the birthplace of Charles and John Wesley, the founders of Methodism. It also has one of the world’s largest trolleybus museums at Sandtoft. I confess that I have yet to visit it, but I will do so shortly. The area is also home to Britain’s oldest traditional tussle, the Haxey hood, which takes place on the 12th night after Christmas. It has various interesting characters, including the lord of the hood, the chief boggin and a fool. As I look round the Chamber, I have allotted some positions for next year, but it would be rude to go into details.

Goole is in the East Riding of Yorkshire and is Britain’s biggest inland port. It is a company town, having been formed through the creation of the Aire and Calder canal. Also in the East Riding is the small village in which I live, Airmyn, which has a long history with the Percy family. We—I say we, although I suspect that my links to the Percy family are more illegitimate and feudal than I might like them to be—used to hold the title to Airmyn, and the pub is still called the Percy Arms. Its recent refurbishment finishes today and it will reopen at 7pm tonight. All are welcome.

My constituency also played a major role in the second world war, with parts of the Mulberry harbour being completed in Goole. We also housed several airfields, including RAF Sandtoft, RAF Elsham Wolds and RAF Snaith. The latter has a fantastic memorial team, which I am involved in supporting.

Before becoming a Member, I was a schoolteacher, and I intend to champion the issues of school funding, deprivation and exclusions. I am delighted to have been called to speak in the debate on poverty because although I represent a large rural constituency I was brought up in a neighbouring constituency of Hull as a proud comprehensive boy, and I am pleased to say that there are two comprehensive boys now in Parliament, one on each side—[Interruption.] I meant two Hull comprehensive boys. I have taught in some of the most deprived schools in Hull, so the issues of child poverty and deprivation are dear to me.

In my time in Parliament I wish to champion the cause of excluded children, who under the last two Governments—and perhaps also under previous Governments—have not received the attention that they deserve. In particular, children who receive free school meals are three times more likely to be excluded from school. As a practitioner in the last few years, I know that we had fine words from the previous Government, but we were hamstrung in schools by a commitment to social inclusion. The social inclusion agenda was introduced for good reasons, but it had the opposite effect to that intended in secondary schools, because it tied the hands of schoolteachers who wanted to deal with discipline, which is at the core of many of the problems we face in schools today. I do not have time to go into great detail today, but I intend to champion the cause of excluded children in the future. We are moving in the right direction with the pupil premium, but we must accept that dealing with excluded children is expensive. We need to follow the examples of excellent practice around the country and make progress on this issue.

I would have liked to talk for longer on this subject, but that is not possible. So I shall end by saying that I intend to be an independently minded local champion for the fantastic people of Brigg and Goole.

13:39

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

I welcome you to your new position, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech during this important debate on poverty, following the excellent maiden speech by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy).

It is a great honour to serve as the Member of Parliament for Leicester West. My constituency has a proud history, as part of an open and diverse city that has welcomed people, commerce and ideas. In Roman times, Fosse Way, which still runs through Leicester West, was one of the main routes across Britain. This road helped to bring trade to my constituency in wool and leather during the middle ages, and later in textiles, hosiery and shoemaking—industries for which Leicester was long and rightly famed.

These industries gave birth to the co-operative movement, which still has a strong presence in my constituency today. In 1936, Leicester’s co-operative society hosted the Jarrow marchers on their way to London, providing them with a much-needed change of boots from one of the city’s many shoemaking factories. I am proud to be a member of the Co-operative party and, I might add, a frequent customer at my local Co-op on the Narborough road. Co-operative principles of mutuality and solidarity are at the heart of the Labour movement and my constituency.

Since helping the Jarrow marchers, my constituency has continued to welcome people from throughout the UK, many of whom come to study at Leicester’s excellent universities, and from across the world. Leicester West has been enriched by our Asian communities, from east Africa, Gujarat, Punjab, Pakistan and Bangladesh, by our African-Caribbean community, by people from eastern Europe, including Poland and Ukraine, and more recently by people from Turkey and our new African communities, including those of Somalia, Sierra Leone and Cameroon. All the different communities in Leicester—white, black and Asian, Christian, Hindu, Sikh and Muslim—are what make us a great city and country. As the MP for Leicester West, I will always champion and celebrate the strength that this diversity brings.

As is customary in maiden speeches, I pay tribute to my predecessor, Patricia Hewitt. She was a dedicated local MP, passionately committed to serving her constituents. She worked tirelessly, not only for Leicester West, but for the Labour party and Government. As Britain’s longest serving Trade and Industry Secretary and Cabinet Minister for Women, she pioneered family-friendly employment, including the right to request flexible working, alongside improvements in international trade, equality and human rights. As Health Secretary, she was responsible for Labour’s ban on smoking at work and in public places. The ban was very controversial at the time, not least in some of the working men’s clubs in my constituency, but I believe that in years to come, it will be remembered as one of the most important achievements of the Labour Government.

I am proud of Labour’s record in Leicester West. The new deal for communities has helped to transform Braunstone, which was one of the most neglected parts of my constituency in 1997. The new Brite centre, skills centre, health and leisure centres and Business Box are helping local residents get the training, jobs and services they need to build a better life for themselves and their families. As a former director of the Maternity Alliance charity, I know that the very earliest years of life are critical in determining children’s later life chances. Sure Start children’s centres are providing help and support to families with young children in Beaumont Leys and Stocking Farm, Braunstone, Braunstone Frith, New Parks, Rowley Fields and the west end.

The dedication and hard work of NHS staff, alongside Labour’s investment, mean that patients in my constituency now wait a maximum of 18 weeks for their operations, which is down from 18 months in 1997. Our investment has also built brand-new schools, such as the award-winning Beaumont Leys. This has helped transform not only the physical environment of the school, but the attitude, self-esteem and motivation of pupils and staff. That is why I am extremely concerned about the Government’s plans for Building Schools for the Future and why I will fight to ensure that our proposals to rebuild or refurbish the remaining secondary schools in Leicester West will now go ahead.

Despite these improvements, poverty and inequality still blight the lives of too many families and communities in my constituency. More than a third of children in Leicester West are still growing up in workless families. Children born into poverty in Braunstone or New Parks are more likely than children in better-off families to die before they are five, more likely to leave school without qualifications, less likely to go to university and get a well-paid job, and more likely to die before their time. This is simply unacceptable in the 21st century in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. That is what I came into politics to help change, and that is what I intend to do as Leicester West’s MP.

Improving education is the key to tackling poverty and inequality in my constituency. Real progress is now being made. We have seen improvements in maths and English results, and our GCSE results are improving faster than the national average. My No. 1 priority is helping to build on this progress to achieve a step change in education, skills, training and aspiration in Leicester West, starting with young children, and continuing through school and on into adult life.

I will also champion local businesses and jobs. One third of jobs in Leicester are now in the public sector, but we cannot rely on public services to create the majority of new jobs over the next 10 years, as they have done in the previous decade. Leicester has the potential to be a leading centre of modern manufacturing in this country, if we continue to invest in our transport infrastructure and skills, and to combine the entrepreneurial zeal of our local businesses with our experience in design and technology and the knowledge in our universities.

Making life easier and fairer for every community in my constituency means increasing the amount of affordable housing, particularly social housing, tackling crime and antisocial behaviour, and giving young people more things to do, particularly in the evenings and at weekends. Fantastic services are available in some parts of my constituency, and we now need them in every local area—services like Street Vibe’s dance teams, the Mashed-up’s DJ van and our community boxing gyms in New Parks and Home Farm.

I am pleased that the Government have matched Labour’s commitment to restoring the link between earnings and pensions. We also need radical change in the way we care for our ageing population. This issue is one that our society has barely begun to address in areas such as social care, dementia services, and end-of-life care.

My job as a Back-Bench MP is to stand up for my constituents. I will play my part in providing a strong and effective Opposition. I will not oppose the Government for the sake of it, but I will judge them on whether their policies boost jobs and growth, and increase fairness and opportunity for people in Leicester West. So if the Government go ahead with their plans to scrap the future jobs fund, which is helping young people in my constituency to get work and new skills, and to reduce benefit bills, I will oppose them. However, if their pupil premium gives more money for children in deprived areas in Leicester West, without cutting funding for other vital programmes, I will support them.

But the improvements we need cannot be achieved by the Government alone. Change must come from within communities by empowering people to take more control over their own lives. This is already happening in many parts of Leicester West, through the tireless work of our community organisations, public services, local businesses, and voluntary and faith groups. However, they rightly expect, and need, more support. I cannot promise to address all the challenges we face in Leicester West—and my constituents would not believe me if I did—but I can promise I will continue to listen and do everything I can to serve the people who have given me the greatest privilege, by electing me as their MP.

13:48

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

May I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker? It is a privilege to speak in this important debate on poverty and to follow such outstanding maiden speeches from the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy).

I pay tribute to my predecessor, who is soon to be ennobled as Lord Spicer of Cropthorne in the county of Worcestershire, for his years of service to the West Worcestershire and, prior to that, the South Worcestershire constituencies. He was elected to Parliament nine times during his 36 years of service to Worcestershire residents, and during my almost four years as parliamentary candidate, I met so many people on the doorstep who paid tribute to his service as a constituency MP and to his energetic pursuit of his casework. He set a standard that I shall strive to maintain. For three decades he championed the case for a new community hospital for Malvern. I am delighted that, after 30 years, my constituents and I will welcome the opening of its doors this coming October.

Here in Westminster, Sir Michael had a stellar career as well, serving as a Minister under Margaret Thatcher and being known latterly to Conservative Back Benchers as the chairman of the 1922 committee, a position for which he stood for many years unopposed. He was clearly admired by colleagues here every bit as much as he was by his constituents. I will not presume to match his achievements, but merely work hard on behalf of the constituents of West Worcestershire and try every day to serve their interests to the best of my ability.

I would also like to reassure all my neighbouring hon. Friends that, unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), I need not aspire to any neighbouring territory in any future boundary review. That is because the Baldwin ward is already part of the West Worcestershire constituency, and is named, of course, after Britain’s three-time Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, who lived at Astley. Stanley Baldwin’s Bewdley constituency contained much of the same beautiful scenery as the current West Worcestershire constituency, and I have often been asked on the doorstep whether I am his granddaughter; in fact, more often than not, people say, “I hear you are Stanley Baldwin’s granddaughter.”

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to put the record straight in Hansard. My maiden name was Eggleston, and my husband was christened James Stanley Baldwin—obviously my mother-in-law was a big fan—but so far we have not been able to find any family linkage beyond the name. Indeed, I was so concerned about possibly being elected on false pretences, with an overestimation of both my ability and my ambition, that I even answered the question in my election address. Nevertheless, I am proud to be called Baldwin, which is a very good and widespread surname in West Worcestershire.

I hope that hon. Members will indulge me if I paint a picture of the main attractive aspects of the West Worcestershire constituency. It is the heart of England, and from the fertile plains of the Severn valley rises the solitary, final western hill of the Cotswolds, Bredon hill, which was an inspiration to A. E. Housman, the great English poet. The River Avon meanders around the beautiful Georgian town of Pershore, on its way to join up with the River Severn, creating flood plains and fields that are famous for being able to grow the most succulent asparagus. On the west of the River Severn, across more fine fields, pasture, orchards and common land, the Malvern hills rise up suddenly, to a great height. It is said that someone standing on the top of the Malvern hills and looking due east will not see a higher hill until they get to the Urals. [Hon. Members: “Ah?”] It is true.

The county border runs along the summit, but the West Worcestershire constituency, which stretches to the north and west of the hills, runs up the River Teme valley to the town of Tenbury Wells, and then as far north as villages such as Bayton and Mamble, which have Dudley postcodes. The four main towns of Malvern, Pershore, Upton upon Severn and Tenbury Wells are complemented by more than 70 different parishes, all with their own charms. It is particularly worth noting that the great English composer Elgar was born at Lower Broadheath. Throughout his life he drew musical inspiration from the scenery and landscape of the Malvern hills.

Food production is important locally. I have mentioned the asparagus crop, but visitors can also eat delicious local cherries, apples and pears, and enjoy locally raised chickens, eggs, turkeys, geese, beef, pork and lamb. To drink with that, they can enjoy the pure Malvern water, or beer, cider or locally produced wine. I am sure that other hon. Members will want to join me in my efforts in this place to promote our wonderful local food.

Visitors can buy locally produced milk and honey as well, but in this afternoon’s debate on poverty, I want to use this opportunity to highlight some of the causes of poverty in West Worcestershire. I was delighted to hear the Minister mention drug use, which is not unknown in my constituency, particularly in some of the more deprived parts. I do not need to remind hon. Members of how badly drug use can ruin lives. I am particularly keen to use my time in the House to work with local residents, the police, charities and social enterprises to help people to tackle addiction and ensure that those who deal in drugs are shown no tolerance.

The population of West Worcestershire has one of the older demographic profiles in this country, and I want to raise some of the challenges of poverty among the elderly. I am keen for the Government to make progress on the issue of paying for long-term residential care. Many of my constituents worry about having to pay for their care or sell their homes in old age. I hope that we can support them with a voluntary insurance scheme and that the coalition Government come forward with other proposals that will help us all to afford the increasing cost of looking after our elderly citizens with dignity and respect.

Before coming into Parliament, I was a pension fund manager. One of the many scandalous legacies of the outgoing Government is the way in which they destroyed our private pension system, which used to be the envy of the world. However, the unfunded liability of the public pension system has increased enormously. We are all living longer, so the current situation is completely unsustainable. A pensioner in my constituency on modest savings who has lived responsibly and within her means all her life has to face an annual increase in her council tax, which is often due to the need for the local council and local police to make an ever greater provision for their future pension entitlements.

That results in real poverty for pensioners who have a small amount of savings and are thus unable to claim pension credit. These days, very few people in the private sector are saving enough for their greater longevity either. We are storing up terrible pensioner poverty for the future in this country. The Government have made a welcome start on tackling the fiscal deficit, but I hope that they and this Parliament can also begin to address the long-term pensions savings deficit in this country.

I am extremely grateful for the opportunity that you have given me to make my maiden speech in this important debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I look forward to using my time in this House to serve the good people of West Worcestershire, both here at Westminster and in the local community, as the Government take on some of those long-term challenges.

13:57

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

May I add my congratulations on your election, Mr Deputy Speaker? I noticed that you have the “Directory of Members” to hand. I hope that you will agree that I do not look quite as bad in the flesh as I do in that truly horrific photo.

I come to this House from Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East—a constituency served with great distinction by my predecessor, Rosemary McKenna. Rosemary’s 13 years in Parliament were the culmination of a lifetime of public service. As teacher, councillor, council leader, president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and, latterly, Member of this House, Rosemary served the public with distinction for more than 40 years. Rosemary’s distinctions are many, but I would like to emphasise her temperament and character. Rosemary’s generous nature, her good humour, and, especially, her serenity served her well. To keep one’s head when all around are losing theirs is an asset in every walk of life, but especially, I suspect, in this place. I am sure that the House will join me in wishing Rosemary well in her retirement.

For those who do not know the geography of my constituency—and I suspect that there are a few—Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East sits at the heart of Scotland, roughly at the centre of a triangle formed by Edinburgh, Glasgow and Stirling. This central location, along with a work force well educated in our excellent local comprehensive schools and colleges, is attractive to employers both private and public. Indeed, Members unlucky enough to receive a call from the Inland Revenue will, I am sure, take some comfort in the knowledge that they are likely being called from my constituency, home to one of the largest Inland Revenue offices in the country.

The economy of my constituency is, I think, much like the economy of the country: it reflects a symbiotic relationship between the private and the public sectors. That is why I disagree with some of the speeches I have heard—not today, but in previous debates—from Conservative Members, who repeatedly draw a stark distinction between the public and the private. To me, that is rather artificial. Our economy depends on interaction between these two sectors. No man is an island, and neither is any private sector enterprise. In my view, the private sector could not flourish without a public infrastructure of roads, rail, sanitation, telecoms or, indeed, a people well educated in our public, by which I mean our state, schools.

That is the perspective that underpins the views of Labour Members on the Government’s deficit reduction plan, with all its implications for poverty reduction. Yes, reducing the deficit is important; yes, it is a priority; but cutting before the recovery is established and before confidence is restored is to flirt with disaster. Badly timed public sector cuts of the kind proposed by the Government will not, in my judgment, damage only the public sector, but the private sector, too, as they will reduce demand in the whole economy.

I urge Members on both sides of the House to read the report released today by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, whose chief economist has revised his forecasts. Looking at the proposed Government cuts, he now believes that unemployment will reach 2.95 million by 2012 and remain close to 3 million until 2015. That would be a disaster for the poor: when the economy retracts, it is the poor who suffer most. Substantial reductions in poverty depend on economic growth, because in the end substantial poverty reduction depends on the creation of jobs. I am sure we all agree that the single best poverty reduction programme is creating well-paid, secure jobs.

That is the context in which I raise my concern about how the Government are approaching the deficit, with all its implications for poverty in this country. I recognise, of course, that it is entirely consistent for the Conservatives to advance deflationary economic policies. As a historian, I can see them having been put forward in different guises for 100 years, whether it be by Bonar Law in the 1920s, Mr Baldwin in the 1930s, Mrs Thatcher in the 1980s or the new Prime Minister in 2010. The object is generally the same—to reduce the financial burden on those who tend to vote Conservative. That is understandable.

More depressing, from my point of view, is the Liberal Democrat embrace of this deflationary strategy. One hundred years ago, the Liberal party broke with that kind of economics. In his “People’s Budget”, Lloyd George rejected as inadequate and likely to increase poverty exactly the kind of approach that underpins the new Government’s strategy. I wonder what Lloyd George, Beveridge, and, above all, Keynes would make of the Liberal Democrat position. I suspect that those great social Liberals would see the Government’s so-called anti-poverty measures—whether they be fractional tax advantages for a minority of married couples, or appeals to the “Big Society”—for what they are. In my judgment, these are measures designed to ease the consciences of those who wish to feel that something is being done about poverty, while the actual priority is that that “something” to be done is of minimal cost.

More positively, I hope the Government can be persuaded that poverty reduction depends, as I say, on well-paid secure jobs. I believe that the minimum wage and tax credits are excellent measures that reward work and have done something significant to reduce poverty in this country. I urge the Government, if I may say so, to embrace them with the zeal of a convert.

I also ask the Government to consider the issue of work that pays not too badly, but too well. I welcome the Government’s commitment to ending excessive salaries in the public sector, but I think that we have to look at the private sector, too. Excess public sector pay is not fair and should be curbed, but it is not actively dangerous, whereas inappropriate incentives in the private sector—excessive and poorly calibrated bonuses in particular—have put our entire economy in jeopardy.

Growing up in the new town of Cumbernauld in the 1980s, I saw with my own eyes the harm done by deflationary political economy. It took over a decade of Labour Government to begin to heal the scars left in Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, and, indeed, in many other parts of the country. We ask not to be targeted again by a new round of deflationary cuts, particularly when the recession was inspired by the financial services sector. What I ask is that the burden is fairly shared.

In the end, I repeat, it is growth that will reduce the deficit in a way that enables the economy to prosper, thus allowing further reductions in poverty to take place. The best way to reduce poverty is to create work with a decent wage, which depends on economic growth. By cutting too fast, too soon, the Government risk a slump in demand across the economy: the result will be even higher unemployment than at present and thus greater poverty too. For me—and, I am sure, for many Members—that is a grim prospect indeed.

14:06

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in today’s debate. It is a pleasure to see you in your new role.

As with a lot of new Members, this is not the first time that I have tried to give my maiden speech. Given that this was the third time that I tried to get elected, it was a wait that I was prepared to sit out just a little bit longer. Originally, I stood in the European elections for the west midlands, unsuccessfully, and then in my home town, for Dudley, North, where my father was a councillor for 30 years. To coin a phrase used by a close friend, “Andrew fought Dudley, and Dudley fought back.”

I am honoured to represent the people of Burton and Uttoxeter in today’s debate, because the subject is a hugely important one for those people. Like many making their maiden speeches, I went to the Library and looked at the contributions that previous MPs for Burton had made to the House, and I have to say that there were some impressive people, particularly Mr John Jennings, who, as well as being an ex-headmaster and making a massive contribution as an MP, rose to the illustrious role of Deputy Speaker.

Then, of course, there was the great Sir Ivan Lawrence, the previous Conservative MP for Burton, who was a well-renowned barrister before he came to this House. Sir Ivan famously defended the Kray twins before moving here, where he defended the Governments of Mrs Thatcher and Mr Major. Sir Ivan is famous for having made the longest speech in this House in modern times. He spoke for some four hours 27 minutes on the vital issue of water fluoridation. Although Sir Ivan was a marvellous constituency MP, defending the interests of the people of Burton and Uttoxeter, and playing a massive role here, my hon. Friends will be delighted to know that I intend to try to fill his shoes, but with just a little more brevity.

Another famous incident involving Sir Ivan occurred when, having been invited to address a dinner of local charities and bigwigs, the time got to 11.45, and after numerous speakers, numerous courses and numerous glasses of wine, he had still not been called. The toastmaster stood up and said, “I now call on Sir Ivan Lawrence to give his address,” to which Sir Ivan stood up and said, “267 Newton road. That is where I am going now—goodbye,” and left the room.

A wonderful lady called Janet Dean preceded me. She was elected to the House in 1997, having moved to Uttoxeter in 1968. She was a hardworking champion of the people of Burton and Uttoxeter, and was greatly loved and respected. She did an incredible amount of work in representing people in my constituency on important issues, and she is revered and much loved.

When I was selected as candidate for Burton in an open primary—I know that the Government are keen to promote those further—I was interviewed by a reporter from the Burton Mail. I said to him afterwards, “Tell me a little about Janet. What do you think of her?” He replied, “It is a little bit like sending your mum to Parliament.” It was with that maternal love, and that maternal respect for her constituents, that Janet Dean presided over my constituency for the 13 years of her reign, and I know that she will be greatly missed.

Burton—or Burton and Uttoxeter, as it is known by many people living there—is a wonderful constituency. I believe that it is one of most diverse constituencies in the country. Of course it is famous for its brewing town and its long brewing history, but if you will allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will give you a thumbnail sketch of it.

Outside Burton are some beautiful villages such as Tutbury, which is famous for its castle; Marchington, which is famous for its marvellous pub The Dog and Partridge; and Rolleston, which has rightly earned its title as the most friendly village in Staffordshire. My constituency is a beautiful place in which to live and to work, and I am honoured to represent it. Of course, in the middle of my constituency is Uttoxeter, a famous market town. Although it has now lost its cattle market, it is still heavily influenced by the agriculture that surrounds it, but over the years it has developed and grown as a commuter town for nearby Derby and Burton.

I hope that the coalition Government’s proposal to reduce the number of Members in the House by 10% will allow a wrong to be righted and enable the Boundary Commission, for the first time, properly to recognise the importance of Uttoxeter by including it in the name of any future constituency following a boundary review.

The people of Uttoxeter are nothing if not plain-speaking. During the election campaign I was walking around the wonderful Kirk House, a care home for the elderly, and I went into a room where three of the elderly ladies were having their hair done. They greeted me, and were pleased to see me. The hairdresser said, “Are you the gentleman whose pictures I have seen on all the posters around the town?” “Yes,” I replied, rather proudly. She looked at me and said, “It is a very flattering photograph.” [Laughter.]

The constituency also contains Rocester, home of the world-famous JCB, the yellow digger, which is a British icon and a champion of the engineering industry. I applaud the work that is being done in the JCB academy to try to motivate young people to become involved in engineering and develop our engineers in the future. I intend to use my time in the House to promote engineering, and to promote the good work that is done at the academy.

Let me return to the main industry in Burton, which is brewing. Burton has a proud history of brewing, and I hope that it is an important part of our bright future. Hon. Members may be surprised to learn that, as well as being a brewing town, Burton has a wonderful rehabilitation centre for people addicted to drugs and alcohol, the Burton addiction centre, BAC O’Connor. I had the honour of bringing my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) to visit the facility.

We politicians often say that we want to improve people’s lives. The BAC is giving people back their lives. I met a gentleman there who had been on heroin and methadone for 30 years; the BAC had got him clean for two years. He said that he had spent his life in state-induced dependency. I hope that the coalition Government will take that issue into consideration, and will develop policies to tackle addiction.

We desperately need to support the brewing industry that is so vital to Burton. We have seen a haemorrhaging of pubs, and of the strength of the brewing community, as a result of 13 years of the last Government. I hope that the new coalition will act to right that wrong as well. Tony Blair told us that the late-licensing laws would usher in a café culture, but that is certainly not what we are finding in Burton, where in just a few weeks there have been a fatal stabbing and two brutal beatings—all as a result of people spilling out of late-night drinking establishments.

I hope that the new coalition Government will do something for the brewing industry and the people of Burton, and tackle our late-licensing problem. I also hope that they will introduce measures to prevent below-cost selling in supermarkets. We are seeing too many young people drinking in parks, and going out to drink when they have already consumed too much alcohol.

Finally, I hope that the Government will introduce the “smart taxes” that were proposed in our manifesto. The last Government, with a Scottish Chancellor, did very well for the Scottish whisky industry. I believe that our proposals to tax the bad and reduce the taxation on low-strength alcohol will help to tackle binge-drinking, and also to support the brewing industry in Burton.

Several hon. Members rose—

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

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you will note, according to today’s Order Paper there is supposed to be a written ministerial statement on special advisers. I have just been to the Library and it was not there, but two media companies have telephoned me to tell me that Mr Andy Coulson is paid more than the Deputy Prime Minister, and that there has been a significant increase in the number of spin doctors at No. 10. Is it possible for a Minister to come to the House to apologise for the discourtesy, and to explain the seeming anomaly whereby a hired hand is paid more than an elected Deputy Prime Minister?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order and not a matter for me, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that he has put it on the record, and has made the point that I presume he wanted to make.

14:17

[Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

Let me begin, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by welcoming you to your new position in the Chair. I noticed a glint in your eye when two maiden speakers, the hon. Members for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), managed to mention, respectively, the opening of a pub and the brewing industry in their constituencies. I am sure that both those things are very dear to your heart, and I hope that you will enjoy yourself in your new role.

As the first Back-Bench non-maiden speaker to speak today, I think it only fair, before I turn to the matters in hand, to pay tribute to the five maiden speakers whom we have heard this afternoon. I am very impressed: all the maiden speeches that I have heard over the last few weeks have been superb, and I think that that augurs very well for the future of the House of Commons and its importance in the life of Parliament.

The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole spoke in a very easy style, with plenty of humour. I suspect that that is because he was once a teacher. As a former secondary school teacher myself, I can tell him that the behaviour in the House of Commons is probably far, far worse than that of his worst secondary school class.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), a fellow Co-operative, paid tribute to her predecessor, Patricia Hewitt. I hope that she will continue the work that Patricia did, particularly in regard to the equalities agenda. Patricia certainly caused a stir when she was Business Secretary, because she was the first woman to fill the post. I clearly remember her coming to Aberdeen to open one of the offshore oil and gas fields in a very male-dominated industry. She was a breath of fresh air, but I am sure that the new Member for Leicester West will be as well, and I welcome her to the House.

The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) waxed lyrical about the beauty of her constituency. If hon. Members do not appreciate their own constituencies, no one else will, and it was clear from her speech that she loves the area.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) has inherited what I believe is the second-longest constituency name in the House. I think that the longest belongs to the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander), but I have not counted the letters. I know that the right hon. Gentleman and Rosemary McKenna, my hon. Friend’s predecessor, had some arguments as to whose constituency name was the most difficult to pronounce. I was glad that my hon. Friend paid such a warm tribute to Rosemary, because she was one of my close friends in the House and I miss her very much. I hope that he will pass my best wishes on to her in her retirement. Unfortunately, I will not be able to make her retirement dinner, as it is on the one weekend that I have off in the next two months, but I would have loved to have been there. My hon. Friend might not remember his predecessor but one, Norman Hogg, who came from Aberdeen. He returned to Aberdeen to retire and played an important part in my election campaign, particularly in 2005. Unfortunately, he has since died, and we missed him during this election.

My hon. Friend was not shy in stating his views in his maiden speech. He was clear in the way that he argued his case—certainly in what he said about there not being a false divide between the private and the public sector. I imagine that he will add a great deal of intellect to future debates in the House.

The last maiden speech up to now, by the hon. Member for Burton, was very impressive. He spoke without any notes, which will stand him in good stead, as one of the worst things that can happen when a Member speaks is when Members from the opposing side shout “Reading!” at them. Perhaps it is just as well that the rules of the House have changed and that Members can no longer make four-hour speeches such as the one by his predecessor that he mentioned. The hon. Gentleman will also be a credit to his constituency and we welcome him, as we do all the others. I, too, was very friendly with his predecessor, Janet Dean, and his description of her as a mother figure was all too accurate.

I, too, have a new job this afternoon, Mr Deputy Speaker, as the new Chair of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, and I thank those hon. Members who voted for me. Let me also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), who was a formidable opponent. It was a very close fight, and she would have made an excellent Chair of the Committee. We worked well together in the 2001-05 Parliament. This afternoon, she showed her talent for holding the Executive to account in questioning the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). I would have liked to welcome him to his job, but unfortunately he is no longer in his place. Such questioning is clearly the role of Select Committees, which are the workhorses of the House. They play an important role and I hope that the Work and Pensions Committee does its job well in holding this Executive to account. Shadow Ministers all say that Select Committees are very important when they are in opposition, but they might change their mind when they get into government.

I was a little disappointed by the way in which the Minister of State handled the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North, because he managed to avoid answering it. I hope that he was not setting the tone for the future. He failed to answer what she was clearly asking, which was what this Conservative Government, albeit a coalition Government, would do differently from the previous Conservative Government, after whom there was an increasing level of poverty, particularly child poverty, an increasing divide between the rich and poor and an increasing dislocation in many communities. As he did not answer that question, I, too, would like to put it to the Government.

As far as I can gather from what the Minister of State said, the Government will do what the Labour Government did, but a lot better with a lot less money. I did not hear what I expected to hear—new ideas and what will be different. For example, what will be different about the way in which the Government deal with mental health issues? I asked about that in my intervention, but his answer could have come from a Minister in the previous Government, because it was about what the previous Government were doing. So, what they were doing must have been working, if the new Government are not saying that they would do anything different that will work better.

We know that these issues are difficult and need to be tackled, but let me say what the Labour Government did. We introduced the minimum wage, tax credits, child care credits, the child trust fund and pension credits. They were all introduced through practical legislation that tackled the issue of poverty. They were not just warm words or aspirations—they were things that made a difference. On top of all that, we introduced a number of universal benefits to make sure that everyone benefited from the welfare state, not just those at the bottom end. For example, we made sure that there was an increase in child benefit. I do not whether the new Government intend to tax child benefit or whether it will continue to rise at the rate it was rising under the previous Government. Those were all important, practical measures that tackled poverty.

The last Government did other important things such as introducing Sure Start, which we have not seen the results of yet as the first generation of Sure Start children are only just leaving primary school. My worry is that the longitudinal, intergenerational, changing measures that we put in place will be undermined by the new Government, and I seek assurances that they will not, because we know that early intervention works. Indeed, it is one of the few ways in which to tackle the intergenerational poverty that has blighted our society. I hope that the new Government will do more than just say the warm words that we have heard this afternoon. I hope that they will do practical things to make sure that those of our citizens who still live in poverty soon no longer will.

14:27

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech during this very important debate on poverty. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Miss Begg) on her election as Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, and I congratulate all other hon. Members who have made their maiden speech in this debate. May I also take the opportunity to congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your election to the Chair? I might be new, but I know that you have been a stalwart of this Chamber and that you will continue to champion its importance.

It is a real honour and a privilege to be speaking in the Chamber today. It was in the early 1990s that I first visited the Palace of Westminster with my sixth-form colleagues, and ever since that day I have wanted to represent a Kent constituency on these green Benches. With that in mind, I am proud to say that I am the first Conservative MP to represent Chatham and Aylesford. The seat was formed in 1997 from the old Rochester and Chatham, Mid Kent and Tonbridge and Malling seats, so I benefit from the mixed parentage of some excellent Conservative parliamentarians, such as Peggy Fenner, Andrew Rowe, Julian Critchley and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley).

It is traditional to pay one’s immediate predecessor a tribute. I am told that that is occasionally done through gritted teeth, but I have nothing but genuine respect for Jonathan Shaw, who represented the constituency since 1997. Members from both sides of the House have praised Jonathan, who entered the House at an even younger age than I, and fought many battles on behalf of his constituents. He is highly regarded locally and has been kind enough to answer a few queries since the election, for which I am very grateful. I hope that I will serve my constituents as well as he did.

I am very proud of my constituency. Although I was born and bred in another part of Kent, I have now made the area my home. It is steeped in history. Chatham was first recorded as a settlement in the 9th century and was home to the Romans, the Saxons and then the Normans. Its significance has always been related to its position on the banks of the River Medway, which has been a harbour for warships since the 16th century. The town formed around the dockyard, which, although not in the boundaries of my constituency, has always been of critical significance to the town. Raids by the Dutch on the north Kent coast in 1667, which wrecked the flagship of the fleet harboured in Chatham, recorded by Pepys and remembered by Kipling, led to the proper fortification of the Medway. That massive rebuilding saw the expansion of Chatham into the large town that it is today. The historic dockyard was closed as a shipbuilding yard in 1984, and sadly many jobs were lost. However, it has evolved into a heritage site and parts have been regenerated into housing and tourist attractions, which range from warships to Dickens World.

Beyond politics, my passion is football and I was therefore delighted to learn that Chatham was one of the founding clubs in the southern England league in the 19th century. However, as a lifelong Tottenham fan, I was less pleased to learn that Spurs crashed to successive league defeats at the hands of Chatham in January 1899, losing 5-0 and 4-0 in the space of eight days. A few days later, the Spurs manager was sacked. A man with the surname of Cameron was appointed and the following season, they won the southern league title. It sounds reassuringly familiar.

Although Chatham is now the largest part of my constituency, the history of other parts goes back much further. Aylesford and the surrounding villages of Burham, Eccles, Wouldham, Ditton, Larkfield and Snodland can be traced back to neolithic times. There have been many finds of archaeological interest, including bronze age swords, an iron age settlement and a Roman villa. Now the area is dotted with numerous listed buildings, industrial estates, a vineyard, quarries, playing fields and picturesque oast houses.

Nearby is Blue Bell hill, well known to many motorists in Kent as a key intersection between the M20 and M2. However, I mention Blue Bell hill today not for its historical or transportation value, but for its supernatural element. The ghost stories are legendary, and sightings have been reported in the local papers on numerous occasions—including, I was amused to see, by a current member of the Press Gallery, Mr Nigel Nelson, whose article, which was written for the local paper before I was born, is still cited by today’s paranormal investigators.

The newspaper industry is hugely significant in my constituency. Not only have many who worked at the Kent Messenger group, based in Larkfield, gone on to trade in political journalism, including the Prime Minister’s press secretary, but the UK’s largest paper mill is based in Aylesford, providing 400,000 tonnes of newsprint per annum—the equivalent of 1% of the world's total newsprint, and all from recycled and recovered materials.

There are many more wonderful things that I am sure I should mention about my constituency, but with time being short, I want to say a few words about today’s debate. Parts of my constituency are reasonably well off. Many residents have solid family relationships, comfortable jobs and a decent wage. However, other parts are not. Across Medway, poverty affects nearly 12,000 children—a shocking 22%. Two wards in my constituency are the most severely affected, and sadly, one features in the top 10% of most deprived areas nationally. That is not a league table in which any area wants to be included, but it highlights the fact that there are huge challenges locally. Inadequate health and housing, low standards of living and high unemployment continue to characterise parts of Chatham, which for many years have been left behind.

There is no easy answer. It is not just one thing that needs to change. Low income, family breakdown, addiction, mental health problems and criminal behaviour contribute to a lack of expectation that, in turn, leads to inactivity. Charities find themselves too small to help; agencies find it too difficult and authorities find it too expensive. Complex problems may require multiple solutions, but unless we invest our time, energy and support, deprivation in parts of one of the most advanced countries in the world will continue to blight our nation.

I have heard many maiden speeches over the past few weeks, and the one thing all new Members share is the desire to make a difference. While I am in Parliament, I want to accomplish many things on behalf of all my constituents, but I hope that improving the plight of the poorest will be my greatest achievement. The Government must of course cut the deficit, but our legacy must be to reduce the dreadful levels of poverty and give every person in my constituency and throughout the country the standard of living they deserve.

14:34

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I am pleased that you were in the Chair when I rose to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker, even though you are about to leave the Chamber, because I can add my congratulations to those of others. It is a particular pleasure to see someone from the north-west in the Chair.

As the debate is rightly dominated by maiden speeches, I wanted to comment on how I felt more than three decades ago when I made my maiden speech, but from what I have experienced in this debate, my recollections will be irrelevant. For days, my insides were chewed up with nerves because I was worrying about making that maiden speech. The good news that I thought I would be bringing to Members making their maiden speech today is that it does not get any better. However, I can see from their performance that their confidence and the quality of their contributions far exceeds that of the intake of 1979.

I am grateful for the chance to contribute to this wide-ranging debate on poverty. I hope the House will forgive me if I focus narrowly on part of the canvas rather than addressing some of the wider aspects that Members have already touched on. A starting point for me is our debate on the Child Poverty Bill before the last election, when I expressed both admiration for what the Government had done and a sense of worry about where we would go from that position of relative success.

If we cast our mind back to the then Prime Minister’s objective to abolish child poverty by 2020, we can only exclaim that it was one of the most audacious targets set by any Government. I happened to be a Work and Pensions Minister at the time, and I learned about the target for the first time when I went into my room at the Department and saw Sky News on the television. That is when I learned that the Government’s objective was to abolish child poverty by 2020, even though I was a Minister with some responsibility for it. Others will have shared my sense of awe about how decisions came down to us—lesser Members—from Mount Sinai.

Had I been consulted beforehand, I hope I would have advised the then Prime Minister that although we should commit ourselves to the objective, the formula was one that no other country in the free world had achieved. We should not set targets for people, nations or Governments to fail; we should set targets they can achieve. It was thus immensely important before we fought the general election that we not only set out attempts to broaden our understanding of how we might measure poverty but put them in an Act of Parliament. That process is being developed and possibly taken a stage further in the review that the Prime Minister has asked me to undertake.

It gives me considerable pleasure that I have been asked to carry out the review, but it would have given me even more pleasure had my own side asked me to undertake that activity. The terms of reference took some time to agree—about seven times as long as the coalition agreement. They are public—they are certainly on my website—and I shall set out what I hope the review will achieve by Christmas.

In interviews, I have cited just one study, although there are many others that we could cite from our constituencies. The study relates to the work of the Prince’s charities in Burnley. It is a wonderful project, where volunteer mothers make sure that children are up in time for school. The children are taken to school. If need be, they are washed at school, fed breakfast and made ready, with all the other children, to start their day’s activities and endeavours.

My plea to the House is that if anyone thinks that those projects will be made irrelevant simply because we increase household incomes, however necessary basic income is, they are doing a disservice to poorer families and to the poor generally. Indeed, one of the great purposes of the review, if it fulfils its ambitions, is not only to run alongside the monetary definitions of poverty considerations of what non-financial aspects push children into poverty but, more importantly, to move the debate on. Until now, it has been obsessed with inputs—what we put in, and how much money is at stake, crucial though that is—and we need to consider outcomes. Therefore, part of the review will consider how we can together construct an index of what determines children’s life chances, how we can extend those life chances and, more importantly, how we can measure that, so that we can report back to our constituents on whether we have been successful during each Parliament.

[Helen Goodman]

I should like my right hon. Friend to be specific. I am not sure whether we were at cross-purposes earlier. My concern is that we do not redefine the poverty level. That is the major concern among Labour Members. We should not say, “Oh, 60% of median income is far too high. We want to go to 40%.” I draw his attention to the full definition that we put in the Child Poverty Act 2010. We now take into account a wide range of things: outdoor space in which to play, celebrations on holiday and at Christmas and swimming at least once a month. Those items are under a continual process of renewal, because that index is based on surveys of the whole population and what the whole population thinks it is reasonable for a child to have.

[Mr Field]

I am happy to give assurances to my hon. Friend. The law is quite clear about the objectives. I have no idea what the report will contain, but those objectives that we have are ones that we should achieve. The primary definition that we used before the 2010 Act was not only difficult to achieve mathematically, but has not been achieved in any country in the free world—hence we asked in the document that we published whether we should use an average of those countries that do best in achieving that definition in setting our target.

Time is scarce, and I obviously do not want to be delayed by a narrowly focused, technical debate on definitions—I hope there will be plenty of time for that—but my hon. Friend says that other aspects of the 2010 Act that are used to define poverty are important. Of course they are important, but I want to focus much more clearly on pathways out of poverty and on increasing life chances. I hope that those Members of Parliament who have views—they clearly have, given today’s maiden speeches—that will add to that side of the review, as well as to the debate on the technical definition of poverty, will contribute to the review.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that measures such as the future jobs fund, tax credits and the increase in child benefit provide an important pathway out of poverty? I hope that he will touch on that—I see from his notes that he might—because I am very concerned about the coalition Government’s proposals to undermine those schemes.

[Mr Field]

If my hon. Friend had really good sight, he would be able to see that No. 3 on my extensive notes is the jobs fund.

There will be two tasks for Opposition Members as the Government begin the necessary task of reducing public spending towards the level of what people in this country are prepared to pay in taxes. We will no doubt have a rigorous debate, but even when the details are decided, I hope that stage 2 will be to argue whether any cuts are being made in the right areas. My plea to Ministers is that they look most carefully at their choice of making initial cuts to the new deal jobs fund programme. When I sat on the other side of the House, I was clear in my criticisms of the new deal. One has only to look at the outcomes regarding levels of unemployment, levels of NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—and levels of retreads to conclude that that huge area of expenditure clearly needs to be examined.

The one thing that I hoped we would do in our first year in office—we got round to it only towards the end of our time—was to ensure that we could give some job guarantees to our constituents, including our younger constituents. That is important for two main reasons, the first of which is that, as we all know from our constituencies, many people try desperately hard to get jobs yet fail to do so, and the cumulative effect of that failure has an enormously crushing effect on them. The jobs fund was beginning to offer concrete jobs for people to go to, and that was a lifeline that had never been offered by any amount of new deal, any amount of retreading the new deal, or any amount of rhetoric from our side. The fund was one of the most precious things with which the previous Government were involved.

The second reason why the scheme was valuable was because we all have individuals in our constituencies, especially young lads, with no intention of working, although this is not the time for us to delve deeper into why that is so. If we are telling people that their benefits will be time-limited, cut or ended, we will carry the electorate with us only if we can definitely offer someone a job. Those young lads who have worked out how to fiddle the new deal and know that, if they turn up in a certain state, no employer in their right mind would ever give them the job on offer will know that it is decision time for them if, through the jobs fund, we can guarantee to offer them jobs irrespective of how they turn up. As I said, the fund was one of the most precious initiatives that the Labour Government introduced, so although I am not arguing with Ministers against their cuts, I ask them to think differently about how the cuts are distributed among people on benefits whom we would hope would be seeking work.

I am grateful for being called to speak, and I am even more grateful for the interventions because they have given me a bit of extra time. I look forward to hon. Members’ contributions to both this debate and the review.

14:48

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

It is a particular honour to be following the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) in a debate on poverty, and I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your new role.

We are in the season of maiden speeches and have heard a good many today. I congratulate in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). She spoke with great passion and conviction about her constituency and we will all have learned much from her.

I wish to pay tribute to my predecessor, Helen Southworth, who represented Warrington South for 13 years. She was a Treasury Parliamentary Private Secretary and, for about four years, a member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. She made her biggest mark in the House, however, through her more informal campaigns. As chair of the all-party group on children who run away or go missing, she did a number of things that will have changed many lives for the better. I did not know Mrs Southworth well, but whenever I met her I was impressed by her compassion and dignity.

The history of Warrington and the Warrington South constituency is carved out of water. The town was founded by the Romans on the banks of the Mersey—it was the first place they could find to cross that river. Later we were bisected by the Bridgewater canal—the first to be built in this country—and subsequently the Manchester ship canal, a huge engineering triumph that says much for the people of Warrington, their entrepreneurial flair and their persistence. Even to this day, large boats travelling along the canal stop the traffic in Warrington, which can be something of a problem. The canal still carries freight—6 million tonnes are carried right now.

The major landmark in Warrington is the golden gates, which stand in front of our town hall. They are a magnificent feature. The town hall, also built by the Victorians, is a beautiful building, and I am pleased to be making my maiden speech in front of a former Warrington borough councillor, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue). The gates themselves were not constructed for Warrington: they were made as a gift to Queen Victoria, for the front of the Sandringham estate. When the Queen came to the town to receive the gift, however, she was somewhat disappointed to see a large statue of Oliver Cromwell in the centre; she declined the gift and Sandringham’s loss became Warrington’s gain.

The statue does not imply disloyalty, but it is true that Warrington has close links with Cromwell. He kept an army there during the civil war, and during the war Warrington was something of a fulcrum. We have a slightly less controversial relationship with Lewis Carroll, the creator of “Alice in Wonderland”. There are many monuments around Warrington in tribute to Lewis Carroll; in particular, Daresbury parish church still has the Cheshire cat emblems standing in its grounds. Over the past few weeks, as I have become more accustomed to being an MP and struggled with procedure and process in this House—particularly with getting an office—I am reminded of Alice’s comment as she burrowed around: “Curiouser and curiouser!”

I pay tribute to a prominent citizen of Warrington, Helen Newlove, who has recently been created a life peer. Members will be aware of the tragic death of her husband three years ago. They will know of the courage and fortitude that she has shown since then and of her campaigning zeal. She will be a tremendous addition to the other place and give immeasurable assistance to debates there.

Before I leave Warrington, I pay tribute to our rugby league team, winners of the Challenge cup last year. I have never tried to hide the fact that my background in rugby, such as it is, is in the other code. None the less, slowly but surely I am coming to grips with rugby league, and I am proud to be the only Conservative Member of Parliament with a super-league rugby league team in his constituency.

I shall now say a little about the subject of the debate. Warrington South contains some wards that are among the most affluent in the country and some that are among the most deprived. Four of our inner-city wards are in the bottom 20% by income, and in both Bewsey and Latchford East, one in four children are being brought up in workless households. The existence of such disparities is troubling. I acknowledge that the previous Government, through pension credits and in-work credits, tried hard, but it is a fact that throughout the last Parliament, levels of both absolute and severe poverty increased.

To make progress, I believe that we have to address two issues: first, our country has 8 million people who are economically inactive; and secondly, our country is the worst in western Europe in terms of the number of children growing up in workless households. The best way to help many people out of poverty is to create the well-paid, sustainable jobs that will make a difference. We have to do so over the next few years in a period in which we are going to reduce our dependence on financial services and on unsustainable public sector jobs. In my opinion, the only way in which that can be done is through increased investment in applied science, engineering and innovation.

I was particularly pleased that the Gracious Speech made reference to measures to create a large number of apprenticeships, but it is important, too, that we make sure that we create enough professional engineers to make a difference. It is a particularly sad fact that over the past three decades, in spite of the increase in higher education, the number of engineering graduates from our universities has decreased. That is not the case in India or China; indeed, it is not the case in any other country in continental Europe.

On the fringes of Warrington is Daresbury science park, which is a brilliant place that takes some of the best ideas produced in universities in the north-west and combines them with marketing skills and venture capital. Such places are going to create the jobs that we need in the medium term to fight the battle against poverty. In my view, social mobility is a hallmark of a civilised society. It is sad that in the past decade, social mobility fell in this country. I believe that the coalition, of which we are all part, will be judged, at least in part, on our ability to reverse that decline in social mobility.

14:56

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

May I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker? I congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) and other Members who have made maiden speeches this afternoon.

I am grateful for the opportunity to make my second maiden speech, which might sound like a contradiction in terms. I can say one thing with certainty: I do not intend to make a third. I am delighted to represent Leyton and Wanstead in the House, having represented Hornchurch for eight years until the last election but one. Leyton and Wanstead which, like Hornchurch, is in east London, is a great place. I shall observe the traditions of the House by paying tribute both to my predecessor and to my constituency.

Harry Cohen built a reputation over many years as an assiduous and hard-working constituency MP. He championed certain causes over many years, including Tibet, for which he fought—although I do not mean physically. He represented Tibet in the House, and he was a leading light in the all-party Tibet group, which I joined this morning. He fought, too, for asylum seekers—some of the most persecuted and vulnerable people in the world, and he did a great job on that. He led the campaign to save Whipps Cross hospital in the constituency, which was under threat of closure from the Tories for many years, but whose future was secured under the Labour Government. Whether it will be secure from now on remains to be seen.

Leyton and Wanstead is one of the most diverse communities in Britain, with a huge range of religions, races, languages, beliefs, persuasions and outlooks. Across all those communities there is a high level of tolerance. People with widely divergent views and backgrounds can live together in harmony most of the time—recently, in fact, all the time—which is one reason why I like it so much. There have been one or two notable MPs for Leyton and Wanstead. Winston Churchill was MP for the old Wanstead and Woodford seat to the north of the constituency, until he retired in 1964. In the 1960s and ’70s, Patrick Gordon Walker was the MP. He fought an infamous by-election after he had lost his seat unexpectedly in the 1964 general election. A vacancy was created in the old Leyton seat by putting the sitting MP, Reg Sorensen, into the House of Lords, so that he could fight it at the election, but he lost the seat. He regained it at the next election, but for a short time he was the unelected Foreign Secretary in Harold Wilson’s first Government. These days it is unimaginable to think that somebody who was unelected could hold such high office, but there we go.

I want to touch on three key local issues. The first is Whipps Cross hospital, which, as I said, was under threat for many years under the Conservative Government. Under the Labour Government, £30 million was spent on it, but it needs more investment. Whether that will be forthcoming, whether the hospital’s future will be secure after all the threats of cuts that we have heard from the Treasury Bench in the last few weeks remains to be seen, but I and others will fight tooth and nail for its future.

The second issue concerns the safer neighbourhood teams, which come under the aegis of the Metropolitan police. They face cuts. We have a Conservative Mayor, Boris Johnson, and a Conservative Government, both of whom, particularly the Mayor, have promised cuts. Those teams have made a significant impact across wards in London, particularly in Redbridge and Waltham Forest in my constituency, and to start reducing community officers in those teams would reverse that impact on our communities.

An issue that is particularly close to my heart is that of the Sure Start centres. We are not quite clear where we are with Sure Start. Before the election, the Conservatives said that they would cut them pretty extensively. [Interruption.] This is a maiden speech so hon. Members should pipe down. I do not think that the Lib Dems have quite discovered what Sure Start is yet, but they probably will in due course. However, cuts seem to be in the pipeline.

Sure Start has made an impact in some ways in alleviating child poverty, which brings me to the subject of today’s debate. The Minister got very excited about the idea that child poverty increased under the Labour Government. It is slightly difficult to put the words “the Minister” and “excited” in the same sentence, but he did get a bit worked up about it. The fact is that in 1997 when Labour came to power, the number of children living in poverty was 3.4 million. In the first two terms of the Labour Government, the number fell to 2.4 million, so we took a million children out of poverty. The figure went up to 2.8 million and then levelled off.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) mentioned, the most recent figures that we have cover the year 2008-09, the penultimate year that Labour was in power, and they demonstrated that during that financial year, 100,000 people were removed from poverty and the increase in child poverty started to level off.

The coalition Government now say—we have heard this on a number of occasions—that tackling poverty is one of their priorities, yet three factors lead me to think that that may not be the case, or that the rhetoric may not be matched by the reality. First, we will see cuts in the child trust funds, which have been one of the most successful exercises in encouraging people, particularly from lower-income backgrounds, to save. We have seen a trebling of saving among families with children, predominantly among lower and middle-income families.

Secondly, there is the cancellation of the public housing programmes. Again, we are not wholly clear about this, but it is pretty clear that there will be some cancellations in the public housing programmes that were pushed through in the last year or two of the Labour Government by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), who was an outstanding Housing Minister. They should have happened years earlier. They should have started in 1997, but at least we started them in the last two years, and billions of pounds were going to be pumped into them.

Finally, there is the agency workers directive. Agency workers are some of the most exploited and low-paid workers in Britain. That directive took years to negotiate in Brussels, and it may not make as big a difference as I would like, but it will have a modest impact in creating a certain equality between agency workers and full-time, permanent workers. Very often agency workers are used to undercut the permanent work force.

Again, we do not have a clear position on this. That is partly because the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has Ministers from different political backgrounds. In fact, the Secretary of State has been in more parties than Paris Hilton. It seems that the directive may be abandoned, watered down or renegotiated. That will have a significant impact on some of the most vulnerable workers in Britain.

The roots of Britain’s current position with regard to poverty go back to the 1980s. In 1979, the last time that we left office, we left the country with one of the most egalitarian societies in the western world, rivalling Australia and West Germany in terms of income and wealth distribution. In 1997, when we returned to power, it was one of the most unequal societies in the western world, and the figures back that up. If a Government privatise and deregulate like a bunch of medieval crusading zealots and insist on shackling and attacking trade unions, removing the rights and protections of some of the most vulnerable workers in Britain and ripping up and eviscerating whole industries and communities on the basis of economic fundamentalism and political vindictiveness, an explosion of poverty, like that which came about in the 1980s, can hardly come as a surprise. That was the result then, and it is plain for all to see.

The coalition accuses us of a failure to tackle poverty. In reality, the criticism that can be levelled at the last Labour Government is that we did not go far enough in repairing the damage of the previous 18 years. There were modest attempts to do so, but they did not go far enough, and my worry is that this Government have now come back to finish their previous job. The price of the cuts that we hear about will be paid by our constituents, who are some of the most vulnerable in Britain; Opposition Members will be representing people on the receiving end. The Deputy Prime Minister talks about “progressive cuts”, but it is easy for him to say that when he comes from a background of wealth and privilege and is not going to be on the receiving end of the cuts himself. I should like him to come to the House and explain to us exactly what “progressive cuts” means, because I am struggling to find a definition of it.

15:06

[Ms Louise Bagshawe (Corby) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and may I welcome you to your place? I am much in favour of seeing women in positions of authority and, indeed, high office. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister takes note of that.

It is a great pleasure to be called to speak in this very important debate on poverty, and to follow the contribution of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and many fine maiden speeches. On those earlier maiden speeches, I can do no better than agree with the characteristically generous tribute from the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Miss Begg), so I shall not try to do so. However, it is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), who, unlike myself, had the courage to do this without notes, and the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), who is certainly a most passionate advocate of his constituency. Surely the fact that that was his second maiden speech will explain the fluidity and passion with which he delivered it.

I have the honour of following Phil Hope as the Member for Corby, and I hope that Opposition Members bear me no particular grudge for depriving their Benches of such a kind and pleasant man. He was a passionate advocate of Corby and achieved ministerial office early, serving in various Departments, from Education to Health and the Cabinet Office, before winding up as the Minister for the East Midlands. His obvious political ability was matched only by his kindliness and courtesy, which I know must have endeared him to many Members from all parts. In the four years that I was the Conservative candidate for Corby, Phil and I never exchanged a sharp word, and I am glad to see the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) in her place, because he exemplified the principle that in politics our opponents need not also be our enemies.

Urban Corby, the fastest-growing town in the country, is surrounded by the idyllic countryside of east Northamptonshire. We have more than 60 villages, as well as the thriving market towns of Irthlingborough, Raunds, Thrapston and Oundle. Corby is a former steel manufacturing town, and it played its part in the war effort by supplying the pipes used in Operation Pluto, which bought fuel safely to our allies as they fought in Europe. I am well travelled, but nowhere have I encountered such pride in place as Corby people have in their town. If I had to sum up the town in a single word, “pride” is the one that I would use.

Located though it is in the heart of England, the pride of Corby is its diaspora from Scotland. My constituency, perhaps uniquely in England, celebrates a regular highland games, and I am informed by staff at Corby Asda that they sell 17 times more Irn-Bru there than in any other store in England.

Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Mr McLoughlin)—the Chief Whip—and my Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), who I see in his place, will be glad to learn that rebellious women do not fare well in my constituency. The glories of east Northamptonshire include the village of Fotheringhay, where Mary, Queen of Scots met her fate in 1587. Be that as it may, I am conscious—as are, I am sure, many other Members making their maiden speeches today—that I was sent to this place to represent the interests of my constituents here, not the other way around.

My noble Friend Baroness Thatcher inspired me to enter politics. She taught me the importance of ideology—crucially, in the context of this debate, that politics is in its essence counter-intuitive, and that Conservative means deliver liberal ends. On arriving at the House just after the general election, it was something of a relief to discover that, on occasion, Liberal means may deliver Conservative ones.

It is particularly appropriate that the Member for Corby should deliver her maiden speech in a debate on poverty, because the ambitious programme of welfare to work laid out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his team will assist many of my constituents, who saw a 103% rise in claims for jobseeker’s allowance over the course of the last Labour Parliament. This ambitious programme will provide a way out of poverty and despair for many thousands of families. It is the result of years of focusing on social justice by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I commend it to the House.

If I myself have a political ambition, it is—perhaps I may ask the House’s traditional indulgence for a maiden speech—to suggest a cross-departmental project to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions and for Defence. For several years, I lived in the United States—indeed, my family are American—and I was struck by the exceptional way in which people treat their troops and their troops’ families. Over there, the Veterans Administration, which has a seat at the cabinet table, oversees all military welfare, from hospitals to low-cost housing loans. There was much in the Conservative manifesto for our troops to celebrate, from extra money for mental health provision to the application of the pupil premium to the children of military families. Too often in Government, however, the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing.

I am glad to see my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) in his place beside me, for he spoke most movingly in his maiden speech of the need for this House to put Help for Heroes out of business by providing better medical care for our troops. I suggest to him, and to the whole House, that a fully fledged veterans administration might go even further, overseeing all military welfare, from widows’ pensions to mental health provision, and that it need not cost too much; rather, it would merely tie all military welfare together.

My county of Northamptonshire hosted no fewer than seven United States airfields during the war, and in my constituency the Union Jack and the Stars and Stripes still fly proudly side by side to commemorate the fellowship of our forces. I suggest to the House that we learn from the special relationship where it still has something to teach us. We can, and should, do better by our troops and their dependants. We are considering today issues of poverty; let us ensure that poverty and despair do not touch the lives of those who have given so much for this country.

I thank the House for its traditional courtesy in hearing me out in silence during my maiden speech. It has been an honour to speak in a debate on poverty and to commend the Government’s ambitious programme to the House; and also, of course, to speak as the Member of Parliament for Corby and for east Northamptonshire—the heart of steel in the rose of the shires.

15:14

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on your election.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) on her confident, interesting and passionate maiden speech. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) on his maiden speech, and I wish every success to his rugby team, except when they play Wigan.

I should like to begin by stating that although I follow the well-respected and esteemed Ian McCartney, about whom I am going to say more later, there are a couple of obvious differences between us—I am female, and I do not have a Scottish accent. I think there might be a slight height difference as well. I wish also to express my pride in being the first female MP for Makerfield.

Makerfield has a proud tradition of electing Labour MPs going back to 1906 and the election of Stephen Walsh, who incidentally was 4 foot 10 inches tall—perhaps another precedent there. The people of Makerfield were so determined to send a Labour MP to this place that they raised the funds themselves to pay his salary and ensure that he could represent the constituency in Parliament. That determination in the face of adversity still characterises the people of Makerfield today.

Makerfield is not one particular, easily identified area but a collection of pit villages that grew up around the collieries, each with its own proud history and identity. Heaven forbid that one confuses Bamfurlong with Platt Bridge and Stubshaw Cross with Bryn. Each area has its own sense of community and history, and many of their people lived through—and, despite the wonderful efforts of the past 13 years and the excellent Labour council, are still living with—the devastation caused in the 1980s. However, there is a lot of grit and determination in Makerfield. It is unequalled, as is the people’s warmth and friendliness. During the cold weather spell in January, I came across an 86-year-old woman, Theresa, shovelling snow and clearing paths outside not only her house but her neighbour’s. When the council workmen offered to do it for her, she said, “Nay, I’ve been shovelling coal as a pit brow woman since I was 14, and I can handle a shovel better than you two.” Grit, determination and a sense of community with the people all helping each other—that is what sums up Makerfield to me.

I turn to my predecessor, Ian McCartney. The words that I speak about Ian are spoken not by convention but with conviction and affection—an affection that is felt throughout Makerfield and the labour movement. Ian represented Makerfield for 23 years, and his love for the area and its people is nearly as great as the affection and respect that they have for him. His career in opposition and in government was both varied and influential. In opposition he spoke on health, employment, education and social services, and in government he was Minister of State in the Department of Trade and Industry. It was during that period that he introduced a major new package of employment rights, including the national minimum wage. I do not believe it would be an exaggeration to say that millions of people throughout the country have benefited from those measures and have reasons to be grateful to him.

As chair of the national executive committee and the national policy forum, Ian was trusted by both the leadership and the membership—not an easy to balance to hold. That is just one demonstration of his integrity and the high regard in which he is held. Despite his senior positions, he never forgot his roots. His first aim, which he undoubtedly achieved, was to be a good constituency MP. Indeed, he once said to me that all the best legislation, including his campaign that led to the banning of foam furniture that emitted toxic fumes when alight, which has saved thousands of lives across the country, came from constituency casework. Of course, with Makerfield being part of Wigan borough, I cannot leave out the fact that he was the founder member of the all-party rugby league group. Wigan has a proud rugby league heritage and amateur clubs continue to produce world-class players who represent Wigan and their country.

Ian was also president of the Money Advice Trust, and it is credit and financial capability that I now wish to discuss. I have been chief executive of a citizens advice bureau for 23 years, and during that time people have come to me with an incredibly diverse range of problems. However, credit and debt consistently make up the highest percentage of our work, and it has an impact on people’s ability to continue in their work, on their health and on their relationships. I have long believed that there are three strands to tackling the problem, each of which is important and requires funding and, in some cases, further exploration and legislation.

Financial capability is the preventive area—teaching children, families and community groups the skills that they need to manage their money and choose their financial products wisely. I am heartened by the partnerships developing between citizens advice bureaux, the Personal Finance Education Group, credit unions and the Money Advice Trust. Indeed, locally my own bureau worked in partnership with Welcome credit union to provide financial education to low-income groups.

The second strand is the availability of credit, especially to low-income borrowers, and encouragements for non-traditional savers to save. I therefore deeply regret the Government’s removal of the child trust fund, which was the first time some families had a lump sum to put into a savings account for a child. It has been a practical demonstration to that child and the family of how savings work.

I hope that credit unions will be supported and allowed to expand. My constituency has two excellent and progressive credit unions, Unify and Welcome. Encouraging credit unions, mainstreaming their services and making them a real alternative to iniquitous rates of interest—2,760% in some cases—for people who want to take out a short-term loan are all really important. I firmly believe that we need to explore a range of policy initiatives with mainstream lenders, credit unions and the social fund to end the cycle of credit dependency.

Thirdly, for people already trapped in the spiral of unaffordable borrowing, access to debt advice services is crucial. Funding for that should not be solely for legally aided people, but should be available to all. I have seen for myself the effect of the face-to-face funding for debt advice provided by the previous Government and I have been able to more than match that funding from a PCT-funded project to reduce lower level mental health problems. Indeed, a report has come out this week showing that in two cases professionals have downgraded people previously at risk of suicide to no longer needing medical intervention as a result of that project. I urge the Government to continue the face-to-face funding and to explore other funding to help to support people in work to stay in work, maintain their health and their relationships and not let debt destroy families and individuals.

I began by referring to my predecessor and commented on our differences. However, I would now like to finish by stating that I hope that we also have similarities and that the most striking similarity will be that we have both been, and will be, a strong voice for Makerfield.

15:22

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech. I congratulate you on your illustrious elevation and I am delighted to see a fellow Bristol MP in the Chair. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) on her maiden speech, and all the other hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches today. I have enjoyed listening to them all, and it has been heartening to hear the passion and conviction with which they have spoken about their constituencies.

For my own constituency, it is both an honour and a privilege to stand here as the new Member of Parliament for Kingswood. Located between Bristol and Bath, within the boundaries of South Gloucestershire, it includes the towns and villages of Kingswood itself, Hanham, Longwell Green, Barrs Court, Cadbury Heath, Emersons Green, Bitton, Willsbridge, Oldland Common and North Common, Siston, Warmley, Mangotsfield, Rodway and Soundwell, as well as a large part of the beautiful countryside that lies within our precious green belt. It is a great place to live, and as the new Member, I hope that I can play my part in making it an even better place to live and work. As a local man, who was born and grew up there and whose family have lived in Kingswood for generations, I am extremely proud to serve the local area that I call home.

Since the creation of the constituency in 1974, Kingswood has been fortunate to be served by some excellent Members whom many in the House will remember, including Terry Walker, Jack Aspinwall, Rob Hayward, and my immediate predecessor, Dr Roger Berry. They all have left behind a record of public service and civic duty that will be hard to emulate. Roger Berry is perhaps best known in the House for his tireless efforts to champion the rights of the disabled and most vulnerable in society, for which I pay him credit and hope to continue his hard work.

Like many of our neighbourhoods and towns, Kingswood has a rich tapestry of history. The town first came into prominence in the late 17th century through coal mining. Kingswood’s reputation was first founded on its people—the colliers who mined those deep seams underground. They were fiercely independent in spirit, and one contemporary wrote that

“the colliers were numerous and utterly uncultivated. They had no place of worship. Few ventured to walk even in their neighbourhood; and when provoked they were the terror of Bristol”.

It was into this lawless land that the preacher George Whitefield chose to venture. With no church nearby, Whitefield chose to preach beneath the open skies. On a clear night, if one looks out across the horizon of Kingswood, one can see the very spot he chose, Hanham Mount, for it is marked out by the green light of a beacon shining out from one of the highest parts of the constituency. Beneath it is a memorial—a grassy area with a large paved cross—beyond which a gorse-covered bank leads up to a stone platform with a wooden replica of a pulpit. It was here that Whitefield first preached on 17 February 1739. He was afflicted by a squint so severe that no one knew exactly where he was looking, and yet he began to draw vast outdoor crowds who never took their eyes off him. Benjamin Franklin, who later heard him preach many times in Pennsylvania, declared that he had a voice like an organ.

At first the local miners mocked Whitefield’s temerity, but his persistence paid off. The numbers attending his sermons grew steadily from a few hundred to nearly 20,000, and Whitefield himself noticed the effect that he began to have on them, not least from the white tracks appearing on their faces—black from coal dust—formed from the tears streaming down their faces. Shortly afterwards, Whitefield was called away for other duties. He sent for his friend, John Wesley, to fill the gap. Wesley later described his initial reluctance to participate in preaching outside, away from the sanctity of a church:

“I could scarce reconcile myself to this strange way of preaching. I should have thought the saving of souls a sin, if it had not been done in a church”.

Yet Wesley cast aside his hesitation and discovered his own revelation that there was no better place to reach out directly to the communities around.

We sit here now very much in our own place of worship, closeted away from the outside world. We talk between ourselves, quoting statistics and observing our customs, yet often, like Wesley, we seem hesitant to reach out into the local communities and neighbourhoods that matter and to understand the language that ordinary people speak. As a new Parliament, we have the opportunity to make ourselves relevant, to restore people’s faith in us and to create a new relationship with those who need our help—a relationship that looks outwards, rather than inwards.

Over the past few days, I have sat through many speeches, many of which have been excellent. That is testimony to the talent that many hon. Members bring to the House. However, I have been struck by how many hon. Members opposite have felt the need to blame the present problems facing our nation on the events of the 1980s. What we need is not a history lesson, however inaccurate. The past, whatever our respective views upon it, will not provide us with an answer. We need to look forward and to understand that now, in this the second decade of the 21st century, we still do not have all the answers and solutions needed to tackle the desperate poverty still afflicting many areas of our nation.

We will only begin to find these answers if we begin to seek to ask the right questions: how is it that, despite billions of pounds spent, in the past 13 years, the gap between the richest and the poorest has widened? How is it that, despite the state taking an ever interfering role in the lives of local neighbourhoods and communities, local people feel increasingly powerless over the decisions that matter in their own lives? And how is it that those men and women who once believed proudly in the value of work and the life-affirming capacity that it brings are being forced to stay at home and claim benefits for fear of losing the welfare on which they have become dependent?

It is clear that the state and its money are not always the best solution. Poverty cannot simply be measured in pounds and pence. Those in desperate need cannot be measured by a line on a graph. Each has their own problems and concerns that cannot be met unless we, in the tradition of Whitefield and Wesley, reach out beyond our confines and not just listen, but hear, what they have to say. I do not have an answer to the complex problems that I know the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) will attempt to tackle. I merely know that the direction of the previous Government has not worked.

On that note, it is perhaps best to recall the words of advice given by George Whitefield in one of his sermons:

“Press forward. Do not stop, do not linger in your journey, but strive for the mark set before you.”

Indeed we must press forward and not look back. The mark set before us might seem a difficult one, but it is one that, for the sake of all our constituents and this nation, we must now strive for.

15:30

[Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the House and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity to speak here for the first time. I have listened carefully to the debate, and I extend my congratulations to the hon. Members who have made varied, interesting and eloquent speeches.

This is the first maiden speech by a Member for Erith and Thamesmead, as my predecessor, John Austin, made his maiden speech, in 1992, as the Member for Woolwich, before my constituency was formed for the 1997 election. John Austin is a man who served his community for more than 40 years, first as a councillor, and then as mayor, leader of the council and, in this place, Member of Parliament. During his time here, he took up many causes, fighting tirelessly against injustice and, in particular, for women’s rights. I commend especially the work that he did in the Council of Europe on human trafficking. John Austin is one of the handful of men I have met whom I could truly call a feminist.

Like many other urban areas, Erith and Thamesmead has a long and proud multicultural tradition. It is an area where people come to settle. One of our primary schools is called Windrush, in honour of those who came from the West Indies in the ’50s and ’60s to help Britain rebuild after the war. Many Vietnamese boat people also put down roots in the area in the 1970s. Erith is also the place where Alexander Selkirk, the real-life model for Robinson Crusoe, landed in 1711, when he returned home after many years on a desert island. My constituency is truly a place of homecomings. Over the past decade we have also had a fast-growing African community, which has settled here and intends to make the area its home—so much so, that during the forthcoming World cup, I am sure that the people in that community will be cheering just as loudly for England as they will be for their native Nigeria or Ghana.

The area also consists of places such as Abbey Wood, Belvedere, Lesnes Abbey and Plumstead, where during the late 19th century we had a wonderful football club named Woolwich Arsenal. The team played there until just before the first world war, when Woolwich was dropped from the name and they moved north of the river. I am not quite sure what happened to the club after that. In the north of the constituency, we boast a grade I listed building that has been described as

“A masterpiece of engineering—a Victorian cathedral of ironwork,”

which is a lovely way to describe the Crossness sewage works. Crossness houses the Victorian beam engines, which have been lovingly restored by the Crossness Engines Trust, a registered charity that since 1987 has overseen the restoration project.

In the mid 19th century, Crossness was part of the visionary work of Sir Joseph Bazalgette, who built the London sewer network that cleaned up London and wiped out the cholera epidemics that had previously killed hundreds of Londoners every year. It is ironic that Sir Joseph’s great grandson is Peter Bazalgette, the TV executive who brought the phenomenon of “Big Brother” to Britain. Whereas Sir Joseph spent much of his life trying to get rid of unwanted waste from the homes of the nation, some might say that his great grandson has done quite the opposite.

I have lived in Erith and Thamesmead for more than 30 years. As for my political motivations, the hon. Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) said that she was inspired to enter politics by Mrs Thatcher, and I have to say that I was too, albeit for what I imagine were completely different reasons. I was born in 1955, a child of the welfare state. That welfare state helped my family and millions of families like us to have opportunities that previous generations could only dream of: a free health service; a right to education; and a national insurance system that people pay into when they do not need it, but which is there when they do. The welfare state gave me a ladder, which I fully used and which, in turn, has enabled my two daughters to achieve their full potential.

All those things were Labour developments of which I am proud, just as I am proud now of Sure Start, the future jobs fund and the national minimum wage, which are all key building blocks in the fight against poverty. If there is to be dignity in work, poverty pay has no place in the 21st century. In my previous career, tax, national insurance and the national minimum wage were my fields of expertise. I came across no end of imaginative ways that employers would try to get around paying the minimum wage, but who really pays when business pays poverty wage rates? It is the rest of us—the taxpayers—who pay, subsidising the low-paid through the benefits and tax credit systems, while the employers pocket the profit. As we have heard here today, the best way out of poverty is through work, but it must be work that pays a living wage.

Now is a crucial time economically. The economy is beginning to grow and borrowing is falling. To put that at risk by cuts to the public sector and to job opportunities places us in grave danger of having a double-dip recession. Anyone who, like me, has sat in a jobcentre week after week will know that cuts to services such as the future jobs fund will cut not waste, but opportunity, hope and life chances.

The coalition seems to promise so much change, yet its cuts preclude the change that my constituents need. Indeed, the only change the coalition will bring to Erith and Thamesmead is a change for the worse, by cutting the jobs programme, which, along with Sure Start and the national minimum wage, has brought the first effective reduction in poverty in Erith and Thamesmead for a generation.

I know that the job of government is to govern for all the people, not just for those I consider to be my natural constituents. Contrary to some, however, I believe there is such a thing as society and no matter what people’s income or voting tendency, we all live within it. Policies that help the weak, the vulnerable, the unemployed and the disadvantaged thus add to the quality of life of all of us. There is no point at all in paying less tax if someone lives a life with bars on their windows and a personal alarm in their hand.

I also understand that government is about making tough choices. Life is about tough choices, but by tough, I mean strong and durable, not cruel or severe. It is vital for the recovery that we keep people in work. Unemployment reduces national wealth and tax revenues. To insist that we protect jobs is not socialist sentimentality; it is economic common sense.

People in Erith and Thamesmead earn below the average wage and have higher unemployment. One of the reasons for that is that their transport connections are poor. Thamesmead was built in the 1960s and the Jubilee line was meant to run there, but that never happened. Thirty years later, there are 30,000 residents without a station. West of Tower bridge, there are 24 crossings and to the east, just two Victorian tunnels, a ferry and a toll bridge at Dartford. It is not difficult to see that that makes accessing the work and business opportunities in the city all the more difficult for people who live where I do.

I am pleased that the London Mayor and I seem to agree on something, which is that the Abbey Wood line of Crossrail must go ahead. People living in Thamesmead can see the bright lights of the city three miles across the river, but to get there they must travel by foot, by bus, by train and by the docklands light railway, and it takes over an hour—the same amount of time it takes the business traveller from Paris or Antwerp to get to City airport, flying close over the heads of Thamesmead residents.

The people of Erith and Thamesmead are not without pride or without aspiration. They band together to run voluntary and community groups: they run local history projects, they clean the canals, they mentor young people, they serve meals at the pop-in parlours and they help the disadvantaged and elderly through their temples and churches. They are a true coalition, a coalition of the willing who just want to be given a chance.

Finally, I would say that a place such as Thamesmead will be a test of the Prime Minister’s big society. This is the big society that is meant to re-localise the economy, re-capitalise the poor and re-democratise power. If the big society is to mean anything other than a slogan, the Government need vision—and a vision of a cross-capital rail link is vital not only to the economy of London, but to that of the UK as a whole. The vision of a living wage, upgraded year on year, is vital to the fight against poverty. I hope to be a strong voice for Erith and Thamesmead residents, making sure that they are able to access the opportunities that should be available to them, living in the south-east corner of a world-class city.

15:38

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you on your new post, and I congratulate all other Members who have spoken for the first time this afternoon.

I have listened to a number of maiden speeches over the last two weeks, in which a number of Members have wisely mentioned their local press. I would like to follow suit. In the week that followed the election that saw the constituency of Warwick and Leamington change hands for the first time in 13 years, the front page of our local paper kindly announced that a cat had been rescued. I shall display this front page in my new office to reassure me that there are issues of great importance that happen outside this House.

I want to take this opportunity to praise my predecessor. He was an honourable Member who developed a great reputation for being an outstanding constituency MP. I hope to follow his example, and I wish him well for the future. In his maiden speech 13 years ago, he observed that Members had heard little or nothing about our constituency for the past 75 years. He offered a quick briefing, and I wish to continue that tradition.

My constituency is steeped in history, from the magnificent castle in mediaeval Warwick to the elegance and splendour of our spa town of Leamington. We have a third and important town in Whitnash, and an array of Warwickshire villages with all their charm. We are diverse in age, ethnicity, occupation and belief, and we have a great deal to be proud of. We have excellent front-line services, outstanding schools, and a large population of students studying at the well-respected Warwickshire college and University of Warwick. We have household names and independent retailers. We have Aga Rangemaster, Calor Gas, National Grid and Wolseley, with its sustainable building centre. We have agriculture and manufacture. We are an oasis of opportunity. We are middle England, in terms of not only geography but demography. With a fantastic array of charities and voluntary organisations, we are a tightly bound community that has proved time and again that we can unite in challenging times.

As many will know, one name on the list of my predecessors in the House is that of a former Prime Minister, and my constituency has often been referred to as the garden of Eden. A visitor walking down the parade in Leamington, wandering around the marketplace in Warwick or driving along the Myton road, which connects the two towns, might be forgiven for thinking that we do live in a paradise, and very wonderful it is too.

However, as with all constituencies, not everyone in our community is as fortunate as a quick tour of our area might lead people to believe. We have a magnificent heritage of industry and manufacture, but the loss of that industry has been a source of rising unemployment and, indeed, poverty. Warwick and Leamington has many pockets of deprivation, and that is why I would rather make my maiden speech in this debate than in any other.

In 2005 the jobseeker’s allowance claimant count was 884; it is now 2,166. The story of one of my constituents sums up the unfairness that many see in the current system. Having been made unemployed, she claimed jobseeker’s allowance, council tax benefit and housing benefit. As someone who wanted to work, she did the responsible thing and sought new employment, and after much searching she found a job in a nearby constituency, just over 10 miles away. She earned about £120 for a 20-hour week, and with rent of £30 a week and council tax of £12 a week to pay, she was left £11 a week better off. Unfortunately, travelling to work cost her £18 a week, which meant that, unbelievably, she was made worse off by trying to do the right thing.

At a time when people speak of the need for higher pay and bonuses to attract people in top jobs, surely it cannot be right for people at the bottom to be given no encouragement to move into employment when they see that they will receive no financial benefit from their labours. We need to create new jobs locally. That is easier said than done, but there are reasons for great optimism. Warwick and Leamington has massive potential to attract new and diverse industry and create new jobs, not least in the thriving video games industry and the green economy, which are our particular strengths. Once we assembled parts for the automotive sector. What is to prevent us from using the same skills to assemble solar panels? The seeds of future growth are here, and we must create the environment in which they can flourish.

The example of my constituent shows that it is not a question of people being unwilling to work; those who refuse to work can be penalised for not doing so. It is a question of making it financially beneficial to people who understand the benefits of working in terms of self-confidence, self-belief and social standing. Last Friday, I visited both the jobcentre and the citizens advice bureau. We must do all we can to reduce their work load and to reduce the anxieties that have been brought on by spiralling debt and crushing welfare dependency.

I am aware of the enormous expectation that the people of Warwick and Leamington have of our new Government and of me as their representative in this place. I know that our Prime Minister is as ambitious for the country as I am for my constituency. What better way to start realising that ambition than by reforming the welfare system and creating the big society that the Prime Minister has spoken about—a fairer society in which those who can work have the opportunity to do so and those who cannot get the help they need?

15:45

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

It is a real privilege to follow the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White), whom I congratulate on his maiden speech. I congratulate him also on his real and obvious passion for tackling the problems of poverty that still exist in this country, as that is a passion I share.

I wish to draw attention to a series of decisions that have been made by the Government that are either very serious mistakes or a damning indictment of their commitment to tackling poverty that we heard earlier. Before I came to the House, I worked in the children’s charity sector. Many charities such as Barnardo’s and Save the Children are still, despite a great deal of Government support and intervention, grappling with the terrible problem of child poverty. The roots of that problem run very deep, as we have heard. I want to draw attention to one issue in particular that I think has been overlooked.

Many of the children who are growing up in poverty have parents who work, as the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington has discussed. If we are serious about tackling poverty, we have to make work pay. Will the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), consider adopting a living wage policy in her Department and urge her colleagues across government to do the same? Will she also commit to making sure that we have a definition of a living wage outside London in constituencies such as mine where people are also really struggling and would benefit strongly from such a policy?

I want to talk a little about the households living in poverty in which people have not worked for generations. Many hon. Members have talked about this today. We have heard a lot about the legacy that this Government inherited when they took office, but what about the legacy left to the Labour Government? Young people who left education in the 1980s and 1990s and were unable to find work have since had children who have grown up in households where nobody has ever worked. I know that because I have seen it on the front line in my work for the Children’s Society. Supporting families to change that situation takes time.

I am concerned by what we have been hearing about the Sure Start programme. One reason why Sure Start has been an important innovation is that it unites families from across the social spectrum. It brings children and their parents into contact with other children and their parents right across the income scale. It helps to build confidence for that reason without any of the social stigmas that can become attached to services that are reserved simply for the poor. I have seen that for myself in the Beech Hill and Ince Sure Start centres in my constituency; it could not be more important to those two communities to have those services that unite people. In his opening remarks, the Minister talked about visiting communities and seeing for himself where people face these challenges. Well, some of us live in them and some of us represent them, and our message to the Minister is that he should not restrict those services but preserve them, as they are hugely valuable to the whole community.

For the same reasons, I also want to discuss the future jobs fund. I have heard today that the Government have, as well as deciding to axe the future jobs fund, announced that £750,000 is to be taken out of the working neighbourhoods fund in Wigan. Together, those two things will cripple my constituency. Despite its relatively short life, the future jobs fund has already brought real benefits to the young people in Wigan. I know that because, yesterday, I received a letter from the chairman of my local Age Concern, writing in a personal capacity. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) referred to it earlier. I shall briefly read out the comments because they do much more justice to his real anger than I can with my words. He says:

“Currently we have two able, bright and personable young people who have come to us under the auspices of the Future Jobs Fund. I am angry on their behalf that this scheme has been cancelled. I am even more angry at the hypocrisy of current government ministers claiming that they wish to protect the jobs, particularly of the young, when these two young people find that their opportunity to gain skills and knowledge that would enhance the possibility of their gaining employment has been so casually and thoughtlessly removed.”

By taking away a scheme that guarantees a real and lasting paid job for young people who would otherwise not have one, we store up trouble for future generations. If we are not careful, we will leave a legacy every bit as devastating for future generations as the one that continues to blight so many children’s lives now. We must not repeat the legacy that was created in the 1980s and 1990s. I urge the Minister to think again.

15:50

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

Guess what? I, too, would like to congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your new role. I also congratulate those who have made their maiden speeches. They show that there are some very good new Members in this Parliament. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me today, although it is, inevitably, rather a daunting moment, not only because so many Members from the 2010 intake have spoken so well, but because we follow in the footsteps of many wonderful orators who have made history in the House.

In a maiden speech it is customary to pay tribute to one’s predecessors. In my case, it is a little difficult because Mid Derbyshire has been made up of four different constituencies, and I am the first Member to be elected for the new constituency. However, a constituency called Mid Derbyshire was created in the general election of 1885, when Sir James Alfred Jacoby was elected as the Liberal Member of Parliament. He held the seat until his death in 1909, when he was succeeded, after a by-election, by John George Hancock, also a British Liberal party politician, until 1918, when the seat was abolished. He was one of a group of trade union-sponsored Liberals who were instructed by their union to join the Labour party. He held his seat as a Labour Member, without Liberal opposition, in both 1910 elections.

Relations between the Labour and Liberal parties deteriorated after that, and they were expected to field candidates against each other at the next general election, which was anticipated to be in 1915. Hancock decided that he would rather be defined as a Liberal, so he crossed the Floor in 1915 to rejoin the Liberals. He held the seat until the constituency was abolished for the 1918 general election. He was then returned unopposed for the new Belper constituency, also once held by the well known politician Lord George Brown. Belper is in the new Mid Derbyshire constituency.

My constituency comprises part of West Derbyshire, now Derbyshire Dales, part of Amber Valley, part of Erewash and part of Derby North. Hon. Members now representing two of those seats have already paid great tribute to their predecessors in their maiden speeches, and my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee) is sitting right behind me—I hope she will be called today. The three Members who preceded me and left at the election worked hard for their constituents and were well known by them. I will try to be as diligent and hard-working in my duties in the years to come. The fourth Member is, of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Mr McLoughlin), who is a long way from retirement. He remains a very successful Member and is part of the new coalition Government.

Before saying more about my right hon. Friend, I want to say how delighted I am to represent the people of the new constituency of Mid Derbyshire. It is a wonderful mixture of urban and rural, and at its heart is part of a world heritage site—the Derwent Valley Mills, birthplace of the factory system. The Derwent Valley Mills and the industrial revolution influenced north America, Europe and, indeed, the world. There are some beautiful areas, including Dale abbey where a hermit lived in a cave. Some of Derby’s suburbs are very pleasant, as is the village of Little Eaton where I have lived for many years.

Mid Derbyshire is on the edge of the beautiful Peak district, part of the soft landscape of the southern Derbyshire dales. Derbyshire building society was one of the major employers, although as I said yesterday it is about to close; but we do have the relatively new Derby university.

I am fortunate to have known my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales since just after his narrow by-election win in 1986, when the then Labour Derbyshire county council decided to abolish, not for educational reasons but from political spite, the sixth form at the school that my children attended. As chairman of the school parent teacher association, it was left to me to lead the campaign to save the sixth form of what was, and is, the most successful comprehensive in the county. We even had an Adjournment debate in this place. It did not start until after 3 o’clock in the morning but it was attended by more than 150 parents, staff and children. The campaign was successful and the sixth form was saved.

Since those times my interest in international development has grown through starting a project in Uganda with students from two of the four secondary schools in Mid Derbyshire. We have been to Uganda to see what it is like for children to be brought up in a developing poor country. The project links very well with my interest in education, because we help schools over there. The students pay most of the cost of the trip, but we all fundraise to pay for the rest and for the aid that we take to the two schools that we support. Last year, £12,000 was shared between the schools. It is a good way for students from relatively comfortable backgrounds to see that others can be as successful as them. Just because the Ugandan students are poor does not mean that they cannot succeed.

Students from Ecclesbourne school in Duffield and Woodlands school in Allestree spend many of their weekends fundraising, which has included bag-packing in supermarkets, washing cars, running stalls at fairs and baking cakes for sale. The students have learned to speak in public, either at school to inspire other students to help or in local churches to explain why we have a cake stall after the service. They have also learned that fundraising is hard work.

Those young people see students in Uganda who have nothing but who are getting on with a good education without books or equipment. They study the same syllabus but without a textbook in sight, relying only on the teacher’s knowledge to learn, often by rote, from the blackboard. Their schools are in poor rural communities and it has been useful for our students to realise that from an early age Ugandan students have to fetch water from the well before walking up to seven miles to school. They do not have iPods, computers, mobile phones or the internet—luxuries that our students take for granted. The fundraising has transformed the life chances of the children we have helped in Uganda, as well as giving our students an insight into what real poverty is. I have also been to Rwanda with a Conservative party project, so I am delighted that we are committed to work towards our 0.7% international development goal.

Of course we have poverty in this country. Derbyshire does not have inner-city poverty, but there is poverty. Much of the money going to schools follows free school meal take-up, and I have been told regularly by head teachers that in a relatively affluent area, the problem is that people who suffer poverty are frightened and nervous about asking for free school meals. I would like our Government to look at how we can encourage take-up in schools where relatively fewer people are in poverty.

We need to remember that there are pockets of poverty in rural areas and in certain suburbs. I am delighted that our Government will give local authorities the freedom to spend money as best they think fit. We must ensure that hidden deprivation is not one of those things that is missed, so that the students in our schools get the best educational chance that they can.

I want to represent all the constituents of Mid Derbyshire, from whatever part of the social spectrum, and I am particularly concerned, as I said yesterday, about the problems that we will face with unemployment, given the impending closure of the head office of the Derbyshire building society. I have written to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to ask him to consider how he can help those people to get back into work.

16:00

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your elevation to your new role. I am sure that you are probably getting tired of hearing such congratulations, but I wanted to add mine.

I also congratulate hon. Members on their maiden speeches. Having made mine a couple of weeks ago, I know what a daunting prospect it is. I particularly welcome the contribution by the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham). We were colleagues on Derby city council before we were elected to the House at the general election, so it is especially fitting to address the House directly after her.

Poverty is an incredibly important issue, and a recognition of its importance is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. In many ways it defines the sort of society in which we live. I welcome the coalition Government’s commitment to the previous Labour Government’s commitment to eradicate child poverty by 2020. The big question is, of course, how we will get there under the new regime.

I and other Labour Members strongly believe that work is indeed one of the best pathways out of poverty, but to ensure that it is a genuine pathway out of poverty, it is vital not only that we continue to support measures such as the national minimum wage and move towards a living wage, but that we recognise that we must also support initiatives such as child tax credits. Child trust funds have also made a big contribution by encouraging people to save. I very much regret that the Government have decided to do away with those funds. Particularly for families from low-income backgrounds, not to have that start in life or that incentive to continue to save and to build up a nest egg for when they reach the age of 18 is a very big mistake.

On work as a pathway out of poverty and the importance of the measures that I have identified, we must acknowledge—I used to work in welfare rights, so I have some knowledge of this—that the work disincentives that used to exist have now been addressed in large measure. Although I accept that more probably needs to be done, work has become a genuine pathway out of poverty. I stress that I am very concerned about the Conservative party’s proposals. The precise detail of some of them remains to be seen, but I would be concerned about any attempt to reduce support for things such as tax credits, which are so vital to the process of helping people into the labour market.

Of course, ensuring that employment pays is one of the most important methods of addressing poverty, but we should also acknowledge the measures that are vital in relation to tackling pensioner poverty and the fact that many disabled people also experience poverty. Again, that is why I would be concerned if measures were proposed to undermine some of the support mechanisms that we put in place. For example, concessionary travel has liberated whole swathes of older people in our country who were previously imprisoned essentially in their own homes, unable to travel beyond their immediate neighbourhoods. The pension credit system has also made a big contribution to tackling poverty, as have the cold weather payments. I remember that many elderly people simply could not afford to heat their homes in the 1980s, but those sorts of things are no longer among the concerns of many elderly people in our country because of the measures put in place by the previous Labour Government.

In the end, growth is the key to tackling poverty, so the big question is how we deliver growth in our economy so that we make the welfare payments that are so important to addressing poverty a reality. Labour Members believe that it is vital that the state and public spending play a role in ensuring that the economy continues to grow. Conservative Members say that they are sick of hearing history lessons from us, but if we do not learn the lessons from history, we will make the same mistakes. It is therefore essential that we acknowledge the role of the state in ensuring that the economy continues to grow.

For example, Bombardier, a company in my constituency, is bidding for the Thameslink contract. We hope that the announcement will come shortly and that it is in favour of Bombardier, because that will secure 2,600 jobs directly in the company, as well as a further 5,000, 6,000 or even 7,000 jobs in the supply chain. If we cut public spending and such programmes, however, that would throw 7,000, 8,000 or perhaps 9,000 people out of work, which would put more pressure on the state, because of increased unemployment benefit, and lead to the downward spiral of having to make cuts to people’s welfare provision to accommodate the diminishing tax revenue resulting from a declining economy. I therefore urge Conservative Members to learn the lessons of history because they are otherwise destined to repeat the same mistakes, and it will not be they or many Labour Members who will pay the price of those mistakes, but ordinary working-class people in my constituency and throughout the country. They will pay the price for a failed economic prospectus that was tried in the 1980s and the 1930s but proven not to work. For goodness’ sake, people need to look at their history books and learn these vital lessons.

[Andrew Percy]

We are hearing a lot about history from the hon. Gentleman, but the Labour party does not seem to have learned one lesson from history: whenever it has left government, the country has been more bankrupt, more in debt and with unemployment higher than when it came in. Interesting as it is to hear history lessons from the hon. Gentleman, he should perhaps look to his colleagues before he starts lecturing Conservative Members.

[Chris Williamson]

The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that we have just experienced the most significant worldwide recession for 80 years. Worldwide opinion acknowledges that the previous Government’s leadership, particularly under the auspices of the former Prime Minister, is getting the world’s economy back on its feet. It is somewhat unfair for the hon. Gentleman to talk in such terms about the economic situation that the coalition Government have inherited.

As independent commentators have said on a number of occasions, without the measures put in place by the previous Government, at least 500,000 more people in this country would be out of work. The largest proportion of this country’s deficit is a direct consequence of unemployment. If the Government parties’ policies are put in place, however, I fear that unemployment will continue to grow, which will put further pressure on the public finances and mean that we will not get the growth that we desperately require.

I know that the Government parties are set on a course, but we will scrutinise very closely and expose all their shortcomings to ensure that, at the next general election, they are held to account for the actions they take.

16:10

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to make my maiden speech. Although we are not quite neighbouring MPs, we share an excellent motorway, the M4, which connects our two constituencies.

I congratulate all those who have made some first-class maiden speeches today, two of which I shall highlight. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) spoke passionately about her love of football—a love that I share but, the House will be delighted to know, not of the same team, Tottenham Hotspur. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) championed the sampling of the fine traditions of Burton’s brewing industry. I am sure that all of us suffering greatly from nerves as we headed towards making our maiden speech would have formed an orderly queue to take up his suggestion.

Following tradition, I pay tribute to my predecessor, Michael Wills, who served the North Swindon constituency for 13 years. He had a reputation for meticulous attention to detail and worked extremely hard for my fellow local residents. On my first meeting with Michael, he assured me that one day we would both be in Parliament together. How right he was. I am sure that the whole House joins me in congratulating him on his elevation to the House of Lords, where he can continue to represent the people of Swindon in a different role.

I am a local resident of North Swindon and was a councillor for 10 years, up to the day of the general election. I am grateful that the local residents did not give me a huge amount of free time in allowing me to change roles. Earlier this week, on Monday, my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) made an enlightening speech in which he set out the proud history of our town, covering its beginning as a small Saxon market town and its development through our proud railway heritage. Now, Swindon is one of the fastest growing towns in the country. In the spirit of teamwork that we show in having joint staff and joint offices, I shall not repeat the summary of history that he gave; instead, I shall focus on some of the more quirky and light-hearted facts that make our wonderful and unique town of Swindon so proud.

All maiden speakers champion the towns they represent, but I am delighted to say that I have some evidence that Swindon is as good as we all claim. In 2008, The Times said that it was the best place to buy a house—I welcome any Member who wishes to visit one of our local estate agents. We had the first example of a lending library, and I am pleased to say that two years ago we built a new £10 million central library on time and to budget—an aspiration for many Government Departments. I must say, however, that despite the fact that ours was the first lending library, it took us 40 years to replace a temporary set of portakabins, much to the annoyance of local residents. In addition, the much loved mechanics’ institute was the first example of the basis of the NHS.

When I say that I am from Swindon, many people mention roundabouts, and we are indeed famous for “the magic roundabout”. I assure those who have never embarked on the magic roundabout—a series of five roundabouts—that doing so is as daunting as making one’s maiden speech. Those who know the music industry will know that, allegedly, the famous band Oasis named themselves after our very popular local Oasis leisure centre. I am proud that Swindon is twinned with cities such as Salzgitter, Ocatal, Torun, and Murcia. In addition, thanks to the endeavours and creative skills of local resident Rebecca Warren, we now have a formal twinning arrangement with Disneyland, so the magic of Disney is now being sprinkled across Swindon and our local paper finally has some colourful coverage.

In my role as a councillor, one of my main focuses was on leisure. I played a small part in addressing the subject of this debate—poverty—because I see how sport and leisure can play a big role in raising aspirations and providing opportunities for people. As a result of the excellent work of the sports forum that we set up, we now have more than 60 voluntary sporting groups that come together to share best practice, network and work together to create greater opportunities, as well as to leverage extra funding from external organisations and the council for that work.

Swindon is a thriving sports town. When researching all the different sports other than my main passion, football, I was surprised to find the following names that have all been adopted by local sports teams—I shall be testing hon. Members later. We have Swindon Wildcats, Flames, Sonics, St George, Supermarine, Robins and, of course, Swindon Town football club, which two weeks ago I was delighted to have the opportunity to cheer on at Wembley. I am afraid, however, that we did not quite overcome the final hurdle and make it into the championship, as we lost the play-off final, but I am sure that we have good foundations for next season. As a diehard blue Conservative, it is the only time people will catch me shouting, “Come on you reds!”

Turning from Swindon to the poverty debate with a rather tenuous link, I am concerned about the long-term quality-of-life issues arising from new build development. In the 10 years in which I was a councillor, I represented a predominantly new build area. When I was first elected in 2000, we had just 3,000 houses—I was very grateful when it took me just a few hours to deliver leaflets to all of them—but when I stood down, there were nearly 10,000 houses, and it took many weeks to deliver leaflets. I saw lots of examples of good development—I live in the area myself—but there were examples, too, of things that were not good, and we are storing up problems for the future, predominantly arising from the increasingly high density of new developments.

The first area of concern stems from the lack of open spaces and parks. That was partly down to the changing classification. Green space was taken into account, but it included hedges and heritage spaces—basically, places where people could not put down jumpers for goal posts. I have a great fear that future generations will miss out on the inspiration of sport. When I was young and Wimbledon was on for a fortnight, we would play tennis. When the Tour de France was on, out came the bikes. When the World and FA cups were on, out came the football. When the Ashes cricket was on, out came the cricket bats, and I was proud to emulate the failings often of some or our national sporting icons.

Without those open spaces, it is no surprise that child obesity has increased. Too often, we look at improving leisure centres, which is a commendable thing, but the lion’s share of sporting activity takes place in open spaces. I am concerned that the lack of such space will fuel antisocial behaviour, as young people’s endless, enthusiastic energy will not be burnt off.

Parking provision is another problem. It is understandable that the then Government should try to encourage residents to transfer to public transport—I support that principle—but local residents are far more creative than that and would find parking spaces on pavements and roundabouts, causing all sorts of problems, particularly for parents with pushchairs trying to get to local schools, as they had to go on to the road. All too often, emergency vehicles could not get access to roads, which was a serious concern.

The size of household gardens has shrunk by a third since 1960. In fact, 3.3 million people do not have access to their own private garden, so it is no wonder that the amount of time that children spend in their back garden under parental supervision has halved since the 1960s, fuelling child obesity. I enjoyed the outdoors, but too often children nowadays miss out on that.

I am concerned about unbalanced development. In theory, all developments are supposed to have a mix of family homes, private homes, affordable homes and retirement homes, but in my ward I kept seeing developers targeting family homes. We had a high concentration of young children, but despite the fact that every single primary school had expanded to the maximum capacity that the land would allow—and often beyond that—we still could not provide sufficient places in the most popular schools. We need a better mix of development so we can spread the burden on local infrastructure and services.

I sometimes question developer conduct—I certainly never received a Christmas card from developers in the ward that I represented, and I was quite proud of that—for two reasons. The first is their inability to adopt roads—I notice there is an Adjournment debate on the issue later—and the fact that they take far too long to do so. In particular, the moment the last house is sold, all too often maintenance falls away, much to the frustration of residents who are still paying council tax. Secondly, I am concerned about developers who create storage sites, which become an eyesore for local residents.

Sometimes in politics there is an element of luck. As I prepared my speech over breakfast the other day, I turned on the news only to see that the Government had announced that they were going to scrap minimum density targets and increase the power to protect back gardens. I was delighted to hear that and, as the Member for North Swindon, I will be a strong supporter of those proposals, and I will do all that I can to make sure that in future we have better developments that enhance the quality of life of people living on them.

16:19

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Madam Deputy Speaker, to see you in the Chair. It has also been a pleasure this afternoon to listen to so many eloquent maiden speeches. I made my maiden speech two days ago, and it is amazing how quickly one can feel like an old timer in this House.

I am delighted that we are having a debate so early in this new Parliament about the vital issue of poverty in this country. I think that there is agreement across the House about the damage that poverty does in blighting lives, the harm that it does to our community and the waste of potential that poverty amounts to.

I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for the tremendous work that he has done, and with and through the Centre for Social Justice, in drawing attention to the impact of poverty and the way in which it has destroyed and damaged so many lives. I pay tribute to the way in which he and colleagues have raised our awareness of the complexity of factors that contribute to poverty. I am pleased to welcome him and other Ministers who have a strong identity with the cause to their roles today.

It is important that we take care to disentangle the causes and consequences of poverty, and some of what I have heard from those on the Government Benches suggests a little confusion on that front. It is certainly true that lone parents face an exceptionally high risk of poverty, but it is also the case that poverty and the stress of trying to make ends meet can contribute to family and relationship breakdown. It is important that we help to sustain relationships and keep families together, and ensure that they have adequate resources to remove that stress and concern.

It is also important that we note who faces a particular risk of poverty, and why—disabled people and people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds; where one lives; unequal access to the labour market; and unequal access to and experience within the labour market. Those are the structural drivers of poverty that it is important public policy addresses.

I think we are all agreed that it is important to make work pay if work is to be a secure route out of poverty for as many people as possible. However, we do not make work incentives by making those out of work even worse off. The way to make work pay is to move to higher wages, and I particularly endorse the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for a move towards the living wage. We make work pay by ensuring that the support is in place to enable people to get into work and then to progress and upskill to improve their prospects at work. We make work pay by improving incentives, and I welcome the attention that the Government offer to pay to addressing the high marginal deduction rates faced by some people as they move into or increase hours of work on low pay.

However, it is also important that we acknowledge that life for those out of work and on benefits is not a life of luxury. I challenge all hon. Members to consider how any of us would manage on a disposable income of £65.45 a week. It is not just my contention that benefits in this country and the relative poverty line at 60% of median income force people into a lifestyle that is beyond sustainable; it is the contention of the research of the highly respected Joseph Rowntree Foundation and its work on minimum income standards, which reflects the wide public perception of what individuals and families need to live. That perception and the work on minimum income standards show clearly that in setting our aspiration at a relative poverty line of 60% of median income, we fall some way short of what the public themselves believe is adequate in order to raise a family and make ends meet.

I also say to Government Members that when evolving policy it is important that we learn from what has and has not worked. I am sure that they will want to do that. During the 1980s and 1990s child poverty doubled, but since 1999 the number of children in poverty has been reduced by 500,000, and that is not by accident. Child poverty has gone down in the years in which Governments have invested in family incomes, through benefits and tax credits, and it has increased in the years in which Governments have not made that investment. The Labour Government’s policy of seeking to reduce poverty through increases in tax credits and benefits is not a failed policy; on the contrary, if we had had more of it we might have been further ahead than we are today.

I therefore caution Ministers to consider carefully what the evidence tells them, and to take careful account of the significant expertise that exists outside the House. I was pleased by the almost entirely cross-party support that the Child Poverty Bill secured during its passage through the previous Parliament. The Child Poverty Act 2010, as it became, put in place a recognition of the need to sustain the poverty targets, confirmed the importance of the relative income poverty target and set it once more at the 60% median line. Picking up a point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) made earlier, I note that the Act also acknowledged that, in seeking to set a realistic target, we should take account of what our European and international neighbours are able to achieve. Some of us who were not Members at the time ventured to suggest that the target could have been a little more ambitious, but we have a realistic and achievable target. We know that, because other countries are able to achieve it, and we must do so, too.

I look forward to the creation of the child poverty commission, for which the Act has made provision, and to the strategy that the Government have committed to bring forward by March next year in order to demonstrate the progress that they intend to make so that they can bring about the achievement of those targets. That strategy must focus on good jobs, holistic support and adequate incomes for all. We have learned enough to know that those are the ingredients of a successful anti-poverty strategy, and I look forward to the proposals that the Government bring to the House.

16:27

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I join all colleagues who have spoken this afternoon in welcoming you to your new position? I also congratulate those colleagues who have made their maiden speeches—and some excellent maiden speeches there have been, too. I just hope that mine continues in the same vein.

I represent the wonderful and stunningly beautiful Calder Valley, which at more than 22 miles long has just five small but incredibly diverse townships, Todmorden, Hebden Bridge, Ripponden, Elland and, where I live, Brighouse. They are complemented by a cluster of villages, all nestled on some of Yorkshire’s finest moorland.

The constituency was established at the 1983 general election, and since then it has had only two MPs. Some of our older, established Members will remember the first one, Sir Donald Thompson, for his wit and good old Yorkshire charm. As a Member for more than 18 years, he was a hard-working constituency MP whom most people still talk about today when one knocks on doors. Sir Donald, as he was affectionately known, was a solid, stout, no-nonsense Yorkshireman, who worked his way up through the Whips Office before joining the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as a junior Minister. Sadly, he passed away in 2005, but he is and always will be fondly remembered by the people of Calder Valley.

Chris McCafferty, who had been the MP for the past 13 years, was also known as a good constituency MP. She was a member of the Procedure Committee and the International Development Committee. More importantly, since 1999 she has been a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and she has won a great deal of respect for her commitment to overseas development, sexual health and, most important, the rights of women.

Those were two good, strong local MPs, who, in the true spirit of Calder Valley, excelled in many ways, like so many more of the local people who were born there. In Brighouse and Rastrick, for example, we have the world-famous brass band who, in 1977, stayed at No. 2 in the singles charts for nine whole weeks with their version of “The Floral Dance”. Even today, they are considered to be the best public subscription band in the country.

Hebden Bridge saw the birth of Sir Bernard Ingham, who was Margaret Thatcher’s press secretary and a newspaper columnist. Mytholmroyd saw the birth of Ted Hughes, the late poet laureate, who passed away in 1998. His first wife, Sylvia Plath, is buried in our hilltop gem of a village, Heptonstall. Earlier this afternoon, two colleagues mentioned John Wesley. In Heptonstall, we have the oldest Methodist chapel in continuous use not only in Britain, but in the whole world. I am incredibly proud to say that it is also a place where my three beautiful children all went to Sunday school.

Who could forget the town of Todmorden, which has had more Nobel prize winners than 28 countries? It also has the same number of Nobel prize winners as a further 10 countries; and the country of New Zealand as a whole boasts only one more prize winner than Todmorden. Sir John Cockcroft won the physics prize for splitting the nucleus of the atom, and Sir Geoffrey Wilkinson pioneered inorganic chemistry and transition metal catalysts. The amazing thing about these two men is that despite their being a 24-year gap between them, they were both taught at Todmorden grammar school by the very same science teacher, one Mr Luke Sutcliffe—an amazing teacher who taught two amazing students.

That brings me nicely to another amazing group of students. I want to talk about the educational attainment levels of looked-after children in our country. This is about poverty on an amazing scale—educational poverty. Incredibly, Sir Donald Thompson, in his own maiden speech some 31 years ago, talked about the attainment levels of children through education back then. Although the percentage of year 11 looked-after children who achieve five A* to C grades at GCSE has doubled in the past 10 years, it is incredibly sad that that number still only accounts for 14% of them. Nationally, more than 13% of our looked-after children still miss more than 25 days of schooling, sometimes because of exclusions. A third of previously looked-after children are not in education, employment or training at the age of 19. A total of 22% of persistent young offenders were being looked after by social services, and a staggering further 27% had been looked after previously.

Earlier, a colleague talked about aspiration. In 2005, a research report by the Frank Buttle Trust showed that only one care leaver in every 100 children goes to university—a staggering 1%. In 2008, “Care Matters”, the ministerial stock-take report by the then Department of Children, Schools and Families, showed that 7% of care leavers went to university. Whatever the current figure is—whether it is 1% or 7%—it compares with 43% of all other children. Frankly, that is not good enough.

In Calderdale, where I have spent the past three years as lead member for children’s services, I am glad to say that our looked-after children do significantly better than the national picture. Sadly, however, it is still not good enough. We have a fabulous team in Calderdale who strive for excellence in attainment for our looked-after children. I am incredibly proud of two of the last things that I did as lead member before coming to this House. First, I secured money to fund a virtual head teacher for our looked-after children in Calderdale. In itself that is not unusual, but it is an important and significant step forward for those children. Secondly, under the superb leadership of Councillor Stephen Baines, the Conservative leader of Calderdale council, last year we became only the second authority in the United Kingdom, after Rotherham, to introduce a virtual library so that every child under the age of five gets a free book monthly. That is unusual in itself, but in conjunction with the facilities at Sure Start children’s centres, where parents who cannot read are also taught to do so, it is a perfect way of starting to break the cycle of poverty.

I am proud also to say today that I have written to several prominent local people from Calder Valley to ask whether they will sit on my MP’s charity, which will be established purely to consider what value we can add to driving the attainment levels of looked-after children. That is intended not to replace what the local authority does but to add value and raise awareness of the need to support our looked-after children and help break the poverty cycle.

I support the Government’s policy on poverty and look forward to playing my part within the House and outside in helping to reduce it.

16:36

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

I, too, welcome you to your new role, Mr Deputy Speaker, and thank you for coming to speak to me prior to your election.

I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech today in this historic Chamber in a debate on poverty, a subject about which I feel strongly. I listened with interest to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) as he spoke with real passion about his constituency and about poverty.

Most importantly, I thank the people of Brentford and Isleworth constituency for giving me the privilege of representing them. I follow in the footsteps of distinguished politicians including Sir Harold Paton Mitchell, Lord Hayhoe and Nirj Deva. I should today like to acknowledge the work of my recent predecessor Ann Keen, who served Brentford and Isleworth for the past 13 years. She was a well-known MP, had the support of many constituents and was well regarded for her experience in health care. I am also very grateful to the many people who helped me along the way since I first stood for Parliament in 1997. Many who have helped me over the years are in the Chamber today, and I thank them for their support and guidance during my long journey to make it here.

I was delighted to be selected for the constituency of Brentford and Isleworth, because London is not only my birthplace—just across the river at St Thomas’s hospital—but has been my home for the past 20 years. It is a creative, successful, diverse and stimulating place. It is, and will remain, a city of opportunity and dreams.

My constituency is just up-river from Westminster, in a beautiful part of west London. It starts at Chiswick and continues north of the river to Hounslow, winding through the historic towns of Brentford, Isleworth, Osterley and Syon. The constituency is an important crossroads for London, as it is where the River Brent meets the River Thames and where the Great West road meets the North and South circular roads. In ancient history, it was the meeting place for ancient British tribes, and it was where Caesar forded the river on his approach to London. We have more green parks than anywhere else in London, and we are also fortunate enough to have five heritage houses in the constituency.

The area is famous for its football and its nylons, its broadcasters and businesses, its brewers and the Brompton folding bicycle, its impresarios and inventors. Lubricated by some decades of Fuller’s brewing, we are the silicon valley of west London with some of the most prestigious high-tech, media and pharmaceutical companies, such as GlaxoSmithKline, which is now prospering on Brentford’s golden mile. I hope that the area, which was the motor of the new prosperity in the 1930s with Hoover and Gillette, will power the new economic era that this Government are eager to create.

The constituency has been home to many notable residents over the years, including the famous artists William Hogarth, Turner, Pope, Yeats and Vincent van Gogh. It is also home to Brentford football club, which is rightly proud of its ninth place in its first season in league one, although it is naturally aiming for the premier league. I am ever the optimist. The club has recently been awarded the prestigious community mark by Business in the Community—the first English football league club to be recognised with that award for its outstanding work in the community.

Multicultural and cosmopolitan, the Brentford and Isleworth constituency is a harmonious cohesion of communities and an example to the rest of the country. I am proud to represent such a diverse and historic constituency. It is a place that demonstrates what London is all about and has a history almost as exciting as its future. It is a unique and vibrant place that people travel to and through, and preserving the balance of those two groups is vital. I am delighted that both the Prime Minister and the Mayor of London have supported the campaign against the third runway, and have already delivered on that election promise. Quality of life is something that should be above politics. I hope that all my election promises will be as easy and quick to implement.

At the election, my constituents voted for change, and this Parliament represents the biggest change in Members for many years. It is a new Parliament in more ways than one. It must adapt to changing times and adopt different methods. If it is new politics, it must also be genuine change. Let us be the change that we want to see in the world.

I am sure that most hon. Members would agree that we need to rebuild trust in politicians. To do this, this place needs to be representative of the communities it serves. In one important respect, this House has further to go. Women remain a minority in this place, but are a majority in the country. That cannot and should not be the case. For many years I have been, and will continue to be, an advocate of encouraging more women into politics, irrespective of their views. Imagine how different the world would have been if another woman, in another London seat and in another time, had decided that the odds were insurmountable. Small in number we may still be in this House, but there is an old saying in business—“If you want a job done well, give it to a busy woman.”

Our task in this House is not only to rebuild people’s trust in politics but to rebuild the economy. We face many and significant challenges as we attempt to tackle the national debt and set our country firmly on the journey to recovery and prosperity that we all want. We must do that if we want to address poverty. We now have a coalition Government to lead us through these difficult times. I hope that all hon. Members will do everything in their power to put country before party and work together to find the right solutions. These are the things that not only unite us as politicians, but as people. I wholly endorse the coalition and the work that needs to be done together for the sake of the nation, but I will also never forget that I was elected as a Conservative. I will stay true to the principles and values that I hold dear and that I know will help this House in bringing about the changes that are needed in the years ahead. We cannot be less than what we are.

As a coalition, we may have to make decisions that are unpopular, but the measure of a politician is not popularity, but the great and good causes they fight for. At the heart of why hon. Members are here in this Chamber today is a vision of a different world—a world in which children can aspire and succeed whatever their background may be; where those who are ill or infirm are supported, helped and cared for; and a world in which people have aspirations to be the best and can achieve their goals and dreams. It is a world with compassion for those in real need. That is what I want to bring to this great country of ours, and I will spend every moment on these Benches seeking to deliver it, locally and nationally.

Our debate on poverty today addresses these issues. First, I wish to say a quick word about international poverty. As a former ambassador for ActionAid, I believe that whatever economic difficulties we face nationally, we must not neglect our responsibilities as a civilised nation to act to reduce world poverty. Hunger kills 3.5 million children every year—one every 10 seconds—and we must do all we can to end it.

Even closer to home, we have issues of poverty to tackle, and that is even more important now than ever before. I see that in areas across my constituency. Currently, 2.9 million children are living in poverty in this country, which prevents them from having the fair start in life that all children deserve. We will work to change this. I agree with the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) that our first task is to ensure that we give children the best education possible and give them the skills that will make a real difference to their lives. After that, it is about cutting the deficit and creating jobs for the future, so that we can create a strong and stable future for us all.

Finally, we will face many challenges in the lifetime of this Parliament, and we must do so with the courage and energy of the new intake, allied to the wisdom and experience of experienced Members. As the new MP for Brentford and Isleworth, I will take on those challenges with enthusiasm, commitment and determination, and I will stand up for what I believe in and work hard to make a real difference to those in most need. Working together, we can achieve so much more and deliver real change for our country.

16:46

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your election to your post, and I am grateful to you for calling me to make my first speech to the House. I also warmly congratulate all Members, on both sides of the House, who have made their maiden speeches today on enlightening us about the many delights of their constituencies.

I am greatly honoured and humbled that the voters of Bury North have placed their trust and confidence in me to represent them. It is a great privilege. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod), I first stood for Parliament in 1997, and I had to stand four times before being elected, which is testament to the fact that perseverance pays off. My predecessor as MP for Bury North was Mr David Chaytor, who while holding very different political views from my own, always treated me with the greatest courtesy and respect. I am sure that my constituents whom he helped during the 13 years he represented the constituency would want me to thank him publicly for the work he did on their behalf. Mr Chaytor made frequent contributions in the House, particularly on education and energy.

Prior to Mr Chaytor, Bury North constituency was represented by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). He is still fondly remembered in Bury from the 14 years he represented the constituency, and I congratulate him on his ministerial promotion to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Bury North constituency has changed little geographically since the days when it was represented by him. The latest boundary review transferred voters in three of the four polling districts in the redrawn Unsworth ward from Bury North into Bury South. The name “Bury North” reflects the fact that the constituency covers the northern part of the borough of Bury, which was formed in the 1974 local government reorganisation, when the six townships of Prestwich, Whitefield, Radcliffe, Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington were combined to form a single metropolitan district within the Greater Manchester conurbation. It is the last three of those—Bury, Tottington and Ramsbottom—that together now comprise the current constituency of Bury North. It is, if I may say so, archetypal Lancashire territory, where the people have a strong sense of local pride, identity and community.

Bury grew quickly during the industrial revolution, on the strength of its textile and paper industries. Although those industries are now largely absent from 21st century Bury, there is much to commend it to would-be visitors. Indeed, if there are any hon. Members who have not yet booked their summer holidays, may I suggest that they need look no further than Bury? The list of attractions is wide and varied, starting with the world-famous Bury markets, where people have the chance to purchase the local delicacy, Bury black pudding. Then there is the regimental museum of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, the east Lancashire railway and the wild splendour of the moors of east Lancashire, along with the Peel tower and the Peel statue, which stands in the square in front of the great parish church, commemorating one of Bury’s most famous sons, Sir Robert Peel.

Much has been said of the changes that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made to the Conservative party, particularly with regard to increasing the number of women and the number of Members from an ethnic minority background in the parliamentary party. However, surely none of those changes is as noteworthy or striking as the fact that I, as a Yorkshireman from a working-class background, was selected to fight a seat in Lancashire. Although I was born in Sheffield, in common with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, I attended a comprehensive school in Rotherham. It must be something of a record, but this is the second time in less than half an hour that Rotherham has been mentioned, as it was by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker). In those days, Rotherham was—and it probably still is—referred to as the “Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire”. [Hon. Members: “It still is.”] Indeed. I am sure that there was no attempt at political indoctrination, but if there was, it clearly failed.

Let me turn to the topic of today’s debate. I note that nowadays poverty comes in all sorts of technical categories. We have “severe” poverty, “relative” poverty, “absolute” poverty and “persistent” poverty, but it seems to me that, with our welfare system and the vast amounts that we spend on welfare in Britain today, there is no reason why any of our fellow citizens should be categorised as living in poverty. It is incumbent on us all to look at how we are spending our welfare budget. It is the poverty of aspiration and ambition, which is so pervasive and widespread among many in the lower socio-economic groups, that is the real problem. In that regard, I hope that perhaps my achievements can be an inspiration to others.

Finally, let me say that I intend to be a strong and independent advocate for my constituents in Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington, speaking up for them with straightforward common sense. I believe in small government, freedom for the individual, less bureaucracy and red tape, an end to political correctness and restoring the full sovereignty of this Parliament, free from control by the European Union. It is for those causes that I will be fighting during my time in this House.

16:54

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I welcome you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to your new role, and I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in the House today. I congratulate the Members who have preceded me, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), who has just made a magnificent speech. I congratulate other Members on both sides of the House on making eloquent speeches, which I hope I can live up to today.

I must say how delighted and proud I am to be elected to represent the good people of my home town constituency. They have shown a great deal of faith in me, which I intend to repay over the course of my time in the House. I aim to be an excellent constituency representative and to work diligently for my constituents with the same enthusiasm, passion and old-fashioned hard work that I showed during the election campaign.

The Nuneaton constituency in the fine county of Warwickshire in the heart of our country was formed in 1885, following the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885. From that time until the second world war, the seat regularly changed hands between parties of all persuasions. After the second world war, however, the seat became somewhat of a Labour stronghold. That lasted until the general election of 1983, by which time the seat included several wards from the borough of Rugby.

Mr Lewis Stevens became the first Conservative post-war Member for Nuneaton. He was regarded as a hard-working and conscientious Member who was one of the best attendees in the House during his time here and had an excellent voting record. He was also extremely well respected within the constituency. Mr Stevens, who still lives in Nuneaton today, has been a good personal friend, to whom I have always been able to look for advice and support. I thank him for that. It is a great privilege for me to join Lewis in such an exclusive club as only the second Conservative Member for Nuneaton since 1935.

In 1992, I cast my first vote for Mr Stevens, although it was not perhaps the luckiest of omens because unfortunately he was sadly defeated by Mr Bill Olner. From 1992 until the Dissolution of Parliament earlier this year, Mr Bill Olner served the constituents of Nuneaton. In my experience, Bill was a reasonable and gentlemanly character, who was a loyal supporter of the Labour Government. I am aware that he seemed to be well liked on all sides of the House. He was a prominent local figure, and like my good self, before his election he served for many years on the Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council before eventually becoming its leader—a privilege that I also enjoyed. Bill was also involved in the establishment of the Mary Ann Evans hospice and is still the president of that fine organisation today. I would like to thank Mr Olner for his work and service to the people of Nuneaton, and I wish him well on his retirement.

The latest incarnation of the constituency sees the wards from the borough of Rugby that came into it in 1983 returned to the constituency of Rugby. I now formally welcome the North Warwickshire borough wards of Hartshill, Arley and Whitacre to the constituency. It was apparent during the election campaign that many constituents from these wards were mostly unaware of the boundary changes. There appears to have been a most unfortunate lack of consultation, from which the House should perhaps learn when we conduct the reorganisation that is outlined in the coalition document.

Both the urban and rural areas of the constituency at one time relied heavily on the industries of mining and mineral extraction, much of which has now ceased, with the notable exception of Daw Mill colliery— the single largest coal-producing colliery in the UK. The colliery is situated right on the border where the constituencies of Nuneaton and North Warwickshire meet.

Nuneaton itself was traditionally an industrial town known for textiles and manufacturing, but like many constituencies it has changed dramatically in the post-war period. The traditional industries have given way, and in recent years, due to its convenient geographical location and unparalleled transport links at the heart of the motorway network, Nuneaton has become an excellent distribution hub. Companies such as RS Components and Dairy Crest have their national distribution centres within the constituency. Other major companies such as Holland & Barrett have their headquarters in the constituency.

Manufacturing is still very much alive, with a number of small and medium-sized enterprises that work in the supply chain to the car, aviation and defence industries. I am aware from speaking to local business leaders that those industries depend considerably on available credit for both cashflow and development. Many have struggled through the current recession, and continue to do so. I hope very much that the new Government will be instrumental in ensuring that credit is made available to SMEs, particularly those engaged in manufacturing. They are vital to our economy, particularly in the west midlands.

Nuneaton also has a fantastic town centre which has done exceptionally well to fend off the challenges from the big cities—the likes of Coventry, Birmingham and Leicester. A key to the success of the town centre is the vibrant and historic street market, which has operated in the town since the charter of 1226 and is going strong to this day, winning the accolade of the UK’s best market in 2009 and best market attraction in 2010. Those are proud achievements. However, in 2010 our traditional markets face serious challenges, and we must recognise them if the markets are to survive the test of time as they have so far.

The constituency has been home to a number of famous sons and daughters. Among the most notable is the Victorian novelist George Eliot, born at South Farm, Arbury, as Mary Ann Evans. She adopted the name George Eliot to overcome the prejudice against female writers that existed at the time. Her works include “Adam Bede”, “The Mill on the Floss” and “Silas Marner”. She was inspired by Nuneaton’s Arbury estate, the jewel in whose crown is Arbury hall, built during the reign of Elizabeth I. Arbury hall is still recognised as one of the most authentic stately homes of the era. A previous owner of the estate, Francis Newdegate, represented Nuneaton in this very House, and the Newdegates are still the owners and custodians of the estate. Although Nuneaton is not necessarily renowned as a tourist destination, it does attract many tourists from as far afield as Japan, who come to see where George Eliot was inspired to write such great works.

Probably the most famous son of Nuneaton was the late entertainer Larry Grayson, who Members of a certain age may remember entertaining us on Saturday nights during the 1970s and 1980s as the effervescent host of television’s “The Generation Game”. They may recall such sayings as “Shut that door”. Nuneaton is also linked to two former giants of this House, Benjamin Disraeli and William Gladstone, fierce rivals who both owned land in Nuneaton. The original deeds with which the pieces of land were transferred are still on display in Nuneaton and the neighbouring town of Bedworth.

Nuneaton is a friendly and homely place in which to live, and on the whole still enjoys an excellent community spirit. Demographically, the constituency is very diverse. We have areas of relative affluence, but pockets of real deprivation. In fact, three wards in the constituency are in the bottom 20% in the country. Over the past 13 years the last Government made much of the need to narrow the gap between rich and poor in such wards and ensure that child poverty ended, and substantial amounts were spent during that time, but outcomes were often not proportionate to expenditure.

Although well intentioned, the last Government received very little for their money in terms of social mobility and a reduction in the gap between the rich and the poor, and they have further fuelled a culture of benefit dependency in which children grow up seeing parents and grandparents who have never worked as their role models, in which people are better off living apart than living together, and in which there is no incentive to work because of the fear of becoming worse off.

I must say that I am enthused by the coalition document, and particularly the work conducted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), with his practical and pragmatic ideas to simplify the benefits system, help people into work, and prioritise early intervention which will help our most deprived communities. I am sure that the new Government’s commitment to such measures as the pupil premium and support for further education colleges and universities will give the young people of my constituency the educational opportunity that will make them more socially mobile, raise their aspirations, unlock untapped potential and let individuals take control of their own lives once more.

I particularly welcome the new Government’s commitment to providing an additional 50,0000 apprenticeships, which I am sure will engage and enthuse many young people who do not have the necessary aptitude for—or, more often, are not attracted to—further academic studies. I hope that many of those apprentices will be employed in Nuneaton. I am also convinced that there is no better way of regenerating our areas of deprivation than to create an environment in which the private sector can thrive. We must reduce regulation and business taxes and get credit moving, so that businesses can create the jobs that the skills provided by our Government will deserve.

Let me sum up by again thanking the people of Nuneaton, whom I now represent. I will work hard and to the best of my ability properly to represent them both in the constituency and in the House. I will do whatever I can to make a contribution that will have a more positive effect on their lives.

17:05

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I congratulate you on your election? Having just fought my first election, I know how arduous it can be, so I congratulate you on having fought a second one so soon after the first.

It has been a pleasure to listen to the maiden speeches of so many hon. Members on both sides of the House today. I envy the fact that so many people are post-maiden, while I still have that ordeal ahead. At least, unlike earlier today, I can speak to a hushed and listening House, although perhaps Hansard can show that that is because there is quite a lot of green space on the Opposition Benches. I do not, by contrast, envy anybody their constituency as I think that I represent quite the nicest bit of this great country. The constituency of Devizes encompasses a large chunk of central Wiltshire. We have the vibrant market towns of Devizes, Marlborough, Tidworth, Durrington and Ludgershall, as well as the armed forces garrisons at Tidworth, Netheravon, Bulford, Larkhill and Upavon. We have 111 beautiful villages, the neolithic monument at Avebury, miles of rolling chalk landscape and the tranquil Pewsey vale. It is wonderful and I urge all hon. Members to visit as soon as possible.

We host the Devizes to Westminster canoe race, which some might say is an easier way of getting here than fighting a general election. We are also home to the Wadworth brewery, which brews with pride the famous 6X beer. That is why I am such a fervent supporter of community pubs and why I would like taxes on beer to be lowered when the economic circumstances that we have inherited improve.

There are many useful lessons in the Devizes constituency for budding politicians to learn, and I shall mention a couple of them. In the Devizes Market place there is a cross bearing the legend of Ruth Pierce, a market-woman who, when doing a bit of dodgy dealing in the Market place, said, “God shall strike me down if I am found to be telling a lie.” She was struck down immediately, bearing the proof of that lie in her hand. I think that is a valuable lesson for politicians when making speeches.

The need to create legislation that endures is also obvious in my constituency. The oldest piece of legislation never to be repealed was passed by the Parliament of 1267 that met in Marlborough, so there is another lesson to be learned about passing legislation that stands the test of time.

The legendary Devizes Caen Hill lock flight on the wonderful Kennet and Avon canal, which is the longest in-water canal in the British isles, shows us what local energy and activism can do. It was the local business people of that town who paid for the canal to come to the top of the hill, where Devizes sits, when it would have been so much easier for it just to go around it. Energy, activism and a refusal to “go around” are all things that my predecessor, Michael Ancram, demonstrated abundantly. When he was elected to represent Devizes in 1992 he was already an experienced politician, having first been elected in 1974. In 1979, he beat a young Scottish Labour politician—one Gordon Brown—for the seat of Edinburgh, South. It took another 31 years for my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) to emulate that feat by beating the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) in the general election.

Michael’s distinguished political career spanned almost four decades and took in the roles of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, shadow Foreign Secretary, shadow Defence Secretary and chairman and deputy leader of the Conservative party. While I might, in my wildest moments or in my cups, aspire to follow in his political footsteps, it is his personal characteristic of unfailing courtesy, his dedicated work on behalf of his constituents and his great love for the part of Wiltshire that he represented that I would most like to emulate. Indeed, it is my great love for Wiltshire, which has been my family’s home for the last decade, that has brought me into politics.

I live in a small Wiltshire village, so I have seen at first hand the damage to rural Britain that was caused by the last Government—possibly the most urban-minded Government that Britain has ever seen. Our farmers have struggled with mountains of red tape, unchecked animal disease and an indifferent Government who were not interested in buying British food or dealing with the dishonest food labelling regime. We have had multiple grandiose regional spatial strategies in Wiltshire, but we still lack affordable housing, transport links and the broadband infrastructure that is so important for building a living and working countryside. A shocking legacy of the previous Government is the NHS quangocracy, which means that my constituency has the worst ambulance response times in the region and no minor injuries unit.

However, the lacklustre state of the rural economy and embedded rural poverty trouble me most. Employment in my constituency—that great driver-out of poverty—is still weak, and unemployment has more than doubled in the past five years. As the former Government’s rural adviser said, there are huge traditional barriers to gaining employment in rural areas: poor public transport, less training and less guidance provision—a bit of new Labour gobbledegook that means that we do not get as many jobcentres per head of the population in rural Britain.

There is genuine poverty in rural Britain, and it is often well hidden behind a chocolate-box façade. Examples of that hidden poverty include the pensioner who is too proud to claim benefits; the family travelling 40 or 50 miles on poorly maintained roads with high petrol prices to get to work; the unskilled labourer laid off when the nearest job is 40 miles away, and the single mother who came to my surgery who is sleeping on her parents’ sofa because she cannot get on the housing list. We need to tackle those issues, and I know that my constituents do not feel that the previous Government listened to them. This Government will not overlook them.

No discussion of my constituency could be complete without a mention of the armed forces. As my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray), likes to say, I am the Member of Parliament for most of the British Army. That is a small exaggeration, but my constituency is home to more than 11,000 soldiers as well as at least the same number of dependants, not to mention the several thousand Ministry of Defence civil servants. That is why I am so proud to support the armed forces. I know that all Members of Parliament do so, and many of us on these Benches welcome the imminent strategic defence review and a Government who are more supportive of our current operational commitments.

I was not successful today in the private Members’ ballot. I wanted to introduce a Bill to make Remembrance day a national holiday so that all generations can understand the sacrifices that our armed forces have made and pay their respects to our past and serving troops. I assure hon. Members that they will be hearing from me about that in future, and I would welcome the support of Members of all parties to get it done.

Although the name of my constituency is derived from the Latin “ad divisas”—I did not learn that at Nailsea comprehensive school—or “on the boundaries”, reflecting the town’s historical position on the edge of two local manors, I want the people of Devizes no longer to feel that they are on the edge of policy making, on the political boundaries or forgotten by the Government. Instead, I want them to know that their aims and aspirations are at the heart of our Government’s outlook. It is my job to make that happen; it is a job that I am proud to do.

17:13

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech today. I welcome you to your position—I will just mention that I voted for you.

I applaud all hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches today. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) in particular left me feeling somewhat inadequately prepared. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) referred to a former Member for the seat whose constituents had a whip-round to pay his salary. It is beginning to feel a bit like that round here at the moment. I especially congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), whom I follow. She has left me quite a challenge.

First, I thank my constituents for sending me here. It is a privilege to be given the opportunity to represent them, and I give my assurance that I will do so to the very best of my ability. As a new Member with a new constituency, I am often asked where Meon Valley is. My constituency sits in the southern part of Hampshire, to the south and east of Winchester, and to the north and west of Portsmouth. It was made up of the bottom half of Michael Mates’s seat and the bottom half of Mark Oaten’s seat—that description has raised the odd eyebrow.

We take in the beautiful green lush Meon valley itself, with life revolving around small market towns, but the bulk of the population live in the south-east corner of the constituency, in Waterlooville, Cowplain, Hart Plain and Horndean. Living there are people I describe as bedrock Britain—many of them ex-services—the very engine of our country. Many of them are finding life increasingly difficult, a subject to which I shall return before I conclude.

The constituency contains many highlights, and given his well known evocation of the English countryside, the right hon. Sir John Major would be comfortable visiting us. In Hambledon, we have a village that can boast the first record of its cricket club in 1756. The club can claim to have given us much of what we recognise in the modern game, and was the focal point for the sport until the MCC took over in 1787.

As for beer, it is to be regretted that our major brewery, Gales in Horndean, closed after a recent merger with Fuller’s, which is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod), who spoke earlier. However, in Gladys avenue, Cowplain the fight-back has begun. We have many excellent ales, but I single out Michael Charlton, backyard brewer extraordinaire, who won last year’s Hampshire beer of the year with his majestic Havant Finished, produced in his garage. I look forward to launching Havant Forgotten with him in November, in aid of the Royal British Legion. As a Conservative Member with an active and dedicated association, I think it wise that the subject of old maids is probably best avoided.

Both my predecessors are hard acts to follow. Michael Mates enjoyed a highly distinguished career in the Army and for 36 years from 1974 sat on the Conservative Benches, serving with great distinction in many senior roles. Michael is an expert in diverse fields, but it is for his record in the House on defence matters and on Northern Ireland that colleagues will know him best—oh, and the Flanders and Swann.

As a constituency MP, Michael was no less well regarded. I have met countless people across the constituency whom he has helped. Aided by his long service and consequent connections, he unlocked bureaucratic logjams for many of his constituents.

Mark Oaten from the Winchester constituency is someone I am pleased to call a friend. Starting with a controversial two-vote majority at the general election in 1997—

[Claire Perry]

Gosh.

[George Hollingbery]

Two votes it was. In a November rerun—the first election I participated in—Mark converted those two votes to 21,500, which was not the most auspicious start for my political career. That figure stood Mark in great stead in following elections, not least against me. He held various prestigious positions in the Liberal Democrat party and made a contribution to the orange book—a tome whose pages are now more important than ever before.

More than anything else, Mark taught his constituents what to expect from an MP. Nothing was too much trouble for him. He accumulated a reputation as the acme of a local champion. If I can ever establish a reputation in Meon Valley as widely and deeply felt as Mark’s in Winchester I will truly have achieved something extraordinary.

I am delighted that the coalition has made clear its plans to return control of housing targets to local people, and has acted to restrict back garden development and to remove density requirements. It is incredibly important that all of us work to ensure that those changes are seen as an opportunity. We have been given the freedom to shape better communities that work for all our citizens, and to do it to our own design. But there is an obligation on us, too.

In a country as wealthy as ours, it is uncivilised that so many people are on housing waiting lists—some 3,500 in the Winchester district alone and another 3,000 in Havant borough. Those numbers are unsustainable. Most people in Meon Valley understand that and recognise that new housing is needed. Without the skirts of Government-imposed housing targets to hide behind, none of us should shirk the task of making that case to our communities. My experience, in Meon Valley at least, is that most people agree if the proper facts are laid before them.

Furthermore, under the auspices of the dreadful planning policy statement 3, far too many developments crammed affordable housing into flats and small dwellings so that central targets on density could be met—the perverse effect of central Government targets at work. In my view, communities with vision will now use the removal of those targets to build larger dwellings for those who cannot otherwise house themselves. A proper family home, with adequate living space and some privacy both indoors and outdoors, must be a fundamental ingredient of happier lives and less troubled, more contented communities. It is down to us and all our councillors to go out and make that argument. We can and should seek to persuade our constituents that it is in all our interests to do so.

Finally, let me say a brief word on a threat that we must all recognise. Among my constituents there are a great many people who, to their enormous surprise, find themselves in challenging economic circumstances. Most of them are in their 70s. They often own an asset, in their own homes. They have saved and accumulated pensions, but rarely are any of them more than modest in scope. Over the past several years, through a combination of low returns on savings, the lack of eligibility for state help, rising energy bills and, particularly, the cost of ever-increasing council tax, many of them are finding it very difficult to get by. Yes, they could sell their homes, but most of them already live in small dwellings and cannot practically downsize without moving away from their friends and family. Yes, they could use equity release schemes and enjoy a modestly increased income from capital, but many of them now struggle to find such products or, in fact, are scared of using them.

These people may seem asset-rich, but they are certainly income-poor. The asset that they strived so long and hard to obtain is now an impediment to getting any kind of help. We now face a future where many of those whom we would all regard as model citizens and who have paid much of the tax that allows the Government to function regard doing the right thing as a poor piece of advice to give to their children and wider families. That, surely, is something that we should be very concerned about.

17:21

[Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for inviting me to give my maiden speech this afternoon. It is perhaps an afternoon of debuts, and I, too, wish to congratulate you on your appointment to the Chair, as well as welcoming and thanking all the other hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches this afternoon. The bar has, yet again, been set very high for those of us who follow. In particular, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) for his fine speech.

In time-honoured tradition, I should like to begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, the retiring MP, Liz Blackman. Ms Blackman represented Erewash with compassion and commitment and is remembered in particular for her contribution on issues to do with education and children with autism. I note from Ms Blackman’s maiden speech that she commented that she was the first Labour MP for Erewash and that she hoped that Erewash would continue to return Labour MPs for many years to come. I hope that she will forgive the electorate of Erewash who have perhaps taken a different view from hers on this occasion. I do, of course, wish her well for the future.

I wish to mention two earlier predecessors as Member of Parliament for Erewash: first, Peter Rost, and secondly, Angela Knight, both of whom will be remembered fondly by the House. Angela Knight has been very supportive to me and continues to contribute extremely well to public life.

Now, for the benefit of the uninitiated or perhaps the unfamiliar, I wish to explain that the constituency of Erewash is, in fact, in south-east Derbyshire, in the heart of the east midlands, between the cities of Nottingham and Derby. The constituency derives its name from the River Erewash, which meanders through the constituency. It is right to say that the river is not without its literary references. Indeed, the author D. H. Lawrence makes reference to the River Erewash in some of his novels.

The geography of Erewash consists principally of two towns—Ilkeston and Long Eaton—as well as a number of pretty villages and a stretch of beautiful countryside. Indeed, the stretch of countryside that I refer to is under possible threat from developers through the access routes on the old Stanton ironworks, and I assure the House that I will do all that I can to preserve our green belt and valuable open space in Erewash.

The ironworks was once at the centre of employment opportunities in my constituency. Erewash has been blessed with a fine history of lace making, manufacturing and engineering. Indeed, the last, sole remaining traditional lace factory in the country still operates in Ilkeston. It is called Cluny Lace, and it has a dedicated work force and an impressive family history of work in the industry. Other industries, such as high-tech engineering, the service industry and information technology, still service the Erewash economy, but it is right to say that the traditional industries have suffered enormously in recent years. There has been a steep decline in manufacturing over the past 10 years and the effects on the economy are still felt most keenly. It is to the credit of my constituents’ ingenuity and entrepreneurship that a number of small and medium-sized businesses have started, with niche markets being reached and new technology helped. However, Erewash itself was not assisted by the policies of the previous Labour Government, who used their best efforts to stifle entrepreneurship and made small businesses suffer.

Erewash has much to offer any business investor: a willing work force; excellent transport links, with the M1 running through the constituency; and well-located business premises. I will do all that I can to bring investment and much-needed jobs to the families of Erewash.

We are lucky to have a well-respected and flourishing organisation called the Erewash Partnership in my constituency. It acts as an effective umbrella organisation for the local authority, all local small businesses and the voluntary sector. I shall do all that I can to support the partnership’s vital work.

One route back into employment can be through volunteering; indeed, national volunteers week has just drawn to a close. My strong commitment to supporting volunteers is a principle that was impressed on me from my school days. We are lucky to have a strong army of volunteers in Erewash who help the vulnerable, the elderly and families in many different ways, and long may that continue.

There is a campaign in Erewash for the reopening of the train station, which I hope can be achieved because it would assist businesses and residents in Ilkeston. Erewash has a proud history of service on the train network. Indeed, my dear, late grandfather worked for many years as fitter on the steam trains across the east midlands. I know that he will be cheering me on from above on that particular campaign.

I am grateful to be able to contribute to this extremely important debate about poverty. As we heard earlier, more than 3 million children in the UK are living in poverty. There is a pressing need to tackle the problem, so I applaud my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s recent announcement that there will be a review on poverty in the UK and how the state can assist the least advantaged. The whole House benefited from the contribution to the debate made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who will lead the review, and I look forward to assisting in any way that I can.

Agencies working together locally to assist families is the key to fighting poverty. The reality is that the state cannot and should not seek to provide all the answers to this complex problem by itself. We have a dedicated voluntary sector with many large and small charities that help disadvantaged families in the UK. Further steps to enable the third sector to work hand in hand with social services and adult services are to be encouraged.

Before I was elected to the House, it was my privilege to work as a lawyer specialising in cases concerning children and their welfare. The consequences for children of a life in poverty were all too clear in my daily work. Family breakdown, substance misuse, personal debt and educational failure can all too easily follow, and the consequences for children can be far-reaching and devastating. I will contribute in any way that I can to the ongoing debate on protecting children and ending the cycle of poverty that can perpetuate.

I am extremely grateful to the voters of Erewash for putting their trust in me to represent them here. Like many of my new hon. Friends, I am already enjoying attending events, dealing with constituency case work and tackling problems. I particularly enjoyed opening the local Riverside football festival recently. I made it quite clear to the organisers that although I would do anything that I could to help their club and the festival, I would perhaps draw the line at wearing a small pair of football shorts.

On arriving in Westminster and this magnificent building, the responsibility of one’s duty to serve becomes more acute. I am sure that many of my new hon. Friends feel the same way. It is a privilege and a duty to be here. My family and schooling have taught me the value of service and helping others. Now, I continue with those principles as I commence my journey of serving the constituents of Erewash and speaking for them in this House.

17:30

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

This is my first outing at the Dispatch Box. I know it is customary for Front Benchers to start by saying what an excellent debate it has been, regardless of whether that is true, but I can in all sincerity say that today’s has been an excellent debate and I have been pleased to be able to sit here listening. Members on both sides of the House have spoken with conviction and passion about the fight against poverty, which blights so many lives and communities. Of course, we have also heard many excellent maiden speeches, in which new MPs have demonstrated their determination to do their utmost for the people they represent and the constituencies they serve.

The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) disappointed the House by telling us that he had turned down an invitation to join MP4, but given that the current membership consists of one Tory, one Scottish nationalist and one Labour Member, perhaps in the new politics we should be looking for a Lib Dem to join them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) made an excellent speech praising the diversity in her constituency and her predecessor for introducing the ban on smoking in public places.

The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) confirmed that she is not related to Stanley Baldwin and dwelt in some detail on the wonderful food produced in her constituency, which I think was rather unfair to those of us who were trapped in the Chamber all afternoon and not able to get out to have some lunch.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cumberland, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East—how did I do with that?

[Gregg McClymont]

Cumbernauld.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Oh, I wrote it down wrong. It is not my pronunciation that is wrong but my literacy. My hon. Friend told us that he was better looking than his photo in the parliamentary guide— I shall have to check that out—and spoke eloquently about the poverty in his constituency and the previous Government’s progress in tackling it.

The hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) told us that he is not better looking than his election photo, much to the disappointment of his constituents who met him on the election trail. He also told us that one of his predecessors had, as a lawyer, defended the Kray twins and then, on being elected to Parliament, defended the Governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major. I am not sure which was the most difficult task.

The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) talked about her great love of football, of which I am already very much aware, having attended a Chelsea-Arsenal game with her. Perhaps she could have done a little more to endear herself to the Press Gallery: pointing out that one member of it, Nigel Nelson, was writing articles before she was born might not be the best way to get into their good books.

I missed the speech of the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat)—I popped out to take a phone call—but I am told that he spoke without notes and with great eloquence about issues such as social mobility and worklessness.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), making his second maiden speech after returning to Parliament, delivered a passionate speech about the need to protect Sure Start and child trust funds, and about his support as a committed trade unionist for the agency workers directive.

The hon. Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) did not quite live up to the romance of her previously published works—novels such as “Passion” and “Sparkle”. I am the proud owner of an autographed copy of “Passion”, which she sent to me—we have never met, only communicated through Twitter. Perhaps an autographed copy of her maiden speech should follow.

My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) confirmed that she is taller than her predecessor, Ian McCartney. I want to place on the official record the fact that I too am taller than Ian McCartney, although it is perhaps a slightly closer match. She spoke with great passion about her interest in financial capability and the need to promote it, as well as her work with credit unions. I look forward very much to seeing her promote those agendas in the House.

The hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who is my neighbour, although we have yet to meet—he should get on Twitter; that is how I make all my friends—praised the work of his predecessor. I have to say that, in Roger Berry, he has a very hard act to follow, but I wish him well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) will not, I suspect, be glued to the television watching the new series of “Big Brother”, but she raised an important issue. Tackling poverty is not just about putting money in people’s pockets and a household’s immediate resources, but about things such as transport. The poor transport links in her constituency make it difficult for people to gain access to jobs.

The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) praised his constituency, and discussed the need to promote more green jobs there. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) discussed her support for international development, and I hope that she puts pressure on her colleagues in the Department for International Development to carry on its good work linking international development with work in schools. The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), as is almost customary for Members making maiden speeches about Swindon, mentioned the magic roundabout, and perhaps persuaded me that I ought to get off the train more often when I pass through Swindon on the way to London.

The hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) discussed his experience as the lead member for children’s services when he was a councillor. I was pleased that he expressed support for his local Sure Start scheme. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) said that she was pleased to see more women in politics—I am too, and I am glad that we are no longer looking at a row of men in suits on the Government Benches. Perhaps the Front Bench has a little more work to do, although I am glad to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), to her ministerial position.

The hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) tried to tempt us with the delights of Bury black pudding, which I shall pass on. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) gave us a cultural tour that ranged from George Eliot to Larry Grayson—quite a wide span. The hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) discussed how she wished to support members of the armed forces in her constituency and their families, and I wish her all the best with that. The hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) explained to a bemused House exactly where his constituency is. We are all very much in the picture now—somewhere around the Winchester area, I think. The hon. Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee) discussed the importance of volunteering and the experience that she will bring to the House as a lawyer who has worked on child protection issues. I am glad that she will pursue those interests in Parliament.

We also heard speeches that were not maiden speeches, including from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). I was pleased that he described Labour’s job guarantee as precious, and I hope that in his new role he can do something to protect our future jobs fund. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Miss Begg) on her election to Chair of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. I am sure that she will do an excellent job.

My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) made an excellent speech in which he rightly highlighted the progress made by the Labour Government in tackling pensioner poverty, for which we did not get enough credit. We heard two speeches from people whom I had the pleasure of working with on child poverty issues in the last Parliament: my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan spoke from her experience at the Children’s Society and discussed the legacy of communities that have been ignored and suffered from a lack of investment going back to the 1980s. Once that intergenerational cycle of poverty and worklessness is created, the issue cannot be solved overnight; it is a difficult problem to crack. I thought that she spoke incredibly eloquently about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston, who was chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group, impressed us all with the experience and knowledge of the issue that she brings to the House. I hope that Ministers listen closely to what she has to say.

In the short time remaining—I appreciate that we do not have long, given that many Members wish to speak—I should like to ask the Under-Secretary a few questions. I am pleased that Ministers managed to secure a debate on poverty, as it at least suggests that it is an important issue for the new Government. However, I have heard very little to convince me that the reality will match the rhetoric, and that their professed desire to tackle poverty will triumph over their desire to implement savage cuts. It was notable that when the Secretary of State replied to the Queen’s Speech debate on Tuesday there was barely a mention of any policy at all. I hope that we can hear a little bit more from the Under-Secretary today.

The Labour Government did not just talk about poverty but acted to tackle poverty. We acted to lift 1 million pensioners out of poverty with our pensions guarantee, the pensions credit, the winter fuel allowance, free bus travel and eye tests, and by cutting fuel poverty by insulating pensioners’ homes. We lifted half a million children out of poverty, not just by putting more money into their families’ pockets, but by helping their families move from welfare into work. It is a complete fallacy to suggest that the Labour Government did not try to move people from welfare into work. The suggestion is that we were quite happy to leave people languishing on benefits and that we did not address that. That is exactly what we were trying to do with nursery places, tax credits, and making work pay to ensure that people were better off in work. I could list a range of other policies that were all intended to address that issue.

When the Minister replies, will she say how, in terms of looking at the bigger picture, the Government can claim to be serious about tackling poverty, when, through their planned programme of cuts, they will undermine the package that the Labour Government tried to put together in the last 13 years to support people on their route out of poverty? How can they claim to be serious about tackling poverty and yet axe the future jobs fund, which aims to break the intergenerational cycle of unemployment that the Government claim to deplore? How can they say that they want to enhance the life chances of children growing up in poverty when they are scrapping child trust funds, and cutting tax credits, and when they will not confirm what is meant by their proposal to streamline benefits? Does that mean cuts in benefits for people or not?

How can the Government claim to care about so-called broken Britain—a phrase that I reject—when they fail to support Sure Start and family intervention projects, which work with families with the most difficult problems, when they oppose things like compulsory sex education in schools, which would have helped to address the issue of teenage pregnancy and lone parenthood, and when they are slashing public sector jobs and public services without a thought for the consequences?

The Government say that they want people to stand on their own two feet, but how can they do that if the Government pull the rug from under them? I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

17:42

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

I warmly welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was a firm supporter of yours in the recent elections. I also warmly welcome the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) to her position. She has been sitting in the Whips Office for a number of years now, and I am sure that standing at the Dispatch Box beats that any day of the week. I congratulate those hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches today, which I will come to in a bit more detail later.

First, I want to pick up on some of the points made by the hon. Lady in her closing comments. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), began the debate with the bleak picture of poverty that the country faces. Despite record levels of spending on benefits in the last 13 years, we have more working-age adults living in relative poverty than ever before. The hon. Lady said that the Labour Government acted to tackle poverty, but I am afraid that her rhetoric does not match the facts. Income inequality is at its highest since records began, and a higher proportion of children grow up in workless households in the UK than in any other EU country. That is a damning indictment of the previous Government’s legacy, a legacy that I am afraid was absent from the opening comments of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). The facts could not be clearer. The tired old ways of continually throwing money at the problem, no matter how deeply entrenched or seemingly intractable, lie discredited.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her position. I am sure that she will do some very important work in the Department. Will she confirm that the number of children living in workless households has fallen significantly since 1997, having previously risen substantially?

[Maria Miller]

The shadow Secretary of State fails to point out that the previous Government completely failed to tackle the level of poverty in this country in the way that they set out that they would, and they did not hit their child poverty targets. They have left us to put in place a firm strategy to address that issue. The right hon. Lady should not be too selective with her facts.

It could not be clearer that we need fresh ideas if we are to reverse the dreadful situation that we face; and it could not be clearer that, if new approaches to tackling poverty are to have any effect, they require new, clear thinking. That is exactly what our coalition Government are able to offer: a new vision and a new strategy to tackle the root causes of poverty. Family breakdown, educational failure, addiction, debt, worklessness and economic dependency are the pathways to poverty and the underlying problems that can lead to a lifetime—even generations—of worklessness and welfare dependency.

[Kate Green]

Will the Minister give way?

[Maria Miller]

I am sorry, but I cannot. I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me, but I need to comment on a number of maiden speeches.

As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, such a multi-faceted problem demands an holistic solution, and many contributors echoed that point. The problem requires supporting families in order to give children the right start at home and in education; it requires the reform of our welfare system, by simplifying it and removing disincentives to work; it requires supporting disabled people effectively to give those who need it the specialist support that will help to prepare them for work; it requires supporting a savings culture, helping those who try to get back on their feet and encouraging families to take responsibility for their debt; and it requires all of us throughout all Departments, the Government and the House to work together.

Before I pick up on today’s maiden speeches, I shall draw the House’s attention to a couple of other contributions. I am sure that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland did not mean to sound complacent about Labour’s record on poverty, but she did, and she needs to think about that if she is to rebuild Labour’s credibility in the eyes of the country. She picked up on several issues, including the future jobs fund and free school meals, on which I should like to give her some clarity.

All pupils who currently qualify for free school meals will continue to be eligible, and we will continue with pilots in Newham, Durham and Wolverhampton to see whether there is a robust case for extending free school meals. Taxpayers would expect us to do that. On the future jobs fund, recent statistics show that only 9,000 out of the 25,000 jobs that were promised are being delivered. The Government want long-term job opportunities and sustained employment, and that is why we are putting our faith in 50,000 new apprenticeships and the Work programme that will help to fill that gap.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Miss Begg) made an important contribution to the debate, and I congratulate her on her new role as Chairman of the Work and Pensions Committee. I look forward—at least I think I do—to having detailed conversations with her, including in the Committee’s sittings, I am sure. I would have liked to pick up on some of the issues that she raised, and particularly on Sure Start and its effectiveness, but I fear that time does not allow me. Suffice to say, I hope that she will look at the Office for National Statistics data on Sure Start and, in particular, at how we can make that programme much more effective at tackling poverty.

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who is not in his place because of a prior engagement, spoke with great authority about the importance of the non-financial support that we give children and families who live in the most difficult circumstances, and I look forward to his independent report and the contribution that he will undoubtedly make to this debate in the coming months.

The maiden speeches were, in the great tradition of this House, independent and spirited. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) spoke powerfully about the importance of supporting excluded children. He also stressed the fact that he will be an independent-minded Member, and I am sure that the Whips will have taken special note of that.

The hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) spoke about her co-operative roots and the pride that she has in her community and, particularly, its multicultural heritage. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) paid tribute to Sir Michael Spicer, and I echo the tribute that she paid to a man who made a great contribution to the House. She also noted the damage that has been done to the pensions industry over the past decade, and I am sure that, with her considerable financial expertise, she will contribute to the coalition Government’s work on that.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) has the prize for the constituency name that is most likely to stump Ministers, and he will forgive me if I did not pronounce it very well. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) made a very humorous contribution to the debate and drew on the colourful characters who have previously represented his part of the country, as well as discussing its brewing heritage; I think that perhaps the two things are not unconnected.

I know how highly regarded my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) already is in her constituency, because I have been there and visited her local Sure Start centres. Its residents have a great Member of Parliament in her. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) spoke of famous past residents, including Lewis Carroll. He referred to Alice in his quote from Lewis Carroll’s work. I would perhaps have referred to the Mad Hatter’s tea party, because it can often feel like that in this place; he will know what I mean shortly, I am sure.

The contribution by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) challenged the House’s tradition of listening in silence to maiden speeches. I apologise if I joined some other Members in exclaiming at some of the things that he said. I will not pick up on those points in detail now, but perhaps we can talk in the Tea Room.

My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) made a fluid and assured speech in which she drew the House’s attention to the excellent support that forces families receive in the United States through the Veterans Administration. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends who deal with defence issues will study her comments closely. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) spoke of the grit and determination of her constituents. I am sure that the House will benefit from her 23 years’ experience of working in a citizens advice bureau.

Turning to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), I clearly remember his moment of victory on general election night—it was something that stood out. In his maiden speech, the House caught a glimpse of the intellectual, analytical and, above all, compassionate approach that he will have to his job. The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) reminded us that her constituency is the birthplace of the Arsenal football team. I will remind my sons of that, as they are great fans.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) gave us a thoughtful account of his feelings about poverty and the fact that it affects all parts of the country in many different ways. The hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) spoke movingly about the working poor and the role of Sure Start. She also mentioned the future jobs fund. I would merely say to her that under that programme 100,000 jobs have been granted to the successful bidders.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) drew our attention to the fact that hers is a new constituency, and I know that it will benefit from her extensive experience. She spoke movingly about opening the eyes of the next generation in her constituency to poverty in Africa; that is something that will have helped them.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) talked about his bit of Swindon being the new Disneyland. He also said that Swindon is famous for roundabouts. Speaking as the Member of Parliament for Basingstoke, I think that we are more famous for roundabouts—I will challenge him on that one.

My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) spoke with pride and passion about the part of the country that he represents, and reminded the House that we all have to improve the life chances of looked-after children. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) reminded us that her part of the world is the new silicon valley of west London. Importantly, she pointed out that she will put country before party, in the best spirit of this coalition Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) was getting us all booking our holidays to Bury this summer when he talked about the wonderful part of the country that he represents. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) reminded us that he represents the home town of the late Larry Grayson. He also spoke movingly about the role that inter-generational poverty can have in the context of this debate.

I very much welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) to the House. I know that she will contribute greatly to the work of this place. She will be a dedicated and effective voice for us, drawing on her extensive experience before coming here.

My neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery), reminded us where his constituency is and also of the importance of the entrepreneurial spirit in Hampshire, which is alive and well among the backyard brewers of his constituency. We were all pleased to hear that.

Last but absolutely by no means least, I think the House will agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee) spoke eloquently about the history and heritage of her constituency. I reassure her that football shorts would not really be in the dress code of this place—well, not at the moment. Maybe we are far too conservative in such things and should change that.

This has been an important debate. It was important that we put the issue of poverty before the House early on in this Parliament to explain how we as a Government will tackle it. Members have heard in the comments of the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell, and myself about this Government’s commitment to tackling poverty throughout the country. Poverty comes with a host of other problems that have a visible and measurable effect on families across the country. If we fail to address those challenges, we will fail many of those families and their children.

Opposition Members who contributed to the debate of course tried to explain what they feel the previous Government achieved, but they also have to listen carefully to what is said about the areas in which they did not make progress. If we are trying to draw together a more consensual Government who build together for a future of success, we need to ensure that we work together on matters such as this. Through the newly established Cabinet Committee that will consider these issues, we will draw up a child poverty strategy in line with the Child Poverty Act 2010. I hope that Opposition Members will be able to contribute to that strategy so that it enjoys the support of all Members.

We must take steps to deal with the underlying problems that have made poverty such a corrosive issue in this country for too many years. Through radical welfare reform, we will reinforce fairness and encourage responsibility, and I believe that we will start to build a stronger community for a better Britain. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House can come together to deliver that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of tackling poverty in the UK.

New Roads (Adoption)

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Bill Wiggin.)

17:57

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me this evening. May I congratulate you on your elevation to your rightful place in the Chair? I am pleased to say that I voted for you, but it actually made no difference because your victory was overwhelming.

I thank Mr Speaker for giving me permission to hold this debate on a topic of extreme importance to my constituency. In conducting research on the issue, I have found that it is a growing problem across the country and will affect the constituencies of many hon. Members up and down the land. If there are Members present who wish to give local examples of how it affects their constituencies, I will be very happy to take interventions at any point.

The issue that I wish to raise is the adoption of local residential roads. In most of our constituencies, most residential roads are adopted by the local highways authority. In counties such as Northamptonshire, that is the local county council. However, when roads are built on new housing estates, they are in the ownership of the developers until they are handed over to the county council at some point. An adopted road is maintainable at public expense, but if a road has not been handed over to the local highways authority, it is the responsibility of the developer or, more worryingly, of the owners of properties with frontages in that road. Indeed, the Transport Minister in the previous Government wrote to me on this issue and confirmed that the local authority, as the highway authority, is responsible for maintaining those streets that have been adopted by it or its predecessor authorities—

18:00

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Stephen Crabb.)

[Mr Hollobone]

If the street has not been adopted, the responsibility for maintenance rests with the owner or, more usually, the frontages—the owners of the properties that front on to or abut the streets concerned. Those purchasing a property in an unadopted street should be advised of its status and the implications by their solicitor. I fear that in all too many cases people who purchase properties in unadopted streets are not being advised of the potential liability that they face. My first request tonight to those on the Treasury Bench would be to look at ways in which the estate agents code or the solicitors code could be revised so that purchasers of property in such roads are advised of their potential liabilities. I know that that is not the direct responsibility of the Minister who is being kind enough to reply to the debate, but I would be grateful if he passed it on to the relevant Minister or Ministers with responsibility.

This issue is important for places such as Kettering, because we are experiencing rapid housing growth. Under the present housing targets—they could be revised, and I hope that they are—the number of houses in my constituency is set to increase from 36,000 at present to 49,000 by 2021. That is an increase of one third. Potentially, in the next 11 years, one third of the residential roads in my constituency could be unadopted.

If a road is not adopted, there are lots of potential problems. For a start, almost by definition, the standard of the road surface and the pavement treatment are not up to the requisite Highways Authority standard. In the sort of estates concerned, the size of the kerb between the pavement and the road surface is often far bigger than normal, and represents a major trip hazard, especially for elderly residents, and many difficulties for young mums with pushchairs. I have had representations from local residents of Mawsley, a village in my constituency, on that very issue.

Developers are also responsible for the street lighting in those roads until they are handed over, and it is often substandard. Other issues include local authority access. There are places where local authorities will not send in rubbish carts to collect rubbish because of the lack of suitable access. Furthermore, speeding and parking enforcement cannot take place because the roads are not adopted. The Poppy Fields development in Kettering, close to Kettering general hospital, frequently experiences nuisance parking, but the county and borough councils can do nothing to address it. They cannot put in yellow lines or residents’ parking, because the highway is not adopted and is therefore not the responsibility of either local authority.

When I looked into this issue, I was staggered to learn that the Government have no idea how many unadopted roads there are in this country. I pointed this out to the Minister’s predecessor and he did not seem very concerned. However, I am hugely concerned, because the available figures suggest that there are some 40,000 unadopted roads with a total length of 4,000 miles. However, those statistics come from 1972, and no attempt has since been made to revise them. One of my requests to a previous Transport Minister was that the Government try to collect more up-to-date data on the extent of the problem, and I pass that request on to the new Transport Minister. I would think that a basic requirement to establish the full extent of the problem.

The difficulty is that there is in law no effective mechanism for the local highways authorities to force developers to get the roads up to the requisite standard so that they can be handed over to public authorities for adoption. Various mechanisms are in place, but when it comes to the crunch, they are effectively toothless. The main problem is section 38 of the Highways Act 1980. Following the debate I secured on this subject, with the permission of the Speaker, on 11 November last year, a previous Transport Minister made one concession: I could meet his officials to talk about the matter. I am pleased to say that, after much effort on my part to hold him to that kind offer, a meeting took place in March this year.

I and senior representatives from Kettering borough council and Northamptonshire county council met in the Department for Transport with some extremely helpful officials, and we made quite a lot of progress. A number of suggestions were made, not least that we find out the extent of the problem around the country. I am pleased to say that Northamptonshire county council contacted its colleagues around the country and was overwhelmed by the response. I shall read out some of those responses. Hampshire country council said:

“We have had our fair share too”.

Staffordshire county council said:

“We certainly had issues with developments where progress has been slow and sewers hadn’t been adopted.”

Worcestershire county council said:

“This as you would expect is also a fairly major irritation in Worcestershire.”

Devonshire county council said:

“I can confirm that we certainly have such problems in Devon, most notably relating to delayed adoption of sewers”.

Hertfordshire country council said:

“Very much an issue here in Herts.”

Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) is very concerned about this issue, and is also seeking to get involved with it.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is listing the areas of the country where this is a concern, but he has not mentioned—he might not know about it, of course—the situation in the East Riding of Yorkshire, in my constituency, particularly in Hook and the small town of Snaith, where there are several examples of developments where this has happened. This is, indeed, a national problem. As he has intimated, people look to their local authorities for support on this matter, and they ask, “Why are we continuing to pay council tax when we are not getting the same access to services as other council tax payers?” The local authorities are in a difficult position, and this is a big issue in the East Riding of Yorkshire and throughout my constituency. As he said, we need national and Government leadership, because it is not acceptable for his and my constituents to be left in limbo as they are now.

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend is spot on. He is absolutely right, and I am grateful to him for adding the East Riding of Yorkshire to my list. If he will encourage his colleagues there to reply to Tony Ciaburro at Northamptonshire county council, we can complete this list and send it to the Government. That was a most helpful intervention.

I shall continue with the list. Lincolnshire county council said:

“We have had some problems over the years.”

Dorset county council said:

“Confirm this is an issue in Dorset”.

Northumberland county council said:

“NCC and most other Highway Authorities experience exactly the same difficulties.”

Essex county council said that

“we certainly have our fair share of these in Essex.”

Cambridgeshire county council said:

“It is certainly a problem in Cambridgeshire.”

Derbyshire county council said:

“The Highways Act is out of date.”

Staffordshire county council said:

“Similar problems in Staffs together with another issue related to roads constructed by developers that are not intended for adoption.”

Wiltshire county council said:

“Wiltshire certainly has its share of problems.”

Oxfordshire county council said:

“I agree that the legislation as currently set out is well out of date and needs to be re-written”.

Flintshire county council said:

“The problem with unadopted roads that you have highlighted are being experienced throughout Wales…Winter maintenance was a major issue on these roads this last winter, particularly on parts of housing estates which appear to be completed but weren’t obviously adopted.”

That last point is very helpful.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend has provided a detailed list, perhaps I could add my local authority of Swindon. Earlier today I delivered my maiden speech, which touched on road adoption, which was nicely timed for this Adjournment debate. I want to echo 100% the sentiments he has expressed so far, and to add some comments about my experience of the issue. In particular, he has highlighted the problems with the lack of maintenance, and with street lighting and parking, which we cannot administer owing to the lack of double yellow lines, which causes problems of access for accident and emergency vehicles. The only practical way to solve the problem is to introduce a bond scheme for developers, whereby money is put into a pot on the commencement of building. I would therefore support the Government in introducing such a scheme. I also agree that residents are frustrated about council tax.

[Mr Hollobone]

I congratulate my hon. Friend not only on delivering an excellent maiden speech, but on making a most helpful intervention. If Swindon council would like to get in touch with Northamptonshire county council, that would help to complete the national picture.

My hon. Friend mentioned a bond scheme, which is one of the ways in which the Government think the problem can be addressed, but actually does not work. That is because local authorities cannot access the funds held in any bond made by the developer unless the developer agrees. The developer therefore has to go bust before the local authorities can use that money. The idea is one of those things that sounds good in principle, but which, in effect, is toothless.

After our helpful meeting at the Department for Transport, we basically came to the following conclusions. There should be revisions to the Department for Communities and Local Government’s circular 11/95 to include model planning conditions focusing on road standards, with a view to giving a clearer basis for planning conditions to be used in this area. It was noted at the meeting that there would need to be discussions with the Department, and that transport considerations would need to be balanced against wider objectives for the planning system. We also concluded that there would need to be refinements to the section 38 arrangements. Perhaps there could be a timing mechanism, so that, for instance, we would not have to wait for an estate to be completed before the roads were adopted. Perhaps there could be a phased introduction of adopted roads.

There would also need to be changes to the building commencement notification requirements, which is an issue that touches on the advanced payment code mechanism, whereby payments could be advanced by developers once building regulation permission was granted. However, all too often local authorities are not advised when building regulations are commenced. It was also suggested that there could be some innovative funding mechanisms aimed at providing a stronger financial incentive for developers to make roads up to an adoptable standard.

What I want to do in this debate, at the start of the new Parliament, with a new Government and a new Transport Minister, is to say, first: this is a big problem, and it is not going to go away. Unless the Government do something about it, millions of our citizens will be living on new housing estates on substandard roads, with substandard pavements and so on. Secondly, we are talking about an issue that can be tackled effectively through relatively simple Government involvement. Thirdly, on behalf of Kettering borough council, Northamptonshire county council and myself, let me say that we are willing to do anything at any time, and to speak to anyone in the Government to try to make progress on the issue. As the MP for Kettering, I certainly do not want a third of my residents living on unadopted roads in 10 or 15 years.

Fourthly, I invite the Minister to visit Mawsley in Kettering, which is a good example of where, despite the best efforts of everyone involved, the roads remain unadopted. Mawsley is a village—a model village in many senses—that is now 10 years old in parts, but where the roads have still not been brought up to standard.

I welcome the Minister to his post. He has a formidable reputation and knowledge of transport and local government issues. We very much look to him to take up this baton and change lives for the better for thousands of residents in my constituency and millions of our citizens across the country.

18:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

I begin by congratulating my coalition colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), on securing his second Adjournment debate on this issue and on providing the House with a further opportunity for debate. I also thank him for the very positive way in which he has progressed this matter. I know that he raised it with my predecessors, as he mentioned, and that he has had the opportunity, along with representatives of the local district and county councils, to discuss his concerns in more depth with Department for Transport officials, to which he also referred in his contribution. I think he is right to pursue this matter, as are the other Members who intervened on him. Indeed, I might add, from a local perspective, that I am aware of a similar issue in my constituency at a street called August Fields in Newhaven. I thus have some sympathy with the points that my hon. Friend raises. We at the Department for Transport expect all property developers to build roads to a high standard, so that they are ready for adoption by the local highways authorities as a matter of normal practice. However, I recognise that that is not always the case, as my hon. Friend highlighted.

It may help if I begin by outlining the powers that are currently available to local councils to ensure that new streets are built to a decent standard, and the two mechanisms by which those streets, once finished, can be adopted by the highways authority. I will then go on to discuss the concerns raised about the effectiveness or otherwise of these mechanisms.

The uses of planning conditions are set out in planning circular 11/95, to which my hon. Friend also referred. It states that the local planning authorities may impose conditions regulating the development or use of land under the control of the applicant, even if it is outside the site that is the subject of the application. Conditions should normally be consistent with national planning policies as expressed in Government circulars and planning framework documents. They should also normally accord with the provisions of development plans and other policies of local planning authorities. However, it is still necessary to consider whether a condition is justified in the particular circumstances of the proposed development.

In general, conditions that duplicate the effect of other legislation should not be imposed. It is for the local planning authority in the first instance to judge, on the facts of the case, whether a particular development proposal should be approved, subject to planning conditions. Reasons must be given for the imposition of every condition. Reasons such as “to comply with the policies of the council”, “to secure the proper planning of the area” or “to maintain control over the development” are vague, and can suggest that the condition in question has no proper justification. Successful challenges in the past might have been due in part to lax phrasing of conditions.

On a number of occasions, the courts have laid down the general criteria for the validity of planning conditions. In brief, these explain that conditions should be necessary; relevant to planning; relevant to the development to be permitted; enforceable; precise; and reasonable in all other respects. Of those six, I feel that my hon. Friend will be most interested in the fourth—enforcement. A condition should not be imposed if it cannot be enforced. There are two provisions that authorities may use to enforce conditions: an enforcement notice under section 172 of the Act, or a breach of condition notice under section 187A.

Given the above, it would be possible for local planning authorities to devise and agree with the developer through the pre-application negotiations, a suitable condition to ensure that those roads that will service the new development are brought up to the adoptable standard. I understand that, in some cases, this period of time may stretch over a number of years, especially in phased developments. People have, of course, moved into their houses in the meantime, and we may find occurring some of the problems to which my hon. Friend referred—lighting not working at that point, rubbish not being collected, and so on.

[Andrew Percy]

All that is fine and good, but part of the problem is that when some of these developments are constructed, the builder can go bankrupt or disappear, leading to an utter lack of understanding of who is then responsible—and local authorities find themselves constantly in the middle. As I say, it is when builders go bust that the real problems develop.

[Norman Baker]

I entirely understand that point and the frustration felt by some Members, but I urge my hon. Friend to be patient: there may be some better news in a few moments.

I understand that in some cases the period involved may stretch over a number of years, but circular 11/95 states that conditions may be imposed to ensure that development proceeds in a certain sequence when some circumstance of the case—for example, the manner of provision of infrastructure—makes that necessary.

The authority can require a developer who is building a new property on a private street to enter into the advance payment code agreement mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering. That means that the developer must deposit the money required to make up the street to the required standard. The amount is paid by the developer and put into a segregated account. After the building has been completed, the money, including any interest, is used to make up the street, any difference being the responsibility of the frontagers. I accept that that is not a perfect solution.

Alternatively, the developer can enter into a legally binding agreement with the authority to build the street to the required standard. In return, the authority will agree to adopt the road once it is finished. That is known as a section 38 agreement under the Highways Act 1980. Once the street has been finished, the authority will inspect it to ensure that it has been built to the standard that has been agreed to. If that is the case—or when the developer has made good any deficiencies—the authority will adopt the road. That guarantees to anyone who purchases property on a development that the road will be finished to an acceptable standard, and that they will not be liable for any future charges.

Those mechanisms give highways authorities the necessary tools both to manage the development and adoption of new roads and to reassure property owners that the road in question will be maintained by the highways authority. They also protect council tax payers. Authorities have no liability to pay for the uplift of poorly built roads from the public purse, as it would not be fair for council tax payers to subsidise new developments in that way. Highways authorities are among the statutory bodies that should be consulted about planning applications by the planning authority; in areas where there are two tiers of local government, the same council is obviously not involved. That provides an opportunity to ask for planning conditions to be made, or to allow the highways authority itself to enter into an agreement with the developer under section 38 of the Highways Act for the adoption of the highway at a future date.

It is currently for highways authorities to decide how to use those powers, as they are best able to judge local needs. Not every street will need to be adopted, as some property owners will want to reside in a private street. The highways authority should consider both their needs and any issues created by the type of development on a case-by-case basis.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering referred to the number of unadopted roads. Of course it is important for the Government to be aware of the scale and nature of public policy questions in this area. I, for one, accept that the views that have been expressed by Members this evening could be expressed by other Members, because the problems affect constituencies throughout the country. As my hon. Friend suggested, there are about 40,000 unadopted roads in the UK, according to a 1972 survey. I am afraid that there are no more up-to-date figures. However, knowing the number of unadopted roads would not really provide the context, because the vast majority—farm tracks, private estates, service roads and so on—are not really relevant to the issues in question, and it is not necessarily sensible to spend scarce public money on gathering information unnecessarily.

The people who know their areas best are members of local authorities and, of course, Members of Parliament. We greatly appreciate the work that local authorities and Members have done to bring particular problems to our attention and to gather other views and suggestions from around the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering has done so ably. The Department has acted on that information. Since the last debate, my officials have met representatives of Northamptonshire and Kettering local authorities to discuss further the points raised today, as such fast-growing areas are the most likely to have to manage issues of this kind.

The Planning Inspectorate provides model conditions to support local authorities in relation to issues that have been identified as problematic. It is in the process of developing a model condition—this was one of the requests made by my hon. Friend—to assist with the problems raised by Kettering. Local authorities will, of course, need to consider carefully the wording of any such condition to ensure that it suits the particular case, and to provide a clear and robust reason for its use in that instance. However, I hope that my hon. Friend considers that to be a move in the right direction.

We are working closely with colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government in considering ways of helping local authorities who are struggling with this problem, and both Departments are in correspondence with Kettering. We are open to practical proposals from authorities such as Northamptonshire and Kettering on how the existing mechanisms can be made to work better. I would welcome any comments from any other Members, or from any other authorities anywhere in the country that wish to contribute to the process.

In exploring solutions to this issue, I am happy to say that I have today asked my officials to consider, with their Department for Communities and Local Government colleagues, options for legislation, including empowering local authorities to require developers to enter into section 38 agreements. In the meantime, we will continue to engage with local authorities and to support them in developing solutions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering talked about the fact that some people who purchase properties are unaware of the status of the road. I am advised that householders have some redress against solicitors who have not undertaken full and proper searches. Such action can be enforced through the Law Society. I am also advised that the estate agents’ code of practice, although voluntary, is usually followed and that they should be expected to provide information to property purchasers in that situation.

I recognise that this is an important issue. I want streets, when they are developed, to be adopted by the relevant highways authority if that is what is right for the street in question, as it usually will be. Good developers will build streets to a standard that authorities can adopt, thereby transferring the responsibility for maintenance away from property owners. I would like that practice to become commonplace, but I also understand that a small number of developers will not build to that standard without local authority intervention. I am, therefore, as I have said, open to practical suggestions as long as they would place the cost on the appropriate people and could be implemented quickly so that authorities can better manage the situation.

I congratulate my hon. Friend again on raising this relevant issue. There is considerable force behind his arguments and I hope that the steps I have taken in the short time I have been in office will help to bring about a solution that will render some of these problems redundant.

Question put and agreed to.

18:26

House adjourned.

Petition

Thursday 10th June 2010 Petitions

Thursday 10 June 2010

Hunting with Dogs

Thursday 10th June 2010 Petitions

The Petition of residents of Hastings and Rye and others,

Declares that the petitioners believe that hunting with dogs is cruel; further

declares that the Petitioners oppose the efforts of local Conservative Parliamentary Candidate Amber Rudd and the Conservative Party to have the ban repealed, further declares that the Petitioners support the Hunting Act 2004 and the Back the Ban campaign; and that the Petitioners support Michael Foster, MP for Hastings and Rye, in his campaign to keep hunting illegal.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons reject any proposal to legalise hunting with dogs.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Michael Jabez Foster, Official Report, 30 March 2010; Vol. 508, c. 786.]

[P000802]

The Petition of residents of Blaydon Constituency and others,

Declares that the Petitioners agree with a ban on hunting with dogs, and believe the ban should be enforced rigorously and effectively; further declares that the Petitioners are opposed to any efforts to overturn the ban and allow the re-introduction of hunting with dogs in the future.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons reject any proposal to legalise hunting with dogs and asks the Government to reaffirm its opposition to hunting with dogs.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Mr David Anderson, Official Report, 30 March 2010; Vol. 508, c. 788.]

[P000805]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

The Hunting Act was passed by Parliament in 2004. It has not been a demonstrable success and is difficult to enforce. Only three hunts have been successfully prosecuted for illegal hunting.

There are many more pressing issues for parliamentary time at the moment, but the Government wish to give Parliament the opportunity to review the Hunting Act and, if it wishes, repeal this legislation. The Government will, therefore, put a motion before the House of Commons on whether the Hunting Act should be repealed and, if the motion is carried, they will bring forward legislation in due course.

Westminster Hall

Thursday 10th June 2010 Westminster Hall

Thursday 10 June 2010

[Mr Joe Benton in the Chair]

Volcanic Ash (Impact on Aviation)

Thursday 10th June 2010 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Mr Vara.)

14:30

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

I am grateful, Mr Benton, that you should be presiding over this debate; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

The debate is being held in Government time to allow us to consider the severe problems caused by volcanic ash in April. We are all too aware of the significant inconvenience and unhappiness caused to those who were stranded by the crisis or whose travel plans were disrupted. That alone merits the House’s giving careful consideration to how the crisis was handled and how we should deal with the continuing threats caused by volcanic ash.

Hon. Members will be aware that the source of the problems is the Eyjafjallajokull volcano. I hope that the House will forgive my rudimentary attempts at Icelandic pronunciation; I plan to say the volcano’s name a few more times today, so it might improve. For brevity’s sake, however, hon. Members may prefer to call it E15, not least because mispronouncing it has caused a number of problems for media outlets across the world.

A key point is that the distinctive individual characteristics of different volcanoes can have a significant impact on the level of disruption generated by their ash clouds. Eyjafjallajokull has a number of features that are relevant to the matters that we are considering this afternoon.

First, previously recorded active periods show eruptions of varying intensity taking place over many months. That is in significant contrast to volcanic eruptions such as those at Mount St Helen’s or Pinatubo; those were very intense, but they lasted only a matter of hours. Secondly, E15’s caldera is capped with ice. Initially, the magma erupted through the ice cap, which caused rapid cooling of the magma, leading to its explosive disintegration into fine particles of ash. I am advised that fine particles of ash are more easily conveyed over long distances by the prevailing wind, and they remain in the atmosphere for longer than the larger particles produced by eruptions like Mount St Helen’s.

Thankfully, E15 stopped emitting ash on 22 May. However, that does not mean that the crisis has gone away or that we should ease off with important activities meant to deal with the threat to flying posed by volcanic ash. The volcano could erupt again at any time over the next few months. Moreover, it is located 15.5 miles west of a larger volcano called Katla. Historical evidence indicates a worrying correlation between activity at E15 and subsequent eruptions at Katla. The risk of activity at Katla remains present. For a number of reasons, there remains an urgent need to address the issue and to ensure that we get the right safety and regulatory framework in the event of a recurrence of volcanic ash problems.

I am sure that everyone here will agree that safety must be our paramount concern. Volcanic ash presents a problem for modern jet-powered engines for two principal reasons. First, the ash is silica-rich and therefore abrasive, especially when it hits aircraft at high speed. That affects forward-facing surfaces such as the windshield and the leading edges of the wings, and it can also lead to accumulation of ash in surface openings—including, most importantly, the engines. Secondly, the composition of most volcanic ash is such that its melting temperature lies within the operating temperature range of modern large jet engines.

The risks have been illustrated in a number of previous incidents, and I draw the House’s attention to two of them. On 24 June 1982, a BA 747 jet, on its way from London to Auckland, flew into a cloud of volcanic ash 100 miles south-east of Jakarta. In rapid succession, all four engines flamed out and shut down. The aircraft entered a glide, dropping from 37,000 to 13,500 feet before the pilot was able to restart the engines; one of the engines failed again soon afterwards. Similarly, on 15 December 1989, a KLM 747 flying from Amsterdam to Tokyo flew into volcanic ash on the approach to Anchorage airport. Again, all four engines shut down. The plane dropped 14,000 feet before the pilot was able to restart the engines. Damage to the plane was reported to have cost more than $80 million.

I return to the crisis that we face in this country. The initial reaction of air traffic controllers and regulators in Europe was to follow the internationally established procedures set down in the International Civil Aviation Organisation’s volcanic ash contingency plan for the European region. That plan is based on experience, and it provides that aircraft should avoid flying in volcanic ash. The scope of the zone affected by volcanic ash was determined by a computer model run by the Met Office, in its role as the volcanic ash advisory centre for the north Atlantic. Using data about the ash emitted from the volcano, the model is used to predict where the north Atlantic winds will carry the ash, and the potential peak concentrations of that ash. As a result, the Civil Aviation Authority and NATS imposed movement restrictions in UK airspace that had the effect of grounding commercial aircraft between 15 and 20 April.

That decision undoubtedly triggered controversy. However, it mirrored similar measures taken throughout Europe. It also reflected the advice of aircraft manufacturers at the time that aircraft should not fly in areas if there was a risk of ash being present. Whatever the merits of the choices made during the tenure of the previous Administration, it soon became clear that a rule that required complete avoidance of volcanic ash in affected areas would not be a long-term solution in Europe’s congested airspace. That is why the CAA brought together airlines, regulators, and aircraft and engine manufacturers, to develop a new approach to reducing the disruption caused by Eyjafjallajokull.

After a review of test flight data, and in consultation with the airline operators, manufacturers and international partners, the CAA issued new guidance on the use of airspace on 20 April. That guidance reflected revised ash tolerance levels, as determined by the engine manufacturers. Put simply, it was established that there was after all a level of ash concentration that was consistent with safe flying. The area in which it was safe to fly was thus expanded, and aircraft were permitted to start flying again in UK airspace. That, of course, was immensely welcome.

The new regulatory framework designates three airspace categories. The first consists of airspace predicted to be free of ash, when no special restrictions apply. The second is a red enhanced procedures zone, when low ash density is predicted and aircraft are permitted to fly so long as increased safety and maintenance checks are carried out. The third category is a black no-fly zone, when predicted ash levels exceed safety limits and no commercial flights are permitted.

That was the situation in place when the new ministerial team took over the Department for Transport in mid-May. Given the hassle caused to passengers and the economic impact on airlines, the volcanic ash problem was clearly one of the most important issues for the new team to address. In the days immediately following the new Government’s taking over, officials had to work around the clock to deal with the matter. We need to pay tribute to their hard work, under both this Administration and the previous one. The new Secretary of State’s first official decision was to declassify the five-day ash concentration forecasts of the Met Office and authorise their publication, to assist the aviation community to tackle the crisis. He has focused time and effort on this matter every day since his appointment.

We have been working hard with officials, the Civil Aviation Authority and industry to ensure that such disruption to UK aviation is not repeated, even if there is renewed volcanic activity. Finding a safe way to achieve that goal is a high priority for us, which is why we put this debate on the agenda this afternoon. I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ contributions and comments on this important matter.

Central to our efforts is an attempt to engage with manufacturers, to distinguish between concerns about safety and concerns about the commercial impact of ash damage to engines. Given that the issues cross both the aircraft’s body and its engine, a key task for the CAA and the airlines has been to press the aircraft and engine manufacturers to establish, with clarity, what level of ash their engines can safely tolerate. That is a key question, and the Department continues to be actively engaged in that important process.

The general approach that I have outlined was endorsed at an international conference hosted by the CAA on 13 May. The conference brought together more than 100 representatives from organisations such as the European Commission, the European Aviation Safety Agency and Eurocontrol, as well as from the airlines, airports and manufacturers. I am pleased to say that on 17 May further progress was made. The CAA established an additional area for safe flying—a new time-limited zone—which is between the black no-fly area and the red enhanced procedures zone. Aircraft and engine manufacturers agreed that it was safe to allow operations in the new grey zone for a limited time at higher ash densities than were previously permitted.

To operate in the new zone, airlines need to present their national supervisory authority with a safety case that includes the agreement of their aircraft and engine manufacturers. Essentially, there was a doubling of the ash threshold for safe flying from 2,000 to 4,000 micrograms per cubic metre, which was a significant and a welcome step forward. However, I want to emphasise that the new Government are not letting up the pressure. We are also pushing for progress on the matter at an international level, both within the European Union and more widely in the International Civil Aviation Organisation. We want to see ICAO take forward the development of a new global standard on volcanic ash.

Turning now to the impact of this incident on passengers, I have immense sympathy with those who had their travel plans disrupted or who had difficulty getting home for work, school and other commitments. The situation must have been a nightmare for thousands of families stranded around the world during the Easter holidays. Certainly, the efforts made by the previous Government in aiding the repatriation of those passengers were subject to some controversy and criticism, and I imagine that during the course of the debate, hon. Members will want to recount the problems experienced by their constituents.

We need to acknowledge that many passengers felt angry and frustrated about how the situation was handled. Particular controversy surrounded the Madrid hub that was established by the previous Government to help bring home long-haul passengers. Nevertheless, to be fair, we should acknowledge that the Foreign Office did provide consular assistance to thousands of British nationals around the world. Additional capacity was also provided on Eurostar, the channel tunnel, cross-channel ferries and domestic rail to help passengers return home. Moreover, we should recognise the efforts made by the airlines and travel companies—initially to get people home by road, rail and sea and then by laying on extra flights once air space reopened.

Most passengers have statutory entitlements under one or both of the denied boarding, cancellation and delay regulations or the package travel directive, depending on the type of holiday that they bought. I do not propose to go into the detail of the rights accorded by such regulations, but further advice on them can be found on various internet sites, including that of the Air Transport Users Council. In practice, a proportion of passengers were provided with food and accommodation by their airline or tour operator until they could travel. Others covered by the regulation who opted for re-routing but who were not provided with up-front assistance are entitled to claim reasonable costs from their airline.

Most people acknowledge that the regulations did not work perfectly, but they were being applied in an unprecedented situation. There can be little doubt that the eruption of an Icelandic volcano was not a scenario uppermost in the minds of the legislators who drafted the rules. Their operation, therefore, clearly needs to be reviewed.

The response to the ash crisis is an important matter on the agenda for the next meeting of EU Transport Ministers, which will take place on 24 June and which the Secretary of State is planning to attend. Whatever the debate about the future of these rules, it is important to make one thing very clear and put it on the record. Despite the controversy surrounding the denied boarding rules and the undeniable burdens that they have placed on the airline industry in what was an unprecedented situation, we expect pending claims under those rules to be processed fairly, expeditiously and in accordance with the current law.

I should like briefly to address some issues around the impact of this episode on the aviation and travel industry. A number of organisations and trade associations from air transport and related industries have asked for financial assistance from the Government to help meet the costs of looking after passengers, and to cover lost business during April. In the last couple of weeks, the Secretary of State has met the chief executives of the major UK airlines to discuss a number of topics, including this one. We appreciate and understand the concerns expressed by the companies that were hit with an unexpected bill so soon after the end of the recession and so soon after what everyone has acknowledged has been a very difficult period for the aviation industry generally.

The Government have not ruled out providing support for airlines, but I do not want to raise expectations. The starting presumption must be that it is for businesses to meet their own operating risks and legal liabilities. Moreover, EU state aid clearance would be needed if assistance were to be given. Even more importantly, the state of the public finances means that such assistance may not be affordable. My understanding is that although Governments across Europe may sympathise with the plight of the airlines, they are also constrained by similar concerns about affordability. Such a view can come as no surprise to anyone given the current financial situation, which has been all too apparent in news bulletins recently.

In conclusion, this was and remains an unprecedented situation. It required the rapid development of a new approach to air safety regulation and lessons need to be learned to deal with similar emergencies in the future. Indeed, they are already being learned, as is shown by the urgent work that the new Government have undertaken to seek improvements to the robustness of the regulatory framework and its ability to adapt and to respond to the challenge posed by volcanic ash.

In that regard, it is worth noting that with the adoption of the 17 May set of changes, which I outlined earlier, the maximum concentration of ash designated as being consistent with safe flying has risen by a factor of 20 since the decisions that were made at the start of the crisis in April. But let me emphasise that both the CAA and the Department for Transport are continuing to work hard with engine and aircraft manufacturers with the goal of establishing a further increase in safe ash tolerance levels.

Eyjafjallajokull may have stopped erupting for the moment, but no one can rule our further volcanic activity and further disruption during the coming months. So I want to close my opening remarks by assuring the House that the new Government will work hard to see that every effort is made to minimise any disruption, with the goal of avoiding a rerun of the events in April that caused so much mayhem and unhappiness for so many passengers.

14:50

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

My constituency is home to Newcastle International airport. It is an award-winning airport that is crucial to the business success of the north-east region. The airport suffered during the recession of 2009, with passenger numbers down by about 10.6%. There was also a significant fall in profits and staffing numbers.

The airport’s authority has expressed to me its view that the analysis of the effect of the volcanic ash on aircraft has improved, as the data have become more widely available. However, it was unfortunate that, from the beginning of this incident, there were severe restrictions and that there was no alternative to the action that was taken.

None the less, without apportioning blame for this natural event, Newcastle International airport would like the House to be aware of the losses that it has suffered, no doubt like other airports across the country, as a result of it. The direct financial losses at Newcastle International airport have been established at roughly £1 million. However, that sum can be multiplied significantly when the effect of the situation on other businesses at the airport—for example concessions, catering, hotels, car rentals and so on—is taken into account, and that will have a significant effect on the economy of the north-east region.

The airport’s authority has estimated that more than 75,000 passengers were affected by more than 780 flight cancellations. I am here today to urge the Government, on behalf of Newcastle International airport—and, I am sure, other airports in the UK—to work hard for compensation for airports as well as for airlines at the EU Transport Council on 24 June. I also urge the Government to work hard with the aviation industry to restore travellers’ confidence in air travel.

14:53

[Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

I also represent an airport, Aberdeen, which is one of the BAA group of airports. Like Newcastle International airport, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), it was affected by the volcanic ash. I will come back to that issue.

First, I want to thank the Minister for her opening remarks, which were really helpful in bringing us up to date on where we are and where we are going. I also want to say to her that, although the industry has suffered severe losses, I agree with her that this is not the moment for it to look to the public purse to resolve its problems. I do not think that that would be a realistic outcome. Nevertheless, we must acknowledge that this incident was a shock that had severe economic repercussions, especially for the aviation industry, which we all know does not operate on the widest of profit margins, even at the best of times—and these are not the best of times.

It has been estimated that the industry lost something in the region of £50 million to £100 million a day, or at least most of those losses were suffered by the aviation industry. Perhaps 25% of those losses were suffered by other industries. To quote the proverb, “It’s an ill wind that blows nobody any good”, and this was an ill wind—exactly so.

Having said that, there were other travel operators that benefited from this situation. I speak on a personal basis in saying that, and I would also like to make a comment about the unpredictability of the movement of the ash. When I was due to travel down to London at that time, I was told that either Aberdeen airport or the London airports were likely to be closed on my day of travel, so I elected to take the train. Earlier this week, we had a debate in the House that reinforced the case for high-speed rail going to Aberdeen. I say that because that journey took me seven and a half hours—on the fast train from Aberdeen. In the event, as I was on the train, I was able to check in on my phone and find that neither of the airports that I was due to fly to or from was affected by the ash.

However, people have to make plans, so one issue that needs to be addressed—the Minister has addressed it—is the fact that, if such events occur again, there must be the greatest possible accuracy and predictability to enable people to plan their options. Clearly, that would be important and helpful. No doubt the Civil Aviation Authority, the Met Office, NATS and everybody else will be getting together to ensure that we have a much better operating system, which would give people advance warning and the opportunity to make alternative plans. That would be instructive.

It was also interesting to see a situation in which nobody had ever considered the possibility of a total lack of planes in the skies for a week, and to see the mindset of modern life suddenly confronted with a quite unexpected challenge. For some people, that was shocking, inasmuch as all kinds of presumptions went out of the window, but for others it was perhaps refreshing, in that it made people understand that not all these flight journeys were necessary and that teleconferencing could be used quite effectively. For some people, there were more pleasurable means of surface transport than air travel, at least for the shorter journeys. Indeed, I heard one woman say that she had never seen the Alps, other than from the air, until she had to drive through them to find an airport from which she could get home.

It is right to acknowledge that that situation made people think differently. I do not know whether the Minister or her Department feel that they need to express any view about that, but it is being suggested that people might reconsider the kind of holidays or business trips that they make. People may consider that the risk of possible disruption justifies thinking about not travelling so far or finding places to travel to where there is surface transport. People might plan their lives slightly differently, especially given the fact that, as the Minister has warned us, a much bigger eruption could occur at any time, which could lead to more serious disruption.

I want to return briefly to the particular circumstances of the airport that is located in my constituency. Much the same as the airport in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North, Aberdeen airport has suffered a direct loss—in landing charges and all the usual operating charges—which I estimate to be £1,056,000. That is a slightly more precise figure than the one that the hon. Lady gave for Newcastle International airport, but it is in pretty much the same ballpark.

BAA estimated that it lost £6 million per day for every day that the planes were not flying. Aberdeen airport recorded a 26% fall in passenger numbers in April 2010 compared with April 2009, yet in the first part of May 2010, the corresponding fall compared with the first part of May 2009 was 9.9%. In other words, the economic effect of the recession looks like accounting for 10% of the losses. The effect of the disruption from ash accounted for the other 15%.

Obviously, airports, which are suffering from the recession, find such losses quite a significant hit to take. Because it is part of BAA, I guess, Aberdeen airport did not even suggest to me or to my office that it was looking for compensation, but it was nevertheless anxious that people should be made aware that the incident had cost it money and that that was of concern to it.

The Minister touched on this point, but I want to ask whether she can determine the extent to which the UK authorities and the European authorities are operating in total unity, or do we feel that we have a distinctive concern of our own? The fact is that we are further north than many other European countries and consequently closer to the source of eruption, so the likelihood of disruption for the UK is probably higher. That would justify us having our own standards, if necessary.

As the Minister correctly stated, safety is the prime concern for us all. Interestingly, the public reaction was remarkably sanguine. I think that the vast majority of people, not being technically aware and hearing that there was a problem, would not have wished to take a flight into the unpredictabilities of an ash cloud. As the closure extended to a significant number of days, some remarks from the airline industry raised a slight concern, in spite of the qualifications made, that commercial considerations may have been prejudicing the industry’s judgment. That is understandable, but it reinforces the reason why such decisions must ultimately be taken by public agencies, not left to the commercial judgment of the operating airlines.

The public interest and the public good seem to justify the ability of Government and public agencies to take such decisions without the threat of financial liability for the consequences. It would be distasteful if, as some press reports have suggested, the airlines or the industry started to take European institutions, Governments, the CAA, the Met Office and so on to court over the issue. That would raise in the public mind a concern that public agencies whose job is to defend the public good and the public interest could suffer a commercial cost as a result of a decision that must be taken at short notice with the best of intentions. If necessary, the law should be brought into play to ensure that that does not happen.

That does not detract in any way from the fact that I have sympathy for the airlines. I recognise that they have a profit incentive and that none of them makes huge profits—indeed, hardly any are making any profit at the moment. However, we must ultimately operate on the basis of mutual good will and understanding. Conversely, the airlines are entitled to expect public agencies to seek the best possible advice so that unnecessary closures are not enforced and a full evaluation is made of the available options and diversions.

Interestingly, I read that there is some suggestion of an early-warning technology that could enable planes to identify dangerous concentrations of ash in flight and fly around, over or under them. It seems that we will accrue useful gains if we can make use of such technologies. I hope the Minister accepts that the right approach is a partnership between the public agencies and the industry. The public agencies should recognise that people want and need to fly, that flying is an economic necessity and that airlines must make revenues to keep their operations going. At the same time, public safety must be the overriding consideration.

On a parochial conclusion, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North is right to speak up on behalf of the airport in Newcastle, and I hope she will forgive me if I make some additional special pleading. I mentioned the length of the fastest train journey from Aberdeen to London. For us, the airport is not just an alternative means of communication; it is our essential connection with the economic drivers of our area. Aberdeen is the international centre of the offshore oil and gas industry, so it is vital to us that people are able to fly in and out of the city. The disruption has had serious significance for us, as has the ongoing British Airways strike, although in that case we can at least use other operators.

I am sure that the House will understand, therefore, that I will be as concerned as anybody if long periods of closure or no flying are likely, but I am not prepared to defend the importance of flying to the economy or the airport to my constituency when passenger safety is the overriding priority. People need to be satisfied that the Government have the right balance of regulations in place and confident that those regulations are realistic, that they take account of the technical information available and airlines’ capability to adapt to different circumstances, and, ultimately, that they balance commercial interests and the public interest. If we achieve that, even if another major disruption of this kind occurs, I hope that we will be able to manage it in a way that does not lead to long-term complete closure of flying. If that is what safety requires, that is what we must do, but I would think that we had learned enough this time probably to be able to prevent it from happening again. I certainly hope so.

15:04

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

The Minister has set out clearly what problems the country faced and what tasks the Government had to go through. I am grateful for that summation of the situation, which I think was helpful for everybody.

In South Derbyshire live thousands of people who work at East Midlands airport, as well as thousands of people who make the magnificent air engines at Rolls-Royce, so I come at the issue with a two-pronged attack. Even though we had a week of peace while the airport was shut down, this situation has cost the airport’s owners, Manchester Airport Group, about £10 million. I am sorry that the situation has cost other hon. Members’ airports £1 million, but I think that I have trumped them. It has been a huge shock to our area. Passenger safety is the most important consideration, but the situation has hit us financially at a difficult economic time.

I applaud the Minister’s statement and look forward to any compensation package that might be offered. It must be Europe-wide. It must not be just our Government going out on a limb. That would not be fair to everybody in the country. We should also work hard on new technology, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) said, and ensure that we minimise any future risks from the volcano—I am not going to try Icelandic, so I will call it E15. It is interesting that there is an ongoing risk that it might erupt again, and that its neighbouring big brother might blow as well.

We have learned a lot from those two eruptions. It was not a happy time. I sincerely hope that the Department for Transport, and perhaps the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, will consider working with Rolls-Royce, other aviation companies and universities in greater detail on new types of radar and so on.

On the compensation packages, I have received some interesting letters from residents caught up in the disruption. They have given me detailed descriptions of how they felt let down by consular activities, particularly out on the west coast of America. If I may, I will copy the Minister in on those documents—I will probably send them to the Foreign Office as well—because the Government need to hear at first hand what happened. South Derbyshire is a great place, and people rushing back to it were particularly annoyed that it took about another week to achieve that.

I am grateful to the Minister for what she has said. I know that the thousands of people who work at East Midlands airport and Rolls-Royce will be looking for leadership on the matter.

15:07

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) in discussing the impact of the recent crisis. I represent Stourbridge in the west midlands, which—like every other town in the country, I dare say—is home to countless people who were inconvenienced or stuck abroad. The eruptions happened during the election campaign. I was due to attend the opening of a new building, including a ceremony and a whole day of events, at Old Swinford Hospital school, but it had to be cancelled because various teaching staff and governors were scattered around the globe.

Also—I will not say that this is worse—a couple of people from my election delivery team were detained in Dubai, along with about 10,000 or 15,000 other people, and were unable to return to the UK to help me to get elected. It was illuminating to see how many people are away at any one time. I was surprised to hear how many teaching staff were away on all sorts of educational trips, not necessarily with their students, in Australia and other parts of the world.

I will not repeat what my hon. Friend said about compensation and the need for transparency. I am sure that dealing with that is in the forefront of the Minister’s mind.

On the national impact, our airline industry is looking at £1 billion of losses, which is a serious matter. My local airport was not as badly affected as the one in South Derbyshire, but Birmingham airport suffered losses of £2 million. There is also the ongoing effect to consider. This week, I spoke to the chief executive of Birmingham airport, who informed me that things seemed to be back to normal with long-haul flights—people visiting relatives in far-flung parts of the world—business flights and short-haul, two-week summer holidays. However, short, weekend-break holidays, when people spontaneously think that they might go somewhere for the weekend because there is an offer on easyJet, still seem to be struggling. People are still nervous about whether they will get back in time for work or other commitments at the end of their weekend break. Therefore, we should not forget the impact on future airline business.

Obviously, we need to learn from the way the crisis was handled in April. There certainly seems to have been a lack of application of research on identifying safe thresholds for volcanic ash in the atmosphere. My right hon. Friend the Minister gave examples of near disasters that have occurred over the past 20 or 30 years, but they seem not to have created a sense of urgency about improving regulations. As a result, the only option left in April was to close all our airspace. Now that the Government are going to get a grip on the issue, I hope that that will not be our only option when an eruption occurs again, as I am sure one will.

Initially, the main criticisms were that the UK allowed its airspace to remain closed for at least 24 hours longer than the rest of Europe. There were also questions over the extent to which help was given to passengers stranded around the globe. My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire mentioned people on the west coast of America whom this country and the former Government could have done more to help, and I am sure that that is true of people who were stranded in other parts of the world.

I have also heard criticism from people in the airline industry that there was a real lack of political leadership at the outset of the crisis. It took a full three days before leading members of the Government were on the airwaves giving a lead as to what actions should be taken. The first time they came on the airwaves, it was to talk about sending the fleet to Spain to collect people who were stranded there, which was not the sort of initial leadership that passengers and airlines were looking for. I am sure that our new Government will learn from the leadership issues that arose during the crisis.

Obviously, there has been no major volcanic explosion in Europe for several hundred years, so we cannot blame anybody too much for the fact that all the airspace had to be closed. If I have mentioned certain matters, however, it is because there were things that could have been done, despite the fact that nobody expected the crisis to hit.

In finishing the first part of my speech, I pay tribute to Willie Walsh, chief executive of British Airways. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) said that most of us would not step into an aeroplane knowing the risks involved in flying into volcanic ash. Someone had to take the plunge and test a flight to see what the effects of ash in the atmosphere would be, and I greatly admire the chief executive of British Airways for leading from the front in that respect.

On the future, I hope that the research being done by easyJet will result in improvements to radar technology. I gather that the company is already testing its radar technology and believes that it will be good enough to predict ash clouds from about 60 miles away so that pilots will be able to fly around them. However, there is cause for a degree of caution about how far that will enable us to overcome the problem in the short term.

[Malcolm Bruce]

I want to reinforce that point. EasyJet should be commended for what it is doing, but does my hon. Friend agree that, if the technology is to make a viable contribution to a solution, it needs to be part of a regulatory arrangement, rather than the individual choice of one airline?

[Margot James]

I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend. It should be part of not only a UK, but an international regulatory solution. None the less, it is good to know that these technological developments are under way, although there is a fair way to go, even with the good work that easyJet has started. It is important that we understand the impact of not only denser ash clouds, but fragments and shards in the atmosphere. The key is to reach an understanding of what constitutes a safe level. I think that 2 mg per cubic metre is the accepted standard, but we need a greater evidence base to support that.

My right hon. Friend the Minister talked about the danger of the Katla volcano erupting. I gather from reading expert reports that it could have 100 times the impact of the previous volcanic eruption. Other experts—I am delighted that I now know that they are called vulcanologists, which sounds like something out of “Star Trek”, although I am sure that we will be hearing more from them in the future—predict that the Icelandic volcanic system will enter an active phase in the 2030s, so it is timely that the Government are starting to add weight to the priority of the issue.

The events that we are discussing have been a salutary experience for everyone who has been caught up in them. We in the west somehow think that we have conquered nature in many respects in our daily lives, but recent events are a timely reminder that nature is still very much in charge.

I would also emphasise the fact that nobody—no Government, no regulatory body, no industry—can predict and plan for everything. The Government are absolutely on the right path in looking for a regulatory solution and working with the industry, and I am sure that we will get there, but there is no perfect solution. I have spent most of my working life in the pharmaceutical industry, and there is no such thing as a medicine without a risk, just as there will never be such a thing as a flight without a risk. We have to accept that there will always be a risk, but we have to reduce it to manageable levels. We should opt not for the no-fly solution that we were all panicked into, but for a more manageable level of risk reduction.

New politics means different things to different people. To me, it is important that we understand that there are limits to what Governments can do, so we should not be too quick to blame the previous Government for the problems that I have tried to do justice to this afternoon. We should not expect too much or a perfect solution from this Government or any future Government.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister and her team will do their very best to move the situation on so that the airline industry and passengers are not once again brought to a halt and dramatically inconvenienced in the way that they were, and so that we manage the risk of taking to the air. However, nothing can ever be perfect.

15:19

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr. Benton, for giving me the opportunity to make my first speech in Westminster Hall. The issue of the volcanic cloud emanating from Iceland caused huge problems for people travelling abroad and for those trying to get home in April. British airspace was closed for six days, but it was also significant that the disruption lasted much longer than that. The problem also compounded the difficulties that the airline industry has been suffering. The recession hit the industry hard, and the grounding of all flights for days on end simply added to those difficulties.

Estimates vary—the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) quoted some relating to the airport in her constituency—but the EU estimates that the ash crisis cost the airline industry £2 billion. We can all agree that there was significant loss to the industry. We shall probably never know the true figure. About 100,000 flights were cancelled in the relevant period. The industry must accept that running any kind of business will never be risk-free, but we must also recognise that April 2010 was an exceptionally tough month. Not since 11 September 2001 has aviation faced such a challenging time. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) mentioned the surreal experience of looking up at the sky and seeing not a single aeroplane or jet engine trail, for a protracted period; I think that was only the second time that has happened in my lifetime.

I want to mention the difficulties that travellers faced. The uncertainty of the situation meant that not only could people not return home, but they did not know when they would be able to do so. There were Dartford residents who were affected by the travel disruption and could not get home or travel abroad. The ash cloud problems also coincided with the school holidays, and many people who had gone on family holidays could not return home, which had a consequential impact on them. Even my Liberal Democrat opponent in the general election, Mr. James Willis, could not get home until just before the nominations closed. Obviously, I was deeply concerned. He is a decent chap. It was sad that even in the middle of that difficult time for travellers, one airline tried to avoid liability for refunding passenger tickets, which added to the misery, uncertainty and difficulty for those travellers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) mentioned leadership, which the country looked for during that period. Clearly, safety had to be the priority for the Government. They needed to ensure that it was safe for people to fly, but we need to consider whether more information on the ash cloud could have been gathered more quickly than it was, and whether flight restrictions could have been removed earlier, reducing the impact on travellers and airlines. The then Government’s initial approach was to claim that any ash in the sky meant that flights could not take place. We now have a new approach. I welcome last month’s rule change to allow flights when there is ash in the atmosphere at the safe level of 2 mg per cubic metre. We need to ensure that that is reviewed, and to consider whether the non-aviation options were properly thought through.

We also need to see whether the contingency plans shaped up. Has the Minister been able to get to the bottom of what happened to the 100 coaches we heard so much about—which were meant to bring stranded British subjects home at the same time that coaches were being used by travel companies, and were at a high premium? As far as I can tell they never materialised, so perhaps lessons can be learned from that. We need to learn such lessons, because we must ascertain whether the decisions that were made were too cautious. I believe it is inevitable that a similar situation will happen again—probably with the same volcano, whose name I shall not even attempt to pronounce. However, we can ensure that if planes can fly safely, they are allowed to do so.

We need also to learn the lessons about the repatriation of passengers, and what practical measures might have been possible to help passengers who were stuck abroad. Will the Minister consider the possibility of temporarily—I emphasise the word “temporarily”—waiving night-time restrictions on flights, to allow people to get home should a similar situation occur in the future?

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

On deregulation, I appreciate that the Conservative party is committed to the deregulation Bill, but a fundamental point of passenger safety arises and we cannot allow compromise; it must be paramount. To allow commercial interests to influence our judgment would be a terrible mistake, with potentially dangerous consequences.

It was refreshing to hear the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) suggest that perhaps the Government at the time were not to blame. Sometimes it is easy to throw rocks, even volcanic ones, at one’s opponents—in this case, the previous Government. A new phrase to use might be “tough on volcanic ash and tough on the causes of volcanic ash”.

On working with the authorities and technical people, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) talked about the technologies—I am not sure whether they are radar or infrared technologies.

[Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is getting rather lengthy and becoming a speech. I invite him to complete it, but he should bear it in mind that interventions should be as brief as possible.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Thank you, Mr Benton; I apologise.

My point is essentially about deregulation and not allowing it to compromise passenger safety. I would hate the drive to deregulation in the broader political environment to impinge on that, because it is vital.

[Gareth Johnson]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must of course ensure that safety is treated as paramount in such situations, but it is also essential to adopt a common-sense approach. We should not enter a blame game, but should learn the lessons that are there to be learned, so that if the same situation arises again, as I believe it will, we shall be better prepared to deal with it, and so that people stranded abroad can be brought home and can fly as soon as it is safe. To learn the lessons, we need to work with the airlines, the Civil Aviation Authority and all the agencies involved, so that there can be proper contingency plans.

I agree that it is easy to look back at the volcanic ash problem with 20:20 hindsight and claim that we have all the answers, and that the previous Government should have done this or that better. That would not be fair in many instances, because at the time we faced a unique situation. However, a Government’s capability can be tested in unique situations. We witness the contingency plans—where they exist—the quality of leadership, and a Government’s adaptability in unpredictable situations and how they interact with different agencies. In the light of that, I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that the aviation industry will be able to contribute to the scientific and technological assessments of flying into areas where ash is present in the atmosphere. I hope the technology that some airlines are already using—an issue touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge—will be considered for use in detecting the location of ash clouds and their density. I also hope that we continue to work in partnership with the engine manufacturers, because they understand better than anyone the capabilities of their engine and the circumstances in which it would be unsafe to fly using their engine type.

Yes, ash clouds can be extremely dangerous to aircraft, and the crew and passengers of the 1982 British Airways flight over Indonesia, which was mentioned earlier, can testify to that, but we need common sense to prevail. The zero-tolerance approach was clearly wrong—we know that now—and the repatriation of passengers lacked co-ordination. We need to learn from that and ensure that when this situation happens again, we are better placed to tackle it.

15:30

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Mr Benton, and to serve under your chairmanship once again. The debate has been useful and constructive and—dare I say it, as a Member of seven months’ standing?—very consensual. I say to newer Members that perhaps not every debate will be quite as consensual as this, but it has been exceptionally productive.

I praise the generosity of the Minister’s remarks about the actions taken by my noble Friend Lord Adonis, and other Ministers in the Department for Transport prior to the election, in tackling the first emission of ash from the volcano. I welcome the steps the Minster and her colleagues have taken since the election, in particular on freeing up corridors and zones for air travel, which has contributed greatly to improving the situation for air passengers across the country. I would like to put on the record our appreciation for the work of the Department since the election.

The eruption of the E15 volcano—I am afraid that my standards of Icelandic pronunciation have not reached the Minister’s level of mastery yet—was an act of nature. However, the consequences of the resulting ash cloud emitting from the volcano—it spread across Europe, causing the largest air traffic shut-down since 1945 and leaving 5 million passengers stranded across the globe—have been huge. There can be few Members who have not had constituents contact them with harrowing stories about the financial and other disruptive effects of being stranded in an unfamiliar place. The problem might persist for months, if not years, to come; on some estimates, the volcano might emit ash for several years. Previously, it has emitted ash for up to 20 years.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on her advocacy of Newcastle airport, and on putting the strong case for its receiving a financial package to deal with the losses suffered. I thank the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) for his similar advocacy of transport needs in north-east Scotland and, in particular, of Aberdeen airport. He spoke eloquently about public safety and the need to continue to review the regulatory framework. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) spoke passionately about the effects of the ash cloud on her constituency and, in particular, on Rolls-Royce.

The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) spoke eloquently about how the disruption affected and inconvenienced her constituents, and about the need to learn lessons about safe thresholds of ash in the atmosphere. The hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) spoke with great authority about the effects on the aviation industry throughout the country and in areas surrounding his constituency, as well as the disruptive effect on passengers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) for his extended but illuminating intervention. He put his point on deregulation with great force, and I look forward to hearing similar interventions, questions and speeches from him in this Chamber and the main Chamber in the coming months.

The airspace over much of northern Europe was closed from 15 to 23 April, and the ash cloud led to significant disruption of air travel in Ireland, Northern Ireland and Scotland on 4 and 5 May, and in Spain, Portugal, northern Italy, Austria and southern Germany on 9 May, with Irish and UK airspace closed again on 16 May and reopening on 17 May. We heard stories in the debate of the distress and financial hardship, particularly from the hon. Members for Stourbridge and for Dartford, which occurred because of the disruption. The crisis has shown how significant and important aviation is to our way of life, for business, culture and tourism.

The International Air Transport Association estimated this week that, across the globe, airlines will make combined profits of $2.5 billion in 2010, albeit in Europe there are higher than projected losses of $2.8 billion, with $1.8 billion in lost revenues attributed solely to the ash cloud. The cloud has already led to a sharp reduction in UK air passenger numbers, with the British Aviation Authority reporting a fall in passenger numbers at its airports of 22.7% in April compared with April 2009. The closure of Heathrow and Stansted airports alone cost BAA £28 million. The figures for May, published today, show a fall of 4.5% in passenger numbers compared with May 2009—admittedly, the industrial dispute affecting British Airways was also a factor—against an expected increase of 0.4% in passenger numbers this May.

EasyJet has reported that the disruption has cost it £75 million, with 215,000 passengers’ travel plans disrupted and 1,600 flights cancelled. Virgin Atlantic reported 310 cancelled flights and more than 43,000 stranded passengers, with potential losses approaching £50 million. As the hon. Member for Stourbridge alluded to, last week easyJet revealed that it intends to work with Airbus to fit infrared cameras to its aircraft by the end of the year, in order to detect quantities of ash in the atmosphere using AVOID—the airborne volcanic object identifier and detector system. Will the Minister discuss with the Civil Aviation Authority whether the potential certification of the system being developed by easyJet will proceed without too many difficulties, if the initial tests prove successful? If similar technology is shown to work, will she direct the CAA to encourage other carriers to fit it to their aircraft? Does she agree that such technology is likely to diminish the prospects of large-scale disruption to carriers and passengers, should the ash cloud return to UK airspace over the coming years?

I have other points for the Minister to reflect upon in the debate or on another occasion. Will she liaise with her colleagues in other EU member states to ensure that there are no other supervening regulatory difficulties in achieving cross-European recognition for similar onboard volcanic ash particle detection systems in future? Can she confirm whether the Government have made a submission to the UN International Civil Aviation Organisation international volcanic ash taskforce, which is due to consider the provision of new guidance and standards to the aviation industry and, indeed, to national aviation authorities? Today is the conclusion of a meeting in Paris under the auspices of the ICAO to finalise proposals to amend the current volcanic ash contingency plans. Will the Minister inform hon. Members of any changes that the ICAO proposes to make to those plans?

An important issue is that of compensation for affected passengers. We know that EU regulation 261/2004 makes it clear that airlines are responsible for the welfare of passengers affected by the disruption, including providing subsistence and accommodation costs for the period in which they are stranded and are awaiting their flights. The European Transport Commissioner, Siim Kallas, was surely correct when he said in late April:

“EU law must be respected…There are no discount passenger rights for discount airlines.”

Some of the airlines have pledged to process the majority of affected passengers’ compensation claims by the end of July, but will the Minister impress on the airlines the anger that many affected passengers feel about the delays to the compensation payments to which they are entitled under EU law? Will she promote stronger action to ensure that passengers who, through no fault of their own, were left stranded for up to a fortnight are properly recompensed? Will the Minister and, indeed, the Secretary of State, resist any calls to weaken or dilute regulation 261/2004, which is surely an essential part of proper consumer protection law and of securing fairness for inconvenienced passengers?

We know that 2010 is the benchmarking year for aviation in the EU emissions trading scheme. Will the Minister make representations to the European Commission, perhaps in conjunction with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, about the inability of airlines to generate revenue tonne kilometres during the period of the closure of UK airspace and the effects that that may have on the allocation of emissions permits commencing in 2012?

There are two priorities for us in this debate. First, the interests of passengers, who demand the highest standards of safety and consumer protection and, secondly, the need for the aviation industry to work collaboratively with the Civil Aviation Authority to ensure that we minimise any future disruption through the use of new technology and smarter regulation of UK airspace.

15:43

[Mrs Villiers]

With the leave of the House, we have had a very constructive discussion. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), correctly pointed out, the debate has been remarkably consensual and good natured across all parties. I fear he is correct that that will not necessarily be repeated on every occasion when we discuss transport matters in the main Chamber or this place.

Before dealing with hon. Members’ individual points, I want to mention a subject that cuts across a number of the speeches made this afternoon: the impact of data. The lack of data about the impact of ash on engines was clearly a big part of the initial problems, and there was also a need for more data on identifying where the ash concentrations actually were. As I outlined in my speech, significant progress was made on that problem relatively rapidly, and progress has accelerated. However, all hon. Members who mentioned that matter were correct to say that efforts to ascertain the facts about those two issues are pivotal to ensuring that we have a robust regulatory framework under which safety is paramount and the disruption caused by volcanic ash episodes is minimised and reduced.

Work on that matter is continuing with airlines and, crucially, with aircraft and engine manufacturers. The CAA is also actively engaged with that work, as is the Department for Transport through the active and energetic involvement of the Secretary of State and Ministers, who are engaging with the process and encouraging progress to be made. Such work is obviously hugely important if we are to be successful in preventing a recurrence of disruption on the scale that we saw earlier this year. In that regard, work is also being done on test flights. That kind of data will be important in improving the regulatory framework and making progress on the matter.

A number of hon. Members asked whether there should have been more advance preparations and why the scale of disruption was so much more significant in this case than it has been in relation to other volcanic incidents around the world. That point leads me back to some of the remarks that I made at the start of my speech. It was the type of volcano and its location that played a significant part in the degree of disruption caused. The fact that the ash was particularly fine meant that it was dispersed over a wide area and, geographically, the volcano was close to a very congested area of airspace. That unfortunate combination played a significant part in the extent of the disruption caused and is one of the reasons why we must make progress in improving the robustness of the regulatory framework to deal with such an unprecedented situation.

Turning to some of the comments made about the efforts to repatriate passengers, I emphasise that work on that is under way. We all hope that there will not be significant disruption in the future, but we must prepare for the eventuality that it might occur. The Government as a whole, under the auspices of the civil contingencies secretariat in the Cabinet Office, are looking at contingency planning should there be another significant eruption. That work is considering all modes of transport, not just aviation. The Department for Transport is also working closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which would lead on the issue of repatriating stranded British nationals. We will be placing a priority on preparations for that kind of effort to deal with disruption, if such a situation occurs again.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) made some interesting remarks about Newcastle International airport, which has an important place in the economy—not just for her constituency, but for the north-east as a whole. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) also made it plain that regional airports play a significant part in regional economies. Many regional airports have experienced significant difficulties as a result of the ash crisis, which is certainly something that we will take on board.

On compensation, I am afraid that I cannot add to my previous remarks. We understand the concerns of the airlines, the airports and travel-related industries, but, in an era of constrained public finances, the issue of compensation is very difficult. The kind of compensation that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North would like to be paid simply might not be affordable, but we will be devoting care and attention to the matter before a final decision is made. She also emphasised the issues surrounding data, some of which I have already responded to.

I turn to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Gordon. He outlined some of his own travel problems, with which I have great sympathy. He was right to point out that it was, literally, an ill wind that blew nobody any good—although some of the train operators did quite well as a result of the crisis. He was also right to say that one of the things that we must work on, just in case these events recur in some form or other, is trying to get as much information to people as early as possible, so that they can plan their travel.

One of the Secretary of State’s first acts was to release some of the hitherto classified Met Office data for five-day forecasts, to help the airlines plan in the eventuality of further disruption and, in turn, help their customers.

The right hon. Gentleman also rightly referred to the importance of improving work on forecasting the location of ash concentrations, and I have outlined that. He mentioned that the crisis had caused some people to reconsider their travel plans and to look at alternatives to flying. Some people did go through that process but, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North East also pointed out, the incident has shown us the important part that flying plays in our daily lives and our economy. Although it is useful to look at the environmental benefits associated with finding alternatives to flying, that is obviously not a solution when there is disruption on the scale that we experienced a few weeks ago.

The right hon. Member for Gordon went on to talk about losses at Aberdeen airport, and I think that I have covered that point. He also emphasised the importance of UK authorities working closely with European ones, and I can assure him that that is under way at the moment. He asked whether the UK needed special considerations and perhaps special rules, and whether we would always be in line with what the rest of Europe was doing. That is a point to note, because our being closer to the volcano than other countries has an impact on the decisions that we can make on airspace, and it perhaps played a part in the slight differences between the timings of the relaxation of restrictions. In response to what has been said by other hon. Members about the timing of that relaxation, it is worth bearing in mind that the work done by the CAA led the debate and formed one of the reasons why airspace across the rest of Europe was reopened. Some of the work done by the CAA was, I understand, adopted and used by other European countries in making their decisions to reopen their airspace.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire spoke very eloquently about East Midlands airport and its importance to her constituents, and also about Rolls-Royce’s superb manufacturing facilities in her constituency. She told us about some of the difficulties that local residents had in getting home. She asked for leadership on the issue, and we are determined to provide that; I appreciate how important it is for all her constituents who work at East Midlands airport and at Rolls-Royce. We put this debate on the agenda this afternoon precisely to enable Members such as my hon. Friend to make those kinds of points, to listen to Parliament’s concerns and to ensure that we provide the leadership needed to take forward the improvement to the regulatory system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) talked with eloquence about the inconvenience suffered by her constituents. I am sorry to hear that her election campaign was disrupted somewhat by the volcanic ash; that happened to a number of people. I had conversations with Conservative party HQ about the fact that Icelandic volcanoes were not included in its list of contingency plans for election tours. Nevertheless, the election efforts carried on undiminished. It was interesting to hear my hon. Friend’s comments about the impact on Birmingham airport. She, too, emphasised the importance of further research on the impact of volcanic ash on engines—a point I think I have covered. She paid tribute to Willie Walsh for his work in a test flight, and she welcomed the work done by easyJet, with its AVOID system.

Turning to some of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East, I, colleagues and the CAA very much welcome easyJet’s efforts to contribute to the debate. EasyJet’s efforts and the technology that it is trialling are being carefully considered. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East urged us proceed swiftly to deliver safety certification, but I am sure that he would not suggest that we cut corners. Interesting work is being done, and no doubt the CAA will monitor it carefully and go through the appropriate steps to ascertain whether and when it might receive the safety certification that the hon. Gentleman has suggested. That is, however, a matter for the CAA to determine, taking into account all the relevant facts.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) spoke with great authority about the impact of the crisis on both passengers and the aviation industry. One of his questions was about the famous Madrid coaches. I have a long, full list of coaches, which I do not propose to read out, but I can send it to him. The total number of passengers transferred from Spain to Calais was more than 1,000, with a significant number of coaches leaving from Madrid, Barcelona, Malaga and Alicante.

My hon. Friend also referred to the difficult issue of waiving night flight restrictions. For his information, night flight restrictions were waived briefly when airspace first reopened after the prolonged restrictions on flying. Making an exception to the night flight rules is always a very difficult decision. I am a strong supporter of the protection that people are given as a result of the restrictions on night flights but, given the scale of the emergency, it was felt that a brief relaxation was justified.

In the event of a similar emergency in the future, I am sure that airspace authorities would give careful and due consideration to the difficult competing concerns. One wants to make every possible effort to normalise travel as soon as possible, but night flights have a corrosive impact on people’s quality of life and one therefore needs to act with extreme care, even when referring to only a very brief lifting of such important protections. My hon. Friend also urged me and my colleagues to work with the airlines, the agency and the industry on technology. We are definitely doing that—it is the only way forward. He also called for common sense to prevail, and I shall certainly try to ensure that that is the case.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North East asked a number of questions, some of which I have addressed already. He asked, in particular, whether the UK is working with ICAO on its work to revise the volcanic ash rules and the programme for Europe. Yes, work is going on with ICAO on precisely that. He also asked whether the Government would impress on the airlines the importance of paying out in line with their obligations under the denied boarding and cancellation rules. As I sought to set out in my opening remarks, we believe that, whatever debate there may be in the future about those rules, it is important that the airlines pay out under their legal obligations in the rules as currently drafted, and that claims are settled as expeditiously as possible. He was right to raise the concerns of those who are awaiting settlement of reasonable claims under the provisions.

The hon. Gentleman urged me to prevent any dilution of EC regulation 261/2004. We need to look at it in the round to see whether there are ways to make the whole system work in a better and fairer way. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the matter will be discussed by EU Transport Ministers in the near future, at their next meeting.

Lastly, the hon. Gentleman spoke about adapting the allocation of emissions permits under the emissions trading scheme so that the interruption in flying does not have a distortive effect on the allocation of permits when that is decided. That is a fairly technical matter, but I hear the point he is making and shall pass his comments on to those in the Department who are dealing with the mechanics of getting the ETS into operation. We need to see whether we can ensure that the interruption of flying as a result of volcanic ash does not have a perverse or distortive effect on the decisions that will be made in the future on the allocation of emissions permits.

With that, I shall close. I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members for participating in this constructive debate on an issue that is extremely important to our economy, as well as to holidaymakers, as we make progress on improving the robustness of the regulatory framework and its response to volcanic ash.

Question put and agreed to.

16:01

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Thursday 10th June 2010 Written Statements

Thursday 10 June 2010

Financial Services Authority (Annual Report)

Thursday 10th June 2010 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

The Annual Report 2009-10 of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) has today been laid before Parliament. Copies have also been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

The report forms a key part of the accountability mechanism for the Financial Services Authority under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA), and assesses the performance of the Financial Services Authority over the past 12 months against its statutory objectives.

Local Government Savings Package

Thursday 10th June 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

The Government have made clear that deficit reduction is their most urgent priority. On 24 May, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced therefore that the Government would save over £6 billion from spending during this financial year. Included in that savings package were £1.166 billion reductions in grants to local government. I have today placed in the Library of the House information on the revenue and capital grants that will be reduced.

The Government are clear that deficit reduction, and continuing to ensure economic recovery, is the most pressing issue facing Britain. This will restore confidence in the economy and support the recovery. Advice from the Treasury and Bank of England is that it is better to start to make the reductions in the current financial year. Not to do so will simply delay the need for savings in future years, thereby compounding the impact on public services, including those delivered by local authorities, in the future. It is fair that local authorities make a contribution to the savings to enable Government to take immediate action to tackle the UK’s unprecedented deficit in this financial year.

It is time for a fundamental shift of power from Westminster to individuals and their communities. We want to end the era of top-down government by providing a radical devolution of power and greater financial autonomy to local authorities.

So we will reduce the performance management burden on local government through abolishing the comprehensive area assessment and reducing ring-fencing of central government grants, freeing up resources to concentrate on local priorities and the delivery of essential front-line services. We are committed to a full review of local government finance, to giving councils a general power of competence, and to working with local authorities to freeze council tax in England for at least one year as outlined in the coalition agreement and seek to freeze it for a further year, in partnership with local authorities. All of this will help to create the shift of power from the centre to local people that we are determined to deliver.

I am absolutely clear about the importance of the services that local government provides. So we have been determined to ensure local authorities can shield their key front-line services.

The Government have looked at whether it is possible to focus the reductions on grants which have not yet been committed through grant determinations or other statutory restrictions. This has been possible to some extent. Some of the reductions occur in grants where there are underspends, where the money has yet to be allocated or where a grant determination has not yet been made. However, because of the scale of the contribution from local government, it has not been possible to achieve the necessary levels of reduction without reducing some allocations included in grant determinations. Local government, along with the rest of society, is being asked to play its part in helping to reduce the deficit. Where we have reduced revenue grants, no local authority will face a reduction of more than 2%. This compares to the cut in running costs for my Department and its quangos of 10% in 2010-11

We have ensured that councils have the flexibility to take decisions locally on how to deliver the savings needed. I am pleased that we have been able to keep formula grant at the level approved by Parliament of £29 billion. We have also announced further removal from ring-fencing of central government revenue and capital grants. This gives councils extra flexibility to make decisions about where savings are found, although this is subject to the usual rules which ensure that capital funding is used on capital expenditure. A list of grants that have been removed from ring-fencing is included in the information made available in the House.

There are good reasons for the changes we have made. For example, we believe that the housing and planning delivery grant has proved to be an ineffective and excessively complex incentive. The coalition agreement set out that we will provide incentives for local authorities to deliver sustainable development, including for new homes and businesses.

The Government believe that there is significant scope for local authorities to find efficiencies in the way in which they deliver services. We believe there are further opportunities for an increased role for joint working between local authorities and between different types of public authorities across local areas. Our focus on providing councils with the flexibility to manage budgets effectively will ensure that councils can deliver those services that local people wish to see.

I recognise that making savings in-year will be challenging for local authorities, as it will be for other parts of the public sector. The information that my Department is sending today to every local authority provides the detail councils need to make the necessary decisions as quickly as possible on how they will deliver the necessary changes. I have also made available in the Library of the House a copy of the information that we have sent to each local authority which sets out the revised allocations.

I know that councils want this information as a matter of urgency and we have worked hard to deliver this. The Government therefore wish to provide as much clarity and flexibility to local authorities and other public bodies as quickly as possible so that they can best handle the changes proposed without an impact on key front-line services.

I am satisfied that we have adopted a fair approach to making the necessary reductions in the different grants and funding streams. We are therefore simply asking councils to check quickly to make sure that there are no errors in the calculation of the reductions.

The detailed spending decisions we are outlining today show a clear determination to help tackle the immense public deficit the new Government have inherited.

Munro Review (Child Protection)

Thursday 10th June 2010 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

I informed the House on Monday 7 June 2010 that the Government had decided to commission Professor Eileen Munro of the London School of Economics to carry out an independent review to improve child protection. The Secretary of State for Education has written to Professor Munro today to set out the remit of this review and I would like to take this opportunity to provide the House with further details.

The reforms led by the previous Administration were well intentioned. The immense dedication and hard work of front-line professionals is an inspiration. But the child protection system in our country is not working as well as it should. It is the Government’s view that we need a fundamental review of the system and to ask ourselves what will help professionals to make the best judgments they can to protect vulnerable children.

I firmly believe we need reform to frontline social work practice. I want to strengthen the profession so that social workers are in a better position to make sound judgments, based on first hand evidence, in the best interests of children, free from unnecessary bureaucracy and regulation. I want social workers to be clear about their responsibilities and to be accountable in the way they protect children. I particularly want social workers to have the confidence they need to challenge parents when they have concerns about the circumstances in which children are growing up, and to know they will be supported by the system in doing so.

The Secretary of State for Education and I have therefore asked Professor Munro to set out the obstacles preventing improvements and the steps required to bring about improved social work practice. This will include considering how effectively children’s social workers and professionals in other agencies work together. As part of the review, we have asked Professor Munro to take account of emerging thinking from parallel reviews such as the Family Justice Review. We also want any review to be informed by the strongest systems of child protection in other countries.

This is complex territory and necessarily wide-ranging. We have given Professor Munro a broad remit, so that she is able to consider a wide range of issues. Three principles will underpin the Government’s approach to reform of child protection: early intervention; trusting professionals and removing bureaucracy so they can spend more of their time on the front-line; and greater transparency and accountability. We have asked Professor Munro to produce her final report by April 2011 with an interim report in January 2011 and a first report in September 2010.

The Government are committed to implementing the recommendations of the social work taskforce, which provide a strong starting point for Professor Munro’s review. We look to the social work reform board to take forward those recommendations while the review is in progress.

To support further improvement on the front line, the DfE is confirming today that the £23 million local social work improvement fund will be available to local authority children’s services in 2010-11.

The successful CWDC programmes to support recruitment and retention of social workers will also continue, subject to some efficiencies, which have been achieved by reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and marketing and overlap with the work of the social work reform board.

We are also confirming the funding that will support the establishment of an independent college for social work and that pilots of social work practices will continue. This confirmation relates to funding, which has been protected in 2010-11. Funding for future years will need to be confirmed as part of the forthcoming comprehensive spending review.

I would also like to take this opportunity to confirm to the House the Government’s commitment to ensuring that serious case reviews, with identifying details removed, are published.

The key purpose of undertaking serious case reviews is to enable lessons to be learned from cases where a child dies or is seriously harmed and abuse or neglect is known, or suspected, to be a factor. In order for these lessons to be learned as widely and thoroughly as possible, professionals need to be able to understand fully what happened in each case, and most importantly, what needs to change in order to reduce the risk of such tragedies happening in the future. Only by publishing serious case reviews will this greater level of transparency and accountability be achieved. The Government’s aim in publishing SCR overview reports is to restore public confidence and improve transparency in the child protection system, and to ensure that the context in which the events occurred is properly understood so relevant lessons are learned and applied as widely as possible.

That is why Ministers have today written to all local safeguarding children board chairs and directors of children’s services to confirm that, with immediate effect, the overview report and the executive summary of all new serious case reviews initiated from today should be published. Overview reports should be published together with the executive summaries unless there are compelling reasons relating to the welfare of any children directly concerned in the case for this not to happen. Both the overview report and the executive summary should be anonymised and should not contain identifying details. This means preparing SCR overview reports in a form suitable for publication, or redacting them appropriately before publication.

The publication of serious case reviews is a sensitive and complex matter. Serious case review overview reports contain personal information and it is vitally important that published serious case reviews are appropriately redacted and anonymised to protect the privacy and welfare of vulnerable children and their families. There is an important balance to be struck between transparency and openness so that lessons can be learned, and the protection and welfare of individuals. We believe that publication to the extent that we are proposing is reasonable and in the greater public interest.

The tragic case of Peter Connelly, and other recent high profile cases such as those in Edlington, Birmingham and Kirklees, shocked the nation. They also prompted public concern that vital information needed to be made available so that agencies could be properly held to account and all the lessons properly learned. The Government are therefore confirming today their intention that the overview reports (together with the executive summary) of all these serious case reviews will be published, appropriately redacted and anonymised, starting with the two serious case review overview reports on the case of Peter Connelly.

As part of her review, Professor Munro has also been asked to consider how serious case reviews could be strengthened and whether there are alternative learning models that could be more effective and efficient.

Finally, I want to inform the House that the cross-Government National Safeguarding Delivery Unit will be disbanded with immediate effect and staff resource allocated to new priorities, including supporting the Munro review. The safeguarding group within the Department for Education will retain lead responsibility for the Government’s child protection policy and will continue to work closely with other Government Departments, in particular the Department of Health, the Home Office, and the Ministry of Justice.

I have placed a copy of the letters sent today to Professor Munro, and to all chairs of local safeguarding children boards and directors of children’s services, in the House Library.

Environment Council

Thursday 10th June 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)]

Lord Henley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I will represent the UK at the Environment Council in Luxembourg on 11 June.

The Council will consider progress reports on the proposal for a regulation on the placing on the market and use of biocidal products; the proposal for a directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS) (recast); the proposal for a directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) (recast); and the proposal for a regulation concerning the setting emission performance standards for new light commercial vehicles as part of the Community’s integrated approach to reduce CO₂ emissions from light-duty vehicles.

The Commission will present to Council its communication on the options to move beyond 20% greenhouse gas emission reductions and assessing the risk of carbon leakage. This will be followed by a policy debate and the adoption of some procedural Council conclusions.

The Council will also seek the adoption of Council conclusions on water scarcity, drought and adaptation to climate change, on preparing forests for climate change, and the fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP/MOP 5) serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (Nagoya, Japan, 11 to 15 October 2010). There will also be an exchange of views and adoption of Council conclusions, on the first session of the Preparatory Committee for the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (“Rio+20”) (New York, 17-19 May 2010).

The following topics will be covered under “any other business”:

Information from the presidency and the Commission on the challenges for a good environmental status of the marine environment;

Information from the presidency on the 18th session of the UN Commission on sustainable development (CSD 18) (New York, 3-14 May 2010);

Information from the Greek delegation on the signing of a memorandum of understanding in the field of forestry between the Government of the Hellenic Republic and the Government of the Republic of Turkey, and of a joint declaration between the Minister for Environment, Energy and Climate Change of the Hellenic Republic and the Minister for Environment and Forestry of the Republic of Turkey;

A request from the French delegation on genetically modified organisms;

Presentation from the Commission on future steps in bio-waste management in the European Union (9955/10 ENV 308 AGRI 178 ENER 158);

Information from the Belgian delegation on the work programme of the incoming presidency; and

A request from the UK on the 62nd meeting of the International Whaling Commission, Agadir, Morocco, 21-25 June.

General Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council

Thursday 10th June 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

The General Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council will be held on 14 June in Luxembourg. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will represent the UK with the Secretary of State for International Development at the respective sessions of Foreign and Development Ministers. I will also attend.

The agenda items are as follows:

Foreign Affairs Council (FAC): Foreign Ministers

Iran

Ministers will discuss EU sanctions as part of the dual-track strategy of engagement and pressure, in light of the likely passage of a UN Security Council resolution in week of 7 June. Ministers may also discuss developments in Iran following the anniversary of last year’s June elections.

Western Balkans

Foreign Ministers will discuss the western Balkans, in the light of the Sarajevo high-level meeting on June 2 between EU and western Balkan Foreign Ministers, which the Foreign Secretary attended. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Chief Prosecutor Brammertz is expected to brief Ministers ahead of his six-monthly report to the UN Security Council. Ministers are likely to review the issue of ratification of Serbia’s stabilisation and association agreement with the European Union.

Somalia / Piracy

Ministers will receive an update from the High Representative on her visit to Kenya, Tanzania and Seychelles of 18 to 21 May. Ministers’ discussions are likely to focus on support to regional counter-piracy efforts and strengthening capability for prosecuting pirates.

Middle East Peace Process

Ministers will discuss recent developments on the middle east peace process, the Gaza flotilla incident and international efforts to improve the situation in Gaza. This may include discussions of an independent investigation of events and how restrictions on access might be lifted. Ministers will also discuss the wider peace process, including the American-led proximity talks and their progress.

Sudan

Ministers will discuss the situation in Sudan, particularly with a view to the January 2011 referendum on self-determination for south Sudan as part of the 2005 comprehensive peace agreement (CPA). The Council will also discuss the conflict in Darfur. Ministers will focus on the EU’s engagement on Sudan going forward to support peaceful completion of the CPA, whatever the decision of south Sudan in the referendum. The Council is also likely to stress that efforts must continue to find a political solution to the Darfur conflict and the importance of improving security and humanitarian access in Darfur.

Child labour

Ministers will discuss Council conclusions on the Commission staff working document on combating child labour. The conclusions set out a number of measures the EU should take to combat child labour, including through political dialogue and multilateral affairs; corporate social responsibility; public procurement; and trade incentives.

Corfu Process

The OSCE-led initiative on European security might be discussed in the light of the joint Merkel-Medvedev proposals on strengthening the EU-Russia security policy relationship.

Cuba

Ministers will discuss the annual evaluation of the EU common position on Cuba, and assess progress made in the EU-Cuba political dialogue. Ministers will also agree Council conclusions on Cuba which will centre on the continuing relevance of the common position, and may call on the Cuban Government to do more to improve the human rights situation in Cuba.

Haiti - Disaster response lessons learned

Ministers will discuss the EU’s response to Haiti. The meeting may also generate further debate on EU disaster response structures and resources.

Any Other Business: Georgia

Georgia is on the agenda at the request of Lithuania. Ministers may discuss the recent local elections (30 May), which the OSCE/ODIHR observation mission noted marked “evident progress towards meeting OSCE and Council of Europe commitments”. There may also be discussion of Georgia’s relations with the EU: a visa facilitation agreement will be signed this month; negotiations on an association agreement are due to start in July; a review of the Georgian action plan for engagement with Abkhazia and South Ossetia; and the European Union monitoring mission’s (EUMM) mandate is due for renewal in the autumn.

FAC: Development Ministers

EU Development Ministers will discuss the following agenda items:

Somalia / Piracy

As with Foreign Ministers, Baroness Ashton will brief on her visit to the region of 18 to 21 May. The discussion is likely to focus on taking a comprehensive approach to all of Somalia’s political, security and development challenges and enhancing co-ordination with the wider international community.

Millennium Development Goals

Ministers will be asked to agree conclusions on a common EU position on the millennium development goals (MDGs) ahead of the UN high-level review meeting on the MDGs in New York in September 2010. Ministers are likely to discuss some of the key issues in the conclusions, most notably levels of official development assistance (ODA) commitments. The UK is committed to supporting an action-orientated and ambitious outcome at the UN Summit.

Gender Equality and Development

This is likely to be a general discussion, focused on the “Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Development, EU Plan of Action 2010-2015” which will be attached as an annex to the Council conclusions on the MDGs. The UK has been involved in the drafting of the action plan, which seeks to establish a practical framework to accelerate the achievement of the MDGs, especially MDG 3 (gender) and MDG 5 (maternal health).

General Affairs Council (GAC)

The GAC will present and discuss the draft Council conclusions for the June European Council (JEC) on 17 June which will focus on the European economy, financial regulation in advance of the G20 Toronto summit, millennium development goals and climate change. Economic issues are likely to dominate the European Council: the presidency will be seeking to finalise the Europe 2020 strategy and leaders will want to discuss reforms to economic governance in the wake of recent turbulence.

The Council is expected to endorse conclusions of the 3 to 4 June JHA Council by welcoming progress in implementing the European pact on immigration and asylum. The GAC will also consider potential external items for discussion at the JEC including possible EU sanctions on Iran, following a new UN Security Council resolution.

Strategic Report on the Implementation of Cohesion Policy Programmes

The Commissioners for Regional Policy and Employment and Social Affairs will present the strategic report on the implementation of cohesion policy programmes, published on 31 March 2010. As this is a new requirement for the 2007-13 period, the presidency initiated Council conclusions on the report which are to be adopted. The conclusions invite the Commission to explore possibilities for a better co-ordinated and simplified policy and note that cohesion policy will need to support the Europe 2020 strategy and should continue to foster competitiveness, innovation, employment and economic, social and territorial cohesion in the European Union.

European Citizens’ Initiative

There will be a discussion of the Commission’s dossier on the European citizens’ initiative. The Government remain concerned that no impact assessment has been carried out with which to better inform the proposed regulation.

2010 Forum for Outermost Europe

The Commissioner for regional policy will present the results of the 2010 forum for outermost Europe to the GAC. Following an initiative of the Spanish presidency, Council conclusions on the outermost regions are likely to be adopted. The conclusions encourage a renewal of the strategy for the outermost regions and a consideration of the role of the outermost regions in EU policies, in particular Europe 2020.

Stop-and-Search Authorisation

Thursday 10th June 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister for Police (Nick Herbert)]

My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Security, Baroness Neville-Jones, has today made the following written ministerial statement:

I wish to inform the House of errors relating to those periods in the past which have recently been identified following an internal review of the authorisation process for the stop-and-search powers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has undertaken work in relation to a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act concerning authorisations for the section 44 stop-and-search powers. In the course of reviewing their section 44 records, the MPS identified an authorisation from April 2004 which had not been confirmed by a Home Office Minister within the statutory 48 hour deadline for confirmation. Subsequent investigations revealed that approximately 840 were stopped and searched in the relevant area during the period of the invalid authorisation. The MPS are urgently considering what steps can reasonably be taken to contact those individuals involved.

As a result of this discovery, the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism (OSCT) in the Home Office undertook a review in May 2010 of all section 44 authorisations since the Terrorism Act came into force on 19 February 2001, in the course of which a number of other errors came to light. I have to inform the House that it appears that stop-and-search powers have been used unlawfully by a number of police forces on a number of occasions. The Home Office has written to each of the police forces concerned to alert them to these errors and those forces are now in the process of assessing how many individuals were stopped and searched in the periods of invalid authorisations. They will do their best to contact those involved. To summarise these errors, on 33 occasions authorisations were specified to be for 29 days, and two occasions when the authorisations were specified to be for 30 days, whereas the statutory maximum period is 28 days. In addition, there was one further case (as well as the MPS incident in April 2004) where ministerial confirmation for the authorisation was not provided within the statutory 48 hour deadline. All of these cases appear to have been as a result of administrative errors which were not identified at the time by either the police or the Home Office. A full breakdown is included in the attached table.

Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has been informed.

Three episodes of errors taking place in the section 44 authorisation process have previously been brought to the attention of the House. For completeness, these are also included in the attached table bringing the total number of such cases to 40. Home Office officials are working closely with the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) with the aim of ensuring there are no incidents in future. Officials will keep Lord Carlile and me informed and I will report back to the House as necessary.

I am aware that there is considerable concern about the operation of section 44 stop-and-search powers going beyond these authorisation errors. The Government are committed to a wider review of counter-terrorism legislation, including the operation of the section 44 stop-and-search provisions. While I take some re-assurance from the fact that no errors have occurred since December 2008 when the authorisation process was tightened, I want to assure the House that there will be utmost vigilance in future. It is with the need for this in mind that I have instructed Home Office officials unconnected with the administrative process to conduct the internal review of procedures.

Table of Erroneous Authorisations

Justice and Home Affairs Council

Thursday 10th June 2010 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

The Justice and Home Affairs Council was held on 3 and 4 June in Luxembourg. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Justice and I, attended on behalf of the United Kingdom. The following issues were discussed at the Council:

The Council began with the Mixed Committee (including Norway, Iceland, Lichtenstein and Switzerland). The Commission reported on implementation of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), presenting comprehensive global schedule for the entry into operation of SIS II in 2013.

The Council adopted conclusions encouraging member states to make more extensive use of automated border-control systems at their external borders. The UK will not participate in these automated systems, or the EU passport regulation on which the automated systems will be based, as they build on elements of the Schengen acquis in which we do not participate.

The Council received an update on the progress of the visa liberalisation road maps for the western Balkan countries agreed by the EU in 2009. The UK does not participate in EU common visa policy, as it builds on an area of the Schengen acquis in which the UK does not participate.

After the Mixed Committee, the presidency presented the first main assessment description report for internal debate (MADRID) on internal security in the EU. The report is based on a combination of threat assessments from Europol, Eurojust and Frontex on which the Council was invited to debate and consider priorities for future action. The UK intervened to outline that the UK Government wanted to play a strong and positive role in the EU. While recognising the importance of the Stockholm programme in setting strategic guidelines for our work there were some aspects of the programme which caused the UK Government concern. The UK gave as examples the idea of a European public prosecutor and a common asylum policy. The UK confirmed that it would consider whether or not to opt in to new legislative proposals resulting from the Stockholm programme on a case-by-case basis with the objective of preserving security, civil liberties and the integrity of the UK’s criminal justice system. On the MADRID report the UK noted that Europol’s OCTA threat assessment was important and should inform our work. There was a need to focus on non-legislative solutions: practical co-operation and sharing of best practices between member states.

Next there was a discussion on the most recent report from the EU counter-terrorism co-ordinator (CTC), Gilles de Kerchove, on the implementation of the EU strategy and action plan to combat terrorism. The report examined the nature of the threat, transportation security (especially in the field of land transport), monitoring of terrorist travel, and the connecting of internal and external security. Delegations intervened to support the report and the UK used the opportunity to outline the UK’s new national security arrangements, including the creation of the new National Security Council. The incoming Belgian presidency said that they would focus work on the prevention of radicalisation and the threat from chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) material.

The Council then adopted the EU-US counter-terrorism declaration where the presidency noted the importance of the relationship between the EU and US.

The Council welcomed agreement to the “European Pact to combat international drug trafficking”, which is designed to enhance operational co-operation of EU countries in the fight against drug trafficking. The pact focuses on three broad areas of activity: disrupting cocaine routes; disrupting heroin routes; and tackling the money flows.

The presidency then provided an update on the EU-Russia JHA Permanent Partnership Council meeting of 25 and 26 May, which was held in Kazan. Discussion focused on possible EU-Russia visa liberalisation and migration dialogue.

Over lunch Interior Ministers received an update on the progress of negotiations with the US on the agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the terrorist finance tracking programme (TFTP). The Council agreed in May a negotiating mandate for the Commission to undertake negotiations with the US. The Commission hoped to present the text of an agreement later in June.

After lunch the Council adopted conclusions on unaccompanied minors, which outline proposals for handling the large numbers of unaccompanied children who enter the EU annually.

The Council then debated the follow-up to the EU pact on immigration and asylum, agreeing accompanying Council conclusions which will be presented to the June European Council. The UK said we had to increase public confidence by getting the right balance between immigration control, integration and protection. Resources should be prioritised on tackling migration challenges at source (overseas), making quick and fair asylum decisions, and enforcing the return of failed asylum seekers. Practical co-operation between member states was more important than harmonised legislation.

Under AOB, Malta said that a report by the European Parliament Civil Liberties Committee supported their calls for further physical burden sharing. The Commission provided a progress report on negotiations of the EU readmission agreement with Turkey. The Czech Republic asked the Commission to update the Council on their negotiations with Canada to lift the current visa requirement on Czech citizens. Italy gave a short presentation on the meeting of the G6 Interior Ministers which it had hosted in Varese in May.

There was also under any other business, an item about the International Anti-Corruption Academy, at the request of the Austrians. The academy will be set up in Austria and a conference will be held in Vienna on 2 and 3 September 2010 on this.

On the justice day, a general approach was reached on the Commission proposal for a directive on combating human trafficking as the basis for the next stage of negotiations with the European Parliament. The Government are broadly content with this approach, although they have not yet decided whether to opt in and the proposal remains subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

The Commission presented a state-of-play report on the directive to combat child sexual exploitation and abuse and child pornography. The Commission emphasised the importance of this directive, in particular that it would criminalise “grooming” and enable prosecution without testimony from child victims.

There was a state-of-play report by the presidency on the proposed directive on interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings. The presidency informed Ministers that the current text is the outcome of negotiations with the European Parliament.

There was also a discussion about the directive on the European protection order. Some member states raised their concerns about the legal base of the current text. The UK set out its reservations about the legal base but reiterated its support of the proposal’s objectives. The presidency has stated that it reached a general approach at this Council meeting. However, we and other member states dispute this given that there were enough member states who could not support the text to make up a blocking minority. There could be further discussions about this directive at the JHA Council in autumn.

The Council agreed, without a vote, to a proposal to authorise enhanced co-operation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation (also known as Rome III). The UK reminded the Council that it had decided not to participate in the original proposal, and, while it was highly unlikely that this position would change, it had no desire to prevent others who wished to proceed. Work on the draft regulation implementing enhanced co-operation in this area will continue under the Belgian presidency.

The presidency outlined the approach towards future work on a proposed regulation on succession and wills. These were agreed without discussion. The UK has not opted in to this proposal.

The Council adopted a negotiating mandate for discussions with the Council of Europe on the EU accession to the European convention of human rights. Those discussions are expected to start later in the year and will lead, in due course, to a proposed accession agreement which will have to be unanimously agreed by all member states.

The presidency then presented a state-of-play report on e-Justice work and the Commission confirmed that the e-Justice portal would be launched on 16 July.

The presidency updated the Council on the EU-Russia JHA Permanent Partnership Council meeting that took place 25 and 26 May 2010. The presidency considered this a good basis for the EU-Russia summit that took place 31 May and 1 June 2010.

Belgium listed their priorities for their upcoming presidency. This included continuing work on matters such as the European protection order, the protection of victims, succession and wills, as well as new work on the European investigation order.

Police Authorities (Revised Grant Allocations)

Thursday 10th June 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister for Police (Nick Herbert)]

As indicated by my statement of 27 May I have today laid before the House our proposals for the revised allocation of core police funding for England and Wales in 2010-11 in the form of the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) Amending Report 2010-11. I intend to implement the proposals subject to consideration of any representations and the approval of the House.

The Government’s priority is to cut the budget deficit and get the economy moving again. That means the police will have to bear a fair share of the burden, helped by £100 million of savings already identified for this year on areas including procurement and IT. I am quite clear that this saving can be achieved by driving out wasteful spending, reducing bureaucracy and increasing efficiency in key functions, while leaving the front line of policing strong and secure.

Total Home Office cuts will be £367 million and in order to minimise the impact on the police service the Home Office will cut a greater than proportionate share of its central budget. In summary, the Government intend to reduce police funding by a total of £135 million this year. This will be achieved by a proposed £115 million reduction in rule 2 grant, a £10 million reduction in capital grant and a £10 million reduction in counter-terrorism specific grants. Even after these reductions Government funding to the police service will remain at £9.61 billion in 2010-11. This is still £124 million more than last year.

Azelle Rodney Inquiry

Thursday 10th June 2010 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

I am announcing today the establishment by the Ministry of Justice of an inquiry, under the Inquiries Act 2005, to investigate the death of Azelle Rodney in April 2005.

The inquiry will be chaired by Sir Christopher Holland, a retired High Court judge. I have agreed with Sir Christopher that the inquiry will determine the matters which an article 2-compliant inquest would have determined had it been able to take place.

The inquiry’s terms of reference are therefore:

“To ascertain by inquiring how, where, and in what circumstances Azelle Rodney came by his death on 30 April 2005 and then to make any such recommendations as may seem appropriate”.

The arrangements for the inquiry will now be a matter for Sir Christopher. The Ministry of Justice will provide support to him.

I am very grateful to Sir Christopher for assuming this important role. It is more than five years since Mr Rodney’s death, and I very much hope that this inquiry will be able to satisfy the public need for deaths of this kind to be explained and to resolve matters for Mr Rodney’s mother, Ms Susan Alexander.

Special Advisers

Thursday 10th June 2010 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

Listed below are the names of the special advisers in post at 10 June 2010, including each special adviser’s pay band, and actual salary where this is £58,200 or higher, together with details of the special advisers’ pay ranges for 2010-2011, and the total pay bill cost of special advisers for 2009-10.

Also being published today are revised versions of the Model Contract and Code of Conduct for Special Advisers. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Transport (Local Authority Major Schemes)

Thursday 10th June 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)]

The Government have made clear their most urgent priority is to tackle the UK’s record budget deficit, in order to restore confidence in the economy and support the recovery. The Department for Transport will play a full part in the spending review which will be reporting in the autumn. Only once the Government’s spending review has been concluded will the Department for Transport be in a position to identify those major investments that can be supported.

The Government have also made a commitment—as set out in the Coalition Agreement—to reform the way decisions are made on which transport projects are prioritised.

Given the uncertainties which both of these factors create, and in view of the likely budgetary constraints, and the consequent likelihood that not all schemes will be able to proceed on their planned timetable, it would be inappropriate for the Department to continue to invest time and resources on development of schemes at the same rate as before. Local authorities will also wish to consider carefully whether investing further time and resources in developing such schemes ahead of the spending review is justified. They should not assume that schemes prioritised under the previous Government’s regional funding allocations (RFA) process will be funded to the previous published levels.

I am therefore today taking steps to help avoid unnecessary expenditure, while the Government consider their transport priorities:

The previous Major Schemes Guidance for Local Authorities and associated approval processes are being suspended until further notice.

All schemes that were granted conditional approval or programme entry by the previous Government will be reviewed as part of the spending review. Until then, the Government can give no assurances on funding support for any of these schemes.

Ministers will postpone decisions on scheme orders for schemes requiring DfT funding, but consideration will be given if there are alternative funding sources. Similarly, public inquiries on schemes requiring DfT funding will generally be postponed and no further inquiries will be scheduled, but inquiries will be allowed to proceed if there are alternative funding sources.

The previous Major Schemes Guidance for Local Authorities is today being replaced with new interim Guidance to Local Authorities, which has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will be available on the Department for Transport website (www.dft.gov.uk) today. Officials will also be writing to affected local authorities.

The Government will aim to provide a firm indication on the way forward later this year once the spending review is complete.

Marine Aids to Navigation

Thursday 10th June 2010 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

I wish to inform the House that following the publication of the consultants’ report entitled “Assessment of the provision of marine aids to navigation around the United Kingdom and Ireland” in March 2010 (Official Report, 10 Mar 2010 Column 19WS), I am inviting interested parties to provide me with their views on the recommendations.

The report has over fifty recommendations which would require action by the Governments of the United Kingdom and Ireland or by the general lighthouse authorities (GLAs) of both countries. Some of them are self-evidently sensible and straightforward to implement. The GLAs are already doing so in a number of cases. Others would be more challenging and take longer.

I intend to give everyone with an interest a further opportunity to make their views known and I will take account of any opinions that are expressed before reaching conclusions on how the recommendations should be implemented.

Key recommendations in the report include:

Creating a GLA joint strategic board to drive efficiencies;

Using an annual target reduction calculator (RPI - x%) for GLA running costs;

Developing a “roadmap” with the Irish Government on the financing of the Commissioners of Irish Lights, setting out an incentivised financial model which retains the all-Ireland body while allowing its costs within the Republic of Ireland to be covered wholly from Irish sources; and

Changing the structure and scope of light dues.

I should like to invite comments on these and any other findings of the report by 15 July 2010 before coming to any conclusions. I then intend to publish decisions on what action needs to be taken and, if necessary, to consult further on specific proposals.

The report has been posted on the Department’s website (www.dft.gov.uk) and copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council

Thursday 10th June 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council was held on 7 June 2010 in Luxembourg. I represented the United Kingdom.

The main item of the agenda was a policy debate on the employment and social inclusion aspects of Europe 2020, the new European agenda for the next ten years; and in particular, the employment guidelines and social inclusion target. The general approach on employment guidelines was agreed, but I abstained for the UK, explaining that a final Government position had not yet been reached. The poverty target and three indicators of material deprivation, jobless households and relative income were also agreed. I intervened to state that the UK was content for the poverty target to be forwarded to the June European Council but emphasised that a final view on EU2020 as a whole had not yet been taken, and tabled a minute statement to this effect.

Political agreement was reached on a proposal for a Council regulation extending the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No [...] to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by these provisions solely on the ground of their nationality. The UK is not opted in to this regulation.

The Council also reached political agreement on a proposal for a Council decision on the position to be taken by the Community within the Association Councils established by the agreements with Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Israel. The UK is not opted in to these agreements. I intervened to state that the text of the decisions went beyond what had originally been agreed, and stressed that social security is principally a national competence rather than an EU competence.

Four sets of Council conclusions (on adequate pensions and social inclusion; new skills for new jobs; advancing Roma inclusion; and active ageing) and a Council resolution on a new European disability framework were adopted.

There was a progress report on the proposal for a Council directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment (anti-discrimination) between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.

Under any other business, there was information from the presidency on the equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity. The Italians also raised, as an information point, their ideas on simplifying the delivery rules of the European social fund (ESF), to be discussed fully at a conference later this month. Finally, there was information on conferences held under Spanish presidency and a presentation from the incoming Belgian presidency.

Work Programme

Thursday 10th June 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

The Government have previously announced their plans for radical reforms of the welfare to work system and the implementation of the Work Programme. The Work Programme will be a single integrated package of support providing personalised help for everyone who finds themselves out of work regardless of the benefit they claim.

This will give providers longer to work with individuals and greater freedom to decide the appropriate support for them. We will also offer stronger incentives for providers to work with the harder to help, paying providers out of the additional benefits they realise as a result of placing people into work.

We are determined to move quickly and are aiming to have the Work Programme in place nationally by the summer of 2011.

Until the Work Programme is implemented, we will ensure support is in place. Where necessary, we will seek to extend current arrangements to ensure that there is no gap in provision and people can continue to receive help and support to get back into work.

Once the Work Programme is implemented it will supersede much of the complicated raft of national programmes currently on offer and these will be phased out. The support currently provided by programmes such as the Flexible New Deal will be folded into the Work Programme as soon as possible.

We are committed to supporting severely disabled people and are currently reviewing the best way of doing this.

The Government have today written to relevant providers and will be beginning one to one discussions with them to discuss what this means for them. We believe that the Work Programme will offer significant new opportunities for contractors from the private and voluntary sectors to deliver truly flexible and personalised support, building appropriate partnerships to do so. We recognise the crucial role that the voluntary sector in particular has to play in tackling worklessness, and our plans reflect this.

We will be publishing further details as the design and implementation of the Work Programme progresses.

House of Lords

Thursday 10th June 2010 Lords Chamber

Thursday, 10 June 2010.

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

The Lord Bishop of Gloucester took the oath.

Sudan: Human Rights

Thursday 10th June 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

11:07

Asked By

[Lord Chidgey]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to reports of human rights abuses by state organisations in the run-up to the recent elections in Sudan.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, the United Kingdom is deeply concerned about human rights abuses committed in the run-up to and during the elections in Sudan. This period saw reports of violations of political rights and freedoms, including harassment, intimidation, arbitrary arrest, detention and alleged torture. There have been worrying signs of a further crackdown by the authorities since the elections, including the recent arrest of an opposition politician. We continue to urge the Government of Sudan to address these concerns.

[Lord Chidgey]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Perhaps I may add to his comments the fact that recent laws passed in Sudan allow Sudanese security forces to arrest people and hold them for 45 days without review and with immunity from any charge for abuses which might take place during that time. As he mentioned, there has been the arrest of a senior opposition leader, Hassan al-Turabi, on rather spurious charges, together with the arrest of a leading editor from the Rai al-Shaab newspaper, Mr Abuzerr Ali al-Amin. Will he assure the House that the Government will take every measure that they can in the international call for the reform of these repressive laws in Sudan and for holding to account those responsible for the charges of torture?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, I can only endorse the grim catalogue that my noble friend outlines. It is absolutely so. We will continue to use all pressures we can and to urge the Government of the Sudan back to a better path in their human rights performance. The outlook is not good and there are obviously many major concerns ahead in dealing not only—as we all know—with the continuing horrors of Darfur, but with the potential instabilities arising from the forthcoming referendum in the south. We continue to want the comprehensive peace agreement to work; that must be our main focus.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, Concordis, the Christian reconciliation organisation of which I am a patron, has just run two workshops in Upper Nile and Unity provinces. It tells me that there is a marked lack of international organisation presence on the ground and a real danger that there will be conflict arising from boundary demarcation disputes since the CPA is mapping the area from the air without discussing with local communities their views on the border. Will the Minister look into this? To what extent is he happy with the lack of engagement by the international community in the process leading up to the referendum?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord makes a very good point, which I will certainly feed into our thinking. As to international involvement in helping with the process leading up to the referendum and thereafter in managing its results, much more clearly is needed. We are doing our bit. We are increasing our staff in Juba, for instance. Our eye is very much on the ball about this, but we want others to work as well. We want to encourage UNMIS to get more involved and we have several other proposals for increasing our input. No one should for a moment assume that there will not be a very difficult situation, whichever way the referendum goes. Of course, there are wide forecasts that it will go in favour of some kind of autonomy.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, first, regarding UNMIS, does the Minister think that additional troops will be necessary to safeguard the referendum process, bearing in mind the violence that occurred in the recent elections? Secondly, does he think that satisfactory voting arrangements were in place for the disputed border areas in the recent elections? If not, what additional measures would he recommend should be taken before the referendum?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

On the noble Lord’s second question, I am afraid that there do appear to have been abuses in those and many other areas, and these matters will need to be monitored and safeguarded very carefully—more so than in the past. On the question of additional troops, by which I assume he means reinforcements for UNMIS, that is a difficult matter at the moment. We want some means by which the weak Government of Southern Sudan can somehow be strengthened in order to prepare for the enormous strains that lie ahead either way, whether the referendum goes for separation or not. Either way seems to point to more violence, danger and abuses.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, given that the Governments of both north and south Sudan have little control of the country outside the few conurbations, and that the only organisations with an effective network across the whole of Sudan are the Roman Catholic and Episcopal churches, what plans might Her Majesty’s Government have to encourage both Sudanese Governments to link with the churches in order to build stability and peace prior to the referendum?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. In all our urgings and advice, we take account of those important factors and will continue to do so.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

My Lords, may I recommend to my noble friend, who I am delighted to see has taken this very important post in the Government—it is well deserved—a recently published book called War Games by a distinguished Dutch woman journalist who is extremely experienced in this area? She demonstrates how many if not most humanitarian NGOs operating in this area are actually assisting in the repression and the inhuman activities that are taking place, without intending to. He may like to read it if he has time.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I thank my noble friend for his kind remarks and for his advice on my reading list. I will do my best. A number of insightful and valuable studies have been made into the effects—some good and some bad—of the various activities and intentions both of the non-governmental organisations, which are full of dedicated people, and indeed even of Governments, who sometimes, in thinking that their efforts will help, encounter all sorts of side-effects and consequences which had not been reckoned with.

[The Earl of Sandwich]

My Lords, given the involvement of the Chinese Government in Sudan—particularly in the oil industry—and remembering what was said in the debate yesterday, what early contact is the Foreign Office going to make with the Chinese, and will they be asked to co-operate in the preparations for the referendum?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

We have contact with the Chinese about this and the more general question of the degree to which they should carry responsibility for matters like human rights in difficult areas where they are very active in investment terms. There is no doubt that Chinese oil interests and the money associated with them in Sudan are a factor. We have talked to them. Our Chinese colleagues are reluctant to take a forward position and their doctrine is non-interference in local affairs, but actually they do face some responsibilities and, as we point out to them, will have to adjust to them in due course.

Children: Criminal Responsibility

Thursday 10th June 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

11:15

Asked By

[Baroness Deech]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to raise the age of criminal responsibility.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, the Government have no plans to raise the age of criminal responsibility. They believe that setting the age of criminal responsibility at 10 allows front-line services to intervene early and robustly. This helps to prevent further offending, and it helps young people to develop a sense of personal responsibility for their behaviour.

[Baroness Deech]

I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Would he acknowledge that it is widely regarded as inappropriate to see 10 year-olds in court and very small children being examined as witnesses? Most of the rest of Europe has a much higher age of responsibility than we do and the United Nations is calling for it to be raised. Will the Minister kindly consider a package of measures: raising the age to 14; not holding trials of children in open adult courts; not questioning child witnesses in court; not using custodial sentences; and, of course, in this age of cuts, concentrating on preventing children getting into the criminal system in the first place?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, having had less than a month’s experience, I pay due deference to the experience of the noble Baroness. Whatever age group we pick will be arbitrary. I have looked at the international comparisons, which range from six to 17. I will obviously take back to the department the recommendations she makes for due consideration. However, I was very impressed by the mixture of processes introduced by the previous Administration which makes it a rare occurrence for very young children to be before a court. There is a mixture of reactions to their offending which seeks to achieve early intervention and progress for the children concerned.

[Lord Borrie]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while there may not be one perfect answer for all cases—the differences across the jurisdictions demonstrate that—it might be an idea if a judge had an element of discretion in the case before him not to allow what happened in the recent case to which the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, referred?

[Lord McNally]

The case that has been referred to is still under the jurisdiction of the judge concerned. However, it is interesting that he is going to give his opinions of the process to the Lord Chief Justice, who, in turn, will give his to the Lord Chancellor. I emphasise again, coming to this very green and very new, I was extremely impressed by the wide variety of responses. The idea that children aged 10 to 12 are automatically put into the court system is false. The number of responses that have been developed over the past few years are very impressive and much to the credit of the previous Administration.

[The Earl of Listowel]

Under their duty to consult children under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, will the Minister and his colleagues consider speaking to 10, 11 and 12 year-olds in custody, particularly about their family experience? Will they further consider speaking to the teachers, social workers and psychiatrists who work with them on this matter?

[Lord McNally]

I certainly agree to that. I also take the noble Earl’s point about the family. One has only to look at a very few cases to find that these children come from extremely damaged backgrounds. We shall look at making sure that their parents take responsibility for their actions. There is a very clear relationship between damaged children committing crimes and an appalling family background.

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the last of the lengthy catalogue of recommendations from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, to reinforce the previous Administration’s legacy towards the early intervention to which he referred, was the least controversial, the most attractive and likely to be the most effective and least expensive? Will he add to that a dimension of support for the voluntary agencies, which are by far the most effective deliverers of these services?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, the simple answer is yes. Whether the strategy of the previous Administration was working may be answered by figures released this morning that show a decrease of 20.7 per cent in the number of young first offenders. That has been achieved by avoiding knee-jerk reaction, using the voluntary sector and giving wide discretion. The direction of travel which we inherited is one which we intend to follow.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

My Lords—

[Lord Richard]

Will the Minister assure us that the report by the learned judge to which he referred earlier will be made public?

[Lord McNally]

It is above my pay grade. It is no use the noble Lord saying, “Oh, come on”; he knows darn well that I cannot make that kind of commitment. However, I am sure that the Lord Chancellor will note such a recommendation from such a learned QC.

[Baroness Buscombe]

In developing his thinking, will the Minister look at the tremendous amount of work done by the Conservative Party in opposition in 2001-02, when we looked in great detail at how we prevent young people getting on to the conveyor belt to crime? I think that that would help him. Will the Minister agree to do that?

[Lord McNally]

One of advantages of the coalition is that I am now able to look at the wide body of research that comes from all the parties. I do not think that it is a party political issue; nor is there a simple, ideological solution. However, as a complete newcomer to this issue, I think that some solutions have been found. As I have said previously, we fully intend to follow the direction of travel of the previous Administration, while of course taking into account the experience of our sister coalition party as well.

[Lord Bach]

I thank the Minister for his generous comments; the comments that we received from around the House when we were in government were not always quite so generous. Will he ensure that, when the cuts come, the important work being done in this field which he has been generous about is not cut? It is crucial that it remains, whether voluntary or statutory.

[Lord McNally]

We shall certainly do our best, because the figures also show that making short-term cuts often leads to government expenditure such that it would be cheaper to send young people to Eton than to keep them in custody.

Children: Vulnerable Children

Thursday 10th June 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

11:24

Asked By

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they will support vulnerable children.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

My Lords, among other measures, we are committed to the goal of ending child poverty by 2020, to carrying out a wide-ranging review of child protection by Professor Eileen Munro, announced today, to publishing serious case reviews, to giving parents of children with special educational needs more say over their children’s education and providing 4,200 extra Sure Start health visitors.

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

I thank the Minister for that response. Does he agree that vulnerability in children may arise from such things as abuse, disability, poor health, truancy and so on? Can he comment in more detail on one of those areas and say what the Government plan to do?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the question and pay tribute to the work that she does in this area, and has done for a very long time. On protecting children at greatest risk from abuse, I hope that the independent review announced by my department today, to be led by Professor Eileen Munro, whom many noble Lords and noble Baronesses will know well from their work, will help us to put better systems in place. Most importantly, I was told this morning that apparently social workers spend up to 80 per cent of their time in front of a computer screen rather than working with the children, as they would like to be doing. If we can reduce some of those burdens and support social workers to do the job they want to do—and we all want them to do—we will be making some progress.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that this Question is related to the previous Question that we discussed, about children who have come before the criminal courts? Is it not the case that there has been an unprecedented increase in the number of children coming before the family court in relation to both private and public legislation? However, while local authorities are working on safeguarding in that statutory area, they are certainly not working in prevention. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, pointed out, unless we work in the area of prevention, more children will become before both sets of courts. What will the Government do to ensure that social workers in local authorities have the time to do both their statutory work and to work with vulnerable families in their own homes?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

To pick up on the first point, I echo what my noble friend Lord McNally said about the work particularly of the family intervention projects, which the previous Government introduced. Some of the early results from that were extremely encouraging in helping the most disadvantaged families and children early on. There were some very big reductions in problem behaviour. On the broader point about what we can do to help social workers have more time to do their job, that comes back to my earlier remarks. One benefit that we hope will come from the Munro review is that we will free social workers from what we might call the more pointless box-ticking activity to have more time to do the job that they want to do, which would encompass the kind of concern that the noble Baroness has.

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

My Lords, I have two questions for the Minister. First, this House worked very hard on the Children and Young Persons Act 2008. Will the Minister commit to implement that Act in full? It is about promoting stability for some of our most vulnerable children. Secondly, will the Minister honour the previous Government’s commitment, to which he has just referred, to roll out family intervention projects? We know that by investing in family intervention projects we project vulnerable children, and the results are tremendous.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

In terms of the commitments that I can give, I have to make the broad point to which my noble friend Lord McNally alluded that unfortunately we inherit a financial situation in which, as the former Chief Secretary, Mr Liam Byrne, pointed out that there is “no money left”. So it is simply not possible for me to give any undertaking at all about commitments going forward on funding. However, I can certainly say that in looking at issues of public expenditure, clearly the priority that the Government will bring to bear is to protect wherever possible the most vulnerable in society. The decisions that we have already started to take with regard to Sure Start and the funding to protect it are proof of that point. We shall continue to do that, but it is simply not possible to give firm financial undertakings for the future. This Government are confronted with the same situation with which a Labour Government would have been confronted, if they had got in: there is no money left, we have spent it all, and we will have to make cuts to sort out the deficit.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that figures placed in the House of Commons Library show that the use of restraint on young offenders in secure training camps has risen, despite the previous Government having given an assurance and a pledge that they would reduce its use? That was recommended by the independent review on the use of restraint, published in December 2008. Does he agree that the use of restraint on children as young as 12 in such institutions should be kept to an absolute minimum? Do the Government have any plans to introduce other methods of handling these difficult and very damaged children?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I have not seen the research that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, refers to. I would be happy if she could spare the time to discuss that with her, along with the broader issues that she has raised.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, in these times of economic hardship, more children are likely to be at risk through poverty. What assurances can the Minister give that there are sufficient trained and experienced child protection officers, and what measures are being taken to recruit good people into that important service?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I agree with the point that in times of economic hardship and difficulty it is important that we are able to support the most vulnerable. As part of the announcements today about the Munro review, which may help the noble Baroness, we have announced that there will be a £23 million local social work improvement fund available to local authorities to help support children’s services in 2010-11. We will provide funding for the successful programme to support recruitment and retention of social workers, and we will make funding available for establishing an independent college of social work. I hope that all these measures will provide some reassurance to the noble Baroness.

Afghanistan: Child Asylum Seekers

Thursday 10th June 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

11:32

Asked By

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proposals they have for the return of unaccompanied child asylum seekers to Afghanistan.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, the House may be aware of press reports that have appeared on this issue in the past week, which may have misled. I assure the House straightaway that only unaccompanied children for whom satisfactory care and integration assistance can be provided will be returned. What is being proposed is part of that assistance. The UK is tendering for integration services for all forced-returned Afghans—that is, not just children. If that tender process identifies suitable provision for some Afghans in the 16 to 17 age bracket, then indeed it might be possible to return them. Children under that age will not be returned, but even in that age group that will depend on individual cases and the assistance that can be provided. We doubt that there will be big numbers.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

I thank the Minister for that reply. I know that when we entered this coalition Government we thought that one of the great pledges was to stop the detention of children for immigration purposes and I hope that that will be implemented. However, this seems a backward step. Is the Minister convinced that we are keeping to the letter of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which says that every child—everyone of 18 and under—should be cared for in a very special way? This seems to be treating the most vulnerable children among us in a very harsh way.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, there is no question of detention, which does not arise in these cases. As to whether we are conforming to the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, I suggest that it is precisely in order to make assistance available to young people that we are instituting these arrangements and the tender is going out. This is not about buildings; it is about provision for reintegration into society and for other ways of helping these young people to find their parents and to get back to a normal life.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

My Lords, may I ask for assurances that any child asylum seeker, while he or she is in this country, has proper legal representation and proper access to our social work care departments?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, when they are in this country, these children are in the care of local authorities, which is an extremely costly process for us. The sort of concerns that the noble Lord has are indeed being catered for.

[The Lord Bishop of Newcastle]

Does the Minister really believe that the deportation of unaccompanied child asylum seekers to Afghanistan is in each child’s best interests? If she does, perhaps she could tell us why.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I am sure that the House entirely agrees that this is a very difficult issue. We are in an age of migration, but we have to consider the alternatives. Unless this country is prepared to take every single individual who arrives on our shores as a result of having been trafficked through the system and to keep them indefinitely—in the end as our citizens—we have to find a humane way of returning people. These provisions are designed precisely to provide that degree of humanity and assistance to the young people who arrive here.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, how will the Government monitor the safety and well-being of those children who are returned to Afghanistan? Also, will the Government give an assurance that this is not a precedent for returning children to other countries as well?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, part of the service of providing assistance for reintegration will be to find these children’s families if they have not found them and to attempt to get them a job and an education. Actually, these young people are being helped to be put in a position that they might not have been in when they left their country. I do not think that we are doing them a disservice. On the question of wider immigration and deportation arrangements, that will obviously depend on the circumstances of each country, as the noble Lord knows.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister invite the organisations that have expressed concern about whether these arrangements are in the best interests of the child, including the UNHCR, Refugee and Migrant Justice, the Refugee Council and the Children’s Society, to a meeting so that she can explain the provisions and reassure them? Secondly, given that Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands are all planning to return children to Afghanistan, while Norway is building a hostel similar to the one that we propose, would not pan-European arrangements for the reception of these children in Afghanistan be better than every state making its own arrangements?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, we have a memorandum of understanding with the Afghan Government about the return of such individuals, to which the UNHCR is party. We work with all the parties to ensure that the terms that I am trying to set out are observed. The noble Lord referred to other interested organisations. My understanding of the position of Refugee Action is that, provided that the conditions are right, which is the proviso that we are trying to meet, it does not have any principled objection to the return of children of this age in the circumstances that are being provided. As for other interested parties, of course I am happy to meet Refugee Action and I intend to make that part of my duties.

City of Westminster Bill [HL]

Thursday 10th June 2010 Lords Chamber

Canterbury City Council Bill

Leeds City Council Bill

Nottingham City Council Bill

Reading Borough Council Bill

Revival Motions

11:37

Moved By

[The Chairman of Committees]

That this House resolves that the promoters of the City of Westminster Bill [HL] which was originally introduced in this House in session 2008–09 on 22 January 2009 should have leave to proceed with the bill in the current session in accordance with the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 150B (Revival of bills).

That this House resolves that the promoters of the Canterbury City Council Bill which was originally introduced in the House of Commons in session 2007–08 on 22 January 2008 should have leave to proceed with the bill in the current session in accordance with the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 150B (Revival of bills).

That this House resolves that the promoters of the Leeds City Council Bill which was originally introduced in the House of Commons in session 2007–08 on 22 January 2008 should have leave to proceed with the bill in the current session in accordance with the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 150B (Revival of bills).

That this House resolves that the promoters of the Nottingham City Council Bill which was originally introduced in the House of Commons in session 2007–08 on 22 January 2008 should have leave to proceed with the bill in the current session in accordance with the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 150B (Revival of bills).

That this House resolves that the promoters of the Reading Borough Council Bill which was originally introduced in the House of Commons in session 2007–08 on 22 January 2008 should have leave to proceed with the bill in the current session in accordance with the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 150B (Revival of bills).

Motions agreed.

Academies Bill [HL]

Thursday 10th June 2010 Lords Chamber

Order of Consideration Motion

11:38

Moved By

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Academies Bill [HL] has been committed that they consider the bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 9, Schedule 1, Clause 10, Schedule 2, Clauses 11 to 16.

Motion agreed.

Pensions: Automatic Enrolment

Thursday 10th June 2010 Lords Chamber

Debate

11:38

Moved By

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

To call attention to Her Majesty’s Government’s plans to introduce automatic enrolment in workplace pensions; and to move for Papers.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this short debate. If I may, I would like to preface the debate by welcoming the Minister to his new and interesting position. He still has that sunny disposition and smile on his face. I hope that it is there until 2015. With a bit of luck, I will try to help him to get there. We will do the best we can.

I have never had the opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, for the professional and collegiate way in which he, as a Minister, allowed me and other Opposition spokesmen to share some of the Government’s thinking. I appreciated that support, and look forward to listening with great interest to what he has to say in future; that is really a way of softening him up, because the full-frontal attack will come any moment now.

It is hard to cover this territory in 15 minutes, but the debate’s purpose is to allow the incoming Government to report progress on automatic enrolment and personal accounts. We should take time at this stage to reflect on some of the continuing concerns identified by the industry, because they are real. Some understanding of the timetable, and the planned next steps, would be extremely helpful. Noble Lords will know that the new NEST—the National Employment Savings Trust—is vested with its powers on 5 July, which is not a long time coming. It is an important reform and an important body. There is a lot of money at stake. The success of this policy programme is fundamental to the future provision of workplace pensions in this country.

The context is well known and understood across the whole House. Not only is the United Kingdom seriously personally indebted at the level of households—we have had some interesting discussions about that in the debate on the Loyal Address—but, looking forward to pension provision in the longer term, it has undersaved as a nation. We obviously face the financial constraints of which everyone is aware. That will become clearer later in the year.

I never tire of making the point that, as a country, we underestimate the impact that demographic trends will have on all of our policy areas. I attended an interesting PPI AGM yesterday where the point was made that the best projections we are all working on are estimates. If they are wrong by even 1 per cent in an upwards direction, there are some serious consequences. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, chaired the event, which was an interesting demonstration of how some of these estimates can be wrong. There have been underestimates in the past, and we must make proper provision for long-term saving for some of our citizens, who are just ignorant—in the best sense—of how long they will have to make provision for when it comes to their retirement: some 20 or 30 years. It is perhaps not surprising that some do not think about that because they are working out how to budget through the next week, never mind the next 20 or 30 years.

There is a need to understand the context, and to re-establish the consensus across the party divide if we can. Pension provision is a long-term problem. Of course, there might be tactical differences and different approaches in dealing with the next Comprehensive Spending Review provisions. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that pension provision is a long-term strategy. We must get it right for the long term.

The National Employment Savings Trust is an important element in all of this. I support workplace pensions. I was first introduced to the idea by a man called James Purnell, of whom noble Lords may have heard since he served on the Select Committee that I had the privilege to chair in a previous incarnation. Auto-enrolment is a key new factor in being able to encourage people to save properly.

The Government are new. We have had a period of purdah when everything has been in stasis and no one has been able to take things forward. The mid-2012 introduction date is fast approaching. Some clarification of the Government’s position on the review and its terms of reference would be useful. The scope and membership would obviously be part of that. How long is it going to take? When will we get access to its conclusions? Are we right to assume that it will include the delivery contract, which is quite controversial? By that I mean the contract with TATA to provide the default NEST pensions provision. We have already spent some £60 million on loans for the personal administration—that is, on PADA, which preceded NEST. Is there any further information about how that looks and what the Government propose to do about it? We would also like to hear from the Government about the annual management charges for personal accounts. All of that is simply to clarify the situation, so that the industry, which is interested in engaging with this as positively as it can, can respond as positively as it is able.

There are other, perhaps less obvious, questions about the review. There is a business department review of red tape, which will look at whether and how employers can certify existing schemes to qualify under the new provisions. There is a huge amount of red tape there. We know about this because we spent a long time discussing it in the course of the primary legislation. Will that be a factor? Is the review taking into account the business department’s interest in this important area of policy? It would be helpful to know that. Is it likely to be directly affected by expenditure cuts? We all expect the Comprehensive Spending Review in October to be quite difficult to handle. Will those CSR announcements indirectly or directly affect the proposals for personal accounts and auto-enrolment?

In the longer term, although still important, is there any fresh thinking about how the auto-enrolment personal accounts will impact on and fit with means-testing policy? This is a debate that I know the noble Lord, Lord Freud, is actively and rightly engaged in. He is trying to get some of these incentives changed and made more positive. It is difficult to see how you can be confident about deploying the NEST and personal accounts policy without being careful about how it fits with means-testing in the longer term.

The problems with this debate are very interesting. I recently had the pleasure of sponsoring a lunch here, where the pensions company AXA brought forward its research entitled Public Policy Research Report: Workplace Pensions. The results of this survey are very important. AXA carried out an equivalent piece of work in 2006, at the same time as the White Paper was published. It found some interesting concerns that needed to be addressed. Three years on, in December 2009, AXA repeated the research, covering a group of 300 employers of different sizes and scale and more than 1,000 employees, just to test what they knew and thought about these policy proposals. The conclusion, I think, is that support for this policy is waning. That is the worrying thing and it is my conclusion from reading this research.

Mr Steve Folkard, who is head of pensions and savings policy, reports in his foreword to the research that he expected support to grow between 2006 and 2009, but writes:

“However, in the three years that have passed the findings do not make for the most comfortable reading for policy makers”.

Looking at the detail, I agree with that statement. Mr Folkard concludes his foreword by saying:

“NEST is designed for the low to average wage earners and its success will be judged not just by the extent to which the number of people saving for retirement increases but whether the aggregate amount saved by the population increases too”.

I agree with that.

The survey has five bullet point findings which are worth rehearsing. First, it states:

“Support among employers for the introduction of NEST has dropped to 26%”.

That is a fall of 26 points over the three-year period, which is of serious concern. Secondly, it states:

“There has been a 7 point fall in companies being able to ‘absorb the costs and comply’”.

Thirdly, it states:

“19% of employers say they will reduce employee numbers as a result”—

of this policy’s introduction. That is “up 3 points”, which is bad news. Fourthly, there is a piece of good news. The survey states:

“21% of employers would level down to 3% per cent”—

there is a problem with levelling down—which is,

“5 points lower than in 2006”.

However, I am sure that colleagues will be concerned that 21 per cent of employers are considering levelling down. Fifthly, I was interested to note that the survey stated that,

“matched contributions is the single biggest issue that would encourage employees to raise their contributions followed by better awareness of what they may receive in retirement”.

I hope that the Government will study that survey carefully as it raises concerns that we all share.

I believe that two or three points need to be added to that list. Size of business is an issue. There is clear evidence in AXA’s survey that smaller companies will struggle to deal with all this to a far greater extent than some bigger businesses. We need to consider that further. If we are not careful, low-income workplace savers, particularly early joiners who are close to retiring age when they join, may get no benefit whatever from this system. That also needs to be looked at. Going forward over the next three years, opting out will be even more important for reasons which we all understand; that is, household domestic budgets will be under even more pressure. People will think of this measure as a wage cut if its positive aspects are not explained to them to enable it to be taken forward.

What can we do to help? What should we be looking to do? I look forward to hearing about the review. I understand that that discussion may be premature in that the Government have been in office for only 20 minutes, as it were, and reviews are reviews.

[Noble Lords]

Too long!

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

I hear cries of “Too long” from a sedentary position. We have been in office longer than 20 minutes, but these are early days. However, I hope that the Minister and the department will understand that we need to take account of the urgency of this matter. The Government should restate their position as energetically and urgently as they can. They must demonstrate enthusiasm and demonstrate that they are up for this fight as it will be a struggle to win hearts and minds to make this policy successful. It is clear to me that we need to provide more flexibility for employers, and soon. We need to be able to access better information systems that explain the long-term benefits of this policy for employees and employers. We need to be able to do that in pretty short order if this policy is to succeed.

In the longer term we need to look at the promise of an evaluation when the “steady state” is reached in 2016. It is a shame that this has slipped back. I understand the reasons why the previous Administration slipped back the timescale slightly. I supported that as the original timescale presented many challenges. However, we will now not have a fully functioning 8 per cent annual saving amount until 2016. That is a long time coming and people will suffer from being undersaved between now and then as a result. We also need new impact assessments of the cost provisions that accompanied the draft regulations. I do not think that the earlier cost assumptions were sufficiently realistic. There should be better information. The department should have done more work since the previous assumptions were published. It would give the industry confidence if the department undertook to set up a working group with it and other interested parties in order to engage with the deployment and implementation of this policy. That is important.

This is a very important piece of legislation that we must get right. There is a case in the even longer term for the Government to think about creating an independent body to formulate strategy for long-term savings. It should be broadly drawn, because it is important to try to develop and enforce a consensus in this important policy area. It is too important to get wrong. I hope that today’s debate will help to shed some light on the Government’s thinking. That was the purpose of tabling the Motion in the first place. I look forward to contributions from colleagues and others. I beg to move.

11:54

[Lord Fowler]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on his speech. We have spent most of our time in the other place and here debating against each other, but it is extremely good that on this, and I suspect many other issues, we are very much on the same side. He made an excellent speech. I also congratulate the Minister on his appointment. He comes with a wealth of knowledge and we wish him the very best of fortune in his new post.

I start in a way which may seem a little away from the detail of automatic enrolment, but I hope that the House will soon see the relevance. Next week is the 40th anniversary of my coming to Westminster in June 1970. I spent 31 years in the House of Commons and nine in this House. I have to say that 1970 was another age. There was no Portcullis House with private offices and research assistants. I shared an all-party office. On one side I had Kenneth Clarke with his smelly cigars and dark brown Hush Puppies—or was it the other way around? Facing me was John Prescott—soon to be of this parish—who visibly scowled as I dictated down the telephone press releases defending the Government of Ted Heath. At the end of the room was our very much non-coalition partner, Cyril Smith, who happily did not come too often to the office. The noble Lord, Lord Pendry, and I tried to find space as best we could. To add to my problems, the first Queen’s Speech of the new Government abolished my then constituency of Nottingham South. It was not altogether a happy beginning at Westminster.

What is the purpose of this example, apart from alerting news editors throughout the country of this significant anniversary next week? My purpose is to make a fundamental point about the history of pensions policy in the 40 years that I have been at Westminster. In this period, we have had one government scheme after another. In my first Parliament, we dealt with the pension plan of Dick Crossman and then that of Keith Joseph. When in opposition I became my party’s spokesman on pensions and social security—to universal surprise, including my own—we had to deal with the Barbara Castle-Brian O’Malley plan and, in particular, the unlovely-named state earnings-related pensions scheme, SERPS. I learnt during that first debate how it is in Westminster that when the subject of pensions goes up on the screen, Chambers—here and in the Commons—miraculously empty, much to the disadvantage of our debates.

I admit that when I got into office, Parliament had to deal with the Fowler plan on personal pensions and the end of discrimination against early leavers. Then we had the plans of Peter Lilley in the Conservative Government, while under the party opposite the ideas of Frank Field were considered—briefly. His ideas were so unthinkable that he was immediately sacked. Later, when plans were subcontracted to the noble Lord, Lord Turner, we made more substantial progress.

In the past 40 years, we had the basic pension which was earnings-related; then it was price-indexed; now it will be earnings-related again. Also, there has been one variation after another of the state second pension. We have had SERPS; we have had modified SERPS; we have had son of SERPS; and now we have an ailing cousin of SERPS called S2P. At the same time, we have seen the decline, and almost fall, of final salary occupational pension schemes in this country, for which, frankly, the party opposite must bear some responsibility. I am trying to put that in the most moderate way by saying “some responsibility”. The noble Lord on the Front Bench shakes his head but I think that the party opposite must bear some responsibility for it, although I certainly accept that it does not have total responsibility. However, we should now be trying to get as much agreement between the parties as we possibly can on the way forward.

Pensions are a long-term investment and require long-term policy-making. In the current economic circumstances, it may not be possible to introduce every part of such an agreement at the same time, but I do not think that that should dissuade us, even at this point, from seeking as much agreement as we can. Indeed, I think it can be argued that in the past we have been too impatient in trying to introduce pension plans—not least in implementing the original Beveridge proposals. Therefore, my first point in this debate is that we should seek to agree on the goal of a pensions policy, getting as much agreement between the parties as we conceivably can and, above all, seeking to avert a pensions crisis whereby many of those in retirement will be living in hardship. That, I believe, is a cause that all parties can embrace.

I suggest that the basis for such an agreement—in a sense, it is what I proposed 25 years ago—is a twin-pillar system. The first pillar is undoubtedly state provision. The second pillar is personal provision, very much including workplace pension schemes of the kind that my noble friend has described. I say in parenthesis that such a twin-pillar system has been in place in Switzerland for many years, and it has worked to the great satisfaction of the public there. However, the important point is that both sides are essential. Without good state provision, you will not sufficiently encourage personal saving. The basis must be as generous a platform state pension as can conceivably be afforded. The structure that we have at present is not particularly generous but it is, without doubt, extremely complex and administratively extremely expensive. It is, above all, ill understood by the public. I remember that when we carried out our own pension review in the 1980s, most people who were members of the state earnings-related pension scheme did not know what the scheme was. I wonder how many today know the detail, or even the outline, of S2P. I would guess not very many. I also wonder how you can plan for old age if you do not know the basis of your pension provision.

Therefore, I think that the basic state pension should now be put together with the state second pension with the aim of lifting the pension level above pension credit. There would then be a decent platform pension. I accept that it may not be possible to do all that at the same time but affordability can come, for example, from adjusting the pension age. Again, it was a quarter of a century ago that I advocated flexible retirement up to the age of 70. As for paying the pension, I propose—it has already been proposed and I think it is very sensible—that you start with the over-75s and then move down the age scale. However, my basic point is that even in the present circumstances we can make some moves towards the goal of better pensions in this country.

I then come to the second pillar—personal provision. Here workplace pension schemes are fundamental and I certainly support everything that my noble friend has said about that, particularly what he said about automatic enrolment. As he said, the policy must be right in the long term. Automatic enrolment is an important step forward. I listened with concern, as I am sure the House did, to the figures of the survey that he quoted. That is not good news for future policy. He made important points about the detail of the automatic assessment. I shall not repeat all those points but they are important.

The essential point is that we know enough about how people put off making a contribution to realise that something of this kind is needed in the public interest. It is also entirely fair that personal pensions should be a combination of personal contribution, employer contribution and tax relief. Again I remember when we were going round this course in the 1980s with the state earnings-related pension scheme. At one stage we were proposing that it should go and considering what we should put in its place. I proposed exactly the kind of workplace pensions now in legislation. I think that we proposed a rather bigger contribution from employers than that being proposed today. The Treasury predictably opposed us on grounds of the tax relief bill and the decisive intervention in that debate came from the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, who supported absolutely our proposal, including employer contribution.

It should be emphasised and underlined that a pension contribution is a very good investment for any company that is intent on trying to keep good staff and employees. We are also trying to make saving as attractive as we possibly can. In that respect I welcome very much the decision of the Government to do away with the absurd restriction that you must take an annuity at the age of 75. We have been fighting about that in the previous Parliament and before. There was never any particular justification for that policy and it is encouraging to see the Government moving so quickly. I am sure that my noble friend needs no instruction here, but I observe that not all pensions policy is made in his department. I am sure that the ex-Pensions Ministers from the previous Government who seem to be around the House today did not have their hearts set entirely on defending compulsory annuities at 75. I note that the noble Lord does not shake his head on this occasion.

However, that is what the Treasury decreed. Let us make no mistake; it is not something exclusive to Labour Governments. I say from personal experience that such interference is not unique. I could write a chapter of a book on how my own review was damaged. In fact, from memory, I think that I have written a chapter of a book on that. Let us hope that the sensible decisions on annuity mark a new era in the intervention of the Treasury.

I always said when carrying out my own review that we were making policy in a cold climate. If it was cold then, it is positively arctic today. Even so, I believe that we can make progress. The Chancellor has already shown that on annuities. As for the parties, we can certainly debate the speed of improvement and the other important improvements that can be made for, say, married women and the details of automatic enrolment. It would be of enormous benefit if the parties, after 40 years of debate, could agree the principles and the structure of what we want to achieve. That would be an enormous step forward and it would also be in the spirit of today when we are all seeking as much common ground as we conceivably can in all areas of policy-making. We are seeking to prevent hardship in old age and pensions policy is a crucial part of that.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

Can I be clear that the noble Lord is strongly supporting the automatic enrolment principle? There is all this talk about people not being aware of it, not supporting it, and so on. We have had the big review—the Turner review—and we have a policy to make sure that for the first time everybody has some buy-in through the company for which they work. It includes both employers and employees, and we have heard neither the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, whose speech I very much admired, nor the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, saying that we have to sell this harder despite some of the propaganda against it by the private insurance industry.

[Lord Fowler]

It is marvellous that when one tries to reach agreement the noble Lord immediately looks for disagreement. There is no disagreement with him on that point; there is no disagreement from my noble friend and none from me. We want automatic enrolment. I said that about five times but the noble Lord may not have been listening at the time. Of course we need to promote and sell it, but let us not have a bashing match and go back to the old business at which the noble Lord is rather adept of having a go at the industry or whoever his latest target happens to be. Of course I agree with automatic enrolment and of course it needs to be sold. That is also the view of my noble friend.

12:11

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for introducing this debate today. There is very little that I would disagree with within what the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said. The crisis in occupational pensions, which certainly exists, has a deeper base, which is the issue of longevity. A quarter of all women, which I reckon is, or was, about three of us in this Chamber, will live to 95. Fifty years from now, the Lancet estimates that the median life expectancy will be more than 100 years—102—with half above it as well as half below. There are now more 65-year olds and above than there are under-16s. We all live a year for every three.

It was not until about 2005-06 and the report of the noble Lord, Lord Turner, that actuaries started building that in, after five years in which many companies had been taking contribution holidays. The resulting panic of renewed employer contributions at much higher levels accentuated by FRS 1719 and the collapse of the markets since then means that when I last checked, only four of the FTSE top 100 companies still had their DB schemes open to new members. We all know that in DC schemes, the employer’s contribution is 6 per cent, rather than 16 per cent in DB schemes, so the employee gets a smaller pot, together with investment risk, disinvestment risk, inflation and longevity risks, all falling on the shoulders of people who find pensions intimidating. We end up in the DC private sector with only 40 per cent of people covered, compared to 85 per cent in the DB public sector. It is coverage and adequacy as much as pension type that divides private and public sector pensions, which is why I so welcome auto-enrolment, either into an existing pension or into a shell stakeholder—which may be the most important element of all this, where we know that if employers do not contribute, employees will not, and which will therefore have an employers’ content for the first time—and NEST.

Will auto-enrolment work? Yes. When Scottish and Newcastle went from opting in to opting out, it went within a matter of months from 45 per cent contributions to 90 per cent contributions. The only people opting out were student workers. So there is huge potential. As always, I am especially concerned with the implication of auto-enrolment for the low paid, especially women. Should low-paid people be auto-enrolled? Without trying to go over the arguments that some of us raised in debate on the Queen’s Speech, only if it is safe to save and only if it is attractive to save. We must make it safe and attractive. Here, I entirely support the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. Increasingly, there is all-party consensus and full industry support for a new state pension which lifts people off means-tested pension credit.

As Steve Webb, who is now the Minister for Pensions, and I argue in a pamphlet, which can be found at www.soapboxcommunications.co.uk/anewstate pension.pdf, we could fund that pension by putting into one pot BSP, the state second pension capped at 2020 to give the extra headspace, and pension credit. At a stroke, there is a pension floating people off pension credit and thus making it safe to save and pay to save. Without such a platform, too many people will be at risk of mis-selling, and if we do not do it, issues such as annuitisation at 75 will be at risk. If we scrap annuitisation at 75, which I support, then, but only then, if it is underpinned by a safe new state pension, savers would no longer have to annuitise a slice of their pot to keep them off pension credit should they blow it all. A new state pension also sorts out the NEST problem, the removal of annuitisation at 75 problem and the stakeholder problem. That is not bad, and it is all for broadly the same cost as now.

In order to make it attractive to save, we have to allow low-paid people, who often have no other savings, access to a slice of their pension fund, perhaps represented by the 25 per cent tax-free lump sum, otherwise women, in particular, will not save if they have to lock the money away for 40 years when they may face all sorts of financial tumult in their working lives from divorce, disability or the need for running away money. We need to find appropriate low-cost vehicles in which to save. I have great hopes for auto-enrolment and also for employers’ contributions into existing shell stakeholder pensions. For example, we know that where employers do not contribute to a shell stakeholder pension, only 13 per cent of employees contribute, but where employers contribute, something like 80 to 90 per cent of employees contribute. As a result of NEST, people who are lower paid or are working in businesses with fewer than five members of staff—the cut-off point for stakeholder pensions—will have the opportunity to come into auto-enrolment.

I shall raise some detailed issues about NEST, and I hope the Minister will bear with me. I hope they will be considered in the 2017 review. NEST is targeted at the low paid, who are disproportionately women, who are probably earning between £10,000 and £20,000 a year. Given that they are low paid, to start with the NEST pots will be pretty small. I accept that you cannot ask kitchen-table employers to contribute more than 3 per cent at this stage, although I would hope that in time that would rise to at least 5 per cent.

I shall put four propositions to the Minister that would make NEST work and make it safe and attractive, which are the two criteria that dominate the debate. When NEST has rolled out, employers will contribute only 3 per cent, which will be 8 per cent in total, on earnings above the LEL. That means that someone on half average earnings—£10,000 to £11,000—will get a pot built on contributions of only just over half of that—£6,000—unlike other occupational pensions, which take the whole of the earnings range into account. I believe that where an employee wishes to contribute on all her earnings, including those below the LEL, as happens in other OPs, she should be allowed and encouraged to do so, and where she does, so must the employer. To do the full range for somebody on £11,000 a year would cost the employer an additional £4.50 a week, but the employee’s pot would more than double. Paying in only above the LEL for, say, 20 years on £11,000 a year would give her a pot of around £19,000 or an extra pension of around £19 a week, on which she promptly loses 40p in the pound on pension credit, so she ends up only approximately £11 a week better off. Put in the new state pension, and she would keep that £19—as opposed to £11—in full. Allow—indeed, encourage—her to pay on all her earnings, at a cost to her of an extra £5 a week, and her pot doubles to some £35,000 and she gets £35 a week, which brings her off pension credit. She keeps every penny and has a real, decent opportunity of comfort. So she could get £11 a week, £19 a week or £35 a week. By doubling her contribution, she receives three times her pension, and by making a new state pension, she receives double her pension—a huge increase for a modest additional cost, which, as I say, is about £4.50 a week or so for the average employer.

Secondly, I want NEST to offer access to that 25 per cent lump sum to encourage saving. After all, if a financial emergency hits you, it is much cheaper to borrow from yourself than from loan sharks charging 500 per cent APR down the road.

Thirdly, I want NEST to raise its ceiling in due course from £3,000 a year. I know that providers of other pensions were worried at the time that money that goes to them will be diverted, but, frankly, once NEST has settled down, we should permit it. Why is it okay to have a £10,000 cap on ISAs but only a £3,000 cap on pensions—on NEST? That is nonsensical.

Fourthly, NEST and other auto-enrol schemes really must help us with the problem of orphan pots. A hairdresser may have had a couple of periods of self-employment and built up a small pot of £2,000. She has £18,000 in her NEST pot on retirement, which is modest, but she cannot access that £2,000 because it is floating out there in the ether. She cannot trivially commute it into cash, because her NEST pot is above the trivial commutation limit. She cannot annuitise it because it is too small for providers to do so. She cannot import it into her NEST holding to raise it to £20,000 because of the preliminary rules that we have established and which should be reviewed. I know that there is good will in the DWP to attach it, so I hope the Minister can tell us how far it has gone with this when he replies. It would be unfair if someone in that hairdresser’s position had saved £20,000 but cannot touch 10 per cent of it because of completely arbitrary—and, if I may say so, man-made—rules.

Finally, I will go slightly wider than the topic, if I dare, and say a word about public sector pensions. I accept that government will wish to review how sustainable they are in the current climate. I am a new governor of the PPI—a long-established governor of the PPI, the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, is sitting behind me—which is researching possible options for this. One option, which I really want to float today, is for DB for earnings that attract a standard rate, and then a flip to DC on earnings at a higher rate or at another figure of, say, £35,000 a year or £30,000, so that the broadest shoulders bear the risk and those who are most in need of protection have the security of a DB slice. It is a hybrid scheme, and your Lordships are quite sensitive about hybrid schemes at the moment. I regret that I have not been able to cost the savings, but it would be fair, protect the low paid and be simple. Everyone would know what it means, and it would share risks, allow public sector employers to have a better stab at protecting and predicting future liabilities. It would also discourage the habit of late-life promotion for white men to enhance their pensions.

I very much welcome today’s debate. I hope that the Minister will clearly show his support for NEST today, flag up that we will have a review in 2017, confirm that some of the issues that have been raised today and that could transform the financial outcomes for women in particular will be considered, and that he, like the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and I, will join in the general consensus that the only way to get the low paid into pension provisions is, first, to make a new state pension safe and, secondly, to make it attractive. Ninety-five per cent of the bits are in place, and it would not take much to have a new picture on the jigsaw box. We would then have a landscape that was built on consensus and that could last us for a couple of generations.

12:23

[Baroness Greengross]

My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Pensions Policy Institute and head of the UK International Longevity Centre. I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, on securing a very timely debate. He has raised some important issues and asked some significant questions. I also congratulate the other speakers today, who have been quite exceptional. I know that those who follow me will be the same, so my comments will be brief.

I am supportive of auto-enrolment but above all of the important consensus that has emerged about long-term pensions issues. Personal accounts may not be suitable for all employees due to their interaction with means-tested benefits. This particularly applies to workers over 55 years of age, who will always have insufficient time before retirement to accumulate a significant fund under the scheme. However, they may have just enough pension to reduce any benefit entitlement, including passported benefits, such as council tax relief, pound for pound. As I have said previously, this does not mean that people should not be auto-enrolled, but it implies that people will need, as the noble Lords, Lord Kirkwood and Lord Fowler, said, clear information and generic advice to help them to make informed decisions about whether they should stay in or opt out of personal accounts

The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, pointed to the extraordinarily awful levels of ignorance among the general public. The issues are who pays for the information and who will provide the information and advice, particularly down the line at the decumulation stage when employment has ceased. An important test of the personal accounts policy will be whether it is possible to design information and generic advice in a simple and easy-to-understand way to help people to decide whether they should opt out of personal accounts.

There are policy options that the Government could consider to improve the incentives to save for some groups, particularly those who are heavily at risk. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate some of the thinking along these lines. Increasing the trivial commutation limit or introducing a limited pension income disregard could improve the returns from personal accounts for some individuals at a cost of increasing government expenditure on means-tested benefits.

I know that these are difficult decisions for the Government to make. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, that a working group of experts to consider some of the important issues that have been raised today might be helpful in taking things forward. We must get this right in the long term as well as the short term.

12:26

[Baroness Noakes]

My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, I draw the attention of the House to my interests as shown in the register. I do not believe that any of them constitutes a relevant interest for the purposes of my participation in today’s debate, but in these difficult times it is always better to be safer and certain. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, on securing this debate so early in this new Parliament. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Freud on his appointment as Minister and I look forward to his response.

As my noble friend Lord Fowler pointed out, pensions are one of those topics that attract only a small group of usual suspects, who usually know rather a lot about the subject, and so it has turned out again today. It was certainly the case when we considered the Pensions Act 2008, which I am sure is engraved on the heart of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, who so ably led for the Government on that Bill. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, said about the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, and his handling of the Bill—indeed, the whole of his portfolio—as Minister.

When I took part in the debates on the Pensions Act 2008, sitting in the seat now occupied by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, I was grateful for the briefing provided by a number of outside bodies, but in particular that from the Confederation of British Industry and the Association of British Insurers. I am grateful to those bodies for briefing me again today for the purposes of this debate. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, is no longer in his place after intervening earlier and implying that the attitudes of industry were inimical to auto-enrolment. I can certainly confirm that the Association of British Insurers and the Confederation of British Industry support auto-enrolment and are trying to work on the practicalities of making it a success.

As has already been said in the debate, there was a broad consensus around the Pensions Commission’s proposals for auto-enrolment as the basis for achieving a significant increase in the number of those saving towards their retirement. My party always registered some caveats about the scheme, in particular in relation to costs, to which I should like to return later. I understand that the coalition’s Pensions Minister in another place, Mr Steve Webb, has said that the Government will go ahead with auto-enrolment but that they will review the specifics of the scheme. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, I hope that my noble friend can give some more details today about that review. He must be aware that employers and the pensions industry need to know what this review will entail, who will undertake it, when it is expected to be completed and who will be consulted. If there is any substantial uncertainty about the way ahead, that will inevitably affect the willingness of the business community to devote significant resources to continuing to prepare for something that may change. I hope that we can have more clarity on this today.

In my view, the previous Government’s approach had one fundamental flaw. They built their scheme of auto-enrolment around the proposition that every employee earning above the threshold should be included. I believe that this is an unrealistic approach, which in practice has produced real difficulties. The prize for society as a whole is to get a significant number of people saving for their retirement and saving more than was the case in the past—but not every last one. Policies that try to do too much often run into problems, as we have seen with many grandiose projects in the public sector. In the world from which I come, achieving an 80/20 solution—that is, 80 per cent of the benefits for 20 per cent of the costs—would be regarded as an excellent outcome. However, the former Government pursued the last percentile of benefit regardless of its cost.

Auto-enrolment is due to start in 2012, which does not leave much time to sort out the remaining details. The business community believes that the Government should look again at the draft regulations. The previous Government’s first shot at the draft regulations was pretty dreadful and business bodies and the pensions industry have been working with the department to try to get them into a shape that is acceptable. While this has largely been achieved, there remain aspects that cause disproportionate cost and complexity for employers. Will the new Government’s review be looking again at these regulations in order to see whether greater simplicity and lower costs can be achieved?

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, will recall our discussions about qualifying earnings, which have been alluded to. These had a particular impact on employers who already had good pension schemes but who used definitions that, although they are common in the private pensions industry, are quite unlike those used in the Act. The noble Lord was helpful and facilitated some amendments to the Bill, which allowed the regulations to accommodate the different ways in which employers are structured as regards their pensions, but that has simply deferred the problem to the regulations. I understand that the regulations in draft still do not recognise the difficulties for employers. The business sector has developed a self-certification approach that is practical and delivers a high degree of conformity, but that has not yet found favour with the Department for Work and Pensions. I ask my noble friend to ensure that his department will start to operate in a pragmatic way that supports employers who are trying to deliver good workplace pensions rather than penalises them for not guaranteeing the last percentile of benefit.

In addition to the qualifying earnings problems, the timing arrangements for auto-enrolment into personal accounts are also a problem. It is inefficient if, as currently planned, the rules require the enrolment of people who are likely to opt out—short-term workers, for example. Business would like enrolment to be delayed for, say, 30 days, which would avoid most of the unnecessary paperwork. To date this has been resisted, so will my noble friend ensure that the department looks at this again? The Government also need to look again at the impact on very small businesses. Again in their zeal to pursue the last percentile, the previous Government included even the smallest employer, including someone employing one person, such as a nanny or a housekeeper.

The previous Government also rejected using HMRC to administer the scheme alongside PAYE and, in so doing, they created an administrative cost for the scheme and a burden for small employers that are disproportionate. I hope that my noble friend will say that the new Government will look again at taking micro-employers out of the ambit of auto-enrolment.

The previous Government never faced up to the very real threat to workplace pensions of employers levelling down to the personal accounts scheme. Every time the Department for Work and Pensions insists on an employer-unfriendly rule, it makes it harder to maintain an existing workplace pension scheme and increases the likelihood that employers will simply default into the personal accounts scheme. This will hurt employees because most workplace schemes contribute more than is required under the 2008 Act. Our Government need to recognise that encouraging workplace pensions means encouraging employers, not hitting them with administration and regulation. This is part of a bigger theme of government action harming workplace pensions. It started in a big way with the ACT raid of 1997 and has got worse over the past 13 years. I hope that we can return to those broader issues on another day.

I emphasise that there is one area in which the business community does not want change—the timetable for implementation. I know that when my party was in opposition we criticised the previous Government’s draft timetable, which will delay full implementation of the employer contribution until 2017, but I believe that it is a pragmatic approach that allows a reasonable time for employers to plan for the cost implications of auto-enrolment. I hope that my noble friend can confirm today that the new Government will not shorten the timetable.

I turn now to costs. In opposition, my party did not believe that the personal accounts scheme could be delivered for the 0.3 per cent annual charge that the Pensions Commission calculated, and so it has proved. While there will be an annual charge of 0.3 per cent, there will be a whopping 2 per cent upfront charge in order to cover the set-up costs. In addition, according to a Written Answer that I received from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, just before the Dissolution of the previous Parliament, the personal accounts scheme will start this summer with a debt of more than £60 million and over the following five years will borrow another £400 million from the Government. There is no sign that when we get to 2015 the appetite for public money will have run out.

While the 2 per cent upfront charge may be necessary to keep these huge borrowing figures from ballooning even further, no date has been set for its removal. The CBI is concerned that the 2 per cent charge will increase opt-out rates and thereby defeat the purpose of the policy. The perceived returns on saving will simply not be sufficient, particularly for older workers being enrolled. Is my noble friend satisfied that the costs that underpin the need for this upfront charge and the massive borrowing are reasonable and that the scheme has not been overengineered?

Perhaps more worrying is that the previous Government announced in March that they proposed additionally to subsidise the scheme to an unspecified extent on the basis that it would have to accept all comers, which the commission had not thought necessary when it produced its 0.3 per cent costing. Can my noble friend say today what this proposed subsidy will cost? Do the new Government sign up to the subsidy on top of the high lending that has to be provided to the scheme?

Lastly, there will also be costs to the Pensions Regulator for policing auto-enrolment. I understand that those costs, too, will be met by further public money. Will my noble friend say how much that will cost? Why is the cost of regulation not borne by pension savings, as happens with other forms of pension saving?

I do not have to remind my noble friend that we live in an age when public expenditure must be cut and that we cannot afford, as the previous Government planned, to carry on spending regardless of the consequences. That may mean that the scheme for auto-enrolment and personal accounts has to be trimmed in order to fit what can be afforded. We cannot have everything that we want. I support auto-enrolment, but not at any cost. I have major concerns about the cost to employers and the cost to the public purse. I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to take radical action when the Government review their inheritance on auto-enrolment. When they do that, I hope that they will also abandon the notion of chasing every last percentile.

12:41

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for initiating this debate, which gives us a timely opportunity to understand the proposed direction of travel of the coalition Government on this important matter. I thank both him and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for their kind comments.

The debate gives us a chance to test whether the broad consensus around pension reform hitherto still holds. Noble Lords will be aware—it has been referred to today—that this was anchored largely in the work of the Turner commission. It is a particular pleasure to note that another member of that commission, Jeannie Drake, will shortly join your Lordships' House on the Labour Benches.

It has been a very good, if short, debate. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, called on the Government to show some enthusiasm for auto-enrolment—I certainly endorse that. He and others have pressed on the scope of the review, to which I should like to return in my contribution. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on his upcoming 40th anniversary. I am delighted that he will soon be reunited with John Prescott.

We had a fascinating trip down the memory lane of pensions: graduated pensions, SERPS and S2P. I say to the noble Lord that S2P has been simplified, squeezing out some of the earnings-related component of it. Perhaps we might find another opportunity, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, to debate what has happened to defined benefit schemes. I might just ask the Minister whether the so-called tax raid on pension funds will be reversed by the coalition Government.

As regards the need to annuitise at 75—or the need not to do so—I have been an agnostic on that because it has nothing to say to those who are likely to benefit for auto-enrolment. Auto-enrolment is to deal with people who undersave, who need their income in retirement and who do not have the opportunity to store it up and pass it on as an inheritance. When the proposals come forward, we will look at the tax treatment of pots that are left and then passed on as an inheritance, and whether that properly takes account of inheritance tax. It would be quite wrong to use it to open up a tax loophole.

My noble friend Lady Hollis, as ever, made a thought-provoking contribution, stressing particularly issues around longevity and the huge potential for auto-enrolment. She spoke of the challenges of small pension pots and the emerging consensus around a new state pension. I take the point exactly that, if that were to be achieved, it would help on issues around the interaction of benefits.

The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, remains supportive of auto-enrolment, and again stressed the importance of consensus, on this issue of the interaction with the benefit system. Consensus was an issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, also acknowledged. I am intrigued about proposals on the scope of coverage and all employees not necessarily having to be covered. I accept that issues around self-certification, trying to give administrative easements to employers while still encompassing a broad range of employees, have proved a challenge. I think that there were a couple of goes at it and would acknowledge that it was unfinished work in progress when we left office.

The Turner commission was established to consider the long-term challenges facing the UK pension system, characterised by undersaving for retirement, inequalities and complexity in the state pension system and demographic and social change. Changes to the state pension, making it fairer and more generous, were implemented from April this year, providing a firmer foundation upon which people can build savings for their retirement. Notwithstanding these improvements to the state pension system, including the coalition Government’s announcements about uprating, which I welcome, it will not provide the retirement income to which many people aspire. It is estimated that around 7 million people are currently not saving enough to obtain a reasonable replacement rate of income in retirement. In excess of 40 per cent of working-age employees are not contributing to a private pension.

The reasons for that are complex, but they include issues around low financial literacy, inertia, lack of provision especially for those on low and moderate incomes, as well as declining employer provision away from defined benefit schemes towards contract-based DC schemes—hence a role for government intervention. That government intervention had two key components. One was a system of automatic enrolment requiring employers to make a minimum contribution to their workers’ pension funds and a new national pension scheme designed to provide a simple, low-cost way of saving for low to moderate income earners—originally personal accounts. Put simply, that was our starting consensus, enshrined in primary legislation in the Pensions Act 2008. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I remember it well. But the consensus did not just involve political parties; it involved a significant range of stakeholders, including the CBI, the TUC and the ABI. By and large, that consensus has held, which is to be welcomed.

As ever in these matters, the challenges come in the detail of the earnings on which employers’ contributions are to be made; what the mechanics are surrounding the process of auto-enrolment and the right to opt out; what safeguards there are in the system to discourage employers with existing provision from levelling down and what existing provision satisfies the auto-enrolment tests; what information should be provided to employees; whether advice should be provided to all or any groups of individuals being auto-enrolled; and what compliance and anti-avoidance measures are required. On the low-cost national scheme, there are issues around not being favourably treated so as to prejudice private sector providers; the funding and charging arrangements; the sheer operational and governance issues of a trust-based scheme with potentially 1 million employers and several million members; the nature of the investments of the fund; and how lifestyling is to be organised for so many members—indeed, how the scheme administration is to be accomplished.

Much of this, subject to any review which the Government may wish to undertake and advise us of today, is settled. Regulations are in force which prescribe the arrangements which the employer must follow to comply with the employer duties on automatic enrolment. I believe that there was a broad consensus on that; we had two goes at it to try to improve the original draft, and I thought that there was an acceptance that there was a considerable improvement. There were issues around information requirements, opting out, and duties towards voluntary savers. Existing regulations also cover the point in time at which employers will have to start to comply with their duties and the minimum contribution level which employers and employees will have to make.

Arrangements have been made for the national scheme which provide for the winding up of the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority, as it has completed its task of providing its advice and designing and developing the infrastructure of the new low-cost scheme. Statutory instruments have given effect to the scheme order, which will actually create the new scheme—to be called the National Employment Savings Trust or NEST—as a trust-based, occupational pension scheme. This is currently due to inherit property, rights and liabilities from PADA in July 2010 and thereafter to be responsible for implementing and running the scheme.

A lot has been accomplished but there is a lot of work still in hand. Like other noble Lords, I acknowledge the desire of the coalition Government to take stock and review matters, and this obviously raises a number of questions. We have heard some of this from other noble Lords, but I should be grateful if the Minister would deal with the following points, either in responding to this debate or later in writing.

We understand that there is to be a review of aspects of auto-enrolment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I ask the Minister to tell us a little about the scope of the review and what drives its timing. I think that this is a separate review from the 2017 review. I take it that the coalition Government remain committed to the concept of auto-enrolment, and that this is not to be abandoned. I accept that already from the tenor of today’s debate.

Is it envisaged that the scope would remain as currently planned, or are there any proposals to curtail the range of employers subject to the duty or limit the range of income to which the duty applies?

As currently planned, the auto-enrolment process would commence in 2012 and be staged over a four-year period so that all employers would be within the duty by 2016. As for employer and employee contributions, the phasing currently provides for an initial period where minimum employer and employee contributions would commence at 1 per cent each and not reach the full 3 per cent and 5 per cent respectively until October 2017. Is it envisaged that either of these would change, and is it the Government’s desire to accelerate the employer duty obligations, leave them unchanged or introduce them at a slower pace?

Fears of employers with existing provision “levelling down” have been ever present, despite DWP research that shows that this is generally unlikely. Are the Government contemplating any further arrangements to allay any such concerns, which we have heard expressed again today?

On a wider point, one of the commitments in the coalition programme is the undertaking to explore opportunities for people to access part of their pension early, presumably looking at the New Zealand and US experience. I know that this concept is much beloved of my noble friend Lady Hollis, although of course not beloved of the Treasury, but I am interested in the Minister’s view on this and on whether shifting emphasis from something that is overwhelmingly about provision for retirement to an effective lifetime savings account will change the paradigm with regard to employers’ willingness to contribute beyond statutory minimums.

Another concern expressed about auto-enrolment was the risk of mis-selling because individuals would not get full value for their contributions as they would lose benefit—possibly, in some cases, pound for pound for any pension income secured—and this despite detailed analysis demonstrating that overwhelmingly individuals would get positive returns. At the time of the legislation there was much debate about whether people should be able to access advice as well as just receive information. There was a Lib Dem amendment, as I recall, that suggested that anyone of 50 or over should get one hour of free financial advice. In this regard, I note and welcome a commitment of the coalition Government to create a free national advice service, apparently to be funded by a levy on the financial services sector. Is the Minister able to tell us more about this, such as when it is expected to be up and running and the likely structure and level of the levy? Will this overlap with the proposed banking levy?

Whatever else the review is to cover, we understand that it will cover the suitability of NEST as a delivery mechanism for auto-enrolment. We know that NEST is well advanced in its preparations: it takes over from PADA in July, trustees have been appointed, arrangements for the scheme administration are in hand and an impressive team has been assembled to address the full-range challenges of running a scheme of this magnitude.

So what are the concerns? Is the suggestion that NEST has the wrong business model, or is the contention that the existing private sector providers could serve the target market better? The latter would be surprising, as they have lamentably failed to do so in the past. Will the Minister give us an assurance that there is no intention to move away from the universal service obligation envisaged for NEST or indeed that the scheme should be other than a low-cost scheme?

Securing dignity and security for tomorrow's pensioners is the business of Government. The reforms that we initiated were founded on the principles of personal responsibility, fairness, simplicity, affordability and sustainability, which has helped build the consensus. We hope that that consensus will endure. We look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say and seeing the results of the review in due course.

12:55

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for raising this debate and providing the House with an opportunity to discuss this important issue. I also congratulate those taking part and join the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, in her congratulations to those people on such an extraordinarily high quality of debate, which I personally found extremely valuable as we shape the immediate period ahead.

During the past decade, we have seen a big decline in the level of pension saving in the UK. Overall saving in the private sector workplace in terms of pension provision has fallen, from 46 per cent of employees in 1997 to 37 per cent in 2009. That means that 2.6 million more people are not saving in a workplace pension. In the same period, the availability of defined benefit schemes in the private sector has also declined, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, pointed out, and membership fell by 1 million between 2005 and 2009.

For those in defined contribution schemes, there has been a decade of lost growth in the primary market—the equity market. The average real rate of return between 1999 and 2009 was minus 1.2 per cent per annum, and just last month the typical pension fund performance for balanced managed funds was down 3 per cent.

While those trends have been happening, life expectancy in the UK has reached its highest level on record and will increase further to the point where in 2050 there will be just three working people for each pensioner. The reality is that, if people want to enjoy a decent standard of living in retirement, we all as individuals and as a nation need to be much better prepared. But that, of course, is not the only problem we face. Whatever we do now needs to be seen in the context of the worst recession since the Second World War, and the need to reduce the unprecedented fiscal deficit. As a nation, we simply cannot afford to continue without a step change in our savings culture.

This coalition wants to see the principles of fairness, responsibility and social justice apply to both our welfare and pension agendas. The Government want to encourage individuals to take more personal responsibility for themselves by saving more and saving longer towards a retirement income that will meet their expectations. Already, we are in a position today where 45 per cent of pensioner households are entitled to pension credit, and 50 per cent to council tax benefit. It is not sustainable for the state to continue to meet the challenges of undersaving all on its own.

The state pension needs to provide a fair and solid foundation for people to save for their retirement, so this Government will restore the earnings link with the basic state pension from April next year with a “triple guarantee” so that it will rise by the higher of earnings, prices or 2.5 per cent. However, at the same time, we need to restore confidence in public finances, so we will hold a review to set the date at which the state pension age starts to rise to 66 years.

We also want a more flexible approach to retirement. People need to be able to retire when it is right for them, so we intend to phase out the default retirement age and will be consulting with employers and others on how to do this. However, if we are to have a pension system which is fair and sustainable into the future, we also need to reverse the significant decline in private pension saving that we have witnessed in the past decade. That is why we continue to support automatic enrolment.

We want to encourage employers to provide high quality pensions for their employees, but additionally we want to explore options that will stimulate greater personal saving. We are therefore considering additional ways of reducing the costs of running pension schemes, making pensions more affordable for employers to run, and investigating ways of making saving more attractive to individuals. Changes such as our commitment to abolish compulsory annuitisation at 75—as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, suggested—will provide greater flexibility for pension savers in planning for their future.

The big prize here is to help people when they are working to save more and save for longer, and to make it easier for them to do so—to take responsibility for their future. We need to encourage and enable participation in pension saving so that it is no longer the preserve of the financially savvy or those who happen to work for particular employers. Quite simply, we need to get people back into the savings habit and ensure that they have access to a good workplace pension scheme.

The Pensions Commission’s solution to this dilemma was automatic enrolment into a pension scheme, with mandatory contributions by employers. We on the Government Benches have long been firm supporters of automatic enrolment. We believe that it will be highly effective at tackling the failures in our pensions system by increasing participation in pension saving.

At this point, I pay tribute to the work of one of the earliest behavioural economists, Dr George Loewenstein, who happens to be my cousin. He created the concept of asymmetric paternalism which was so influential in getting these automatic enrolment features in a range of public provision. The evidence shows that it works, leading to increased participation. Your Lordships have only to look at the United States, where automatic enrolment increased membership of its 401(k) schemes among new employees from around 20 to 40 per cent to nearer 90 per cent. Another example is New Zealand, where the introduction of automatic enrolment is estimated to have doubled pension savings in the KiwiSaver product over a three-year period.

As we made clear in our coalition programme, we remain committed to automatic enrolment, but we need to find the right way to make it work. A lot has changed since the Pensions Commission published its recommendations back in 2005. Given the current economic climate, it is essential that we ensure that automatic enrolment is introduced in a way that strikes the right balance between cost and benefits, and ensures maximum value for money for individuals, for employers and for the public purse.

Our review of these reforms will cover the scope of existing plans for automatic enrolment and NEST. Noble Lords would agree that it is vital that the Government take ownership of this initiative so that we have cross-party agreement on this, which, as my noble friend Lord Kirkwood pointed out, is so essential.

We will reach our conclusions quickly and take a hard look over the summer at the plans that we have inherited. If necessary, we will make changes to ensure that the reforms deliver for individuals, employers and the taxpayer.

Let me deal with the many fascinating points raised in debate; I will aim to get through as many as possible.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I was fascinated by the noble Lord’s point about the review. Which areas in particular are the Government concerned about, and will therefore be discussed in the review? I do not mean what will the conclusions be, but what will the territory be?

[Lord Freud]

I thank the noble Baroness. That is exactly what I was about to get straight on to. I will deal with her particular issues in that context. Before I get into what the review will cover, I start with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, particularly what he said about employer attitudes and his concerns after meeting the people from AXA and reading their research. Evidence emerging from our research—a large survey of employer attitudes—suggests that 56 per cent of employers believe that these reforms are a good idea. Seventy-seven per cent believe that when they are already contributing 3 per cent or more. There is no doubt that the cost to employers of automatic enrolment is significant. The cost to employers—the smallest employers in particular—concerns me and is something that I want to look at closely in the review.

We are committed to getting the details right. That is why we are carrying out the review—to ensure that the proposals work properly. Several participants in this debate have asked about the details of the review, including the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. We are finalising the details of the terms of reference, including who will conduct the review, its process, its reporting and so on. We hope to make an announcement encompassing those issues soon. To offer some reassurance, we are concerned about the impact on employers, particularly small employers. We also want to look at the position of older workers. We will review the contract for the NEST administration services, but with an open mind; if it fits with what is needed we will run with it. We aim to reach our conclusions quickly. Again, the detail is yet to be determined, but I expect we will know where we are with this before the House returns after the summer.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, asked about the NEST charging structure and whether we would keep it. He will infer, from my last answer, that that is a level of detail that we have not yet got to. The first question to ask is: does the scope of auto-enrolment work for both individuals and employers? Scope is key here. Secondly, given that, is NEST, as it is currently configured, the right intervention?

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, asked about the certification process and whether that meshed with the BIS drive to reduce red tape. We are committed to recognising and maintaining existing high-quality pension provision. That means developing a process for employers with good money purchase schemes to show that their scheme meets the minimum requirements for auto-enrolment. This is called the certification process. In the coming months, DWP officials will work with the pensions industry and directly with employers to develop effective processes to support automatic enrolment. This includes straightforward ways for employers to assure themselves that their pension schemes qualify under the law.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, queried the four-year implementation period. We are fully committed to taking forward the automatic enrolment provisions under the Pensions Act 2008. However, the effects over the medium and long term will be huge. That is why we want to take stock of where things are; that is what the review is about and I do not want to prejudge it.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, concentrated my mind on wider savings incentives. It is critically important that people have confidence in saving towards their retirement if we are to deliver the step change in savings behaviour that we want. The department’s analysis is that more than 99 per cent of people can expect to be better off in retirement if they have saved than if they have not saved. However, we need to take seriously the possibility of someone facing a loss. The problem is that the people who fall into this category are not like leopards with spots that one can see beforehand; that situation emerges later, so it is a difficult problem. It is important that we allow people to take personal responsibility. However, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, made the point that people are woefully ignorant in this area. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, said that he used the term “ignorant” in the best way in that regard. There is ignorance in this area, which means that it is very hard for people to take personal responsibility. Clearly, this is a vital area which we will address in our review.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, mentioned the costs of the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority and the impact of any expenditure cuts. The reduction of the deficit is a number one priority for the Government. Therefore, we will need to look right through the cost base to ensure that the costs are justified and that savings can be made where possible. I reassure my noble friend Lady Noakes that we will take a hard look at those costs and that we will not spend money unnecessarily.

It is vital that individuals have information about opting out. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, is concerned about that. That will be critical to the success of the reforms. We are working closely with the Pensions Regulator to ensure that there is coherent and consistent information.

The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, talked about the state of our state provision. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, again drew to our attention, as she did in her excellent speech last week, her booklet, A New State Pension. I was touched to think of her running on to the age of 95, and I hope that she does. However, it is slightly invidious to say that, statistically, only three noble Baronesses who were then present in the Chamber would do so, as I count seven who are now present, so it is a case of pot luck. There are clearly attractions in combining various elements of the state pension to introduce a single decent state pension. However, a large number of issues, not least one of them being cost, need to be considered before we introduce such a scheme.

I am very conscious that I am running out of time—unless noble Lords want to give me three more minutes.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

No.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

Shame.

[Lord Freud]

I saw someone else obtain three minutes the other day, but this is not permissible. I will write to noble Lords on other issues that I have not managed to cover. I have a lot to write to noble Lords about; I apologise.

Our goal is straightforward—

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

That is it.

[Lord Freud]

I close by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and I will write where I have not responded.

13:15

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

My Lords, I am seriously grateful to the Minister. It is perfectly understandable, because he had questions of very high quality thrown at him from all sides, that it was impossible for him to respond in the time allotted, but perhaps he could respond—the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said that there were common issues—and take advantage of the useful briefing that is already in his inside pocket. Perhaps he can put copies in envelopes and send them to us in due course. It would be extremely helpful if we could be told the terms of reference for the review before the House rises for the Summer Recess. Obtaining a fuller response by the time that we return after the Recess is an acceptable timetable, if the noble Lord can keep to it. I promise that if he does not keep to it, some of us will remind him of the target date that he set for himself. I am very grateful for his reply, which will repay careful study, and to colleagues for contributing to the debate. I am seriously interested in the fact that the coalition Government are now committed to asymmetric paternalism, in addition to the other matters in the joint agreement.

These are pesky issues with which we will all have to wrestle, but knowing the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, to be a hospitable host with a 40th anniversary approaching, I am sure that we can all console ourselves when he convenes—we all look forward to joining him in the Bishops’ Bar, or wherever, to celebrate his distinguished anniversary. I am very happy to withdraw the Motion.

Motion withdrawn.

Zimbabwe

Thursday 10th June 2010 Lords Chamber

Debate

13:17

Moved By

[Lord St John of Bletso]

To call attention to developments in Zimbabwe; and to move for Papers.

[Lord St John of Bletso]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to have the opportunity to debate current developments in Zimbabwe. I thank all noble Lords for agreeing to speak in the debate. I had hoped that there would be a few more speakers, but at least we have the benefit of not being short on time.

The last full debate in your Lordships’ House on Zimbabwe was in March 2005. Since then there have been several Questions for Short Debate. The other place recently debated the all-party group’s report, Land in Zimbabwe: Past Mistakes and Future Prospects, on that vexed issue. At the outset, I pay respect to the contributions of the late Lady Park of Monmouth and Lord Blaker, both of whom were ardent campaigners for democratisation and for human rights protection in Zimbabwe. They are sorely missed and their contributions were greatly appreciated by all.

It is perhaps opportune that this debate is taking place on the eve of the opening of the World Cup, whereby global attention is focused on not just South Africa and the great sporting spectacle, but the opportunities and challenges facing the region. Some commentators may argue that the past 10 years in Zimbabwe have been a lost decade. So I thought that in addressing the current developments in Zimbabwe, I should speak briefly on the background to the political and economic demise of the country.

Essentially, all was well in Zimbabwe until 1997, as the IMF reform programme was being effectively implemented. However, the free market reforms resulted in a growth of the middle class in Zimbabwe, and wealth creation at the time effectively made ZANU-PF less relevant under its current system of patronage. Furthermore, the so-called war vets were not benefiting from the reforms and growth, and they threatened to remove their support for President Robert Mugabe unless he helped them. The ensuing massive payouts of bonuses and allowances had a devastating effect on the fiscal deficit and effectively resulted in the freefall of the Zimbabwe dollar in 1997. The war vets then carried on with their threats, which led to the calls for radical land reform. When Robert Mugabe lost the referendum in 2000, he blamed the white farmers for their support for the MDC. This led to rampant farm invasions, and that totally destroyed the fabric of the agricultural sector, which had for many years been the breadbasket of Africa.

As we all know, over the past decade the country has endured rampant inflation and critical food and fuel shortages. By March 2008, when Zimbabwe was hyperinflating and a 100 trillion Zimbabwe dollar note was worth barely £10, shops were empty, farms were totally unproductive, the population was starving with more than 90 per cent unemployment, and the president’s popularity was at rock bottom. When he lost the election and was on the verge of conceding and standing down, unfortunately the generals and strong political allies who controlled the army, the air force, the police and the justice system refused to allow him to do so and, we understand, they persuaded him that he could win the presidential run-off.

That led to a spate of rampant human rights violations and beatings of opposition supporters, particularly in the rural areas, which forced Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the MDC, to drop out of the election, making the rerun for the presidency a total farce. It was at this point that the President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, negotiated the deal that resulted in the global peace agreement—the GPA—on 19 September 2008. However, the transition was hindered by Mbeki’s close relationship with Robert Mugabe, and it was only Mbeki’s removal in early 2009 and a deal negotiated by interim President Motlanthe that paved the way for a transition coalition Government.

The appointment of Tendai Biti, the Finance Minister from the MDC, in 2009, the legalisation of the multi-currency system and the scrapping of the Zimbabwe dollar ended the patronage system that ZANU-PF had built through the Reserve Bank and effectively side-lined the Zimbabwe Reserve Bank. Today, nearly 18 months into the multi-currency system, exchange controls are effectively non-existent. For the first time since the 1960s, shops are full, restaurants are buzzing and businesses have taken off. Thanks to the support from NGOs and Governments around the world, humanitarian aid has been extended to schools and hospitals, as government revenues could not possibly sustain such an expense. The result is that schools and hospitals are now all open and there is clean running water in most of the hospitals.

In the agricultural sector, while land invasions unfortunately continue, they are no longer driven by the ZANU-PF but more by factions within ZANU. Many farmers are now returning to the land having done deals with the so-called new owners. Seed/maize production has trebled in the past year. The gold mines have reopened and investment is now starting to come back into improving the infrastructure. Of course, one of the major problems facing the gold mines is the lack of power. However, slowly but surely investment is trickling back into the mining sector.

The mining sector has been dogged by one major political gamut—the indigenisation regulations to which I shall refer later. In previous debates in your Lordships’ House many have rightly argued that South Africa has not exerted enough pressure to bring about meaningful change in Zimbabwe. Following his state visit in March, President Zuma assured our Government that he would exert a lot more pressure on the three parties in the coalition Government in Zimbabwe to complete the GPA. Significantly, following his visit he went to Harare and met all the major party leaders. ZANU agreed to the appointment of independent commissions for human rights, media and electoral reform, all of whose members have now been agreed and appointed. This week the first daily independent newspaper opened its doors as a result. The fact that one or two of the journalists have subsequently been arrested is perhaps another point that needs to be addressed by the Minister.

There has been a knock-on effect in South Africa from all the problems in Zimbabwe. There are more than 3 million Zimbabweans living in South Africa who are unregistered, and part of the challenge in South Africa of reducing the scourge of crime has been that many of the crime syndicates have been coming in from Zimbabwe. There is also the problem of xenophobia. Zimbabwe has traditionally had an industrious, entrepreneurial workforce and still has higher levels of education than most countries in Africa. Many Zimbabweans who have moved to South Africa have been prepared to work at cheaper rates than local South Africans which has often led to sporadic conflicts in the townships. Zimbabwe still has a major dependence on power supply from South Africa, but while trying to promote political change in the country, South Africa is now encouraging its companies to be more proactive in Zimbabwe and thereby promoting job creation.

One of the key challenges in Zimbabwe today will be the drafting of the new constitution which will ensure the success of the GPA. That will encompass the protection of human rights and civil liberties and will lay the foundations for free and fair elections. The constitution is due to be revised over the next nine months and must be in place before the next elections. Community outreach programmes are a key part of this process and clearly Zimbabwean citizens must have a say in the development of their own constitution. Meanwhile the hardliners are doing everything they can to frustrate the process through using the Attorney-General, the police or the army, but it is only a handful of hardliners who are causing the problems.

The most recent obstacle to change was, as I mentioned before, the gazetting of the indigenisation regulations that effectively stopped the economy in its tracks. An attempt was made to force all foreign companies to hand over 50 per cent of their equity to local Zimbabweans. Although we are all in favour of black empowerment, that clearly was more of a political tool. At the time, it was seen as an election winner, but it has backfired and it has negatively affected Zimbabwe-owned businesses trying to raise capital. The regulations are currently being revised, as the Prime Minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, declared them null and void as they had not gone through Cabinet.

Many commentators would argue with much justification that, despite the economic achievements in Zimbabwe since February last year, there is unlikely to be any meaningful change until President Robert Mugabe leaves office. At the age of 86, and with his health deteriorating, especially in the past few months, it is conceivable that one of his main reasons for not wanting to step down is the fear that he may be charged by the International Court of Justice for the abuses dating back to the Gukurahundi massacre of the Matabele way back in 1982. There is some justification for that theory after the arrest of Charles Taylor in Liberia a few years ago. I encourage our Government to promote a constructive dialogue to try to agree a smooth exit for Robert Mugabe from power within ZANU-PF, which would pave the way for a peaceful transition to allow for free and fair elections to be held in that country.

I now touch briefly on the rights of women in Zimbabwe. In a country where women constitute 52 per cent of the population, it is alarming that only a few hold influential positions in Zimbabwe society. Of the 69 Cabinet Ministers, Ministers of State, Deputy Ministers and Provincial Deputy Ministers, only 12 are women. I was interested to read the feedback of Mary Robinson, the former President of Ireland, who, following her visit to Zimbabwe a few months ago, noted that the representation of women in the Zimbabwe Parliament has increased from just 10 per cent in 2005 to 15 per cent in 2008. That is far short of the SADC goal of 50 per cent representation of women in political decision-making in southern Africa by 2015. Sadly, the human rights of women in Zimbabwe are all too often violated. I sincerely hope that there will be greater participation of women in the consultation leading to the new draft constitution.

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, with his vast experience in the field of human rights, will address the problem of human rights abuses and the need for more proactive pressure to be put on the Government there to address that problem. I refer only to one report, which is the Human Rights Watch report published in June last year on the human rights abuses in the Marange diamond fields in Zimbabwe. The Marange diamond fields continue to be one of the sources—perhaps the major remaining one—of financial support for propping up Mugabe’s ZANU-PF. I am sceptical of the recent report recommending that the Kimberley process’s minimum requirements have been met.

My time is up. In conclusion, hyperinflation spelt the end for ZANU as well as Robert Mugabe. In the past decade, Africa has been the second fastest growing region in the world, with GDP growth of 4.7 per cent. Between 1997 and 2008, GDP grew from $327 billion to $1.6 trillion. Sadly, however, GDP in Zimbabwe has declined from $9.5 billion to $3.5 billion in the same period.

I have been accused in your Lordships’ House of being too optimistic about Zimbabwe. I believe that the time has now come for change. I believe that there should be African solutions to African problems. A successful Zimbabwe further undermines the hardliners. I look forward to the Government’s response. I beg to move.

13:35

[Lord Sheikh]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, for securing this debate. Africa is a continent close to my heart. I was born in Kenya and spent my childhood in Uganda. His Excellency the Ambassador of Zimbabwe is in the Chamber, and I welcome him to your Lordships' House.

About three weeks ago, I was asked by my Chief Whip to attend the sixth Consultative Assembly of Parliamentarians for the International Criminal Court and the Rule of Law, which was held in Uganda. I chaired and spoke in the session where the main speaker was the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. We discussed the situation in Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya and Uganda.

I am a businessman who cares greatly about humanitarian issues. As a nation, Zimbabwe has fallen short of expectations since gaining independence from the United Kingdom in 1980. Zimbabwe was once a prosperous state. However, civil unrest, which still hinders the nation’s progress, has largely contributed to its unfortunate descent. Democracy and the rule of law have been overlooked in favour of tyranny. The penal system does not always function fairly and there have been many incidents where justice has been lacking. Farms belonging to white citizens have been seized and are being seized as I speak. This brings back memories of the situation when General Amin seized the assets of us, the Asians, in the early 1970s, and there was mayhem in the country until he was removed.

In Zimbabwe, prisons are overcrowded, prisoners are severely undernourished and the lack of adequate sanitation contributes to the spread of disease among inmates. The recent arrest and alleged torture of gay rights activists is wholly unacceptable. The Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe has described same-gender couples as “lower than dogs and pigs”. Last December, I raised this issue in your Lordships' House when I referred to a Private Member's Bill in Uganda that seeks to criminalise same-gender couples. There has also been a well documented case of a couple in Malawi who were sanctioned for that reason. The rampant homophobia in certain African nations is a huge concern for us. Will the Minister tell the House what steps the Government are taking to address this issue in African countries that are members of the Commonwealth?

Although there are many areas where Zimbabwe needs to make swift improvements, it is important to recognise the recent progress made by that nation. The acquittal of Roy Bennett, the treasurer-general of the Movement for Democratic Change, is a testament to developments in the Zimbabwean judicial system. The decision to remove the ban on independent newspapers is a momentous step forward for Zimbabwe: the media have a right to exist without fear of intimidation. This development is all the more significant, as it was made by the new media licensing authority formed by the coalition Government. Following a High Court ruling, the South African Government have been asked to release a report on the disputed 2002 Zimbabwe elections. I welcome this decision, as there were widespread allegations of intimidation and irregularities. It is in the best interests of both nations to address the discrepancies in the statement made by the international observers and the then South African Government.

Zimbabwe’s mineral wealth has the potential to make a significant contribution to the nation’s economic recovery. However, there have been many deaths and human rights abuses at Marange diamond field in particular and at others in the east of the country. What steps will Her Majesty's Government take to investigate the widespread allegations that profits from the diamond trade are fuelling hostilities in Zimbabwe? In Sierra Leone, the international community witnessed the use of precious minerals in the pursuit of power to devastating effect.

We have a moral duty to ensure that Zimbabwe does not follow this path and is certified by the Kimberley process to sell diamonds. It has seen a marked recovery in manufacturing, mining, agriculture and tourism. Its economic growth suggests that it is meeting the requirement of the Southern African Development Community to work towards achieving economic liberation, as stated in the Lusaka declaration. It achieved a gross domestic product of 5.9 per cent in 2009, which strongly suggests that the economy is starting to show signs of long-term recovery. I welcome the African Union’s efforts to enforce good governance with proposals to sanction heads of state who engage in unconstitutional behaviour. Greater interaction among African nations could contribute to stability and economic growth on the continent.

The result of studies published by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, the African Development Bank and the African Union reveals that trade among African nations accounts for just a maximum of 12 per cent. The African Union has a greater role to play in fostering better regional integration. South Africa, as the largest investor on the continent, can play a leading role in ensuring that this becomes a reality.

The Commonwealth, too, can play a prominent role to encourage trade among the member states. I would like plans to be put in place to ensure that this becomes a reality and that active trade is generated between the various countries. It is estimated that every day close to 300 Zimbabwean migrants cross the Limpopo river into South Africa seeking asylum, and there are close to 3 million Zimbabweans in South Africa as a result of the dire social and political situation in Zimbabwe. The high number of Zimbabwean migrants has exerted great pressure on South Africa, which in turn has created social problems that have resulted in violence and death. Constructive dialogue is needed between the Governments of South Africa and Zimbabwe to address this mass migration.

The terms of the global political agreement include requirements that Zimbabwe must produce a new constitution and has a duty to hold democratic elections by next year. It can be argued that this latter requirement can be met only if international observers are allowed to carry out their duties in the absence of bribery or coercion. Although I would like Zimbabwe to gain readmission to the Commonwealth, this should be granted only on the proviso that the ruling coalition can meet the terms of the global political agreement.

Commonwealth countries can be more actively involved in conflict resolution in member states. We all appreciate that the Commonwealth is a unique organisation that values equality, and that the spirit of commandership can be utilised to settle disputes. At present, the Zimbabwean healthcare system is underresourced and underequipped. HIV and AIDS are endemic. Zimbabwe has become one of the most affected countries in the world. Commentators have attributed this to a number of reasons, including a lack of resources and community awareness. The Zimbabwean Government have not shown adequate leadership in addressing prevention and care in tackling the HIV epidemic. What plans do Her Majesty's Government have to assist Zimbabwe to combat this deadly affliction? The Zimbabwean people have suffered violence and degradation for far too long. It is the duty of regional partners and the international community to ensure that these abuses and impunity for the perpetrators of these abhorrent crimes are brought to an end.

The battle against apartheid in South Africa and the support of neighbouring states given to those involved in the internal struggle for justice was paramount to achieving freedom against oppression. The people of Zimbabwe deserve the same consideration in their quest to lead their lives free from intimidation and oppression. The social and political changes which face this country can be resolved with combined efforts from a democratic Zimbabwean Government and other countries, most notably with help from South Africa. We have historic ties with Zimbabwe and we can play a vital role in achieving the objectives.

13:45

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, on raising this important topic. I especially echo his tribute to our late colleagues, Lady Park of Monmouth and Lord Blaker. We did not always see eye to eye on our approach to Zimbabwe, but I never doubted for one second their commitment to a free and democratic Zimbabwe. We certainly shall miss them.

The document The Coalition: Our Programme for Government mentions Africa only twice. Page 22 states that the Government,

“will support pro-development trade deals, including the proposed Pan-African Free Trade Area”,

and page 20 states:

“We support reform of the UN Security Council, including permanent seats for Japan, India, Germany, Brazil and African representation”.

I can see that those are important objectives, but the document is entirely silent on the programme for Africa, which I find extremely disappointing.

Zimbabwe remains a pressing problem. In the debate on the Commonwealth introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, in December 2009, I urged for greater urgency and stimulus to move forward the process of securing the democratic future of Zimbabwe. I regret to say that there are no signs of any push within the Commonwealth, which is where we should try to achieve that.

There will be elections in August next year. Is that optimistic? It is hoped that a new constitution will be in being by then, which will have to be approved by a referendum. I do not think that it will be ready in time. There is even talk that the elections might go ahead under the current constitutional arrangements. I believe that that would be a disaster. We know what happened the last time there were elections. There was widespread intimidation and fraud. It was only because of a great deal of internal and external pressure, some of which was from South Africa, that we got a result capable of sustaining itself.

The situation is changing, which we should welcome. There are useful signs for the future. I am authorised to say that Voluntary Service Overseas is intending to introduce volunteers to Zimbabwe before the end of this year, pending completion of registration in the country as a non-profit organisation. It has already signed a memorandum of understanding with the Zimbabwean Government and, following completion of the process, will be able formally to announce placements with partners in Zimbabwe. This is very good news. We should commend VSO for that and wish it well.

There are also good signs, as the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, mentioned, for press freedom. Some papers have been newly published and some republished. Although street vendors have been arrested for disturbing the peace when selling newspapers, some of the show trials have been abandoned. That again is good news and we ought to be happy about it.

On the other side of the coin is the fact that intimidation still goes on. The trade union movement is under persistent attack for its outspoken criticism of what is happening. Trade union leaders, such as Gertrude Hambira of the General Agricultural and Plantation Workers Union, have been forced to flee the country for their own safety. Also, a great many human rights violations carry on.

In all the discussions about the future position of Zimbabwe, the Southern African Development Community and the position of President Zuma in particular are absolutely critical. SADC has appointed South Africa to mediate on its behalf, but I regret that there is no evidence that South Africa is approaching the matter with any great urgency. We have to see signs of progress. The former President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, was roundly condemned, castigated and derided for his so-called silent diplomacy. Of course we know that megaphone diplomacy does not necessarily work, but I am concerned that there does not seem to be any real sense of urgency about the situation. SADC is due to meet in August this year and, although Zimbabwe will be on the agenda, it will not be the only topic. I fear that that may mean that the whole matter is sidelined. Some commentators are calling for SADC to be convened for a special meeting to decide how to deal with Zimbabwe. Again, I have to confess that I do not know whether that is necessarily the right approach, but it shows that there is a definite push to get something happening.

How are we going to deal with this? What are the Government going to do? Are they going to adopt what might be called the “in phrase” of the coalition and “consider matters afresh”? I do not quite know what that means, but it sounds good. However, there has to be a lot more than that. We need to discuss the situation urgently with President Zuma and the Government of South Africa. Has the Foreign Office made fresh approaches to President Zuma? Are there to be official discussions or is the matter simply to be left to drift?

The Conservative part of the Con-Lib Dem coalition has a special responsibility towards Zimbabwe. Perhaps I could gently remind the Minister that it was a Conservative Government who convened the Lancaster House negotiations and concluded the agreement that eventually led to the independence of Zimbabwe. That was fine, except that they also bequeathed to Zimbabwe the repressive Smith laws, which President Mugabe, when he came to office, seized on with glee to oppress his own people. I hope that the Minister recognises the historical duty that the Conservative part of the coalition has towards the people of Zimbabwe.

A lot has happened since our debate in December last year. At the time, I spoke about the publication of the report Land in Zimbabwe by the Africa All-Party Parliamentary Group, which has already been referred to. The introduction is headed, “Past Mistakes and Future Prospects”. The report makes four serious recommendations. The Government of the day, under the then Secretary of State for International Development, Douglas Alexander, gave their response on 3 February 2010, which broadly welcomed the recommendations, especially recommendation 4, which sets out plans for the future. Douglas Alexander also referred to the fact that the World Bank was carrying out a special study of the land question in Zimbabwe and that the former Government were looking forward to seeing that report. Have the present Government looked at the report of the all-party group and discussed what is happening with the World Bank? I understand that they have not been in office for long, but I do not recall them giving the then new Government in 1997 the benefit of the doubt, saying that there was plenty of time to sort things out. I hope that, when the Minister comes to reply, he will decide to show a real sense of urgency.

It has been said in some parts of Africa that we in Britain do not understand the land question. I had occasion to tell a high commissioner from southern Africa that the Scots certainly understand the land question, because we have long memories and we remember the 18th and 19th-century Highland clearances, when people were thrown off their land in order to provide for sheep. It was certainly as brutal as, if not more brutal than, the farmers being thrown off their land in Zimbabwe, although I do not seek to excuse what has happened in Zimbabwe by saying that. Our problem with the land has always been that the land is there to produce, and the greatest sin of the Mugabe Government in regard to the land seizures is that they took fertile land and turned it into wasteland. Land is not of value in itself; it is of value in a productive capacity to feed people. It is important and we recognise it as such.

I conclude by repeating what I said in our earlier debate:

“If we are to keep the stimulus—which is absolutely necessary—going, then unilateral action”,

by the British Government, will not be enough. I continued:

“I understand perfectly well that … the UK … has no prescriptive right to dictate to Zimbabwe what its future should be … I believe that multilateralism, within the Commonwealth especially, can move things forward ... If the Commonwealth is to be true to its goals”—

if the present Government are to be true to their goals—

“it must put a huge effort into moving things forward”.—[Official Report, 10/12/09; col. 1181.]

I commend this debate to the House.

13:56

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St John, for giving us an opportunity of hearing what the policies of the Government are on Zimbabwe. One point which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, may have missed in the coalition programme is that:

“We want to strengthen the Commonwealth as a focus for promoting democratic values and development”,

and that the aid budget will be used,

“to support … local democratic institutions, civil society groups, the media and enterprise; and … efforts to tackle corruption”.

That sentence could have been written with Zimbabwe in mind and I hope that it gives some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, who wants the Commonwealth to be more involved in solving these problems.

It remains to be shown what value could be added by the Commonwealth per se to the work of the Friends, which is an organisation that includes richer Commonwealth states and SADC, the body of neighbours led by South Africa. Surely they must continue to exert the main political influence needed to accelerate progress towards full implementation of the global political agreement. With all its flaws, if the GPA was honoured by ZANU-PF, it would be an enormous improvement on its present arbitrary exercise of power, with the active collaboration of the military.

As my right honourable friend the Member for Gordon said when introducing the report of the International Development Committee in another place recently,

“violence and intimidation, bad government and destruction of the economy have forced millions of people to leave Zimbabwe”.

We have heard about the 3 million who are refugees in South Africa. He continued:

“Many others have been displaced from their homes and are now refugees in their own country”.

The Zimbabwe Peace Project recorded an increase to nearly 1,000 incidents of politically motivated violence in April, many of them related to the constitution-making process, which had been stalled but should now move ahead as the EU has provided $6 million towards the funding of local consultations throughout the country on the details. What guarantee do we have that the people will be able to express their views freely and that ZANU-PF will not attempt to manipulate the outcome by threats and intimidation? Is there a timetable for the process, and will the referendum be monitored by the United Nations? If there are clear divisions of opinion on contentious issues, will people be offered choices in the referendum? The noble Lord, Lord St John, said that hardliners were already doing their best to frustrate the process. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says about the safeguards against that.

The Select Committee says that two models are being considered: the Kariba draft, which gives the President substantial executive powers and a more “people-driven” approach called for by civil society. The committee wants DfID to provide more information about the support that it is giving, jointly with other donors, to the constitution-drafting process. I presume that that would be via the multi-donor trust fund administered by the African Development Bank with support from the World Bank. The Friends’ meeting last week pledged to increase this fund, but reiterated its concern over the,

“lack of respect for the rule of law, protection of fundamental freedoms and the slow pace of progress in improving governance”.

What amount of additional funding is being made available? Do specific benchmarks have to be satisfied before the disbursements are approved? The referendum on the new constitution would be a possible trigger for releasing some of the purse-strings, particularly if the associated Bill of Rights addresses crimes committed by Mugabe such as the forcible eviction and internal displacement of 700,000 poor people in Operation Murambatsvina—“clean out the trash”—five years ago and the displacement of an additional 36,000 people at the time of the election in 2008. The African Union called on member states at a meeting in Addis Ababa last week to ratify the AU convention on internally displaced people. It would be useful to know whether there has been any response from Harare.

As has been said, we miss Lord Blaker from these debates, remembering that, as his obituary in the Times said,

“it was his clear conviction that the causes of peace and democracy required a muscular approach”.

That certainly applies to my late friend Lady Park as well. We miss both of them in these debates. If we soft-pedal on human rights—and if the donors fail to make aid to the Government, as opposed to aid to the Prime Minister’s office and to NGOs, conditional on rectifying the gross abuses of the Mugabe years—we would jeopardise even the few advances already achieved. They include, as has been mentioned, the licensing of free newspapers and the establishment of the Human Rights Commission, sworn in at the end of March. Let us remember also that Mugabe has failed to honour benchmarks in the past, such as those in the Cotonou agreement between the ACP Group of States and the European Union. So there needs to be a period of compliance, not just a signature, to test the good faith of ZANU-PF. We certainly should not trust an Administration who are as susceptible to influence of the military as are the current regime, and the talks between the MDC and ZANU-PF should be expanded to cover this problem.

The Friends urged Zimbabwe to,

“adopt IMF policy recommendations and move towards establishment of an IMF staff-monitored program as a step toward forgiveness or rescheduling of US $7.2 billion external debt”.

Does this mean full budgetary transparency and therefore an end to shady ventures such as the exploitation of the lucrative diamond fields at Marange, which were operated originally by a UK-registered company, African Consolidated Resources, until its lease was arbitrarily cancelled in 2006? They are now controlled by the military and high-ups in ZANU-PF, at enormous cost to human rights in the region, as the noble Lord, Lord St John, said. ACR won a court case to recover possession, but it has been unable to enforce the judgment. The Supreme Court ordered that mining activities cease and that diamonds in the possession of the state entity that annexed the mine in 2006 be handed over to the Reserve Bank pending its judgment on the claim. Has that happened and, if not, what measures can be taken to enforce the Supreme Court’s judgment? Meanwhile, the Kimberley process monitor, Abbey Chikane, paid a further visit to Zimbabwe at the end of May, and has reported his findings in quick time. He sees only what ZANU-PF and the army want him to see, and one would never guess from his report that uncertified diamonds are flooding across into Mozambique. However, he confirms that enormous diamond resources are at stake.

As an aside, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Howell, whether the Government have taken note of the allegations by the arrested Zimbabwe diamond researcher, Farai Maguwu, who alleged on SW Radio Africa that he was set up by the Kimberley process monitor. He has now abandoned his post as director of the Centre for Research and Development, which had been investigating human rights abuses at the Chiadzwa diamond field. What steps can we take to investigate these allegations and, if possible, to get Mr Farai Maguwu restored to his important post so he can continue his investigations of the abuses in the diamond fields?

The Finance Minister, Tendai Biti, acknowledged in a Reuters interview on 25 May that, while the dispute with ACR remained unresolved, it cast a shadow over diamond mining, the one immediate prospect of rescuing Zimbabwe's fragile economy from bankruptcy. Yet he added that the legal process would be a long one. It has been estimated that if Marange was regularised, it could generate as much as $200 million a month in revenue, so why do the Government not settle? The answer is that, as the Times reported, this is one of the last cash lifelines of Mugabe and his cohorts and they are determined to amass as big a fortune as possible before the boss dies. But that is all the more reason for donors to insist that the High Court's ruling be upheld, and that the ZANU-PF criminals who committed 200 murders, and beat and tortured locals, including children, to act as their slave labour in the Marange fields, are brought to justice.

When the Secretary of State visited Zimbabwe last September he said that,

“once Zimbabwe is on a clear path to democracy and the rule of law, then a Conservative government will lead the Commonwealth and the international community in a development programme to galvanise Zimbabwe’s private sector to rebuild and rehabilitate that beleaguered country”.

He went on to promise that the UK would help refurbish and redevelop Zimbabwe's 7,000 schools, employing local plumbers, builders and electricians. We are not quite there yet, but the people of Zimbabwe can see that in the UK they have a staunch and generous friend. It was so under the previous Government and the coalition is equally determined that, whatever our own economic difficulties may be here at home, we shall never let them down.

14:08

[Lord Best]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord St John of Bletso for initiating and leading this debate. I declare my interest as a trustee of the Phoenix Fund for Zimbabwe, set up in 2007 by the late Lady Park of Monmouth, to whom reference has already been made. The fund is now chaired by Shane Lunga, with David Banks as our secretary. Lady Park was a formidable champion for the well-being of Zimbabweans, and I know that she would not forgive me if I failed to contribute to this important debate.

The Phoenix Fund for Zimbabwe exists to assist Zimbabwean refugees and asylum seekers in the UK to pursue courses of professional development, placements and vocational training that will equip them to participate in reviving the economy and institutions of Zimbabwe when circumstances allow them to return home. The trustees of the fund believe that the Zimbabwe of the future will depend on the skills of people like these to rebuild that country in the years ahead. For those talented people who come here as asylum seekers and are not allowed to work, it must be better for them and for Zimbabwe for their skills to be enhanced and their morale sustained than for them to sit on their hands in compulsory idleness.

This debate offers the opportunity to explore the value of equipping Zimbabweans here with the capacity to make a difference in their home country when the time is right. The background to this question is of course the past decade of disastrous economic policies, political violence and social upheavals that have led to some 3 million Zimbabweans fleeing abroad, out of a population of 12 million. Mostly this has affected neighbouring countries in the region, and as a consequence relations between Zimbabwe and its southern neighbours, South Africa and Botswana, have deteriorated, as noted by the International Development Committee in another place. The International Crisis Group reported to that committee that,

“instability in Zimbabwe is profoundly destabilizing to its neighbors. Zimbabweans fleeing economic hardship and political abuses have flooded across borders, overwhelming the social services and the good will of South Africa, Botswana, and other neighbors”.

The flight of Zimbabweans into exile has also of course made a considerable impact here in the UK. Last year more Zimbabweans sought political asylum in the UK than any other nationality. There were 7,420 applications—more than double the number that applied for the next country on the list, Afghanistan. Naturally, the Home Office and its UK Borders Agency are keen to see more Zimbabweans returning home. There are some small projects assisting voluntary return under the auspices of the International Organisation for Migration, but they deal with relatively insignificant numbers.

The approach of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development is more cautious in pointing to the ongoing problems and suggesting that it may still not be safe to go to Zimbabwe at this time. While it is often desirable for many Zimbabwean migrants, whether in the Southern African Development Community region or here in the UK, that they return and contribute their skills and expertise in their own country, the sad reality is that safety is a major concern for many, and with unemployment still at perhaps 90 per cent, opportunities may not be readily available.

In terms of encouragement for voluntary returns to Zimbabwe, those who have received grants from the Phoenix Fund and signed an agreement to return when conditions are right may be well placed to make fact-finding trips without undermining their refugee status if they feel it necessary to return to the UK to see if it would be safe for others to return permanently to Zimbabwe. They could visit different parts of the country where conditions differ and report back to the Zimbabwean community here.

With tens of thousands of Zimbabweans now in this country, many of them living unproductive lives, I ask the Minister whether the retraining and reskilling of returning migrants should not be a key element in the UK’s support for the economic recovery of Zimbabwe. Could the UK give a lead to Zimbabwe’s neighbours in devising, as part of our international aid programme, a training scheme for members of the Zimbabwean diaspora who find themselves here in the UK and who wish to return to Zimbabwe? Such an initiative has the small but significant example of Lady Park’s Phoenix Fund for Zimbabwe, with its grants for courses and training to those who have signed a pledge to return when they can safely do so.

14:13

[Lord Luce]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord St John has tremendous experience of southern Africa, and we should be grateful to him for taking the initiative in launching this debate on Zimbabwe, taking on the mantle, as he and so many noble Lords have already said, of the late Lord Blaker and Lady Park, who were persistent in raising the problems of Zimbabwe over a long period.

My own interest in Zimbabwe goes back to the 1970s when I was a shadow spokesman in the other place, and later as Minister for Africa when the Lancaster House talks took place and independence was eventually agreed. That of course was exactly 30 years ago, but I want to talk about the future not the past. It is worth stressing that independence was 30 years ago and that the empire is long since over. Attempts to blame colonialism for the problems in Africa are long since past. Equally, we in this country no longer have any right to take a patronising attitude to our former colonies.

Of course, Zimbabwe—Rhodesia, as it was—was an anomaly in the sense that it was not part of the conventional colonial arrangements. In 1923, the British Government decided that there should be internal self rule, which eventually led to the predominance of the white population running that country, unlike in Kenya, where in the same year, it was declared that African interests should be paramount. Zimbabwe has paid a heavy price for that. Kissinger said in the 1970s that Rhodesia had power without legitimacy and Britain had legitimacy without power. A heavy price has been paid.

In today's debate it is important to assess the progress that has been made since the global peace agreement of 18 months ago and the formation of the National Unity Government. My noble friend Lord St John and other noble Lords have given their own assessment of the progress that has been made. To summarise: the economy is gradually improving, there is no longer hyperinflation, the shops are fuller of goods and produce, there is less political violence and there is some progress on governance. But at the same time, there is a very long haul indeed. If we look at life expectancy, which is at half the level of this country—it is just over 40 in Zimbabwe and just under 80 in this country—we see the dilemma and the tragedy that that country still faces.

My noble friend Lord St John was right to highlight the remaining problem of the hardliners in ZANU-PF, not just President Mugabe. The way that we—the Commonwealth but above all the National Unity Government—deal with this problem will be critical. If we are to learn from other countries such as the Soviet Union or Iraq we see that if we drive extremists into a corner it makes the situation far more difficult. We must learn that particular lesson.

I will make my remaining remarks on the issue of the Commonwealth. For my part and I am sure that of many others, I must say that I welcome the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, with his special responsibility for the Commonwealth, and knowing of his passion and commitment to the Commonwealth. Quite apart from anything we can and should do on the humanitarian side in our bilateral arrangements, we ought to assess very carefully the role of the Commonwealth in terms of its ability to be constructive and to give encouragement to the people of Zimbabwe.

Although Zimbabwe is not at present a member of the Commonwealth, it has every opportunity, if it fulfils certain conditions, to rejoin it. I am glad that in the summit meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government in November of last year, the global peace agreement on power-sharing was welcomed and the summit looked forward to conditions being created for the return of Zimbabwe to the Commonwealth. The next Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting is in autumn next year and that could be a target for the power-sharing Government to try to fulfil a sufficient number of those conditions to enable Zimbabwe to be invited to join.

I am a former chairman of an organisation called the Commonwealth Foundation, which is the non-government side—the people side—of the Commonwealth, dealing with professional organisations, cultural bodies and civil society. I am pleased that the foundation has devised a Commonwealth special programme for Zimbabwe. It goes back to two or three years ago when the late Lord Blaker, the late Lady Park, other noble Lords and I got together with the foundation and others to see what the Commonwealth could do. I am delighted that the director of the foundation, Mark Collins, has taken a lead on this. Last July he convened a round table in Johannesburg between Commonwealth organisations and civil society in Zimbabwe. The civil society people agreed that the Commonwealth should play a positive role, particularly on constitutional reform, the rule of law, democratic governance and the role of the media.

Now we have a special programme that is part of a dialogue between the Commonwealth associations and civil society. It is a good demonstration of what the Commonwealth can do in helping countries to reconstruct. We have already heard mention of the media commission that has now been set up in Zimbabwe, which has licensed a number of new publications and is designed to strengthen independence and the freedom of the media. We have heard of the Human Rights Commission and, now, the Electoral Commission, which has been established to ensure that future elections are well managed and to minimise intimidation. Civil society is involved in that work as well.

I am delighted that the Commonwealth itself has set up a network of national election management bodies, co-ordinating the supervision and monitoring of elections in the Commonwealth. Then there is a move in hand to involve Zimbabwe in the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan, another way of helping that country to move forward.

I am delighted that the Commonwealth Foundation highlighted something raised by my noble friend Lord Best: the position of the diaspora. I do not think that we should underestimate its importance. Since the Second World War, 20 million Africans have left Africa to live mainly in the western world and Commonwealth countries, and have now acquired skills in all sorts of fields. The Commonwealth Foundation would like to help the diaspora to focus their attention on education, health and agriculture. There is an important role to be played here, and I am delighted that there is now a Council for Zimbabwe of the diaspora, based in New York but covering mainly Commonwealth countries. Its job is to try to work with the 4 million Zimbabwean diaspora to see what contribution they can make to their country of origin.

From 1998 to 2000, 18,000 nurses, 100 doctors and hundreds and hundreds of academics left Zimbabwe, so there is much to be done. I am glad to say that the Council for Zimbabwe is working vigorously with Zimbabwe to help meet humanitarian, development and reconstruction needs. Zimbabwe now has a national migration management and diaspora policy. The evidence shows that the diaspora want to help shape the policy and conditions in their country of origin. Everything should be done to encourage their work. It is a real challenge for the Commonwealth, let alone for the National Unity Government in Zimbabwe, to provide the people in Zimbabwe with encouragement and hope for the future and to encourage the Zimbabwean Government to work for conditions that will enable them to return to the Commonwealth.

In addition to anything that we can do bilaterally, Britain’s most helpful role today is to be an active and equal partner with the Commonwealth and SADC in helping the people of Zimbabwe. My noble friend Lord St John referred to Mbeki’s great cry that there must be African solutions to African problems. We must give the people of Zimbabwe a chance to live a more prosperous and free life again. The potential is enormous, particularly in agriculture. They have suffered enough and deserve a better and more stable future.

14:25

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, on securing the debate, which keeps Zimbabwe at the centre of our attention. I, too, miss Baroness Park and Lord Blaker. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, on his ministerial appointment.

On leaving the FCO in 2007, I thought it right to avoid debates on the geographical areas with which I had been most directly concerned. Ministerial life is hard enough without having your predecessors wandering over your turf. However, it left me with several unanswered questions and thoughts which, had I expressed them at the time, would have led me to stray still further from government lines than I was already prone to do. Perhaps I can explore some of them today, precisely because I believe that Zimbabwe was the country where our impact was far less than it should have been. I do not say this because I think Zimbabwe is a convenient metaphor for a wider African malaise. On the contrary, Africa is a continent, not a country; it is culturally, linguistically and economically diverse. Indeed, it is diverse in every way. It has great successes, often in spite of the hand dealt to it by colonialism.

However, Zimbabwe has not been one of Africa’s beacons. Its modern history was scarred by the appalling and racist leadership of Ian Smith in Rhodesia, who—with apartheid South Africa—destabilised the entire region to ensure that there were no bases for anti-colonial forces. All in all, the UK role was not what it could or should have been. We turned a blind eye to sanctions-busting, particularly oil bound for Rhodesia. We played a less than proper role in the 1971 talks, where our proposals would have prevented democratic development in Zimbabwe for many decades and were rightly rejected by all black and progressive Africans. This has made it harder to get a sympathetic hearing in Africa.

None the less, Zimbabwe emerged as a productive land with a wealth of resources. The leader who emerged, Robert Mugabe, gradually set about the imposition of a one-party state—always his goal—after nominal observance of the Lancaster House agreement for seven years. Then, freed from any obligation, he suppressed the opposition, killed many of them, and instituted terror in Matabeleland. And so he has continued, election after election; win them or lose them, he remains essentially the sole power in every meaningful sense. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord St John, is too generous in thinking that the crisis only started in 1997, and perhaps too optimistic in general. I mean no discourtesy in expressing the point. ZANU-PF’s leaders remain to this day a watchword for corruption and violence among many Africans. I will not go through the soaring inflation and plunging life expectancy; we are all familiar with the facts. More than 3 million refugees were forced to cross the Limpopo in search of food. Whatever South Africa’s non-intervention was intended to achieve, one consequence was a tsunami of desperation, now costing South Africa $3 billion a year.

Where is the Zimbabwean economy now? Without the excellent resources of the FCO, I can only estimate from 2009 data. I recognise that things have changed since the exchange mechanism changed. I can see that there is promise; I understand the point. However, there are significant doubts about what has fundamentally changed. Today, the power sector is in a parlous and deteriorating state. Demand exceeds supply by two and a half times. Nothing has been done to infrastructure in more than 20 years. Power lines are ancient and 5,000 kilometres of power cable have been stolen. If you cannot generate power, you cannot make things, run hospitals or light homes. Water and sanitation are still in a persistently dangerous state. Cholera killed 4,000 people in 2008 and early 2009. The regime puts health, agriculture and production at risk every day, just from the crisis in managing water properly, even if there have been some developments in the supply of fresh water.

The 88,000 kilometres of road have been neglected. There are no materials, modern machines or basic skills aside from those brought in by incoming Chinese investors where those are directly connected to their investment, and which are frequently removed when the building work has been done. That building work is infrequently carried out by African labour. Seventy per cent of the road network has decayed. Railways, in what was the strategic hub of south central Africa, are in much the same state as the roads. Goods and people cannot be moved to markets with any ease, so few markets operate and economic conditions for regeneration are poor.

The information and communications system has declined and now ranks marginally above those of Chad and East Timor. Mining has declined with the flight of skills. Gold mining stopped in 2009 for lack of recapitalisation although I acknowledge that it has now restarted and there is some progress. Diamonds and platinum offer hope if properly managed and not used for improper outcomes, but those who wish to invest in that mining are concerned that they should make their investment against a background of greater political stability.

I doubt whether anything more needs to be said in this House about the decay of commercial and communal agriculture, which still remains in so poor a state. Manufacturing has declined by 10 per cent a year since 2000. Today, it barely exists; nor do financial services or a credible central bank. Tourism had potential yet the World Economic Forum recently ranked Zimbabwe 121 of 133 travel destinations. Few tourists will venture to a country in which there has been so much brutality and which simply leaves people enfeebled by HIV and AIDS on Harare’s municipal rubbish dump.

We in this House have all expressed our outrage and have urged, and achieved, limited EU sanctions on some individuals. We have opposed relaxation of IMF rules on debt and have rightly supplied extensive food aid to the innocent victims of the Mugabe regime. We have placed cautious hope in Morgan Tsvangirai and the MDC, who have had every conceivable difficulty placed in their way in trying to form some sort of government who can move forward, despite the fact that they won the previous general election. However, our response was far too limited. Our expectation of political intervention by the African Union and SADC was unrealistic. The AU, with few staff and limited finance, has been expected to shoulder massive tasks right across Africa from Darfur to Mogadishu to the DRC. Neither the AU nor SADC had the political will on all occasions, and most certainly did not have the capacity, to fulfil such a remit, even had it wanted to. Both would have had to ignore the most powerful regional leaders. It is obviously right—I subscribe completely to this view—to want to build the political authority of multinational institutions in Africa, but it was wrong to pretend that such authority was already there.

I was told time and again by exceptional African administrators that while it was vital for Africans to take ownership of African problems, they could not make bricks without straw. I ask with suitable circumspection, as I am self-critical in this regard, whether the Government have a view of what can be achieved by greater engagement with the AU and SADC, and especially with South Africa? It would surely be negligent if we did not take on that task. Hardliners are certainly seeking to frustrate the process and they may very well succeed as they have succeeded more often than they have failed. Optimism is okay, but if things go badly what should we do next? I am often told that we should be cautious because we do not want to take steps which gratuitously endanger excellent FCO and local staff in Harare. That is a genuine concern and I share it. However, is the Minister satisfied that they are safe and can provide help for the domiciled retired British population in Zimbabwe who are themselves at risk? The consequence of our caution was that we sought sanctions, and sanctioned ZANU’s leaders, only if we were confident of EU backing, which we did not always have. I could not agree with that approach because I thought that we should push far deeper through the ranks of criminality in the regime. Would the Government be prepared to act unilaterally if necessary, because that may be the consequence of what I am saying?

Perhaps I may share the view that it would be helpful to make sure that we are as fully engaged with South Africa and its new leader as we can be. I wonder if this is not the moment to try again to achieve a more formal plan for long-standing political and economic change in Zimbabwe, building on what might be the seeds of its beginnings. The new President of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, as my noble friend Lord Hughes said, has considerable authority. He has committed himself to poverty reduction and he may be unwilling to bear the unnecessary costs of a difficult northern neighbour. I know from his state visit that he is a tough pragmatist and that he is the key leader in southern Africa. He may be willing to reopen the kind of holistic approach that Kofi Annan so often and so eloquently advocated. He has surely reflected on the decades of so-called quiet diplomacy from South Africa which were wholly ineffective. The need now is for a comprehensive approach to rehabilitation on the basis of the sort of plan that Kofi Annan outlined. A new opportunity would require careful preparation, but does the Minister, on behalf of the Government, see any advantage in assessing this new window of opportunity? I hope that as he does, he will not feel it necessary to give people a “get out of jail free” pass, whatever kinds of crimes they have committed.

Finally, I do not accept the point that has often been made that if we say anything about President Mugabe it will make it easier for him to denounce us among other African leaders. Many people in this House will have reasons for their criticism. I know mine. My political generation grew up as anti-colonialist, not as covert colonialists. My politics were formed in the 1960s, much by the close friends who were then exiled in London with the ANC. My understanding of Mugabe’s probable trajectory came from Oliver Tambo and Govan Mbeki, not from any apologist for Ian Smith. I do not accept that those serving the previous Government or indeed today’s new generation in government should allow themselves to be characterised by the politics of 40 years ago.

14:36

[Lord Chidgey]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord St John, on securing this debate so early in this new Parliament and so soon after the formation of the new coalition Administration. As always in this Chamber, we have benefited from a broad range of knowledge and opinions on the subject. I listened intently to the somewhat hard-edged contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, which was very solid, and compared it with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Luce, and his optimism regarding the role of the Commonwealth. I particularly enjoyed his contribution, given that I am the chair of the international board of the Commonwealth Policy Studies Unit. I endorse his views in that regard.

This is a valuable opportunity for Members of this House to raise some very pressing concerns about developments that have taken place recently in Zimbabwe—and, unfortunately, concerns in some areas about the apparent lack of developments. This is also a very useful opportunity for us to hear from our new coalition Administration about the approach that they will adopt alongside our partners in the region and among donor nations on finding ways to assist the people of Zimbabwe in their struggle for democracy, justice, human rights and economic progress.

Before I became a Member of this House, when I was in the other place, I was a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, and we spent a considerable amount of time on a series of detailed inquiries on Zimbabwe. More recently, as vice-chair of the Africa All-Party Parliamentary Group, I was engaged in the inquiry mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, into land in Zimbabwe. It concluded among other matters that the UK had a particular obligation to Zimbabwe and that once there was political stability, Britain should seek to re-engage with the Zimbabwean Government on the issue of land reform, but with an appropriate degree of caution.

Our then Government conceded, as the report noted, that one of the major challenges facing Zimbabwe in the coming years will be how to devise a land reform process that takes account of the lessons from the past, but avoids polarisation on historical rights and wrongs. I appreciate that there have been steps towards real progress and that the political landscape has changed. However, I am struck by how many of the concerns that we grappled with six or seven years ago, underlined in our more recent inquiry, remain the same today.

When President Zuma of South Africa came into office, he appointed an impressive and very able team to facilitate the continuing negotiations around full implementation of the global political agreement. The GPA, which was signed in November 2008, led to the formation of a Government of national unity, or GNU, in February 2009. Earlier this year when President Zuma paid his state visit to this country, it was clear that he and the Ministers and officials accompanying him had the crisis in Zimbabwe and the impasse over the GPA high up on their agenda. It was encouraging to hear President Zuma speak in detail about the negotiations and also that the Minister for International Relations and Co-operation found time to come for an extensive dialogue on the issue with members of the Zimbabwe All-Party Parliamentary Group.

Very shortly after his return to South Africa, President Zuma travelled to Harare and spent two and a half days on an intense round of meetings with political leaders and other figures in Zimbabwe. Together with his negotiating team, he was appointed to facilitate negotiations between the three political formations represented in the Zimbabwe Parliament—that is, the MDC faction led by Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, the MDC faction led by Deputy Prime Minister Arthur Mutambara, and the ZANU-PF, led by President Robert Mugabe. What is frustrating is that, despite clear timetables and deadlines being set, weeks, and now months, have slipped by with little progress. I hope that the Minister will tell us what soundings have been taken within the region about how the process of implementation might be expedited.

It is important to bear in mind that economic restructuring, investment in industry and many other initiatives vital to the welfare of the people of Zimbabwe are to a large degree in suspense while there is uncertainty around political progress. It seems to me that there needs to be a far greater sense of urgency over these matters within the region. Although there will be protestations to the contrary, this is a legitimate matter of concern to this House and to the people of this country. The bill for humanitarian aid and, in due course, the huge amount of aid needed to rebuild the infrastructure and economy of Zimbabwe will be drawn very substantially from DfID—that is, from UK taxpayers. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us what assistance we are able to offer directly, and through the EU and the Commonwealth, to strengthen the Parliament in Zimbabwe.

Both Houses of the Zimbabwe Parliament adjourned in March for three months to allow MPs and Senators to participate in the outreach consultation on a new constitution. However, the outreach exercise failed to start on time and, when it does eventually start, it is expected to take more than three months rather than the two months that had originally been planned. This means that valuable parliamentary time is being lost when it could be used to introduce important legislation and a repeal of repressive measures. These delays undermine confidence in the whole process of reform, they affect the confidence of donors and investors, and they deter Zimbabweans in the diaspora from returning home. Meetings between President Mugabe, Prime Minister Tsvangirai and Deputy Prime Minister Mutambara have been delayed time and again. This in turn means that the vital progress report on the implementation of the global political agreement that President Zuma is due to make to SADC has also been very seriously delayed.

In a reflection of the frustration felt among grassroots Zimbabweans, the National Council of the MDC met on 16 May and called for SADC immediately to convene a summit to resolve the outstanding issues, as well as to discuss the road map to an election and guarantees of the legitimacy of this election. Similarly, a statement following a recent meeting of the Zimbabwe Council of Churches, the ZCC, and the Zimbabwe Christian Alliance, the ZCA, expressed grave concern that, two years on from signing the GPA, it is still not fully implemented.

Among the urgent concerns that the churches say need to be addressed are deepening and widening poverty, the inaccessibility of food to the majority of Zimbabweans due to lack of income, the high unemployment rate of more than 90 per cent, which has been referred to in previous contributions, the failure to create new jobs and the seven-month delay in the constitution-making process.

In a communiqué the ZCC and the ZCA call upon the SADC heads of state summit to be held in Namibia in August 2010 to prioritise addressing,

“these concerns from the people of Zimbabwe”.

The communiqué also called on the Government to respect people’s natural rights, the security and integrity of persons and to dismantle all structures that perpetuate political violence. The church leaders urged the Government to reform the country’s security sector as a,

“critical component of creating a peaceful transition”,

and to create the mechanisms necessary to enable independent commissions to function effectively and ensure that free and fair elections are conducted by the end of 2011.

The news this week is not encouraging. On Tuesday the MDC issued an alert accusing ZANU-PF of unleashing a targeted crackdown on MDC officials and supporters across the country. This comes just as the national outreach consultation on a new constitution is about to begin on Tuesday of next week. In the past week scores of MDC officials and supporters have been arrested on spurious charges such as undermining the President. The alert says that there is an upsurge in persecution, intimidation and arbitrary arrests, especially in the volatile provinces of Mashonaland East, West and Central.

The MDC sees this as an attempt by ZANU-PF to cow the population and recreate the violent environment that caused Morgan Tsvangirai to withdraw from the presidential run-off in June 2008. In this context it is important to reflect on concerns expressed a week ago at the Oslo meeting of major donors and international financial institutions known as the Friends of Zimbabwe. This is only the latest in a series of meetings that this donor group has convened and I know that the UK has played a key role throughout. The communiqué issued after the Oslo meeting underlines the fact that several long-standing concerns remain, including a continuing lack of respect for the rule of law or protection of fundamental freedoms and the slow pace of progress in improving governance.

It urges the parties to accelerate the implementation of their outstanding commitments under the GPA and stresses that the lack of progress hampers full re-engagement with Zimbabwe by the international community. Donors also stressed the concern shared with the private sector, both international and domestic, about the negative consequences of the recently published regulations on indigenisation for the already fragile investment climate. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso. The communiqué reaffirms support for genuine empowerment and says that the return of millions of skilled Zimbabweans to their homeland is best achieved by respect for the rule of law and the creation of an enterprise-friendly environment. That includes respect for bilateral investment protection and promotion agreements. It urges Zimbabwe to pursue the extraction of its natural resource in a manner that benefits its citizens. I hope that in this context the Minister will tell us what options are open to the UK and other donor nations to hold the Government of Zimbabwe to their obligations under the Kimberley process certification scheme for rough diamonds, including their obligation to implement the joint work plan agreed to in November 2009.

The concerns expressed in Oslo echo to a large extent the anxieties expressed in March by the International Development Committee of the House of Commons in its report on DfID assistance to Zimbabwe. Paragraph 61 of the IDC report notes that member states of the Southern African Development Community—SADC—are the guarantors of the global political agreement—GPA. The committee recommends that the Government should urge SADC collectively, and South Africa in particular, to continue to work with the Government of national unity towards full implementation of the GPA. Finally, it seems to me that this is something that the SADC heads of state might be encouraged to address in the forthcoming summit in Namibia. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that in our diplomatic dialogue with SADC member nations, and with South Africa in particular, these concerns will be fully expressed.

14:47

[The Earl of Sandwich]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend and I pay tribute to the work of two experienced parliamentarians who did so much for our understanding—Lady Park and Lord Blaker. Not only do we miss them personally but their absence means that we will have to redouble our efforts to keep this issue high in the public mind. In that context, I welcome back the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, whose hard-hitting approach is very much needed on these occasions. All eyes are on South Africa and the World Cup, and it is tragic that, because of an incompetent dictatorship dressed up as a power-sharing arrangement, tourists who should be benefiting Zimbabwe’s economy are largely avoiding the country. However, I know that the more determined game parks and resorts are doing their best to attract attention.

The Foreign Office’s country profile for Zimbabwe reports,

“a reduction in the level of political violence”,

following the formation of the cross-party Government in 2009. There is a widespread perception that the return to the US dollar and an upturn in the economy have also helped to create improvement in household incomes. My noble friend mentioned investment, which is increasing. However, that analysis bears close examination, especially in relation to the more vulnerable and low-income groups. The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, mentioned the decay in services and communications. The country profile report also contrasts with reports from human rights organisations and the media that white farmers and MDC activists are still being targeted and, in many cases, victimised. One activist in Mashonaland had his house burnt down only a week ago. A local chairman in Harare was abducted while a rally that he was to address was disrupted. As the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, said, most of those attacks are coming from ZANU-PF, but sometimes the police or even the army are directly involved.

The court’s release of Roy Bennett last month was the latest example of the political cat and mouse game. He is a senior member of Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s MDC and he was due to become Deputy Minister for Agriculture when he was arrested in February 2009. The Government, knowing that such an appointment would wreck their pretence of power-sharing, will appeal against the decision, but their manipulation of the courts makes a farce of the judicial process.

Meanwhile, white farmers are being constantly harassed. Although some are returning, many are being arrested and detained on spurious charges or are still being evicted in favour of pseudo-farmers and ZANU-PF party squatters. Charles Taffs, the Commercial Farmers’ Union vice-president, said last week that eviction of white farmers had intensified over the past 10 days, further threatening Zimbabwe’s fragile food security. He said that Zimbabwe was producing less than 10,000 tonnes of wheat, which is one-third of national requirements, because of the lack of security, farm evictions and electricity blackouts on the farms.

Farm workers are the subject of a telling recent survey by the General Agricultural and Plantation Workers Union of Zimbabwe. It may not be representative, but it provides a glimpse of the suffering of those workers, showing the true savagery and oppression of the Mugabe regime. Of the sample surveyed, 24 per cent of farm workers had been held hostage and three in 10 had been abducted. Twenty-five per cent had seen their pets maimed or killed. In 29 per cent of cases, children were forced to watch beatings and a similar percentage of adults were required to intimidate their colleagues. Forty-four per cent had been assaulted. More than half had received death threats. Two-thirds were severely ill treated or psychologically tortured and a similar proportion forced to join ZANU-PF. On one farm alone, farm workers reported a fractured skull, broken feet, abductions, one man being thrown into a fire, bad bruising from rifle butts from police, imprisonment and torture. Some had been in hiding. Some had had their houses looted and others had watched their houses burn down. Those facts, which come from reliable sources, speak for themselves. More than l million farm workers, estimated to be more than half the population on commercial farms, have been displaced over the years by this violence.

While we watch football games and applaud the sporting achievements of many African states, people are suffering silently in Zimbabwe out of sight of the media. Many are destitute, many live in poor housing in Harare and many more have fled to South Africa. In Harare, hundreds of thousands are still displaced following the senseless mass evictions five years ago. Amnesty recently appealed on their behalf for improved conditions and the UN is helping a limited number with legal advice and emergency aid.

The UK is a key donor to the World Food Programme, besides directly assisting British humanitarian agencies such as Oxfam and Save the Children, but could we be doing more? There are more than 3 million refugees and migrants in South Africa, which has benefited from Zimbabwean labourers working on construction sites during the run-up to the World Cup, but the temporary camps are phasing out and there are fears that many people will be forcibly returned. There is always a risk of xenophobic violence. We have already seen examples of it.

The UN has drawn up a programme to resettle up to 60,000 returnees this year and has opened a new office in Bulawayo. Does the Foreign and Commonwealth Office share these anxieties and have they been expressed in Pretoria? I support what my noble friend Lord Best said about the situation of refugees in the United Kingdom, about which I hope we will have time for a debate.

Having worked for non-governmental organisations, I have a particular concern that NGOs in Zimbabwe, including church groups and even student bodies, are being targeted as though they were militant opposition groups. Funds belonging to NGOs that were frozen by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe in 2008 have still not been released and several NGOs report problems in obtaining employment permits. Is our embassy speaking up for local NGOs as well as for international NGOs? The UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, John Holmes, warned recently that in countries such as Zimbabwe funding shortfalls are,

“jeopardizing the ability of humanitarian organizations”,

to operate.

Human rights NGOs are also being squeezed if they dare to expose corruption. I have a current example, which has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and other noble Lords in the context of Marange diamonds. Last week, Zimbabwean police arrested the head of the Marange-based Centre for Research and Development, Farai Maguwu. The centre has regularly provided information about ongoing human rights abuse to the Kimberley process, which monitors companies in order to prevent trade in blood diamonds. Mr Maguwu is, in effect, being accused of exposing the close relationship with the Government of Mr Abbey Chikane, the Kimberley process monitor. South African firms such as Mbada and Canadile, which have little mining experience, are being used as fronts by the Mugabe Government, but they cannot officially sell the diamonds until Zimbabwe meets the terms of the Kimberley process. Mr Chikane is widely expected to give the green light before the end of this month. Diamonds are reaching Antwerp via Mozambique even now, so the certification scheme, which is highly regarded in Africa, is in danger of being discredited. This story is well documented and is being widely publicised this week. The MDC has called for Mr Maguwu’s immediate release. Will the Government endorse that call and repeat their assurance that they will not support the export of diamonds from Zimbabwe until they are satisfied that there is no evidence of human rights abuse in the mines?

Finally, knowing that the Department for International Development has taken a close interest in constitutional issues and has considerable expertise in this field, and given the possibility of imminent, and even snap, elections immediately after the World Cup, how will the UK Government step up their support, alongside the European Union, for the democratic process that is already under way under the GPA and how will they help to bring confidence to a potentially healthy and constructive civil society?

14:59

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, for introducing this debate and for doing it so very well. It was a real tour de force. Like him and so many noble Lords who have spoken today, I regret the sad loss of Lady Park and Lord Blaker, who made such well informed contributions to our debates on Zimbabwe in the past.

Zimbabwe has been of particular concern, especially in your Lordships' House, for many years. The opportunity to discuss the current situation there and how it may develop is therefore very welcome, because, as we have heard from so many who have contributed to the debate, there are some signs that change is under way. That creates an opportunity for a better future for the people of Zimbabwe, and indeed for the British relationship with Zimbabwe. There are obvious political changes in Zimbabwe with the formation of the Government of National Unity, as well as changes in the leadership of Zimbabwe’s most influential neighbour, South Africa. In the United Kingdom’s relationship with Zimbabwe, too, we must consider the implications of the change of government in this country. New Governments anywhere can, if they are sufficiently imaginative, create real opportunities for change if the circumstances merit it, and the British coalition now has the challenge of how it will respond to some of the changes that we have been discussing and begin to make a real step change in the way in which Zimbabwe relates to the United Kingdom.

In all the years that I have been part of the debates on Zimbabwe in this House, concern has centred on four main destructive and interrelated crises. First, there has been the economic crisis. Secondly, there has been political deterioration in the country and in its relationships with many countries overseas. Thirdly, there has been the HIV/AIDS crisis. Finally, there has been the humanitarian crisis, which has been the inevitable consequence of the first three crises.

As we have heard today so graphically from the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, for years Zimbabwe’s economic and social indicators painted a really alarming picture. Over half the country required emergency food aid and other humanitarian aid simply to survive. The contrast with the former years of plenty as the breadbasket of Africa was indeed stark. The United States aid department calculated that over that period more than a third of the adult population of Zimbabwe was HIV positive, and that more than 10,000 people were dying every month from AIDS. Meanwhile, the GDP was in an unstoppable downward spiral, and inflation was way out of control. Official figures for unemployment were in excess of 60 per cent, and shortages in medicines and fuel as well as in food were evident everywhere.

Most people with marketable skills left the country as soon as they could in the early years of this century. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, there were teachers, health workers and many with professional skills who simply moved away and did not return. The noble Lord, Lord Luce, emphasised the importance of the diaspora and asked how they might now be encouraged to return to Zimbabwe. This is a scarred and miserable story with which we are all only too familiar. The analysis of why this happened has varied. From Mr Mugabe’s point of view, the blame is placed squarely on Britain’s shoulders as the former colonial power, although Zimbabwe never had a colonial civil service; it had its own internal service. Meanwhile from the point of view of many commentators outside the country, the blame lies with ZANU-PF for running a regime that totally failed its own people in terms of economic competence, political inclusion and social cohesion. Others, notably South Africa, have been for many years very ambivalent. They have been unable to criticise the self-evident shortcomings of Mr Mugabe’s Government and have impeded some of the efforts of the international community to deal with human rights abuses and disease control, not only in terms of HIV/AIDS but also, latterly, in terms of the cholera outbreaks.

As we have heard from many noble Lords in this debate, there have been real changes in the economy. I am sure that all of us welcome the fact that at long last there is real improvement in what the IMF has to say about the Zimbabwean economy. In its announcement on 26 May, it recorded that for the first time in more than a decade there has been economic growth. The gross domestic product rose by 4 per cent last year, which was the first expansion for 11 years. At the same time, prices rose by 6.5 per cent. In previous years, as we have often remarked in this House, inflation was measured in millions of per cent and the economy regularly shrunk year on year by 5 per cent to 10 per cent.

The IMF attributed the improvements to strong taxation policy and strong administrative measures following implementation of its own advice. It went on to stress the importance of further strengthening of financial management with the World Bank’s assistance and noted that, sadly, many social programmes in Zimbabwe are still grossly underfunded and in danger of failing completely. I agree with my noble friend Lord Triesman that years of neglect cannot be righted without a huge effort within Zimbabwe and from its friends.

What is the British Government’s assessment of the IMF report? Is the UK coalition now able, or willing, to give bilateral advice to the Zimbabwean Government on the future strengthening of such things as their manufacturing and service industries, and very particularly on the budgetary messages that need to be put in place in the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe?

I am sure we can all express pleasure that Zimbabwe’s eligibility to use the resources of the IMF’s general resource account have been restored, which is good news and significant. What does the Minister think the practical impact of the restoration of such eligibility will be? It is clear that the economic policies have improved significantly, but what assessment have the British Government made about the way in which the improvements are sustainable or whether the recovery is too fragile to survive without further important policy changes in the economic outlook in Zimbabwe?

I turn to what I described as the political crisis. The continuation of the Government of National Unity is the bedrock of providing the stability necessary for any continued economic improvement. The IMF was pleased that during its visit in March its meetings with Prime Minister Tsvangirai and other Ministers were matched by access to representatives from the diplomatic and business communities, and, very significantly, in its meetings with civil society organisations as well as trade unions. The IMF noted the improved respect—its own words—for property rights and for the strengthening of labour markets. Today we have heard about the welcome licensing of the newspaper industry, which is another significant move.

The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, about the recent acquittal of one of Prime Minister Tsvangirai’s allies, the former white farmer, Roy Bennett, also need to be noted. I think that we all hope that this acquittal will ease some of the self-evident tensions in the Government in Zimbabwe. On the charges of terrorism against him, Mr Bennett said that,

“the judgment gives hope that we are returning to justice and the rule of law”.

Can the Minister give us the British Government’s assessment of the current state of stability in the coalition; that is to say, whether Mr Bennett’s judgment that this was a significant move in consolidating the coalition is one with which they can agree? Also, is he able to tell us whether Mr Bennett has now been installed as the Deputy Minister for Agriculture, as was originally mooted?

Can the Minister comment on the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, regarding the new law requiring all companies owned by foreigners and racial minorities to cede 51 per cent of their shares to indigenous people? There seems to be genuine confusion on this point. Some Zimbabwean Cabinet Ministers have said that the law is still firmly in place, but of course the Prime Minister’s own spokesman has given a very different point of view, saying that the whole of that law is now under revision.

I turn to the AIDS/HIV epidemic, a matter that was not raised by many noble Lords during the debate, but which nonetheless plays an important part in achieving stability in Zimbabwe. Is the Minister able to give us up-to-date figures for mortality rates? The figures were very high a few years ago and I wonder how they have changed, or indeed whether they have changed at all. Further, is he able to tell us what the United Kingdom is currently doing in terms of providing aid to combat AIDS and HIV in Zimbabwe? Clearly we are not alone in this: Japan, Sweden and the Netherlands have also made significant contributions, but in recent years there has been some reluctance on the part of other Governments to deal with the issue.

The humanitarian climate seems to have improved at least in some measure, although I was concerned by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, regarding the points made by the Friends of Zimbabwe and about what the Zimbabwean churches have had to say. I am sure that many of us were pleased to see the ban on all diamond exports until senior politicians accused of human rights abuses are cleared of any wrongdoing. In its assessment made on 17 May this year, the IMF said that the humanitarian situation had improved, with schools and hospitals opening, better food security and a declining rate of cholera around the country. But the IMF continued to emphasise the importance of the enforcement of property rights and the maintenance of the rule of law. As the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, pointed out, the abuse of gay people is absolutely unacceptable and needs to be addressed urgently.

The fact is that these are all bedrock issues. Democracy without the rule of law tends to become the licensed tyranny of the majority over the minority, and human rights are the hallmark of any decent and civilised government. As the noble Lord, Lord St John, remarked, the drawing up of the new constitution will be a key element, but as many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, many questions are being raised in relation to whether the constitution will indeed get a fair hearing and whether in the end there will be a fair vote on it.

The Minister has a terrific record on his support of the Commonwealth, and as the noble Lord, Lord Luce, said, in the past he has been a persuasive supporter of it. Given that, is he able to say anything about how he sees the future role of the Commonwealth in relation to Zimbabwe? In short, can he tell us how the UK Government intend to respond to all these changes? As my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside pointed out, the coalition document supports better trade with Africa. Is the Minister able to tell us in what ways this might be done? Would it be through, for example, help with small businesses and for entrepreneurship, and programmes of assistance such as those that were provided by British Executive Services Overseas? In particular, do the Government have any practical ideas for ways in which to help Zimbabweans in this country return to their homeland in the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Luce?

We have had a wide-ranging debate. The question I leave with the Minister is whether he believes in the picture that has been painted by the IMF, taking into account all the difficulties raised by noble Lords in terms of human rights? Does he believe that the future of Zimbabwe is now set on the right course and that it has a sustainable and secure future planned ahead for its people?

15:14

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, this has been a debate rich in expertise and knowledge of the Zimbabwean situation, the like of which is not replicated in any other forum, in this country or elsewhere, and certainly not in any other legislature. An enormous range of expert comments and questions have been raised. It would be physically impossible for me to answer every single one in the 20 minutes allotted but I shall try answer a great many of them. Most of them it would be possible to answer, but not in 20 minutes. I shall simply do my best.

I, too, begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, for the opportunity to have this excellent debate. Secondly, I echo what other noble Lords have said about our sadly departed friends: my very good friend Lord Blaker and the wonderful lady, Lady Daphne Park, who made huge contributions and played huge parts in our discussions of Zimbabwe over the years. I thank also the opposition spokesman, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, and the former opposition spokesman, the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, with whom I have debated over the years. Indeed, I began to feel that this was a kind of “This is your Life” debate as comments from the past arose. We have been looking at these matters together for almost a decade and I hope that our joint contribution will carry forward understanding and create an effective policy on these matters in the future.

I asked officials in my department, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—as I believe should be the case when new government Ministers arrive—just why, looking forward, there is so much concern and interest—and what are the interests of our nation—in the developments in Zimbabwe? Whatever the links of the past—of which we must be aware—I asked the crude question: “Where do we go from here? What is the importance for our nation of what is happening in Zimbabwe?”. Their answer was very clear: it is directly in our national interests that this major African country of wonderful potential should become again within the region a zone of law, justice, peace and democracy, and of the economic prosperity which goes with those things and which tends to disappear if they are absent. When I say “democracy”, I mean the word in the deepest, broadest and wisest sense, not in the superficial way in which it is sometimes interpreted around the world, including, I am sad to say, even within this country.

The Government intend to do everything they can to support the aspirations of the Zimbabwean people for a prosperous and stable Zimbabwe. Their objective and ours is to overcome the years of misrule and bring back Zimbabwe once more to its place as a beacon of hope for Africa’s future and as a land of plenty as it once was.

In my allotted time, I want first to deal with the precise questions that noble Lords have raised with great insight and effectiveness—although I shall not be able to deal with them all—and then to make some broader comments which, in turn, will cover some of the issues that noble Lords have raised.

The noble Lord who introduced the debate made an interesting speech. He described himself as an optimist. We all want to be optimistic about the future but it is very hard in some cases. There is much wrong and much to fear and worry about still in Zimbabwe, but that is the right stance. He asked about the International Criminal Court and whether it could, as it were, catch Mr Mugabe. I am advised that as Zimbabwe is not a signatory to the Rome statute—that is the ICC statute—he can be referred to the ICC only by Security Council resolution. I think that that is the right procedure, but if he were so referred, we would be in no position to protect Mr Mugabe from any of the consequences. That should be clear and on the record.

The noble Lord spoke equally effectively about the rights of women in Zimbabwe, a matter to which we should return again and again as we press for a better future for that country. The noble Lord had many other comments to make as well, which I shall cover in my general remarks.

My noble friend Lord Sheikh made a very fine speech about human rights in Africa, which should always be to the forefront of our thinking. Many of these areas are, as many noble Lords said, African matters for African solutions and they demand African action. However, it is our duty as a nation to help and support in every way we can.

My noble friend raised the diamond issue, as did other several other noble Lords. My noble friends Lord Avebury and Lord Chidgey and the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, all touched on it. We deplore the human rights abuses that were reported at the Marange mine and we will encourage our EU partners who lead in the Kimberley process to secure reform of the Zimbabwean diamond mining industry. That is all I can say on that at the moment, but behind those words are some strong intentions to ensure that the Kimberley process works.

The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, spoke about links and dialogue with South Africa. That is ongoing and continuous and regarded as urgent. Talks were held with the president when he visited here; there have been further and constant links with South African officials. There is a sense of urgency, but it must be balanced, as the noble Lord will be the first to recognise because he is expert in these fields, with a degree of timing, so that we do not stumble into giving advantages to those who do not wish well of Zimbabwe or want to prolong the present difficulties.

My noble friend Lord Avebury characteristically produced an enormous list of very expert insights and questions. I cannot answer them all, but he spoke about safeguards for electors in the moving of the constitutional process up to a referendum. These are things that we must watch for very carefully, and we shall do our very best to overcome, although it is not easy, some of the open and blatant abuses that have gone on in the past. There are some other questions on which I want to write to my noble friend. He raised, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, the IMF report and engagement with the IMF, the World Bank and the African Development Bank on economic reform. We see that as critical, and are working to encourage and develop this engagement. The IMF has identified in its report a number of policy improvements to be made by the Government of Zimbabwe in order to move towards a staff-monitored programme. We hope that the IMF and the Government of Zimbabwe will work together to implement these changes. It is a very important report, and the procedures which could flow from it will be valuable as well.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned also the Commonwealth, a matter, as other noble Lords have been kind enough to observe, which is dear to my heart. Zimbabwe was a member of the Commonwealth; a time will come when the Commonwealth network, with its skills, its focus, its values and its practical help, will be able to play a vital part in the rebuilding of Zimbabwe. Of that, I am convinced. When that time comes, I cannot say at the moment, because I cannot see, as noble Lords cannot, exactly how matters will develop. But I am quite sure that the Commonwealth’s role in the future piecing together of Zimbabwe will be vital and leading.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, raised the interesting question of reskilling Zimbabweans in the Zimbabwean diaspora. We share the noble Lord’s wish to see Zimbabweans able to return home to contribute to the rebuilding of their country when the time is right. The noble Lord referred to the funds available to Zimbabweans who return home under the assisted voluntary return scheme, which includes funding that can be used for reskilling or setting up a business. I can tell him that officials are in discussion with the diaspora on how that can be made most useful, so I hope that that meets his very valid point.

The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, I think, raised a number of vital issues, among which was the issue of the UK people domiciled in Zimbabwe. We had a voluntary resettlement scheme, because I am advised that there are actually 12,000 British nationals in Zimbabwe—that seems a large number—most, it is said, long-established and self-sufficient. But I am quite sure that there are some difficult cases as well, and we must keep an eye on them. The voluntary resettlement scheme has now ended, I am advised, so I do not know whether it is operating to help those people. It is obviously an issue that we must watch very closely.

The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, with his usual expertise, who also mentioned the diamond issue, turned to the whole question of rebuilding Zimbabwe and how investment confidence can be mobilised, and so on. I intend to make further comments on that in a few minutes, if the noble Lord will allow me.

The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned the huge refugee problem, with literally millions of people housed or camped in South Africa as a result of the refugee exodus. These are very serious problems, which we are discussing with the South Africans all the time, and which will create more challenges in future that we have yet to solve. But we are very much aware of them.

The noble Baroness covered the broad sweep of these matters, as one would expect, and asked for a number of responses, which I think that I shall cover in the next few minutes before I close. She asked about HIV mortality; I have not got the answer and shall have to send that to her. Nor do I have a really detailed assessment, because it is not actually very clear, as to whether the 51 per cent ownership of projects or incoming investment is still valid, or whether it ever was—whether it was just a statement from President Mugabe and was never enacted in law. I do not know the details, but I shall supply them to the noble Baroness, because they are rather crucial in creating the atmosphere in which funds begin to flow into Zimbabwe again.

Having covered those areas, I shall address one or two more questions and put the matter in more general terms. The troubled history of Zimbabwe in recent years is very well known to your Lordships. It is also known that its essence is rotten governance and the collapse of prosperity, along with the appalling violence that characterised the elections of 2008. Like your Lordships, I am encouraged that there has been some progress on economic stabilisation since the formation of the inclusive Government last February following mediation by the Southern African Development Community—SADC. Thanks to the inclusive Government, Zimbabwe is for most people a safer and better place to live today than it was in 2008. Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai made a very brave decision to enter into an agreement for the sake of the Zimbabwean people. We should therefore do as much as we can to help make a success of the inclusive Government arrangements. That is not to say that Zimbabwe does not face continuous and enormous challenges, some of which are worsening, as we have heard. But at least the inclusive Government are there, even if they do not turn out to be the underpinning of the long-term solution that we all want to see.

There have been some successes, however, most notably in economic reform. Just over a year ago Zimbabwe faced the greatest hyperinflation in economic history, the shops were empty and productivity had collapsed. Now urban shops are full again and the IMF predicts modest growth of around 2.5 per cent this year—the sort of figure that we could do with here. Not everyone is in a position to benefit from this improvement, but economic regeneration has provided some local employment and enabled the Finance Ministry to benefit from modestly increased revenue. In recognition of the progress achieved in creating the conditions for greater macroeconomic stability under Finance Minister Tendai Biti, the UK supported the restoration of Zimbabwe’s voting rights at the IMF.

As noble Lords observed, a year ago our newspapers were full of horrors about the cholera epidemic when 4,000 people died. Now, thanks to the inclusive Government and the support of donors, including our own DfID, doctors, nurses and teachers are being paid and the schools and hospitals are open again. Donor efforts to improve sanitation have helped to avoid a repeat of the epidemic. Far fewer Zimbabweans now require food aid, but difficulties remain. Parents struggle to afford school fees or meet charges for health services and unemployment is extremely high, but the situation is undeniably better and we should applaud the efforts of the reformers who have driven this progress.

Our own support has played a key role in enabling the reformers to improve service provision and improve prospects for the people of Zimbabwe. I will not have time to go into all the aspects of DfID’s £60 million investment in Zimbabwe last year but that was its largest aid package ever, and it has gone to improve the supply and availability of food for up to 3 million people by providing seeds and fertilisers to boost smallholder farming. It has also gone to basic education. All of this assistance has gone to the people who need it most. DfID has also supported activities that more directly support reform through a contribution to the process to develop a new constitution for Zimbabwe, and to improve budgeting and wider financial management.

Although it is the economic and social recovery that is the more noticeable, there have been some limited political reforms. Your Lordships may be surprised to know—I certainly was—that there are now no convicted political prisoners in Zimbabwe. All those who were imprisoned before the creation of the inclusive Government have now been released, although regrettably many are on bail with their prosecutions pending. There have been notable acquittals, noted by your Lordships today, including those of human rights defender Jestina Mukuko and Deputy Minister designate Roy Bennett—I do not quite know whether he has been reinstated in his position, as the noble Baroness asked me, but I can find out. Human rights, electoral and media commissions have also been established, with the potential to create conditions for credible elections. I would make more comments on developments regarding newspapers, which the noble Lord, Lord St John, mentioned, but I do not have time to do so.

There have been tinges of political reform, but of course the pace of that is very disappointing. A great deal of work remains to be done. We welcome the granting of licences to independent papers; it is equally important that journalists should be able to report freely and without fear of unjust prosecution. True friends of Zimbabwe should therefore hope to see the Government of Zimbabwe take further steps in this regard, including the repeal of repressive legislation. Relatively few Zimbabweans have access to newspapers but many have access to radio and, in towns, television. It was therefore disturbing to hear reports of recent attempts by so-called “war veterans” to control access to radios in rural areas. It is vital that Zimbabweans have access to a wide range of political views for the constitutional reform process to develop an effective way.

There are challenges, too, on the economic front, as the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, and others said. Investor confidence will return only if transparent, accountable government and the rule of law are established. It will remain low while arbitrary, violent farm seizures continue and foreign businesses are deterred from investing as a result of an ill conceived indigenisation programme. Let me make it clear that it is the means by which indigenisation is achieved rather than the end that is of concern to potential investors.

I have much more to say, but time forbids. This has been a powerful and effective debate. Successful and sustainable elections alone can free Zimbabweans to build a prosperous, stable and democratic future. We look forward to Zimbabwe once again providing inspiration across the continent and serving as a force for stability and economic growth. I thank noble Lords for their lively and profound contributions to this debate. The Government look forward to working closely with both Houses in pursuit of our shared goal of a better Zimbabwe.

15:35

[Lord St John of Bletso]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive reply. I am also pleased that he mentioned at the outset why Zimbabwe is such an important subject for this country.

I apologise for overrunning my speech; I rather naively thought that I had more time and got rather carried away. I am extremely grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken with their vast experience and expertise. They certainly covered all the key issues, including respect for the rule of law, transparency and good governance, land reform, the role of the Commonwealth—I sincerely hope that one of these days Zimbabwe will rejoin the Commonwealth—and of course the important subject of the Zimbabwean diaspora. I fear that until dual citizenship is allowed to Zimbabweans living abroad, many will be prevented from returning to their home country. Other subjects were the challenges of infrastructure—specifically power and water—and the IMF report, which the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, mentioned. I am delighted to see her speaking from the Front Bench again.

I was also pleased that the Zimbabwean ambassador, Gabriel Machinga, was able to join us today, as well as David Banks, who has played such an important role for the Zimbabwe All-Party Parliamentary Group. I hope that we will continue to have constructive dialogue to promote change in Zimbabwe. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion withdrawn.

House adjourned at 3.37 pm.