House of Commons

Thursday 1st July 2010 Commons Chamber

Thursday 1 July 2010

The House met at half-past Ten o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 1st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 1st July 2010 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

1. What his policy is on the building of energy-from-waste incinerators.

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)]

We support modern energy generation from waste where local communities want it and where it makes good environmental sense. It is the responsibility of local authority managers and planners, and the local authorities themselves of course, to decide on the best waste management arrangements in their areas. Recognising the concern that incineration can raise, the Government are committed to a huge expansion in energy from waste using anaerobic digestion, and we are taking steps to drive progress and greater ambition in that area. In Germany, for example, combustion recovery energy-from-waste plants provide 7.5% of renewable energy.

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. In light of the policy, does he understand the concerns of my constituents in Shepshed, who are facing the building of an incinerator at Newhurst quarry, which is both a site of special scientific interest and on the edge of the national forest, as well as another possible incinerator not 6 miles away? Will he encourage local authorities seriously to pursue alternative waste management strategies?

[Chris Huhne]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. The latest scientific evidence on the health effects of modern municipal waste incinerators—this might be reassuring for her constituents—was reviewed independently by the Health Protection Agency. Its report, published in September 2009, concluded that although it is not possible to rule out adverse health effects completely, any potential damage from modern, well-run and regulated incinerators is likely to be so small as to be undetectable.

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

I commend to the Secretary of State the report on energy-from-waste issues by the New Local Government Network, which I had a hand in writing a couple of years ago. In particular, will he consider ameliorating some of the concerns that residents can have about incinerators, even the new generation incinerators? Although, as he says, they can be quite successful, local people get very concerned about them. Given the controversies that can arise, giving back to local residents the proceeds from the sale of some of the energy generated could make them slightly more palatable.

[Chris Huhne]

That is certainly an interesting model. It has been tried with other schemes, such as with wind turbines. I know of a wind farm in the highlands where that was the case. It certainly helps to get local support for particular schemes. However, fundamentally it has to be a local decision for the local authority. Local authorities know very well that we want to recycle first before going through to waste and energy recovery, but very high rates of recycling and energy from waste can co-exist. In the Netherlands, for example, there is a 65% recycling rate with 33% energy from waste. Local authorities must make their own decisions on this, but if they get the waste hierarchy right they can get the whole mix right.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

2. What plans he has for the development of nuclear power in the UK.

The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne): The Government are committed to removing any unnecessary obstacles and allowing the construction of new nuclear power stations to contribute to our energy security and climate change goals, provided that they receive no public subsidy. The Government will complete the drafting of the nuclear national policy statement, which will be put before Parliament for ratification as soon as possible. The Office for Nuclear Development continues. The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), has announced a new streamlined system to replace the Infrastructure Planning Commission. We will publish an updated timetable for the production of all national policy statements, including the energy national policy statements, later in the summer. On new public subsidies, the former and new Chief Secretaries to the Treasury have pointed out that there is no money left.

[Ian Lavery]

The Secretary of State has referred to nuclear power and nuclear energy as a tried, tested and failed source of energy with huge costs and huge risks. That is in stark contrast to the policy of the Tory Government. Given this huge conflict in policies within the coalition, will the Secretary of State tell the House what impact those differences will have on the future energy requirements of the UK and, in particular, on the development of new nuclear plants?

[Chris Huhne]

The hon. Gentleman knows that it was precisely because there were very clear differences between the Conservative part of the coalition and the Liberal Democrat part of the coalition that we dealt with that as one of the key issues—we reached agreement on how we would treat it—in the first coalition agreement. We set out very clearly that there will be a framework in which there will be no public subsidy for nuclear, but that if investors come forward with proposals they will without any doubt be able to get them through the House of Commons, as there is a majority on the hon. Gentleman’s side of the House in favour of nuclear power, and the Conservative party is in favour of nuclear power.

I must say that the hon. Gentleman does a slight injustice to my personal position, which has been very clear. As an economist, I am sceptical about the economics of nuclear power, but I recognise that it is entirely up to investors to make that decision. If there is no public subsidy and if investors think that it is worth taking the risk, as they increasingly do, looking forward to rising oil and gas prices and a rising carbon price, they will take those decisions.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry, but I must tell the House that progress is simply too slow. We need snappier questions and snappier answers.

[Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that he will not be put off building nuclear power stations by exaggerated fears of the dangers of disposing of nuclear waste in one or two sites, especially as those who promote those fears seem to have no doubts about the problems of sequestering CO₂ from carbon storage and capture in thousands of sites for thousands of years?

[Chris Huhne]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point about the importance of continuing the Government’s efforts to deal with the legacy of nuclear waste and decommissioning as a reassurance to those involved in new nuclear build that the problem will be dealt with properly. The Government have that very much in hand.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State explain why it was right to give a grant to Nissan to make electric cars—a proposal we support—but wrong to provide a commercial loan to help a British company, Sheffield Forgemasters, to be at the centre of the nuclear supply chain, particularly in light of the admission by the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), that £110 million would have come back to the Government from that loan and that the Government would have got extra money if the company had made a profit?

[Mr Speaker]

The Secretary of State will keep his answer within the confines of nuclear power.

[Chris Huhne]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the loan to Sheffield Forgemasters was not a commercial loan. If it had been, it would have been arranged through the banks and not the Government. It was precisely because of the public subsidy element and the fact that that was not affordable that the Government decided not to proceed with it.

[Edward Miliband]

The Secretary of State is quite wrong about this, because the money was set aside from the strategic investment fund. A process was gone through at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills about whether the loan would give value for money, and the Industrial Development Advisory Board concluded that it would be. Is not the truth that we have a combination of the short-sightedness of the Conservative party, which sees no role for Government in creating the green industries of the future, and the prejudices of the right hon. Gentleman against nuclear power?

[Chris Huhne]

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that my prejudices, whether they exist or not other than in his imagination, did not enter into this decision. It was simply unaffordable in the context of the fiscal legacy that he and his friends left this House. We have it on no less an authority than his colleague the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury that there is no money left.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

3. What plans he has to take account of local public opinion in determining the location of onshore wind farms.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)]

We want communities to benefit directly from any wind farms that they host. That is why we will allow councils to keep the additional business rates paid by wind farms and support communities in having a stake in appropriately sited renewable energy projects such as wind farms.

[Matthew Hancock]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware of the proposal to build a wind farm near to Stoke by Clare in my constituency, which is in the area of the country that was most often painted by John Constable? What powers will local people have to decide whether that would be appropriate?

[Charles Hendry]

I am very much aware of that proposal because my hon. Friend has been so assiduous in promoting the concerns of his constituents. We are very keen to ensure that such developments have local support. We want to see more local community partnerships in this area and more financial benefit going to those communities. Of course, planning decisions should take account of environmental concerns as well.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has mentioned the coalition Government’s new streamlined planning policy. Does that include, in relation to wind power and large wind farms, a Welsh dimension? Will the Welsh Assembly Government be consulted on it and will there be Welsh representation on the new planning unit?

[Charles Hendry]

We have had discussions with members of the Welsh Assembly Government and we are keen to find a way of continuing to make key infrastructure decisions within the Department of Energy and Climate Change, but of course we understand the desire of local communities in Wales to have their voices fully heard.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

In addition to considering the opinions of the public and residents regarding the location of wind farms, does the Minister plan to give any guidance to local councils on how close to private homes such wind farms may be built?

[Charles Hendry]

We have looked at that issue. It seems rather peculiar to set a minimum distance for a wind farm but not for a nuclear power station. We need sensible and sound national policy guidance that enables local councils to make the appropriate decisions, but we will continue to look at all the environmental issues relating to the applications.

[Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

The Conservative manifesto said that 15% of energy should come from renewable sources such as wind. The Secretary of State said that the proportion should be 40%. Who won?

[Charles Hendry]

The right hon. Lady is very much aware that we have a legally binding requirement from the EU that renewable sources must supply 15% of our total energy needs by 2020. The former Labour Government set a target for achieving that, whereas we are working out how to deliver it—something that they signally failed to do—in order to make sure that we have a robust policy that stands the test of time.

[Joan Ruddock]

So the Tories won again. In our manifesto, we said that every council should have a local target to help meet the national target, which was indeed 15%. The Liberal Democrats agreed with that. Is that now the Government’s policy, or have the Tories won again? Will Liberal Democrat and Tory councils still be saying, “Not in my back yard”?

[Charles Hendry]

The right hon. Lady fails to understand how the coalition works. We have—[Interruption.] We have identified ways to work very constructively together. We are absolutely committed to the principle of localism, which means allowing local people, communities and councils to decide on the issues that affect them most. That lies at the heart of our approach, but we are working out how to deliver on our policies—something that she significantly failed to do in government. It is fine to have ambitious targets, but without the real road map for 2020—and way beyond, to 2050—that we are putting in place, there was no hope of delivering on her high ambitions.

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

4. What steps he is taking to increase the security of the UK’s energy supply.

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)]

The coalition agreement set out that we will reform energy markets to deliver security of supply and investment in low-carbon energy, and to ensure fair competition, including a review of the role of Ofgem. We will instruct Ofgem to establish a security guarantee of energy supplies, and we will give an annual energy statement to Parliament to set strategic energy policy and guide investment.

In addition, we are bringing forward a green deal as part of the key legislation for the first Session. That will help to close the gap between energy demand and supply in the cheapest way possible, through energy-saving measures.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. He is an economist, and I am an engineer—

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

A financial engineer!

[Nadhim Zahawi]

Actually, I am a chemical engineer. I believe that engineers should be taken into account when energy security is under consideration. Would my right hon. Friend consider appointing a Government chief engineer to feed into the thinking process?

[Chris Huhne]

I have enormous respect for engineers. There are an awful lot of them in my constituency, which is a very manufacturing constituency. Therefore, I think and hope that the country will go on providing greater status to engineers than has often been the case in the past. I am afraid that the question of whether the Government should appoint a chief engineer is above my pay grade, but perhaps my hon. Friend would like to raise it at Prime Minister’s questions.

[Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North) (Lab)]

The UK’s energy import dependency will increase over the next 10 or 20 years, at a time when global demand for energy could increase by 40% over 10 or so years. Given that, what plans are there to reorganise the machinery of government, so that DECC, the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and other agencies can get a better assessment and grip of the geopolitical risks that the UK faces?

[Chris Huhne]

I am very grateful for that highly intelligent question which, given his interest in this area, is what I would expect from the right hon. Gentleman. The National Security Council is explicitly charged with the co-ordination of energy security. That will go across Government: it will not be confined to my Department, but will include the Foreign Office and other interested Departments.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, in that the figures show that, on the worst possible projections, our energy import dependence may well rise from 27% to over half in the space of just 10 years. This is a really key issue, which we need to address.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

5. What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on increasing the number of green jobs in the economy.

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)]

The move to a low-carbon and eco-friendly economy is a key priority for the coalition Government. Issues relating to increasing the number of green jobs in the economy were discussed when I met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in June, recently in the context of low-emission vehicles when I met the Secretary of State for Transport, and at the regional Cabinet on Tuesday.

[Alex Cunningham]

I am grateful for the answer. North-east England and in particular the Tees valley have major opportunities to develop green jobs and approaches to energy generation that could make a significant contribution to the national economy. That would be further boosted if the Government stood by the Lib-Dem election promise of £400 million-worth of investment in former shipyards to create those green jobs. Can he please tell me what commitment there is to support the development of demonstration activities such as carbon capture and storage, and to the investment promised by the Lib-Dems but omitted from the coalition’s programme for government?

[Chris Huhne]

Let me make it clear that we continue to be committed to carbon capture and storage, and the four demonstration projects are going ahead. It is a key part of our energy strategy for the future, because it is the swing form of electricity generation. If we have intermittent wind and nuclear comes on stream if investors make those decisions, which because of the economics will be running at full tilt, gas and coal carbon capture and storage will be the key elements. That is a clear commitment—I hope—across the House.

We are also looking at the provision through the ports competition scheme of facilities for offshore wind. I was particularly impressed when I recently visited the All Energy conference in Aberdeen and talked, for example, to Burntisland Fabrications about the way in which it has converted from oil and gas to offshore wind.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

One of the projects in my constituency which has a great deal of potential to create green jobs is the wave hub project in Hayle. One of the obstacles to taking that forward is the lack of a strategic environmental assessment. Under the previous Government, the Department was slow to look at this issue. Is the Secretary of State willing to have conversations with officials about how to speed things up?

[Chris Huhne]

I am happy for my hon. Friend to write with the details. We will certainly do whatever we can to speed up the project. Wave is a key new technology which can provide us not only with our renewable energy needs but give the UK a real comparative advantage.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Given that it has been admitted in a written answer that the coalition has no target for green jobs, would the Secretary of State like to borrow ours? It was 1.2 million by 2015.

[Chris Huhne]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her new role and I am glad to see that she is getting stuck in. I thought the whole point about new Labour was that it believed in a market economy. The last sort of organisation that set targets for jobs sector by sector was the Soviet Union’s Gosplan, and we all know what happened to that.

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

6. What recent estimate he has made of the likely cost to the public purse of the implementation of the Government’s commitment to reduce the level of carbon dioxide emissions by 10% in the next 12 months.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

The target will be met at no overall cost to the public purse. Where savings cannot be made through no-cost measures and behavioural change, Departments will be responsible for finding any additional investment in their existing budgets to deliver the Government’s commitment, or using innovative shared saving contracts or similar energy service company—ESCO— arrangements. Showing real leadership in this area is an important part of our plan to be the greenest Government ever and will help us to deliver savings from reduced energy bills, but as I have said, it is only the first step in a long-term strategy to reduce Government emissions and increase efficiency across the whole public sector.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but these ministerial answers are simply too long. Something has got to be done for next time. Let us get it right.

[Gregg McClymont]

In opposition, the coalition parties demanded a 10% reduction year on year in CO₂ emissions across the public sector. In government, they now pledge these reductions only across the central Government estate. Why the retreat?

[Gregory Barker]

The hon. Gentleman is slightly misinformed as to what we promised. We said that there was a clear need for Government to take responsibility for getting their own house in order, which the previous Administration signally failed to do in 13 years. We are committed to 10% in the coming year, but we see it as part of a much more ambitious longer-term strategy across the public sector.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

7. What steps he plans to take to introduce the proposed green deal on domestic energy efficiency; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

In the emergency Budget the coalition Government confirmed their intention to establish a green deal for all households and for business. The green deal will enable individuals to invest in home energy-efficiency improvements that can pay for themselves from the savings in energy bills, without any up-front costs and without their incurring any form of personal debt or charge on their property. We have committed in the Queen’s speech to legislate in a first Session energy Bill for finance tied to the energy meter, which should allow for the full green deal to be available by 2012. Only yesterday the Government announced that we are extending the carbon emissions reduction target through to the end of 2012.

[Andrew Stephenson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that very full answer. In my constituency many households are living in fuel poverty. Will my hon. Friend explain exactly how households will be able directly to access the grant to help tackle fuel poverty and reduce fuel bills?

[Gregory Barker]

The green deal is not a grant; it is designed to be repaid through the savings made on bills over 25 years. The beauty of the green deal is that, unlike any previous proposal, it will be totally unrelated to the household’s ability to pay. It will simply be repaid, regardless of the credit scoring or wealth status of the individuals in the household. Of course, other measures will always be needed to make sure that fuel-vulnerable and hard-to-treat properties have direct financial support.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that another source of useful efficiency savings in the domestic sector would be ground source heat pumps, as part of the renewables initiative? I see the Secretary of State nodding. Through his Minister, I can tell him that a company in my constituency which is very big in this area has jobs that it can create and orders in hand that it is ready to commit to. It seeks a meeting with the Secretary of State; it is not for the Minister to reply on that, but I would be grateful if the matter could be taken seriously in the Department.

[Gregory Barker]

We are very supportive of new technology, and I am well aware of the potential of ground source heat pumps. We want to enable a whole universe of new technologies to be part of the renewables solution. If the hon. Gentleman’s constituents would like to meet me, I would be very happy to do so.

[Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)]

8. What recent assessment he has made of the potential for former onshore oil fabrication construction sites to be used for construction activity relating to sustainable forms of energy; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)]

Many UK sites have potential for development in areas such as offshore wind, as indicated in the “UK Offshore Wind Ports Prospectus”, and for wave and tidal energy. Many of them are in Scotland, where the Scottish Government are currently taking a strategic approach to the sector.

[Mr Kennedy]

In thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply I draw his attention to the great potential offered by the Nigg site, which is built around the largest dry dock in Europe, and, on the west coast of my constituency, the Kishorn site, which successfully contributed to massive North sea oil platform construction in days gone by. Will my right hon. Friend work as closely as possible with the Scottish Government, the Highland council and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to promote internationally the interests of those two sites?

[Chris Huhne]

I am very pleased to reassure my right hon. Friend that my officials have already advised me about the potential for Kishorn and Nigg, and we will be working closely with all the relevant authorities to try to create the maximum number of jobs and make sure that their potential is realised to the full.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement. He was scornful about Gosplan a few moments ago, but there is a role for Government, as the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy) indicated. The Secretary of State really cannot write Government out of government.

[Chris Huhne]

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am not one—nor are any of my ministerial colleagues—to write Government out of government. There is an enormous difference between the Government’s facilitating and setting a framework for the development of decisions made principally by market actors and what the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) was suggesting, which was a sectoral jobs target. I have not seen that in any economy in western Europe or any developed market economy; it has been seen only in the former plan economies.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

9. What his policy is on the construction of electricity transmission lines in designated landscapes; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)]

It is for transmission network companies to put forward proposals for new transmission lines. The regulatory price control and planning processes then determine the appropriate balance between the need, costs and impacts of transmission lines in each location. Each case has to be considered on its merits.

[Tessa Munt]

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that the people of Wells in particular and Somerset generally—some 26,000 people—are hugely dependent on tourism? That is inextricably linked with the environment, the landscape and people’s health, and even though a large area of my constituency has the potential to become the 17th world heritage site, potential is not enough in itself to protect people from the environmental vandalism, attendant health risks and other matters that come with placing 152-ft pylons across the landscape.

[Charles Hendry]

My hon. Friend made those points very effectively in her eloquent maiden speech yesterday, on which I congratulate her. I know that she and her constituents will make active representations to National Grid during its consultation process. That is absolutely the right way for her to take her concerns forward, and I urge her to take every opportunity to do so.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Have the Tory-Lib Dem Front-Bench team detected that their lofty ideals are being frustrated at every turn by every Government Back Bencher who is frustrating the development of a real green policy by constantly putting forward objections to any proposals for development in their constituency? How will the Minister solve that problem?

[Charles Hendry]

It is called local democracy, to which we are absolutely committed. If people have concerns about 150-ft pylons going through their communities, they should be able to express them. If people have concerns about new development, they should be allowed to express them. We are trying to ensure a realistic balance between bringing on stream renewable energy sources, which are in the national interest, and allowing communities to express their views.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

10. What his plans are for expenditure on the development of carbon capture and storage technology for gas-fired power stations.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. The Government will continue public sector investment in carbon capture and storage—CCS—technology for four coal-fired power stations. The Committee on Climate Change has recommended that we give serious consideration to funding at least one gas CCS project as part of that programme, and we are carefully evaluating whether a demonstration project on gas would prove beneficial and add value to the programme.

[Julian Smith]

Will the Minister confirm that the Government are committed to providing the long-term infrastructure investments that will make the Yorkshire and Humber CCS cluster a worldwide success?

[Charles Hendry]

My hon. Friend puts his finger on one of the most important issues that the previous Government failed to address. If we are to make a real success of carbon capture and storage, we have to develop the infrastructure of oversized pipelines and encourage clusters of those facilities in certain areas. We have to take a long-term strategic view, and a good deal of work is being done in Yorkshire and Humberside, on which I congratulate all those involved.

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

Has the Minister had any discussions with the Scottish Government about the development of carbon capture in Scotland, and in particular has he received any representations on the proposed new coal-fired plant at Hunterston?

[Charles Hendry]

I had an initial discussion with the First Minister last week, and we are determined to work closely through the respect agenda to ensure that the taking forward of devolved issues is fully within the Scottish Government’s remit. We want clean coal to play an active part in our energy policy, but it must be genuinely clean coal.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

11. If he will bring forward proposals to increase the surplus of projected electricity generation over demand after 2015.

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)]

It will be important to ensure that the UK has secure electricity supplies and an adequate capacity margin over the course of this decade and into the 2020s. Our programme for government is clear: we will reform energy markets to deliver an appropriate security of supply mechanism. The lights will stay on.

[Mr Hollobone]

Will the Secretary of State be kind enough to tell the House, how close we are likely to come, on current projections, to having major blackouts throughout the country in the second half of the decade?

[Chris Huhne]

We will come forward with a lot more detail on that in the annual energy statement, which the hon. Gentleman will be able to examine for himself, but I assure him, as I said, that the lights will stay on. Inevitably, as new generating capacity comes on stream we will see the margin increase, and as the economy recovers we can expect that margin to shrink. However, he should also bear in mind what is going on with energy saving and, particularly, the development of smart meters and smart grids, whereby in the long run there will be a possibility of, for example, turning off freezers during power peaks, to reduce the need for electricity generation.

[Mr Speaker]

I gently encourage the Secretary of State to face the House. I understand the natural inclination, but he must face the House and address the House.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s faith in market solutions is touching—like that of all those with great religious fervour. However, can he give an example of anywhere in the world where the market has actually allocated secure energy supplies?

[Chris Huhne]

The hon. Gentleman should first be aware of what happens with some of the schemes in the United States—we are looking at them very closely—where there is a forward market in supply. That ensures that distributors have to buy forward supplies, while they can also, for example, buy forward commitments to energy saving, and in that way assure security. However, I would not want him to run away with the idea that I am somehow a market fundamentalist. I merely pointed out to the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) that there is an enormous difference between setting a good framework as regards this aspect of regulation and legislation and making micro-management decisions of the kind that the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) seems to want us to make.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

12. What recent representations he has received on his plans to ensure that new nuclear power stations receive no public subsidy.

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. The coalition agreement is clear that there will be no public subsidy for new nuclear power stations—a view that I have communicated to a variety of stakeholders with a diverse range of views. In particular, I have received strong representations from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

[Mike Crockart]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that while the costs of generating nuclear power may well be competitive, there is still considerable work to be done to ensure that the costs—as yet unknown—of decommissioning and waste disposal are included in any calculations and do not end up posing a significant risk to future taxpayers?

[Chris Huhne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that matter. The effect of failing to take account of these costs can be seen very dramatically in my own Department’s budget for dealing with the nuclear legacy of the very many years when we failed to make adequate provision for waste and decommissioning. It is precisely because of those warnings that we in the ministerial team are absolutely determined that that will not happen again.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State implied that my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and the shadow Secretary of State were in some way misleading—in fact, I think he referred to fantasy—in their suggestions about his prejudice against nuclear power. Does he recall his own representation of 5 November 2007, in which he said,

“Ministers must stop the side-show of new nuclear power stations now”?

Can he reflect on that representation and see whether he is going to take it on board?

[Chris Huhne]

The hon. Gentleman knows very well that my line on new nuclear has always been based on scepticism about the economics. As he knows, no nuclear power station has been built on commercial terms anywhere in the world since Three Mile Island. That may be about to change because of the framework of prospective oil and gas prices and carbon prices. It is up to investors to take those decisions.

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

13. What his Department’s priorities are for the implementation of the EU’s carbon emissions reduction target of 30% by 2020.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

The Government believe that despite the current challenging outlook for a binding global agreement on carbon emissions, the EU should be taking a more ambitious leadership role. We will be urging our European partners to agree an early EU move to the 30% reduction target. That would put Europe firmly on a path to a low-carbon economy, stimulating innovation and efficiency and meeting the twin challenges of climate change and energy security. The details of how the EU would implement a higher target are yet to be agreed.

[Greg Mulholland]

I thank the Minister for that answer and for the leadership that the Government are giving on this issue. Can he give an indication of the realistic possibility of the EU’s actually hitting that target; and are other countries as committed to it as we are in this country?

[Gregory Barker]

I think it is fair to say that we are taking a leadership role. There are concerns among other partners about moving to a more ambitious target, but we will be playing a very positive and constructive role in Europe, and we hope to persuade them of our strong argument.

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

May I urge the Minister to come to Stoke-on-Trent in the near future to talk to the British Ceramics Confederation and pottery businesses to see how they are implementing their carbon reductions while trying to remain competitive in an increasingly globalised market?

[Gregory Barker]

I would be very happy to come to Stoke-on-Trent. It is important that as well as having an ambitious target we understand its impact, particularly on manufacturing industry and efficiency in a global marketplace.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

One of the most important European initiatives for our future energy supply and the efficient implementation of renewable energy is the European super-grid. The previous Labour Government equivocated over the super-grid; what is the view of this Government?

[Gregory Barker]

We can see the absolute merits of a super-grid, but we do not yet have a fully evolved policy. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will play a key role in helping that policy emerge.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

14. What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on carbon pricing; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

The current carbon price is simply not providing a sufficient incentive for low-carbon UK investment. That is one of the reasons why we are pushing for the EU to increase its target for cutting emissions to a 30% reduction by 2020. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed that when he met our European counterparts at the Environment Council on 11 June.

[Mr Weir]

I thank the Minister for that answer, but is not the truth that the floor in the carbon price is a way of giving a hidden subsidy to new nuclear power stations? Given the difficulties that already exist in the emissions trading scheme with the free permits being given to heavy industry, how will he convince European partners to go along with the idea? If he cannot, is it the Government’s intention to introduce a carbon floor price in the UK alone?

[Gregory Barker]

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget that we would publish plans for a UK carbon floor price in the autumn. It is a key part of our plans for a transition to a low-carbon economy. We see that transition as an advantage and a competitive economic opportunity for the UK, but critical to that is providing a long-term strategic framework for industry to invest with confidence and certainty.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

16. What steps he is taking to increase the security of the UK’s energy supply.

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)]

I have to say, I thought we had had this question on security of energy supply before.

[Mr Speaker]

I say to the Secretary of State very gently that that does sometimes happen at Question Time. The fact that something has been raised once has never inhibited several colleagues from wanting to raise it over and over again—nothing new there.

[Chris Huhne]

Excuse my reluctance to be repetitive, Mr Speaker.

We are determined to increase the UK’s security of supply, for precisely the reasons that I gave in answer to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) earlier. Our energy import dependence will increase dramatically over the next 10 years as oil and gas production from the North sea gradually diminishes. We have to work on our renewables and on energy saving to try to ensure that we are energy-secure. One element of that is not just physical security but resilience against price shock.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for reminding me of his answer, but I shall ask him another question. Does he have any plans to support the development of greater gas storage in Britain, both as a means of enhanced energy security and as a method of developing our gas wholesale market?

[Chris Huhne]

My hon. Friend will perhaps be reassured to know that yes, plans are under way to increase gas storage. That is likely to continue. There needs to be greater gas storage, and that will help to provide us with greater security of supply.

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

17. What his policy is on the development of civil nuclear power.

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)]

The Government are committed to removing any unnecessary obstacles and allowing the construction of new nuclear power stations to contribute to our energy security and climate change goals, provided that they receive no public subsidy.

[Meg Munn]

Two weeks after the decision was made, will the Secretary of State finally tell the people of Sheffield whether the decision on Sheffield Forgemasters was taken because of that coalition policy of no public subsidy? Yes or no?

[Chris Huhne]

I can assure the hon. Lady that the decision on Sheffield Forgemasters was taken because the particular project concerned was simply not affordable. I refer her to the earlier answer that I gave, stating that not just the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury but the former one has assured us that there is no money left.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

19. What steps he is taking to encourage the development of wave and tidal energy technology in the UK.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

We are committed to harnessing the tremendous benefits that a successful wave and tidal renewable energy sector can bring to the UK and are considering specific measures, such as marine energy parks, to achieve that.

[Mark Menzies]

Will the Minister also take steps to ensure that, when it comes to wave and tidal power, Britain leads the world in that technology, and that we do not allow the technology and the jobs to go overseas?

[Gregory Barker]

The hon. Gentleman makes a key point. Under the last Government, 95% of the infrastructure and turbines for one of the largest offshore wind projects was built abroad. We cannot allow that to happen, and we have a policy of marine parks to ensure that that does not happen with this nascent, potentially world-beating British technology.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Will the Minister reaffirm the commitment by his Government to the Severn estuary tidal project to make genuine use of the tidal power there? Can he give a progress statement on the consultation to date?

[Gregory Barker]

I understand the hon. Lady’s interest in this potentially important project. Ministers are currently considering the evidence from the two-year cross-Government Severn tidal power feasibility study with a view to deciding whether the Government can support a tidal power scheme on the Severn estuary, and if so, on what terms. I cannot say anything today, but we expect to make an announcement shortly.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

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

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)]

I have several engagements in the diary.

[Mr Chope]

That is a very reassuring answer—[Laughter.] Every family in this country is paying extra on its electricity bill to subsidise non-nuclear wind and solar power. Will the Secretary of State ensure that in future each electricity bill spells out in terms the extent of the extra money that that household has to pay to meet this Government’s policies in relation to the renewables obligation?

[Chris Huhne]

There will be measures in the energy Bill that we will bring forward later in this Session to improve the transparency of electricity and gas bills. As part of the annual energy statement, we are also committed to ensuring that there is complete transparency about the levels of cross-subsidy for all forms of activity in which the Department is involved.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

May I say to the Secretary of State that the free-market philosophy that he increasingly embraces has led to the announcement this week of the abolition of the regional development agencies? There is real dismay across the country about that. How does he think the abolition will help to promote balanced economic growth and green jobs?

[Chris Huhne]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that we are very committed to ensuring that there is growth across the UK, especially in those regions where unemployment is high. That has been a focus of our activity. I do not think that the regional development agencies in their entirety are necessarily the best way of ensuring that, but we are going ahead with local economic partnerships and a range of other measures to ensure jobs and growth in the regions.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

T4. The Environment Agency has just failed to make a determination on a much delayed application for a 100 KW hydroelectric scheme on the weir at Avoncliff in my constituency. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the energy potential of the River Avon and how we can prevent the Environment Agency from being an obstacle to making progress in the future?

[Chris Huhne]

I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those issues. The Environment Agency has a statutory responsibility that it has to discharge in that case and I would not want to comment on its role.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T2. The Minister will, I hope, be aware that there is real uncertainty and nervousness in the energy industry about the decision to scrap the Infrastructure Planning Commission, which is based in Bristol. What reassurances can he give me that whatever replaces that body will not delay the approval of infrastructure projects and will provide certainty to the industry so that it can plan ahead?

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)]

I hope the hon. Lady will have seen the reaction from the major energy companies this week to the statement made by the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). It showed that there is absolute clarity. There will not be a delay and there will be a strict time scale for making decisions in these matters. However, we are determined to introduce greater democratic accountability and to ensure that the risk therefore of judicial review can be reduced.

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

T5. The loft insulation programme is most welcome from the point of view of saving money for households and for the environmental benefit. However, can the Secretary of State assure the House that there will be a particular focus on the vulnerable and those most susceptible to fuel poverty?

[Chris Huhne]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Loft insulation is key. It has a very short payback period—less than a year in many cases—and he is absolutely right that there must be a focus, particularly on the fuel-poor. One of the great difficulties in this area is that the energy use among the people in the bottom decile of income distribution is enormously varied—it varies by a factor of six—which makes it particularly difficult to reach them. Insulation and energy-efficiency measures are key to dealing with that problem.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

T3. Does the Secretary of State accept one of the main recommendations of the independent Committee on Climate Change report this week, which is that the Government need to do more to support the development of electric-powered vehicles? If so, does he not agree that it would be a short-sighted cut were the subsidies for the purchase of such vehicles to be removed in the comprehensive spending review?

[Chris Huhne]

The Government are committed to bringing forward low-emission vehicles. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is an Office for Low Emission Vehicles, which is run jointly by the Department for Transport, my Department and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and we recently had a meeting on the subject to progress the agenda. He can be assured that we are completely committed to it.

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

I urge the Minister, when electricity smart meters are in place, to look strongly at insisting that new build houses have solar panel roofs, especially in social housing, which will help to reduce fuel poverty.

[Charles Hendry]

We are absolutely determined to move forward rather more quickly on smart metering. The position that we inherited—to roll out smart metering by 2020—was pathetically unambitious, and we are determined to bring it forward by some years. It will bring exactly the benefits that my hon. Friend talks about: encouraging microgeneration, helping with fuel poverty and really helping us to move towards a low-carbon economy.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

T7. According to a recent Conservative party report, “Rebuilding Security”, the party advocates “policies designed for hunting” new UK oil reserves as well as offering “the right incentives to explore for and extract the remaining reserves of oil and gas”Does the Minister agree that a moratorium on all new deep-sea offshore drilling is essential, at least until a full investigation into the spill in the gulf of Mexico has been completed?

[Charles Hendry]

I do not agree with the hon. Lady on this issue. We have in place in the North sea the toughest environmental regime in the world. In the light of the tragedy in the gulf of Mexico, we have doubled the number of inspections and increased by half the number of inspectors. We have a very tough regime and we have a national interest in ensuring that we get the best possible return from the natural resources in the North sea.

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

Drax power station takes an enormous amount of natural material from constituencies such as Thirsk and Malton. It is also a renewable power supply and reduces CO₂ emissions. How do the Government think we can increase and encourage expenditure in this exciting form of renewable energy?

[Charles Hendry]

I am seeing the chief executive of Drax almost immediately after Question Time today, so I will have the opportunity to explore that further with her. The co-firing of biomass can make an important contribution, but we have to be certain that it is done sustainably. There are questions about the great deal of shipping involved in the transportation of biomass, but it can certainly make a contribution to reducing our carbon emissions.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

T8. I am sure the Secretary of State would agree that not only is he responsible for energy but that, as far as climate change goes, he has a duty to drive this policy through every aspect of Government. In that light, can he tell the House how many times this has been an agenda item before the Cabinet?

[Chris Huhne]

The hon. Gentleman is right that this is on the agenda across the Government. As I said earlier, we discussed this at, for example, the regional Cabinet meeting on Tuesday. We discussed the importance of green jobs and the impact that the growth of the green economy is likely to have, including outside the golden area of London and the south-east. That will remain a key focus in the Government’s work.

[Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)]

In my constituency there is a reapplication for a biofuel plant burning palm oil and jatropha. There is great fear that although they are renewable sources of energy, they are not sustainable. Can my hon. Friend please tell me what assessment he will be making of the eligibility of such fuels for renewables obligation certificates, which make such applications possible?

[Charles Hendry]

We are looking at the structure of ROCs at the moment. We are absolutely clear that biofuels have a role to play, but it must be sustainable. That point will be at the heart of the way in which we look forward on such issues.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

The Minister said earlier that he objected to the idea of 150-foot turbines near villages, so is there a planning rule of thumb emerging, of, say, 1, 2 or 5 km away?

[Charles Hendry]

I did not say that I objected to them; I said that local communities had the right to object to them. That goes to the heart of local democracy. What we are saying is that local voices have to be heard in the process, and we are absolutely committed to making that happen. We have not set a rule for how far wind turbines should be from habitation—we share that position with the previous Government—because the one house that they are near could be the house of the person who wants to put them up. Therefore, having a rule would be to take a completely self-defeating approach.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

The timber industry is a significant employer in Hexham. All of us support wood biomass, but there is currently a cross-party team, with Members from both the Labour Benches and our own, seeking to change the distorted energy subsidy for wood biomass. Would the ministerial team meet the cross-party team?

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

We are very clear that wood biomass has a key role to play, particularly in local energy economies, which we want to see developed to encourage a greater link between local communities and the energy that they consume—coppicing, for example, has great biodiversity as well as low-carbon advantages—so I would happily meet my hon. Friend and his team.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that no decision has yet been taken on the location of the headquarters of the proposed green investment bank? That being so, does he agree that Edinburgh would be an ideal location, particularly given what he just said about ensuring that green investment is not focused just in the south-east of England?

[Chris Huhne]

The hon. Gentleman knows that Edinburgh is an ideal location for many things, including a number of my hon. Friends. Decisions on the siting of the headquarters are perhaps a little way off, as we are still consulting on the exact shape of the investment bank, but I am sure that we will bear in mind the considerable advantages of his constituency when we come to make that judgment.

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

Is the Secretary of State aware that some extraordinary technological advances are being made by British private companies? One in particular—Marshall-Tufflex in my constituency—would like to come and see Ministers to show them the advances that it has made that could help with general carbon reduction.

[Gregory Barker]

As my hon. Friend knows, I have visited Marshall-Tufflex, which has some interesting and exciting products that could be a great help across the Government estate; indeed, I would be delighted to see the company while in office and in government.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

What discussions has the Minister had with his colleagues in relation to oil or gas supplies from the Falkland Islands?

[Chris Huhne]

The answer to that is that we have had discussions in Cabinet about the situation in the Falklands and the possibilities, in the longer run, of there being oil and gas, but they are not at the stage where decisions need to be taken. However, no doubt when the time comes an announcement will be made.

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

Following on from the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), may I ask the Minister whether any steps are being taken to look into evening out the tariffs for electricity usage by card meter payments and by billing? I believe that there is a differential, so are there any plans to sort that out and make it easier for everyone to pay the same tariff, purely and simply because that would lead to energy conservation?

[Charles Hendry]

We have been very concerned indeed about the relatively higher tariffs that people on prepayment meters pay for the electricity and gas that they use. Addressing that will be one of the most significant gains of smart metering. If we look at the experience of Northern Ireland, where smart meters have already been largely rolled out, we see that people on prepayment meters pay less than people on standard tariffs. That is the sort of gain that we want to achieve for people right across the United Kingdom.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Can the ministerial team tell me what their assessment is of the effect of the 25% cut facing universities on research into energy efficiency and environmental research generally?

[Chris Huhne]

The hon. Gentleman asks an important question about the likely impact on research and development. We will obviously assess that when we know more fully the shape of what will be happening in the wake of the comprehensive spending review, but tough decisions will have to be taken. As I have said already, the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury told us clearly: there is no money left.

Business of the House

Thursday 1st July 2010 Commons Chamber

11:30

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

Will the Deputy Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business for the week.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has given notice to the shadow Leader of the House and to you, Mr Speaker, that he is attending a memorial service this morning. I will therefore be announcing the business and answering questions on his behalf. The business for the week commencing 5 July will include:

Monday 5 July—Motion relating to the Clear Line of Sight project, followed by opposed private business named by the Chairman of Ways and Means for consideration.

Tuesday 6 July—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.

Wednesday 7 July—Opposition day [3rd allotted day]. There will be a full day’s debate on Government support for jobs and the unemployed. This debate will arise on an Opposition motion.



Thursday 8 July—General debate on defendant anonymity.

The provisional business for the week commencing 12 July will include:



Monday 12 July—Proceedings on the Finance Bill (day 1). At 10 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.

Tuesday 13 July—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill followed by proceedings on the Finance Bill (day 2).

Wednesday 14 July—Motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to counter-terrorism, followed by motion relating to police grant report, followed by motion to approve a European document relating to the European External Action Service.

Thursday 15 July—Proceedings on the Finance Bill (day 3).

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

Thursday 8 July—A debate on energy security.

[Ms Winterton]

I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for the business statement. I think it is in order to welcome him to his first business questions. I know that he has a long record of campaigning for respect for Parliament. Indeed, I was looking through his contributions to the last Parliament and noticed that he said Ministers should remember that

“their first responsibility in terms of information is to the House and nowhere else”.—[Official Report, 3 July 1998; Vol. 315, c. 657.]

I am sure that he was horrified when the Home Secretary was forced to come to the House to apologise for giving the media the statement on the immigration cap, which should have been given here.

Now at least the Home Secretary realised that this had been a step too far, but will the Deputy Leader of the House undertake to tick off the following offenders in respect of whom we would like to set up an early release of information scheme? First, there is the Defence Secretary for briefing on the departure of Sir Jock Stirrup. Secondly, there is the Secretary of State for Education for briefing on plans for schools. Thirdly, there is the Secretary of State for Health for briefing on the NHS operating framework. Then there is the entire Downing street staff for briefing on the whole Queen’s Speech. Then there is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has achieved a hat-trick here for briefing on spending cuts, financial reform and the Budget. Then there is the Secretary of State for Justice for briefing on prison reforms. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House can assure us that he has checked with the Foreign Secretary to ensure that nothing has been said to the media this morning that should have been said to the House first. I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the House will seize this opportunity to take up the cause for Parliament, as I know he would hate to be accused of saying one thing in opposition and another thing in government.

Speaking of that, I was leafing through the Conservative-Liberal Democrat programme for government only this morning and came across the section on Government transparency. It is well worth a read, especially the bit that says:

“We will create a new ‘right to data’ so that government-held datasets can be requested and used by the public”.

Can the Deputy Leader of the House tell us whether that right extends to Members of Parliament, particularly when they are asking for figures such as those produced by the Treasury which showed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been warned that measures in the Budget would lead to 1.3 million people losing their jobs?

Given the Prime Minister’s extraordinary performance yesterday, when he refused even to acknowledge that those figures existed, will the Deputy Leader of the House place the Treasury documents in the Library? Will he also ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement to the House telling us when he first saw those documents, and why he did not include them in his Budget statement? In that statement, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer be able to confirm whether there was any contact between Ministers and their Office for Budget Responsibility before the publication of their job forecasts yesterday?

Will the Deputy Leader of the House tell us whether there will be any report to the House on the Cabinet’s visit to Yorkshire? I noted that during that visit the Prime Minister was quizzed on how the Government’s protestations of support for manufacturing tallied with the withdrawal of the loan to Sheffield Forgemasters. Perhaps the Deputy Leader of the House will also explain why the Leader of the House of the House said last week that

“the Deputy Prime Minister is meeting Sheffield Forgemasters tomorrow in his constituency.” —[Official Report, 24 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 433.]

I understand that no such meeting was planned, or took place. I can only imagine that the Leader of the House was misled by the Deputy Prime Minister. I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the House will want to clarify exactly what happened, so that Members can be clear about what support is actually being given to important manufacturing companies such as Sheffield Forgemasters.

Can the Deputy Leader of the House also help us out by telling us whether there will be a statement on the future of the Tenant Services Authority? Apparently the Housing Minister has called it “toast”, but the Chief Secretary has said that abolishing it would put the finances of housing associations at risk. It would greatly assist the House, and Opposition Members in particular, to know that there is absolutely no sense of disagreement between Conservative and Liberal Democrat Ministers. We certainly wish to be assured that the Liberal Democrats are 100% behind all Conservative policy, including putting up VAT, putting people out of work, and the huge cuts that are to be made in public services.

[Mr Heath]

The shadow Leader of the House has asked me to restate a position that I stated many times in opposition, and I have no hesitation in doing so. It is entirely clear, not only to me but in the ministerial code of conduct, that announcements of substantive changes in policy should be made to the House in the first instance, and I know perfectly well that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House brought that to the attention of the Cabinet yet again only this week. You, Mr Speaker, made it very clear in your statement yesterday, and it is our clear intention that it should be the case. I have to tell the shadow Leader of the House that occasionally there will be mistakes—[Interruption.] Even Government Departments sometimes make mistakes, and that is obviously what happened in the case of the Home Office announcement last week. What happened was that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary came to the House to apologise for that mistake, and that is the right way of dealing with it.

It is important that we make sure that changes of policy are properly represented to the House, but I say gently to Labour Members that there is very little point in raising as points of order or at business questions issues raised by Ministers that are clearly set out in existing policy in the coalition document. I am so pleased that the shadow Leader of the House bothers to read that document. If it is policy set out in the coalition document, it should be no great surprise that Ministers adopt the policy and are prepared to speak about it. Therefore, it is not the case that that is an inappropriate way of addressing political issues.

I shall now deal with the other issues that the right hon. Lady raised. She mentioned an issue relating to housing associations. That is important and I shall take the matter back to the Departments and ask whether it is possible for a clear statement of the position to be given—we will ensure that that is the case.

The right hon. Lady asked about the position on the employment figures and the expectations set out by a variety of economists on what might happen. I have to say that I do not always have great faith in what economists predict; nevertheless this is an important issue. What I do have faith in is the newly established Office for Budget Responsibility, which is independent of Government and has set out the figures. I thought that the Opposition supported it. I thought that they saw it, as we do, as being a gold standard of accurate information presented to the House, but they prefer to bang on about figures that they want to choose instead. There will be an Opposition day debate next week, when the Opposition will choose the matters that we will be debating. So she asks for an opportunity to raise these issues with Ministers and she will have the opportunity to raise them with Ministers. Finally, I have to say to her that the figure that was given—the 1.3 million losses that she cited—was coupled with 2.5 million increases in employment in the very same breath. By my simple arithmetic that makes a 1.2 million increase, and the fact that Labour Members cannot do that simple sum explains to me why this country is in the position it is.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Dozens of hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. As always, I should like to be able to accommodate every colleague, but brevity in both questions and answers will be essential if I am to have any realistic chance of doing so.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my hon. Friend seen early-day motion 328, which describes how Google allegedly mapped every wireless internet connection in Britain, including many millions in private homes?

[That this House is concerned by reports that Google allegedly mapped every single wireless internet connection in Britain, including many millions in private homes, for commercial purposes; is further concerned that the firm may have failed to disclose that it was building a massive database of wi-fi networks across the UK without people's consent; notes the reports that BT and other companies are using software to trawl social networking websites such as Facebook to identify anyone making negative comments about them; and therefore calls on the Coalition Government to balance innovation on the internet against individuals’ right to privacy and the new threat of a surveillance society.]

Is it not time for a debate on the balance of internet innovation, and on the individual’s right to privacy versus the new threat of a surveillance society, given that we have just got rid of the previous Government’s own one?

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Yes, I have read his early-day motion and it seems to raise a very important point about surveillance. The whole issue of the increasing prevalence of what was called “the surveillance society” is something that the coalition Government are very aware of and want to address. I cannot promise him a debate in the next couple of weeks on this subject, but he may try to ask a question at questions to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on Thursday 8 July. This subject may also be a suitable one for the newly constituted Backbench Business Committee to consider for future business.

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

May we have an urgent debate in Government time on the Chancellor’s grossly disproportionate attack on the benefits system, not least on housing benefit, which is causing grave anxiety and disquiet among some of my most vulnerable constituents? These feelings are exacerbated by the Government’s attempt to present all benefit claimants as workshy scroungers. May we have a debate urgently so that this particular calumny can be disproved?

[Mr Heath]

I invite the hon. Lady to ask questions of the Department for Work and Pensions on 19 July. She also asked for a debate on this matter, and I suggest that she will find opportunities to raise it during our debates on the Finance Bill on Tuesday 6 July, Monday 12 July, Tuesday 13 July and Thursday 15 July.

[Mr Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

The shadow Leader of the House—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] I apologise, I meant the Deputy Leader of the House. He will be aware of the WWF’s Rivers on the Edge campaign. There has been great concern in the House for some time about the condition of English chalk streams, and the debate on the subject that we had during the last Parliament was over-subscribed. Will he bear this in mind and see whether we can fit in a debate on the chalk rivers of England?

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have great affection for the World Wide Fund for Nature because I used to work for it and promote its interests. I hasten to add that that is not a declarable interest. There might be an opportunity for him to raise this important issue at Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions on 29 July. It would also be an entirely suitable matter for a Westminster Hall debate or an end-of-day Adjournment debate.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

The next time—or perhaps the first time—the Deputy Leader of the House meets the Backbench Business Committee, will he raise the question of private Members’ Bills being discussed on Wednesday evenings to allow greater participation? Will he also consider doing away with the knives procedure under which such Bills can be talked out, and introduce deferred voting so that everyone can participate in the process?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I agree that we need to reform the process for private Members’ legislation. When we discussed this a week or so ago, it was agreed that the Procedure Committee would look into the matter and bring forward proposals. I hope that its members will also speak to the Backbench Business Committee so that we can have the benefit of the views of both Committees. It would certainly be to the benefit of the House if we could improve the way in which we deal with private Members’ business and put an end to the procedural nonsense that we have at the moment.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

When is the motion on the fixed-term Parliament, which was promised by my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House on 25 May, going to be brought forward? He said that it would be put on the Order Paper at the earliest opportunity, and that we would have a debate on it before the summer recess. Is that still the position?

[Mr Heath]

I think I am right in saying that the Deputy Prime Minister intends to make a statement on that subject in the very near future, so my hon. Friend will have to be patient for a little longer—[Interruption.] It will, of course, be made in Parliament, which is the right place for such statements.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

A debate on police productivity would allow me to question Ministers on how much time police officers spend on the beat. Now that the policing pledge has been scrapped, how are we to guarantee that the police will spend 80 % of their time on the streets?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Lady will know that this has been a recurrent theme over many years, since long before she was in the House. Members on both sides have been concerned about the most effective way of deploying police officers and reducing the bureaucracy that often prevents them from doing the job that we want them to do—namely, being out on the streets catching criminals instead of sitting in a back room in a police station filling in forms. I hope that we shall be able to make rapid progress on these issues. As a former chairman of a police authority, I know that this has been a problem for a very long time. The hon. Lady is right to bring the subject up, and it is equally right that we should find time to debate it at some stage.

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)]

May I first declare an interest as a member of Portsmouth city council? That council, like many others, is heavily involved in the Building Schools for the Future programme. There is real anxiety about the delay in getting decisions on whether the plans are going to proceed as expected. The situation needs to be resolved quickly because of the amount of local authority money involved. Does my hon. Friend also agree that a shortage of parliamentary time prevented Labour Ministers from coming to the House to apologise for the number of times they briefed the media before speaking to us?

[Mr Heath]

I hear what my hon. Friend says on the last matter. I could not possibly comment, but I am sure that some will recognise the issue.

My hon. Friend raises an important issue about Building Schools for the Future. I know that Members on both sides of the House are keen to hear the results of that review. We had hoped that there would be a statement this week and, last week, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that he thought that a statement was likely to be made this week. He said that in good faith, but unfortunately it has not been made yet. I understand that it will be made very shortly—within days.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman has already explained why some information has been given not to this House but to other people. May I ask him to take up with his colleague the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), the fact that I tabled a number of parliamentary questions on the important issue of housing benefit, asking for simple factual information, and received the response:

“The Department for Work and Pensions undertakes an assessment of the impact on specific groups as part of the policy development process”?—[Official Report, 30 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 548W.]

We know that the Government have that information—they could not have published the Red Book without it—but we are being refused it. Will the Deputy Leader of the House take this matter up?

[Mr Speaker]

I assume that the hon. Lady is looking for a statement.

[Mr Heath]

Well, I shall also assume that the question has something to do with parliamentary business—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] This is about business for the next two weeks; sometimes colleagues need to be reminded of that.

I do not think that I can guarantee that there will be a statement or a debate on the matter. However, I will mention the hon. Lady’s concerns to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and see whether more information can be obtained.

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

May we have a debate on supporting British citizens overseas? The Deputy Leader of the House might recall that last week I raised the case of my constituent, Ken Spooner, whose children have been abducted to Zambia. Unfortunately, the case has taken a turn for the worse and Mr Spooner is now in a Zambian jail, having not been charged. Can we possibly ensure that he gets the support from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that he was promised?

[Mr Heath]

Obviously, it is always a matter of great concern to hon. Members when their constituents find themselves in difficulties overseas. It is part of the consular duties of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to provide such support as may be provided in country. I shall certainly make sure that these concerns are passed on to members of the ministerial team in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

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

May we have an urgent debate on pay for our brave servicemen and women, especially in the light of the written answer to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) this morning from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), which announced that 140,000 members of the armed forces will have a pay cut next year? That is in marked contrast to what we did when we were in office, when we honoured in full the recommendations of the independent pay review body for the armed forces.

[Mr Heath]

I seem to recall that there was a significant increase in the allowances made available to members of our armed forces serving in conflict areas. That seems to me to be a significant development. However, the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to raise these matters in the very near future, because Defence questions are on Monday 5 July.

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

Given the excellent agreement in New Forest East between leading Liberal Democrats and Conservatives that fluoridation should not be imposed on the community against its will, may we have a statement—not in the next two weeks, but perhaps in the next two minutes—from the Deputy Leader of the House, confirming that the fact that the Liberal Democrats have joined the Conservatives in government in no way vitiates the pledge given by shadow Conservative Health Ministers before the election that fluoridation should not and would not be imposed on communities that did not want it?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman will not have a statement from me on a matter of health policy, but he can quite properly ask hon. and right hon. Friends in the Department of Health to give a response. It seems to me that this is a very important issue—I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s position—and I am sure that his constituents would like some clarity on the issue. However, I also know that the legislative framework under which these proposals are considered is the legislative framework introduced by the previous Government.

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

May I press the Deputy Leader of the House on his earlier answer about the future of the Building Schools for the Future programme? First, I was disappointed that there was not a statement this week, following the comments made by the Leader of the House last week to the effect that Members could expect a statement on the programme’s future and the huge uncertainty that it is being caused. Secondly, will the statement give specific details about which schools will be built and which will not be built?

[Mr Heath]

I cannot possibly pre-empt the statement, but the hon. Lady is right to press us on this. We are very clear that we want a statement to be made at the earliest opportunity. I can only apologise to her through you, Mr Speaker, that we were unable to bring forward the statement this week, which we had certainly intended to do. I can promise yet again that it will be provided shortly.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

The Deputy Leader of the House is aware of the impressive lobby of this place yesterday by the Huntington’s Disease Association. Will he give us time for a debate to consider the challenges facing the 6,700 people diagnosed with Huntington’s disease, particularly those to do with accessing insurance and the adequacy of research into a hitherto incurable disease?

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I, too, yesterday met constituents who either had Huntington’s disease or who were caring for people with Huntington’s disease. It brought home to all Members of the House who had contact with those people how difficult the disease is to manage. It is a degenerative disease with a genetic component that imposes a great deal of stress both on those who contract it and those who care for them. I know that there are clear issues about future research and the sort of support that can be given at the point of diagnosis and the point of management in GP practices and elsewhere in order to help. I understand that an all-party parliamentary group on Huntington’s disease has been established and that is a welcome step forward. I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate in the next two weeks, I am afraid, but he might care to apply for an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate on this important subject.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

May I press the Deputy Leader of the House to get his master, the Leader of the House, to come to the House and give the statement that he promised two weeks ago on progress on setting up the European Scrutiny Committee, and to scotch the rumour that is going about that Ministers intend to vote in the 1922 committee’s election of the Conservative chair of that committee? I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will say that even the gelded Liberals would not stand for the Government’s trying to elect a Back-Bench committee’s chairman.

[Mr Heath]

Happily, I have no responsibility whatsoever for what happens in the 1922 committee and that is no doubt a situation that will continue. The important issue is the setting up of the Select Committees, including the European Scrutiny Committee, and I understand the urgency of that. I was very pleased that the motion was passed by the House last night to make the small amendments to the number of members on Committees. That means that the Committee of Selection can now proceed in good order to make appointments to Committees. We should have all the Committees of the House up and running as soon as possible.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

May I ask a question in a similar vein to the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) for a debate on how our consulates aid and advise our residents abroad in extreme circumstances? I am thinking in particular about the Calder Valley resident who died last week, Sarah Royle, and her family. She fell off a balcony watching the England match in the World cup. Sarah lost her parents at a very early age and her two remaining sisters, who are of limited means, are being asked to sign an indemnity against the costs of bringing the body home and paying the bills, because the insurance company believes that she might have been drinking at the time.

[Mr Speaker]

I assume that the hon. Gentleman is seeking either a statement or a debate on the matter.

[Mr Heath]

Obviously, my condolences go out to the friends and family of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, who died in very tragic circumstances. Rather than securing a debate, the most effective thing I can do is to draw his comments to the attention of Ministers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office so that they can, perhaps, give support.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent statement on the release of the documents on the Hillsborough disaster? The last Government agreed that those files and documents would be released. The Deputy Leader of the House will understand the concerns about the Culture Secretary’s comments. As someone who was at Hillsborough and who has in my constituency families who lost loved ones there, this matter is of great importance to me personally. Rumours are circulating that the Government are thinking about not publishing the files and that there are arguments between Departments about the cost. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify the situation or arrange for an urgent statement to be made as soon as possible?

[Mr Heath]

I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the clarification he wants simply because I do not know and there is no point in pretending that I do. I recognise the circumstances of Hillsborough—the tragedy that it was—and the continuing effect that it must have on a large part of the population, not least his constituents. It is extremely important that we provide as much succour and comfort as possible to those people. I will certainly take the matter he raises back to the responsible Ministers and note the force with which he makes his case.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the Government’s new sentencing policy so that we can point out to the Secretary of State for Justice that the apparent premise that people who commit minor offences are frogmarched to a court and sent immediately to prison is a false one? What happens in the real world is that the police tear their hair out over arresting the same people time after time only to find that the magistrates courts do nothing but give them a slap on the wrist. The people who eventually end up in prison do so only after all the community service and drug treatment orders have been tried and tried again but have failed.

[Mr Heath]

First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his election to the Backbench Business Committee, on which he will have some responsibility for ensuring that these very important matters are debated in full. What I heard the Secretary of State for Justice say was that he wanted a justice system that worked, and that disposals for people who are convicted ought to be the most effective disposals that will reduce the likelihood of their offending again. He said that many of the recurrent offenders whom the hon. Gentleman mentions—those whom the police pick up time and again—serve short sentences in prison and then go on to reoffend. Surely it cannot be right to continue with policies that fail.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The Deputy Leader of the House will know that yesterday afternoon the Government suffered an embarrassing defeat by 21 votes to seven on the Welsh Grand Committee, which rejected the proposition on the Budget and the legislative programme as they apply to Wales. May we have another meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee to consider these issues?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman is making an awful meal of the fact that he engineered a win of a vote in a Committee with 26 Labour members, three Plaid Cymru members, eight Conservatives and three Liberal Democrats. Not even the most incompetent Opposition could lose a vote on a Committee with those numbers.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

Despite Tony Blair’s promise that they would result in a café culture, the late-licensing laws are having a visible impact in towns and cities across the country. In my constituency, in recent weeks, we have had a fatal stabbing of a young man and two brutal beatings, all of which involved late-night drinking establishments and late-night drinking. May we have an urgent debate on the failed late-licensing policy?

[Mr Heath]

I certainly agree that the change of licensing policy that the last Government introduced has not produced the results that they claimed it would, whereby we would all sit sipping our chianti in perfect peace and serenity in our town centres until late in the evening. That does not seem to accord with the experience of most people in most parts of the country. It might therefore be opportune for the matter to be debated again. I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman a debate in the next couple of weeks, but he could make an application to the Backbench Business Committee for a debate on licensing laws, or he could seek a Westminster Hall or an Adjournment debate on the matter.

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

May I draw the Deputy Leader of the House’s attention to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) in Hansard on Stockholm syndrome? Can we have a debate on Stockholm syndrome given that it may affect the judgment of leading Liberal Democrat members of the condemned coalition? The evidence base includes their support for regressive VAT increases, thereby displaying irrational emotional feelings and loss of concentration. Those symptoms are associated with this condition, and I think it would be useful and instructive if we could have a debate.

[Mr Heath]

I was rather hoping that there would be a punch line. There might be a case for a debate on Stockholm syndrome as it applied to those poor benighted souls who supported the Labour Government through 13 years of mismanagement, particularly the candidates for the leadership of the Labour party, who appear not to have agreed with anything they did while in government.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the annual report of the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, which was presented to the House on Tuesday? The report describes the position of treatment as “encouraging”, which is in stark contrast with the 30th report of the Public Accounts Committee in March, which concluded that £1.2 billion is spent on tackling drug misuse without the Government knowing the overall effect of that approach. Such a debate could focus on the fact that only 4% of addicts become drug-free and on the urgent need for reform of the drug treatment system.

[Mr Heath]

We have known for a long time that the problems with substance, drug and alcohol abuse have not been sufficiently addressed in Government policy. It now needs to be addressed, and it is explicit within coalition Government plans that that will be the case. I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman a debate or a statement on this subject, but he might want to raise it by other means.

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

May I ask the Deputy Leader of the House for an early statement on potential venues for the next £100,000 Cabinet away day? The Cabinet could try Liverpool, which would have the beneficial side effect of enabling the Culture Secretary to explain in person to the people of Liverpool why, 21 years after Liverpool fans were exonerated from causing the Hillsborough stadium disaster, he suggested on live television that it was caused by hooliganism.

[Mr Heath]

And he then apologised very clearly, which is an important point to note. It really is extraordinary for Labour Members now to complain about regional Cabinet meetings, having introduced them. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady was complaining about the cost of a regional Cabinet meeting, but it was much cheaper under the coalition Government than under the previous Government. She has put in a bid for the next such meeting to be in Liverpool, and I shall pass that on to the Cabinet Office. I have no idea where it intends to hold the next one, but Liverpool is always a splendid place to hold anything.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

May we have a debate on the role of the Environment Agency’s policies on hydropower generation on our rivers? Two Secretaries of State have declined, on the Floor of the House, to comment on this matter, and I think that a debate would be fruitful in securing the resolve of Ministers to address it.

[Mr Heath]

I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend, because I used to raise this matter very regularly. I have a whole series of micro-hydrogeneration plants on the Rivers Frome and Brue, so I know perfectly well the difficulties that those people have with the EA’s regulations on water abstraction. Of course, the bizarre thing is that no water is abstracted by hydro-turbines, as it is returned to the watercourse. I hope that he secures either a Westminster Hall or an Adjournment debate on this issue, because it would be well worth explaining the difficulties that many people who want to be engaged in micro-hydropower experience on the ground.

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

The Deputy Leader of the House will be aware that we are in the middle of Co-operatives fortnight, celebrating the value of community ownership across society. The Baywind project in my constituency has blazed a trail for green energy, being locally owned and providing electricity to local homes. Will the hon. Gentleman agree to a debate on the barriers that such schemes still face when trying to get off the ground, even though communities want them?

[Mr Heath]

It would be very useful to have a debate on that subject. There is a huge amount to be said for co-operative and mutual organisations. That sort of corporate structure has been in abeyance in recent years, and it is time that it made a reappearance. If the hon. Gentleman applies for a debate, I hope that he is successful in securing one at some stage. I have to point out that the case of Royal Mail offers the prospect of an enormous mutualisation and expansion in the co-operative sector, and I hope that Opposition Members will support that.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

During the last Parliament, I was regularly concerned about the blood pressure of the previous Speaker, as he had to tick Ministers off regularly for leaking information to the press before they were brought to the House to make a statement. I am very concerned that your blood pressure is not affected, Mr Speaker, so will the Deputy Leader of the House ask for a statement from the Leader of the House next week setting out the punishment that can be meted out to Ministers who leak to the press before addressing this House?

[Mr Heath]

First, may I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his election to the Backbench Business Committee? I am not sure that the Leader of the House has any sanctions that he can apply, other than exhortation, but the Prime Minister does. Perhaps this is something that we need to draw to his attention.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate about the timing of reports from the Office for Budget Responsibility? If the OBR is to be regarded as genuinely independent of the coalition collaborators, then not only the content but the timing of reports must be absolutely free from interference.

[Mr Heath]

I do not think that a debate would be worth while, because the OBR is independent of Government.

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the use of postal votes in our electoral system? It has been proved to be open to corrupt practices, and it is compromising our democratic process.

[Mr Heath]

Concerns about the integrity of the postal vote process have been expressed for a long time. Postal votes form a useful part of our electoral arrangements, but nevertheless we must make sure that our electoral system has the highest possible integrity. The Government are committed to introducing the individual registration of voters, and that will go a long way towards dealing with some of the potential abuses of the current system. I hope that legislation will be introduced in due course that will enable the hon. Gentleman to make his points very forcefully.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

The deadline for the payment to pleural plaques victims of compensation worth £5,000 has come and gone. On at least two occasions in this House, Ministers have said that the payment would be made by the end of June. Will the Deputy Leader of the House please ensure that the appropriate Minister makes a statement to the House to explain to victims of this dreadful disease in my constituency exactly why they are still having to wait for the much promised and expected £5,000 payment?

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and also congratulate her on her election to the Backbench Business Committee. She raises an issue that I know is very important to a large number of Members and constituents. I will pass her comments on to the relevant Ministers. Hopefully, there will be statement in the near future, but I cannot promise it.

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

May I urge the Deputy Leader of the House to award the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) the debate that she sought? We would be able to examine in detail how the cost of the most recent Cabinet meeting in Bradford was one tenth of what was spent by the previous Labour Government on their away days.

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman has almost persuaded me that we ought to find Government time for that debate. I will give it very careful consideration indeed.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer came here last week and declared that he would be the model of transparency. He said:

“I am not going to hide hard choices from the British people or bury them in the small print of the Budget documents.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 167.]

He added that the British public would hear those hard choices straight from him, in that speech.

The Deputy Leader of the House has already brushed aside concerns raised by the shadow Leader of the House about the memo that discloses Treasury predictions of 1.3 million unemployed. The Leader of the Opposition has already raised the matter with the Prime Minister, only to be ignored. Why can we not have full disclosure of this document, and a proper debate in this House? The Deputy Leader of the House is supposed to be a champion of Parliament, and there are clearly differences of view as to the content of the document. Why can we not have a debate on it?

[Mr Heath]

I thought that I had made it plain that we are having four debates in the next two weeks on that subject. I would have thought that that would be sufficient to satisfy the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps we ought to debate the pre-Budget forecast based on the policies of the March Budget—a Labour Budget—which showed a reduction of around 500,000 public sector jobs by 2014-15. I think that that would be a very worthwhile debate.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

The Deputy Leader of the House may have heard or read reports of an incident on Tuesday at the Lindsey oil refinery in my constituency. Sadly, there was a fatality and a number of injuries, and I am sure that the whole House would want to send our condolences in respect of the 24-year-old contractor who lost his life. In the immediate aftermath of the incident there are heightened concerns among the local community. Will the Deputy Leader of the House ensure that a statement can be made to the House in the next week or two? The police and the Health and Safety Executive are conducting an inquiry. If it makes recommendations that relate to the Lindsey oil refinery and other refineries, will he arrange for a debate to be held?

[Mr Heath]

I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman raising this point on behalf of his constituents, and I am sure that the whole House would want to express our condolences to the family and friends of Robert Greenacre, who sadly lost his life in the incident.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the HSE and the Environment Agency have launched an investigation, in conjunction with the police. I think that it would probably be unwise for us to debate the issue in the House until it has been properly investigated but, if there are then lessons that need to be learned that have a more general applicability, I hope that we will either have a statement or that the hon. Gentleman will secure a debate on the Adjournment or in Westminster Hall. That will enable Ministers to consider the questions more widely.

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

May we have a debate on the Government’s fairness agenda? Recent announcements on tax increases, benefit cuts, education spending, pensions, capital funding schemes and police funding all seem to be at odds with the fairness agenda. Such a debate would enable the Government to explain why their policies do not have any element of fairness in them.

[Mr Heath]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman what is fair. He mentioned pensioners, and it is fair finally to give them the triple-lock guarantee that their pensions will go up. That compares with the ridiculous 75p that we remember from the previous Government. Perhaps, therefore, we should have a debate on fairness, and on the inability of the Labour Government to introduce any element of fairness into their fiscal policies.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the future of the UK’s financial services industry? That would allow me to highlight the plight of the 535 Chester-based employees of Lloyds Banking Group, who heard yesterday that they had lost their jobs, with the closure of the Premier House call centre in my constituency.

[Mr Heath]

Obviously, it is a serious matter whenever we hear about job losses of this kind, and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise it in the Chamber. I am not sure that I can find an opportunity for a debate on the subject in the next two weeks, but he makes a very good point about the future of regulation in financial services. That is, of course, under active consideration in the relevant Departments.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate on sentencing policy and the construction of new prisons? There is real confusion in north Wales about whether a new prison is to be built. The Secretary of State for Wales says that she wants one, but the Secretary of State for Justice is not telling. I am still waiting for a meeting to ask a straight question. Is not it about time that this House was shown the respect of being given a statement on sentencing policy, as the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) requested?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman’s best opportunity to ask that question is at Justice questions on Tuesday 20 July. I suggest that he tables a question right away.

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

The children’s heart unit at Leeds general infirmary is one of the oldest in the country—it has performed life-saving operations for more than 40 years. May we have an urgent debate on the review of the 11 children’s heart units around the country to ensure that people do not have to travel miles for life-saving heart surgery?

[Mr Heath]

Paediatric cardiac services are of considerable importance. Health Ministers are reviewing the situation at the moment—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) is complaining that the Government are holding reviews. He was around in 1997, but let me remind him that the Labour Government announced 38 reviews between 1 May and 27 June 1997. One former Cabinet Minister said at the time:

“We have hit the ground reviewing.”

We have hit the ground reforming.

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

I am keen to help the Government to cut waste and extravagance. In that context, does the Deputy Leader of the House have an estimate of the cost to my constituents of the Government’s direction that Birmingham council must now publish all spending details online? Indeed, in these cash-strapped times, should we not have a debate on the cost to local authorities of that new Government imposition?

[Mr Heath]

I think I hear from the hon. Gentleman that he does not think his constituents ought easily to be able to find out what a large council, which runs many affairs in his area, spends on their behalf. I differ from that view. I do not believe that a debate would be greatly useful, but perhaps he would like to apply for one.

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

May we have a debate on how we ought to deal with habitual criminals, given that most of my constituents in Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington feel that if there is not enough time during a short prison sentence properly to rehabilitate persistent offenders, rather than not send them to prison, the solution is a longer sentence?

[Mr Heath]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that we need a penal policy that stops people reoffending and that reduces crime. Sometimes, that will mean not prison sentences, but more appropriate disposals that work better. Sometimes, it will mean prison sentences, because those are necessary either for rehabilitation or for the protection of people in an area. I hope the hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to put forward what are quite clearly firmly held views when the Justice Secretary brings forward his review of sentencing policy.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

May we have an early debate on the role and responsibilities of the Deputy Prime Minister? Did the Deputy Leader of the House share with me the feeling of pity for him when he was on the “Today” programme this morning talking about the scourge of grey squirrels? What on earth is going on in his Department?

[Mr Heath]

I do not find the difficulty that the hon. Gentleman suggests, because I believe that some of the legislation introduced by the previous Government is absurd and unnecessary. Whenever a Minister did not know what to do about a subject, they came to the House and introduced a new criminal offence. The fact that we are going to get rid of some of those criminal offences will be widely welcomed across the country, because we do not want unnecessary offences and regulation. The Deputy Prime Minister is doing an extremely good job of highlighting those issues. If he wants scrutiny, he does not lack it, given that a Select Committee has been formed for that purpose and that there are regular questions to him in the House. I do not think there are any such difficulties.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Will the Deputy Leader of the House agree to a debate on whether the law currently provides sufficient protection for telephone bill payers from being charged for calls made by an external hacker through their switchboard? Jolene Gregory, the practice manager of Pendle View medical centre in my constituency, has a bill for £4,700 for fraudulent calls made between September and December 2009, which to date, the telephone provider, Azzurri Communications, has been unwilling to cancel or reduce.

[Mr Heath]

Many hon. Members will be shocked by what has happened to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent—it is simply unacceptable. Many of us have found similar things in our constituency casework. Telecommunications companies in particular very often seem to have scant regard for the interests of their consumers. I am pleased that he had the opportunity to raise the matter today on behalf of his constituent, and I will ensure that it is brought to the attention of ministerial colleagues and the regulator. In due course, he may feel it worth while to approach the Backbench Business Committee to ask for a debate on the wider subject of consumer protection, which probably affects a large number of Back-Bench Members.

[Diana R. Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Yesterday, two of my constituents travelled from Hull to lobby me on the important issue of contaminated blood products. When they came through security, they were wearing campaign t-shirts, which they were told either to remove or turn inside out. I know that the Deputy Leader of the House is committed to freedom and civil liberties, so will he make a statement on that particular practice of the House?

[Mr Heath]

I was not aware of that situation and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for bringing it to my attention. I may have to refer the matter to you, Mr Speaker, in due course, for your consideration, but I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising it.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

May we have an urgent justice debate on the devastating impact for local justice in Skipton and rural Craven should Skipton magistrates and county court close as a result of the forthcoming review?

[Mr Heath]

Hon. Members on both sides of the House will have many questions to ask about the circumstances of their local magistrates courts. Far be it from me to use my position to raise the issue of Frome magistrates court—that would be inappropriate—but experience suggests that concern is felt by a large number of hon. Members. There is a genuine consultation on what should happen and legitimate questions need to be asked about court houses that are simply not fit for purpose and that cannot be brought up to the required standard economically. However, the Justice Secretary will welcome views from hon. Members about courts in their constituencies and their circumstances, particularly in relation to rural areas, where access to justice might be an issue. I cannot promise a debate at the moment, but no doubt when the review has reached its completion, there will be an opportunity.

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

Last week, the Prime Minister said that our troops would be back from Afghanistan within five years, but yesterday he was contradicted by the Secretary of State for Defence. May we have a debate to clear up this mess as soon as possible?

[Mr Heath]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are committed to regular debates on the conflict in Afghanistan and Defence questions are on Monday—there are questions on policy in Afghanistan on the Order Paper, which will give him the opportunity to raise that. It is absolutely clear that there is the intention of withdrawing our forces when the job is done, and we all hope that the job will be done at the earliest possible opportunity. I do not see any difficulty in reconciling that position.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

Last week, when I asked for a Government statement on Equitable Life, the Leader of the House rather breezily told me that there was no need for a statement because there would be a Bill, but there was no mention in today’s business statement of the Bill’s introduction. Given the time it takes for legislation to go through both Houses of Parliament, is not the reality that any legislation is unlikely to be enacted until the end of this year at the earliest, which means that payments will not be made until some time in 2011? May we have not only a statement but a debate on that cruel betrayal of Equitable Life policyholders by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, given the promises they made before the election? That is also a betrayal, incidentally, of Members such as myself, who misguidedly voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on the matter a few weeks before the election.

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman has been a doughty supporter of Equitable Life policyholders over the years, as have I and many hon. Members on both sides of the House. It does not really help if he now uses the terms that he has for this Government, who are trying to deal with the issue after year after year of prevarication from the previous Government. They set up Sir John Chadwick’s review. He has not yet completed it. He is now talking about reporting in mid-July, so we have to await the end of the review. There is no question about that.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said that legislation will be introduced at an early opportunity, and it will be.

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

Will the Deputy Leader of the House consider his reply to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) about the redundancies announced by the insurance arm of Lloyds Banking Group. Lloyds is, of course, largely owned by the Treasury. Of those posts, 198 are going from Nottingham. What can be done to help with retraining and redeployment of those made redundant? Many of our constituents in Nottingham are very concerned about this matter.

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman may want to raise that in the context of the Opposition day debate, because it is clearly relevant to that. I perfectly understand the concerns that he expresses on behalf of his constituents. We want to make sure that every possible assistance is given by the Government to the individuals made redundant. We bandy around percentages, but someone who loses their job is 100% unemployed until they find another job. That is the human tragedy that we always have to have in mind.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use that opportunity. If he feels that there is more that can be done, I hope that he will seek a debate on the issue either in Westminster Hall or on the Adjournment. Such issues are very important. I leave the hon. Gentleman with one parting shot. He is right: this is a bank in which the UK Government have a significant holding. I wish that the previous Government had applied some effective constraints on the way banks operated when they took that equity in the banks.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to colleagues for their co-operation, which has enabled everyone who wanted to contribute to do so.

Points of Order

Thursday 1st July 2010 Commons Chamber

12:32

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to the points raised during business questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Halton (Derek Twigg) and for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), we have heard this week, 20 years on from the Hillsborough disaster, that there are still misconceptions about the tragedy, even in the Cabinet. That is precisely why I, together with my two hon. Friends, called for the full disclosure of all public documents relating to the disaster and the establishment of the Hillsborough independent panel to give the people of Merseyside the full truth and to end the misconceptions once and for all.

Together with the former Home Secretary, we signed off the terms of reference and the funding for the Hillsborough independent panel before the election. The policy was settled. Today in the Daily Mirror I read that sources in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport say that the Secretary of State is taking a new look at the issue and

“Things are not as simple as before”.

Is it in order that on an issue of this significance and importance a change of policy can be dealt with by off-the-record briefings? Do the people of Merseyside not deserve the courtesy of a Minister of the Crown coming to this House to tell them exactly what they are up to?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for advance notice of it. I reiterate at the outset that if a Minister intends to make a new commitment in terms of policy or to change a hitherto understood public policy, he or she is expected to make that clear first to the House, as I hope experience earlier this week testifies.

I appreciate the extreme importance of this matter. I am not aware thus far of any intention on the part of a Minister to make a statement. It is open to the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members to table questions—[Interruption.] Order. The request that the right hon. Gentleman has made will have been heard on the Treasury Bench, and I repeat that if a new policy is planned we had better hear about it here first.

Finally, and more widely, it might be of interest to the House to know that applications have already been made for an Adjournment debate on this subject. Those applications were not successful in the ballot, but knowing the persistence and indefatigability of colleagues who are interested in this matter, I have a hunch that they might apply again and, who knows, they might be successful.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance and patience on this matter, but I know that you understand because I have raised before the great concern not only on Merseyside but nationally and internationally about what is happening. We have had a disgraceful statement from a Minister this week. We have now had briefings and rumours about the release of documents and arguments about financing. An Adjournment debate is one way of looking at this, but is there anything more you can do to persuade Ministers to come here urgently next week to make a statement? The Deputy Leader of the House must have known about this issue because it has been in the national news all week, yet he could not give us an answer.

[Mr Speaker]

I appreciate the importance that the hon. Gentleman attaches to the matter. He has raised it before and he feels a commitment to his constituents in relation to it. Therefore, it is understandable that he has flagged it up in passionate and explicit terms with me this afternoon. I do not think that I can add anything, however, to what I have already said. If a new approach or policy is planned on a matter of great importance, which this certainly is, it should be the subject of a statement to the House first. I have now said that twice so I am sure that it has been heard in the relevant quarters.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have just reiterated that Ministers should come to the House when there has been a change of policy. The Prime Minister came to the House two weeks ago and made a statement on the important subject of our involvement in Afghanistan. He then briefed the press when he went to Canada last weekend about time limits for our withdrawal. Yesterday the Defence Secretary attended the right-wing Heritage Foundation in Washington. Is it not right that they should make announcements here if policy has changed in the past two weeks on Afghanistan?

[Mr Speaker]

All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that discussion of public policy is an ongoing process. It takes place all the time and Ministers can discuss policy issues in a variety of ways, including in speeches and exchanges outside the House. The crucial point is this. When a new policy is to be announced, it must be announced here first. All that I can say is that I will keep a beady eye on this matter, not merely on a weekly basis but on a daily basis.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Now that the Deputy Leader of the House has agreed to arrange for a debate on the Government’s policy on fairness, how do I find out when that debate will take place?

[Mr Speaker]

I think the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order is that that is a matter for the Leader of the House and, in his absence, the Deputy Leader of the House. It is quite possible that a cosy chat will shortly ensue between the hon. Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts) and the Deputy Leader of the House.

[Diana R. Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This follows on from my question during business questions and may be more appropriate for you. When they came through security into the House yesterday, my constituents were asked to remove a campaign T-shirt or turn it inside out. Can you give some guidance to our security staff with regard to that policy?

[Mr Speaker]

I shall certainly investigate the matter and revert to the hon. Lady. I am not familiar with the circumstances of this case, other than from what she said. An overly restrictive approach in matters of this kind is undesirable. Occasionally, a bit of flamboyance is not such a bad thing. I think I can say that to the hon. Lady from personal experience.

Global Poverty

Thursday 1st July 2010 Commons Chamber

12:39

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of global poverty.

This is the first opportunity since the general election that the House has had to debate international development and my first chance, as Secretary of State, to set out for the House how the coalition will address this vital agenda. My purpose today is twofold. First, I want to set out for the House the changes that we are making in my Department. Secondly, in the context of last week’s Budget, in which the Chancellor set out the scale of the fiscal crisis bequeathed us by the previous Government—a crisis that means that of every £4 of public expenditure, £1 is borrowed—I want to make it clear why our coalition Government stand four-square behind our commitment to the world’s poorest people, and why we will increase our expenditure on international development to 0.7% of our gross national income from 2013, define that expenditure under the OECD/Development Assistance Committee rules and enshrine that commitment in law.

In his Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor reaffirmed that development spending will increase. As the Prime Minister has consistently made clear, the coalition Government will not seek to balance the books on the backs of the poorest in the world. It is clearly helpful that that strong commitment transcends party politics, both in the House and in the country. It is a strength of international development that it is seen not as the preserve or the passion of any one political party, but as a British commitment in which Members in all parts of the House strongly believe.

In that context I would like to say how pleased I was to see that the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) has been elected—unopposed—to resume his chairmanship of the Select Committee on International Development. I am also pleased that many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who have a long record of particular involvement and commitment in this area are in their places.

I should also like to express my admiration and respect for the extraordinary collection of skills and expertise in the Department for International Development, which I now have the privilege to lead. As the Prime Minister said on his visit to the Department last week, we should be very proud of the leading role DFID is taking in the fight against international poverty. The fact that in this time of great economic difficulty DFID has a ring-fenced, protected budget is not because we believe that money alone is the key to international development.

[Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his position as Secretary of State. He said that he hoped to enshrine in law the commitment that all parties in the House share. Can he give any more information on how and when that might happen?

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comment. I am not able today to give final details, but negotiations continue in the usual manner. I shall make sure that the House is informed as soon as final decisions on that point have been made.

We understand that one of the main causes of sustained poverty is conflict—that it is conflict that so often condemns women and children to grievous suffering. If someone is living in one of those dreadful camps, which hon. Members may have visited, around the world—the Prime Minister and I visited some in Darfur—it does not matter how much access to money, aid, trade or different articles of development they may have, because for as long as the conflict continues, they will remain poor, frightened, dispossessed and angry. Just as conflict condemns people to remain in poverty, so it is wealth creation—jobs, enterprise, trade and engagement with the private sector—that enables people to lift themselves out of poverty. All that underlines, again and again, as the Prime Minister did at the G20 last weekend, the importance of not giving up on the Doha round and, notwithstanding how difficult it is, remaining absolutely committed to it.

Making progress in the fight against international poverty and achieving the goals set down by the whole international community and enshrined in the eight millennium development goals cannot be done without meeting the financial commitments set out so clearly at Gleneagles in 2005—commitments that were underlined and strongly endorsed by the Prime Minister in Canada at the weekend. Although the British Government focused particularly at the G8 summit on MDG 5 on maternal mortality, the most off-track of all the MDGs, we are also leading the argument for real progress to be made on all the goals.

When the UN summit meets in September in New York, there will be just five years left for those goals to be achieved. We want to see measurable outcomes and a clear agenda for action agreed for the whole international community to ensure that the goals are now reached. In essence, we are trying to ensure that good, basic health care, education, clean water and sanitation reach the people at the end of the track, who today in all too many places in the world have none of those things.

Well spent aid has achieved miracles around the world. That is not of course to argue that aid is not sometimes stolen, embezzled or badly used. We will confront all three of those things head-on, but thanks to aid we have eradicated smallpox; we have reduced polio from 350,000 cases a year in 1998 to under 2,000 today; while the number of people on life-saving treatments for AIDS has increased from 400,000 in 2003 to 4 million in 2008. In Afghanistan, there are today 2 million girls in school thanks to the international aid effort.

[Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con)]

In a recent article in a major newspaper the Secretary of State was singled out for particular praise by Bill Gates. Can my right hon. Friend inform the House how he plans to work closely with Mr Gates’s foundation in the coming years?

[Mr Mitchell]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Gates Foundation has had a profound effect on the way we see and act in international development. Our contacts with the foundation, already significant, are certainly set to intensify.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his post. He has said a lot about aid, and clearly the role of his Department is hugely important in these matters. Does he accept, however, that in relation to developing countries, what goes on across Whitehall is hugely important? I hope he will also talk about his relationships with the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and those Departments responsible for matters that have an impact on poor people.

[Mr Mitchell]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point, and I hope to come to all those matters during my remarks.

[Mr Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

May I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend in his role and ask him a question about civil justice? In many areas the problem of policing and ensuring that people can obtain justice is one of the most difficult and intractable. Is he bearing that in mind in his duties, particularly in the context of Afghanistan?

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. Yes, the issue of grievance procedures—how one resolves grievances—is of particular concern in Afghanistan, and we are looking precisely at that in conjunction with other important matters in the run-up to the Kabul conference.

Our determination and commitment to tackling these problems ever more effectively is both a moral matter and one that is very much in our national self-interest. I believe that in a hundred years’ time generations that follow will look back on us in very much the same way that today we look back on the slave trade. They will marvel that our generations acquiesced in a world where each and every day almost 25,000 children under five die needlessly from diseases and conditions that we absolutely have the power to prevent. For the first time, not least through the benefits of globalisation, our generations have the power and ability to make huge progress in tackling these colossal discrepancies in opportunity and wealth around the world.

Many Members will have their own direct experience of what I am describing. In my case, I think of a visit to a remote corner of Uganda with the Medical Missionaries of Mary, who work with families of AIDS orphans. I remind the House that there are more AIDS orphans in sub-Saharan Africa than there are children in the whole of the United Kingdom. I think of the family of six orphaned children I met, of whom the eldest, at 14—the same age as my own daughter at the time—battled each and every day to get her siblings dressed and to school. I remind the House that today Britain is educating 4.8 million primary schoolchildren in Britain, while at the same time in the poor world we are educating 5 million children at a fraction of the cost; in fact, 2.5% of the UK cost.

It is those harsh realities of life in large parts of the world—grinding poverty, hopelessness and destitution—that have galvanised the commitment and passion of so many in our country today to ensure that, in our time, through our generations, we will make a difference. It is true that charity begins at home, but it does not end there.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to their places and wish them well during their tenure. In respect of personal experience, my wife and I were able to benefit from a VSO placement in Bangladesh. The VSO placement scheme for parliamentary colleagues has been running for a couple of years, but will his Department continue to support it? It offers parliamentary colleagues an opportunity for short placements of two to four weeks during the summer recess in order to visit some of the countries that DFID supports, and to learn much more about its work.

[Mr Mitchell]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I cannot give him that guarantee today, but I am familiar with the scheme he describes. It is an excellent scheme, and we have no plans to alter it at this time, but I shall write to him, giving him specific details, when we have made a decision.

What is less easily articulated is that tackling poverty throughout the world is also very much in our national interest. Whether the issue is drug-resistant diseases, economic stability, conflict and insecurity, climate change or migration, it is far more effective to tackle the root cause now than to treat the symptoms later. The weight of migration to Europe from Africa is often caused by conflict, poverty, disease and dysfunctional government. We see people putting themselves into the hands of the modern equivalent of the slave trader and crossing hundreds of miles of ocean in leaky boats in the hope of tipping up on a wealthy European shore. Often, they are not people seeking a free ride, but the brightest and the best from conflict countries, seeking a better life for themselves and their families. It is much better to help them to tackle the causes of their leaving the country that they have come from. Our prosperity depends on development and growth in Africa and Asia.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to his new position, and I know that he understands the close relationship between development and the environment. Will he add to the list of the issues that he has just mentioned the importance of ensuring that environmental issues are taken into account as part of the development process? Will he also commit to ensuring that, on the climate change promise that the previous Government made, there will be no more than a 10% overlap between environmental projects to combat climate change and development aid—that his Government, too, are willing to continue with that commitment?

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. On his general point, he is absolutely right about the importance of including in all our aid and development activity a climate-smart approach—one that, as he says, reflects the importance of the environment. In opposition I had an opportunity to see the direct correlation between those issues in many different parts of the world, and, although I shall not speak extensively today about climate change, I very much hope that there will be another opportunity to do so, and I take his point on board.

In respect of the figure of 10%, the hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the result of the spending review, but as he will know, the “fast start” money, which the previous Government announced and we support, will all come out of that 10% and out of the official development assistance budget. We have confirmed that that will happen under our Government, too.

I deal now with the changes that we are making in my Department, and the plans that we set out in the coalition agreement. A protected budget, at a time when expenditure elsewhere is being reduced, imposes a double duty to eliminate waste and unnecessary expenditure and to demonstrate at every turn that we are achieving value for money.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his position; I am very pleased to see him and his team in place. One dilemma under the previous Government was that, although money was poured into various countries, whether it should have gone there was questionable. India, for example, has a space programme, and China hosted one of the most elaborate and expensive Olympic games ever. In South Africa, I recently visited the Khayelitsha townships, which were horrifying to see, but at the same time there are rich parts of that country. One must ask whether we might put more pressure on those countries to help themselves, rather than just passing on money—I hear, in China—to the tune of £30 million. Has the Secretary of State had an opportunity to consider those issues?

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his detailed intervention. If he will allow me to come to the point directly, I shall then answer his specific point about China.

I was making the point that a ring-fenced budget imposes a double duty on my Department to eliminate waste and unnecessary expenditure, and to ensure that we achieve value for money. Within a few days of taking office, I cancelled funding for five awareness-raising projects, including a Brazilian-style dance group specialising in percussion in Hackney, securing savings in excess of £500,000. In addition, I am cancelling the global development engagement fund, which would have funded further awareness-raising activity in the UK, and creating savings of £6.5 million. I shall make further announcements on prudent and sensible savings over the coming weeks.

I expect shortly to be able to announce that more than £100 million will be saved from projects that are a low priority or not performing. That money will be reallocated to programmes that are more effective in helping the world’s poorest people. Last but by no means least, I am letting out another floor of my Department. That better use of space in DFID will earn revenue of almost £1 million a year, once let.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

DFID has cancelled grant support for a project run by Scotdec, the Scottish development education centre, which has offices in my constituency. It was given no reason for the withdrawal, other than the new policy that the Government announced, and it was just about to submit the one-year evaluation of its project. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that is not the way to act if he is to encourage projects to respond to Government concerns? Surely Scotdec should have been given an opportunity to respond to any Government concerns about its project, and should not the Government reconsider the funding withdrawal that he announced a few weeks ago?

[Mr Mitchell]

I have had a letter from the hon. Gentleman on that point, and I wrote to him late last night. I apologise for the fact that he did not receive it in time for this debate. I should make it clear to him that several projects to which I put a stop will now proceed, and officials are in touch with those responsible for them, making clear our value-for-money requirements. However, I have cancelled five, including the one to which he refers, after looking very carefully at them and following advice from officials.

Let me list those five projects. I hope that the House will consider whether they should be funded from Britain’s development project. First, there was £146,000 for a Brazilian-style dance troupe with percussion expertise in Hackney. Secondly, there was £55,000 to run stalls at summer music festivals. Thirdly, there was £120,000 to train nursery school teachers in global issues. Fourthly, there was £130,000 for a global gardens schools’ network. And finally, there was £140,000 to train outdoor education tutors in Britain in development.

Spending money on international development in the UK rather than on poor people overseas seems highly questionable. We need to ensure that any expenditure has demonstrable outcomes in developing countries, and that is why I took the action that I did. However, I have written to the hon. Gentleman, and he will have a chance to see in some detail why we took those decisions.

[Mr Lammy]

Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the Greenbelt festival, from which it was proposed that money be withdrawn? I make that point in the hope that he will appreciate that faith communities—particularly, the Christian community, as represented in that festival—have done a considerable amount over a considerable time to raise the prominence of development issues. We would not have had Jubilee 2000 and, then, Make Poverty History without that movement.

May I also say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that the projects that he outlined largely touch on young people—it is hugely important that they continue to lobby Governments to make more progress—and on ethnic minorities, in which regard we should recognise that when we talk about development, it includes those who have come to this country and look overseas to see what we are doing?

[Mr Mitchell]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting and not unreasonable point. However, the balance of judgment that has to be made is whether this money should come out of the ring-fenced development budget. As I said, we intend, in very difficult economic circumstances, to seek to carry the country with us as regards the validity of this budget. I have explained in some detail why that is so important on moral grounds, as well as on national self-interest grounds. I feared that the budget was in danger of being discredited by some of the existing schemes that I have decided to stop, and that is why I made that decision.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

There is a simple test for all the Department’s spending—does it fall within the definition of international development set by the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee? Clearly, none of these schemes did. If we are going to have ring-fenced spending, we will need to ensure that it falls within the DAC definition.

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point about value for money.

I suggest to the House that we will not be able to maintain public support for Britain’s vital development budget unless we can demonstrate to the public’s satisfaction that this money is really well spent. The lights have been burning late in DFID as we embark on our ambitious programme of reform. In the seven weeks since the election, we have wasted no time in laying the foundations for a fundamentally new approach to development—an approach rooted in rigorous, independent evaluation, full transparency, value for money, and an unremitting focus on results. Our Government will place the same premium on the quality of aid that the previous Government placed on the quantity of aid. We will judge performance against outputs and outcomes rather than inputs.

Hard-pressed taxpayers need to know that the expenditure of their money is being scrutinised fully and is really delivering results. We are therefore working to develop an independent aid watchdog, as we consistently promised throughout the past four years, to evaluate the effectiveness of DFID’s spending. We will also modify the way that aid programmes are designed so that gathering rigorous evidence of impact is built in from the day they start. This will allow us to take decisions about how we spend and allocate aid on the basis of solid evidence. I expect to report to the House shortly on both of those initiatives.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could reconcile the statement that he has just made with the written answer that he extended to me when I questioned the £200 million—the largest single cash announcement he has made in the past few weeks—that is now going to Afghanistan. When I urged him to clarify what that £200 million of input would deliver in output, he replied:

“We will make specific decisions on spending and focus areas in time for this event.”—[Official Report, 24 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 349W.]

The event is the conference to be held in July in Afghanistan. Why was such an announcement made if the rigorous focus on outputs that he has upheld to the House as the new approach in the Department has been applied?

[Mr Mitchell]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point. We are working on the effectiveness of measures that are already being taken in Afghanistan—[Interruption.] Well, if he will just bear with me, I will, in the spirit of his question, give him the answer to it. We are looking carefully at a series of inputs in relation to the effectiveness that they will achieve, and we hope to be able to announce some of the findings in the run-up to the Kabul conference. When the Prime Minister gave that figure, he was referring to the amount that we have managed to find for additional expenditure in Afghanistan as a result of closing down or changing other programmes. How that money will be spent will be accounted for by me to the House as soon as those decisions have been made.

[Mr Alexander]

I would hope that the right hon. Gentleman can do a little better than that. I hear that so far the only output from the £200 million that has been announced is a press release. Can he confirm what the £200 million is actually going to purchase?

[Mr Mitchell]

I think that the right hon. Gentleman can do a lot better than that. He will have to wait until we issue our proposals ahead of the Kabul conference, and then he will be able to judge them on their merit.

In addition, our aid budget should be spent where it is needed and where it can be best used. We have therefore started a review of all our bilateral aid programmes so that we can be clear that money is being properly targeted and worthwhile results obtained. We have already announced that we will end aid to China and Russia as soon as it is practical to do so. We want to work with them as partners, not as donors and recipients. We cannot justify giving taxpayers’ hard-earned money to a country that has just spent billions hosting the Olympics or is a member of the G8. In that context, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) raised India. We will be looking very carefully at the Indian budget, and we will issue any new proposals as part of our bilateral review.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

When the International Development Committee wrote its most recent report about aid to India, which is currently our biggest bilateral aid receiving partner, we did not call for an immediate end to the aid programme in India but proposed that between now and 2015—the millennium development goals date—the aid programme should be changed so that there was no longer a cash transfer after that date. The Secretary of State’s remarks suggest that he has not decided to go along with the Committee’s recommendation. What are his plans, and why has he taken that decision?

[Mr Mitchell]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s interest in India; he was a distinguished member of the International Development Committee. I have seen that report, which makes a very valuable contribution and will be considered as part of the bilateral review of our India programme.

We are conducting a similar review of our multilateral aid budget. There are good reasons for working through international bodies, but I want to be certain that all our funding is being used to support programmes that align with our priorities, and that operational efficiency is as strong as it should be. In New York on Monday, in meetings with the heads of the United Nations Development Programme, UNICEF and the United Nations Population Fund, I had the opportunity to set out the reasons for this review. I have also spoken to the heads of other multilateral agencies, including the World Food Programme. At the Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg, I took the opportunity to discuss our plans with Commissioner Piebalgs of the European Union. Multilateral organisations that are performing well for the world’s poorest people stand to gain from this review, but if such agencies are not performing we will scale down funding, or even stop it altogether. Our duty to the world’s poorest people, as well as to the British taxpayer, demands nothing less.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State and his team to their posts. I notice that one issue of which he has made no mention so far is gender. Can he confirm that gender equality and the role of women and children will receive equal, if not greater, priority under his guidance in the Department?

Given that the Secretary of State has a particular interest in Afghanistan, may I bring to his attention this week’s excellent BBC television report by Lyse Doucet about the status of women in prisons in Afghanistan, the vast majority of whom are in prison for no crime whatsoever, in breach of the international conventions that Afghanistan has signed up to? Can he give an assurance to the House that he will call on the Afghan Government to comply with their international requirements and to ensure that the position of women in Afghanistan receives the proper status that it deserves?

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I will have a look at that report. On her first point about the role of women, I am coming to that directly in my remarks.

Doing the right thing with British aid is not just about saving money: it is about being honest and open about where our funding is going. Knowledge gives people the power to hold others—be they individuals, organisations or Governments—to account. That is why I have launched a new UK aid transparency guarantee that will help to make aid transparent not only to people in the UK but to those in recipient countries.

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

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Mitchell]

I am going to make a bit of progress, and then I will of course give way.

Building up civil society in the developing world is crucial to enabling citizens to hold their own political leaders to account. The transparency guarantee will help to create millions of independent aid watchdogs—people around the world who can see where aid is supposed to be going and shout if it does not get there. From January, we will publish full details of DFID projects and programmes on our website so that everyone can have access to information about where our funding is going and what it is intended to achieve. The simple act of publishing information can reduce the amount of corruption and waste, improve the quality of public services and increase public sector accountability.

I wish to make two further points about Britain’s bilateral aid programme. First, where it is relevant, in every country where DFID is active we will pay particular attention to the fight against malaria. It will be the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, whose involvement, expertise and knowledge in the matter is well known to the House. It is simply unconscionable that in this day and age, thousands of children and adults die every day from that completely preventable disease. If there were an outbreak of malaria in Europe it would immediately be stopped in its tracks. Reducing the burden of malaria in the developing world and focusing on the areas of highest infection will be an essential part of our programmes.

Secondly, we must extend far further choice for women over whether and when they have children. It is outrageous that today in sub-Saharan Africa, only 15% of women have access to modern methods of contraception. I simply lay this fact before the House: every year, 20 million women have unsafe abortions, and 70,000 of them, many still girls, die as a result. Some 215 million women around the world who want to use modern contraception do not have access to it. No statistic could more eloquently underline the importance of allowing women to choose whether to have children, and we will pursue that argument vigorously and single-mindedly.

I invite the House to consider the further point that in Niger, one of the poorest countries in the world, a population of 3 million in 1960 has grown to nearly 16 million today, and expert opinion judges that it will rise to nearly 60 million in the next 40 years. It is a country that suffers deeply from political, economic, climate and food insecurity. As I said last week in Washington, Britain will place women at the heart of our whole agenda for international development.

That subject is closely related to the Prime Minister’s insistence at the G8 last weekend on combined action on maternal and child mortality. As he made clear in Muskoka, a woman’s chances of dying in pregnancy and childbirth are one in 8,200 in the UK, whereas in Sierra Leone they are a stark one in eight. The resources agreed at the G8, including a significant contribution from the United Kingdom, should lead to an additional 1.3 million lives being saved.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

I welcome what my right hon. Friend has just said. It is not just helping women that is to be welcomed, because it is a simple fact that no country has got itself out of poverty without first stabilising its levels of population growth. Furthermore, we are very unlikely to achieve the millennium development goals without stabilising population development. I warmly welcome his points and I urge him to give even greater emphasis to a global family planning approach to aid.

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank my hon. Friend very much for those comments. As the House will know, he can probably lay claim to being the House’s greatest expert on population issues.

Important though aid is, it is only part of the solution—a means to an end rather than an end in itself. The key to development is sustained economic growth. Over the years ahead we will help more countries put in place the building blocks of wealth creation—trade, a vibrant private sector, property rights and a low-carbon, climate-resilient economy. We are reorganising the structure of the Department to ensure a sharper focus on wealth creation and economic growth. I will give the House further details of that in due course. I am also considering carefully the contribution made through CDC and considering how to improve its capacity to take forward development objectives.

I turn to the support that we give to the brilliant non-governmental organisations, charities and civil society institutions whose work I have seen all around the world. It is often inspirational and a huge credit not just to their supporters but to Britain itself. They make an outstanding contribution to development work. As we said in opposition, we want to develop that work through our poverty impact fund. The principle of that fund will be both simple and clear: if an NGO is engaged in development work that takes forward the millennium development goals, we will be prepared to match-fund its budget if it, in turn, can increase its outputs and outcomes accordingly. That will, of course, be subject to our being satisfied of the probity of its funding and accounts. The fund will enable the taxpayer to piggyback on the expertise and development results of some of Britain’s best charities and NGOs. Again, I will report to the House on progress in due course.

As I mentioned earlier, we will never forget that one of the biggest barriers to global prosperity is conflict. Helping affected states and their people on to the ladder of prosperity is the greatest challenge of our time, so we will make conflict prevention, resolution and reconstruction central to our approach to development. I have visited both Afghanistan and Pakistan within the first few weeks since being appointed and witnessed at first hand the real challenges that exist in those countries. Together with the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary, I was able to spend time not only with the Government of Afghanistan but with the brave men and women of our armed forces, who are doing such important but difficult and dangerous work.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; he has been very generous.

On conflict, will the Secretary of State have discussions with his colleagues in the Cabinet about the situation in Sri Lanka and consider seriously the aid needs of the Tamil community in the north of that country? As I am sure he well knows, the aftermath of last year’s conflict has left a number of displaced and dispossessed people who are desperate to return to their homes and need all the assistance that countries such as ours can provide to ensure that they are not victimised further by the Sri Lankan Government.

[Mr Mitchell]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. The Government have considered these matters, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman to let him know what our current view is.

The reason for sending our armed forces to Afghanistan was one of national security, but if we are to make long-term gains that will provide stability when our armed forces eventually hand over to Afghan security forces, we will require a long period of development in concert with the international community, NGOs and other countries’ aid programmes. Through the new National Security Council set up by the Prime Minister, we are joining together defence, diplomacy and development to support security and stability, to help build a more effective Afghan state and to deliver development to people on the ground. Ahead of the Kabul conference, we are working with the economic cluster of Ministers to provide more support, particularly for training, boosting Government capacity and improving the workings of the justice system and grievance proceedings, which were referred to earlier. I expect to have more to say about that ahead of the Kabul conference, which both the Foreign Secretary and I will attend.

Our country is rightly famous for the contribution that we make at times of emergency and disaster around the world. There remain real challenges, some of which were demonstrated in the aftermath of the appalling events in Haiti in January. We want to ensure that Britain’s reaction is always the best it possibly can be, and for that reason we have made it clear that we will set up a review of how Britain provides emergency relief. That will involve all the organisations in Britain that make an important contribution to that work. We are currently in advanced negotiations on how the review will proceed and who will chair it, and again, I shall keep the House closely informed.

At the first International Development questions of this Parliament, I paid tribute to the work of the outgoing Prime Minister on international development. His passion and drive in this matter is shared in all corners of the House and throughout the new coalition Government. I know that it will be a priority for many in the House, and I am confident that we will make significant progress over the years to come.

13:18

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I reiterate the personal congratulations that I extended to the Secretary of State and his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench on their ministerial appointments at this, our first debate of the new Parliament. I also welcome at this early opportunity those who will contribute today to their first debate on global poverty. Many Members in their places today, some of whom are new Members, have great expertise on the matter and a deep personal commitment to it, and I look forward to their contributions to our deliberations this afternoon.

It is now almost five years to the day since that remarkable Make Poverty History march took place in Edinburgh and the Live 8 concerts took place around the world. For those of us who were committed enough to march in Edinburgh that day, it was truly inspirational. The view of Edinburgh castle from Princes street, a view I had seen many times previously, was on that day transformed by the banner that spanned the length of the castle ramparts and declared our common mission to make poverty history. Around the world, thousands more gathered in fields and stadiums to join with millions wearing white bands to demand that the G8 leaders take action.

Five years on, we are sadly in less auspicious circumstances in the fight against global poverty. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to focus only on the negative or on the challenges confronting us today. For when promises are kept, they can make life-changing differences. Since that declaration of global solidarity in July 2005, it is fair to say that there has been significant progress, albeit not enough. I am especially proud that it was a Labour Government who led the way both on aid volumes and on aid effectiveness. Indeed, the most recent DATA report published by the ONE campaign ahead of the recent G8 meeting in Canada declared:

“The UK is the indisputable overall leader amongst the G7 countries in delivering on its ODA commitments”.

That judgment followed a previous report that stated that the UK was the “leader” in the G7 on aid effectiveness. What a contrast with the 18 years before 1997, which had seen our aid as a percentage of gross national income halve, the tying of aid to commercial interests and the shame of scandals such as the Pergau dam.

The last decade of delivery in the fight against global poverty has been regarded by some as a golden age, from the Jubilee 2000 campaign for debt relief through to Make Poverty History and Gleneagles. But we now face far more turbulent and testing times, and new challenges confront us. The world has been engulfed as never expected by the greatest financial and economic crisis for generations, thrusting millions of our fellow citizens back into poverty and creating pressure for donor Governments across Europe and the world to turn inwards and slash aid funding. At the same time, the urgency of tackling the climate crisis has become ever more evident, and yet the capacity of the international community to take the necessary action still remains elusive.

A world trade deal that could lift millions out of poverty has remained out of reach. State fragility and continuing conflict have continued to plague and stunt the progress of too many lives. The creaking international system, devised in a different time and for a different set of challenges, has itself been placed under ever greater strain. In this country, despite the words of the Secretary of State today, I still believe that there remain fundamental differences of approach to the challenge of development.

So let us start by recalling what truly progressive leadership can deliver. The agreements made at Gleneagles, made in part because of the great public expectation that was generated around the G8 and developing country Governments by the global anti-poverty movement, have contributed to real progress for many of the world's poorest people. The recent DATA report highlights the issue of malaria—about which we heard something in the last few minutes—where the world has exceeded the Gleneagles goal of delivering 100 million bed-nets, with 200 million more delivered between 2006 and 2009. On education, the report states that the savings from debt relief, development assistance and scaled-up prioritisation mean that 42 million more children have been enrolled in school.

However—despite these achievements—as Oxfam has pointed out, some 40% of the promised aid increases made at Gleneagles have not been delivered. That means that there is as much as a $20 billion hole in the promises the G8 made back in 2005—enough, as the House need not be reminded, to put every child in school or stop millions of children dying of malaria.

The 60% that we helped to deliver has made a huge difference, but the shortfall is continuing to cost lives today. That is why it was so urgent for G8 leaders to focus and take real and substantive action on maternal mortality and child health at their summit in Canada this past weekend. Every year, approximately 350,000 mothers die from complications during childbirth, and 8.8 million children die before their fifth birthday. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister made a number of statements about their commitment to this agenda in the media and in speeches over recent days. We heard those again this afternoon, and I welcome the rhetorical commitment offered by the Secretary of State today. Speaking in Washington recently, he said:

“When a jumbo jet crashes anywhere in the world it makes the headlines. If it were to crash week in week out in the same place there’s not a person alive who wouldn’t be talking about it. The international community would set up an enquiry and no money would be spared in making sure it never happened again. Yet, in Nigeria, the equivalent number of women die each and every week from pregnancy-related causes—and the world stands mute.”

Those are important and welcome words, although I have to say that they are not entirely original. Indeed, I recollect the particular official in DFID who encouraged me to use this very analogy when I too was preparing public remarks on maternal mortality. I only hope sincerely that the new Secretary of State proves as willing to accept the expert policy advice of those officials as he seems to be willing to accept their speechmaking suggestions.

The truth is that actions speak louder than words. So now the results of the summit are out, will the Minister when he winds up offer a clearer explanation to the House than we have so far heard as to why the G8 achieved so little in that crucial area?

Oxfam, which the Secretary of State praised a few minutes ago, described the initiative launched as

“lower than our lowest expectations”.

I was not surprised, but I was still outraged.

Blaming other leaders and using strong words is simply not good enough. Britain should be both leading by example and putting the hard graft into international negotiations. On the basis of Muskoka, it is questionable whether this new Government is doing enough. But that was not the only disappointment that we witnessed in Canada.

[Tony Baldry]

I had hoped that we might hear a slightly more consensual speech. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman was campaign manager for the late Prime Minister, but perhaps he could now focus on the international development brief. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot say both that the UK is leading by example—and the accountability report published in Canada shows that the UK is way ahead of the other G8 countries on contributions to the 0.7% target at 0.6% for 2010—

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

That was the Labour Government!

[Tony Baldry]

But the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that we should lead by example, when we are leading by example, and then whinge about how we are doing.

[Mr Alexander]

Let me try to clarify the point that I am making. I am proud of our record, and the figures for the decade of delivery that we saw under Labour bear repeating. The House need not take my word for it. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be willing to praise Oxfam if he has the opportunity to do so later, but Mark Fried of that organisation said after the summit:

“The only promise that counts is the Gleneagles one to increase aid by $50 billion by 2010 and that is the one they have abandoned today.”

It was at Gleneagles that the efforts of the former Prime Ministers, Tony Blair and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), buoyed by millions of campaigners around the world, achieved the historic promise to increase aid by $50 billion by 2010, with $25 billion of that going to Africa, and also agreed crucial steps on debt relief—what a disappointing contrast with Muskoka and Toronto.

The Prime Minister, writing in Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper shortly before this weekend’s summits, said:

“I come to the G8 and G20 in Muskoka and Toronto with a clear commitment to make sure these summits deliver for people. Too often, these international meetings fail to live up to the hype and the promises made”

but he seemed all too willing to let other G8 leaders sweep their failures under the carpet by dropping the historic Gleneagles agreement from the final communiqué.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell]

In due time and on mature reflection, the right hon. Gentleman may regret the tone that he has adopted. He quotes one particular non-governmental organisation, but why does he not quote what CAFOD or ActionAid said, when they endorsed the Prime Minister’s leading role in trying to ensure that other members of the G8 stand by the commitments that they made at Gleneagles and to which I referred in my speech?

[Mr Alexander]

Well, let us be clear about what that “leading” role involved. Why is it that Downing street admitted to The Guardian that the Prime Minister had simply

“not fought for the commitments to be included”

in the communiqué? To quote another NGO, Save the Children was moved to describe the resultant dropping of the Gleneagles communiqué as simply “shameful”. So can the Secretary of State now tell us how many phone calls and meetings he and the Prime Minister held with other Ministers about maintaining their Gleneagles promises? Did they go the extra mile, or did they merely give up? The silence is deafening.

[Mr Ellwood]

As we are exchanging quotes, let me put on the record the truth about what happened regarding Gleneagles. ActionAid said that

“David Cameron is battling hard to safeguard the Gleneagles legacy… Cameron can hold his head high as the UK is standing by its aid commitments.”

Rather than this silly exchange of quotes, we need to move the focus of the debate back on to poverty. Although these new organisations, such as the G8 and G20, are important, it is the older organisations, such as the UN, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, that have to pick up the pieces. The latter organisations are now out of date, having been created when the world was very different, but have to comply with what the G8 and G20 tell them to do. The failure lies there, rather than with the British Government.

[Mr Alexander]

It ill behoves the Conservative party to offer warm words of endorsement to the non-governmental organisation sector in the United Kingdom and then express such discomfort when their policy experts make a judgment on the conduct and performance of the Prime Minister in his first international summit.

I shall turn to the G20. I will, of course, welcome any attention that the new and larger grouping pays to international development and tackling poverty. I believe it is vital that the G20 discusses the wider global economic architecture, that the concerns of the poorest countries are at the forefront and that issues such as taxation and the regulation and taxation of the financial markets are treated as development issues, in the way we sought to do at the London G20 summit. I must express some scepticism, however, about another forum—the working group on development—being created under the auspices of the G20 at the same time as the G8 appears to be abrogating its responsibilities. In his winding-up speech, will the Minister tell the House how he envisages the new G20 group working and how it will be held to account?

Members of the G8 and G20 need to reach beyond the easy myopia that often besets publics and politics in difficult times. That is why I argued, in the White Paper that we published in 2009, that we must not turn away in fear and isolation. Although we rightly focus on tackling the global economic crisis, we must also take the longer view. We need to help fashion a world in which better regulated, greener and fairer markets operate for all, and in which growth and prosperity is generated and poverty alleviated, but not at the expense of people or the planet, on which we all depend. We need to create a world in which the skills and energies of the private sector are harnessed for the benefit of all, but in which its excesses are not treated as an acceptable by-product. We need to create a world in which we help to tackle the conflict and insecurity that blights the lives of so many ordinary people, particularly women and girls, with a broad-based concept of stabilisation, conflict prevention and peace-building that treats security and justice as basic services. We also need to create a world in which we maintain our promises to deliver the aid that helps to catalyse development and realise rights, that puts children into school, helps mothers have safer births, and ensures clean drinking water is available.

We must recognise that tackling poverty cannot be reached by spending aid alone—on that there is common ground between us—although our aid remains essential. We must take a transformative and holistic approach to development, looking at the wider global economy and issues such as tax, conflict, sustainability and gender.

[Barry Gardiner]

Was my right hon. Friend as revolted as I by photographs in the press in the past couple of days showing the beating of young boys in Bangladesh by police? Those boys were in the textile workers industry and trying to improve their own conditions—currently they earn $35 a month. Does he agree that we need to incorporate into our view and distribution of aid a clear focus on human rights abuses in the country to which we are delivering an aid programme?

[Mr Alexander]

I find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend. I was similarly horrified by the pictures that appeared in Britain’s newspapers. It reinforces the importance and urgency of continuing to make the case, not just for human rights, as he describes, but for effective mechanisms of democratic accountability so that the public in countries where such difficulties are emerging can exercise constraint on those Governments and security forces.

I want to address our aid promises, which have already been the subject of some of our exchanges. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have been at pains to insist repeatedly in recent weeks that they fully intend to meet the 0.7% aid target by 2013, and I welcome the fact that the coalition agreement, on page 22, section 18, under the title “International Development”, states:

“We will honour our commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on overseas aid from 2013, and to enshrine this commitment in law.”

I was hoping that a little more clarity might have been brought to that commitment by the Secretary of State in the debate, but despite repeated questioning, we still have no timetable for the legislation he promised in the first Session of this Parliament. Indeed, I have here an explanatory note, issued by his Department on the day of the Loyal Address, entitled: “Background Note—Non Legislative Item—International Development Spending from 2013”. Why is this the case, given that a draft Bill was scrutinised by the International Development Committee in the last Parliament? That deserves a better answer than the one offered today to the Committee Chairman. Will the Minister tell us when the legislation will be introduced?

[Malcolm Bruce]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this point, but will he acknowledge that the Select Committee, in scrutinising, acknowledged that there were some difficulties with the draft legislation? There was not unanimity, and indeed his own Government acknowledged that more work needed to be done. Can we get this together? We want legislation, but it is not quite ready. I agree with him, however, that we want a timetable.

[Mr Alexander]

I am unyielding in my admiration for the right hon. Gentleman’s commitment and expertise on these matters. I recognise that an important process of pre-legislative scrutiny was undertaken by his Committee, but I do not believe that the question of how to ensure effective legislation is what currently divides us. What divides us is the prospect of a parliamentary motion taking the place of legislation. I hope that he agrees that legislation is required.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell]

I never said that.

[Mr Alexander]

Forgive me, but I am reading from a background note published by Ministers that describes international development spending from 2013 as a “non-legislative item”. If Department officials are not following ministerial direction, that is an issue for the Secretary of State rather than us. I hope that, in the winding-up speech, this matter can be clarified, with a clear and explicit commitment to legislation, along with a date.

[Mr Mitchell]

The former Secretary of State needs to elevate the nature of his speech. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), the Chair of the International Development Committee, had it absolutely right. I do not know where the former Secretary of State got that piece of paper from, but I am happy to confirm that it is not accurate.

[Mr Alexander]

I am grateful for that admission from the Secretary of State, and I hope it will be followed up in the Minister’s speech later with some clarity on the timing of when we can seek to make progress.

[Mr Ellwood]

The right hon. Gentleman has been generous in giving way. He is demanding, or requesting, that we expedite our interest in moving towards 0.7%, and that is understandable. However, he was in power for 13 years. One of the first private Members’ Bills I was involved in was put forward by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke), who proposed that the then—and indeed any—Government commit to this target. That was agreed and supported by Front-Bench Members at the time. Why, then, is the former Secretary of State now demanding that Conservative Members move faster, given that he had plenty of time to introduce this target into law under his own Administration?

[Mr Alexander]

As I have said, I am happy to have both main parties’ records scrutinised. We trebled aid, whereas the previous Conservative Government halved it. My right hon. Friend played an honourable and distinguished role in ensuring that, through the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006, there is effective scrutiny by the House of the rising budget line we delivered year on year. [Interruption.] Forgive me, but I will continue to speak through Mr Deputy Speaker.

I can assure hon. Members that I support the legislation that the Labour party proposed and brought to the International Development Committee for scrutiny. I would welcome the opportunity for our legislation to be passed expeditiously.

There is the question of where and how our aid money is allocated across Government, and on what it is spent. We believe that the majority of our overseas development assistance should naturally be programmed and allocated by the Department for International Development. We were joined in that view by the Secretary of State’s now Cabinet colleague the Scottish Secretary, who warned during the recent general election campaign of the danger that Conservative plans could mean large sums ending up being diverted from the aid budget—for example, to count as climate finance in due course.

Let me quote to the House directly from the letter from the now Secretary of State for Scotland to the now International Development Secretary:

“Dear Andrew…I am flattered by the attention that your researchers are paying to us, but would politely suggest that their efforts would be better spent explaining to voters and the ‘development community’ how Conservative plans for DfID would work; specifically, the very real danger that under your proposals DfID departmental expenditure would leak to other departments such as the MoD and the FCO, what exactly is meant by ‘injecting business DNA into the department’ and how exactly your proposed annual monitoring could hope to work for multi annual programmes.

In other words, time better spent answering the very serious points raised by the NGOs and others about your own manifesto.

With kind regards,

Michael Moore.”

Elsewhere in that intriguing exchange of letters, the Secretary of State attacked the now Scottish Secretary and the now Business Secretary for “undermining” the consensus on international development.

However, I am glad to say that it appears that the differences between the Conservatives and the Liberals have been resolved—in the same way that a python resolves its differences with a mouse. In the coalition programme for government, we see no mention of additionality in climate finance, despite the fact that climate finance is such a crucial issue, as has been recognised across the House today. In contrast, we made it clear in government that from 2013 we would ensure that additional sources of climate finance would be provided, with no more than 10% of our aid spending being allocated to that purpose. The Liberal Democrats had also called for additional climate finance, but alas, like their promises on VAT, this now appears to have been another promise that has been conveniently forgotten. Will the Minister of State therefore tell us whether the Government intend to make any form of additional climate finance available, from what point, and from what sources? If he answers that none will be provided, perhaps he can tell us what he feels the prospects are for the climate negotiations in Cancun later this year, in the absence, as yet, of post-2013 commitments from the Government.

I would also appreciate it if the Minister could explain in more detail than we heard from the Secretary of State what is meant by the Government’s proposals for a military-led “stabilisation and reconstruction force”. We took a pragmatic but appropriate approach to stabilisation in government, recognising the complementary but distinct roles that development, diplomacy and defence should play in places such as Afghanistan. In one of the bloodiest weeks of the conflict, our thoughts must be with the families and loved ones of those British soldiers who have fallen in the service of their country in recent days. The sacrifice of our troops in Afghanistan demands that those charged with the heavy responsibility of overseeing the mission should bring strategic clarity to that onerous and important task.

The Prime Minister confirmed to the House in recent days his commitment to the counter-insurgency campaign in which NATO is engaged. That of course requires military force, but in the words of the US army’s counter-insurgency field manual, authored by the new commander, General David Petraeus, action is also required to

“uphold the rule of law, and provide a basic level of essential services and security for the populace.”

My personal conversations with General Petraeus confirmed to me the depths of his personal commitment to a comprehensive approach that requires more than just military pressure, yet since coming into government, the Secretary of State’s colleague the Defence Secretary has declared:

“We are not in Afghanistan for the sake of education policy in a broken 13th century country”.

Such ignorance of the key tenets of strategic doctrine, even from a new Defence Secretary, is as surprising as it is worrying.

For progress to be achieved through a comprehensive approach to counter-insurgency—and so that the war be ended—what is required is both strengthening of the state and its legitimacy, and striving for a political settlement, as surely as also weakening the Taliban militarily. Under such an approach, diplomatic, development and defence efforts will all play a crucial part in bringing about the conditions under which our brave forces can return home. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister explain to us in more detail how the proposed force will be funded, managed and directed?

As I have intervened to suggest, the Secretary of State has also been at pains in recent days to stress the importance of

“redesigning our aid programmes so that they build in rigorous evaluation processes from day one.”

Perhaps the Minister of State will take the opportunity—avoided by the Secretary of State—to explain the outputs of the £200 million that has been announced by the Prime Minister, most recently on his welcome trip to Afghanistan.

Let me turn to the crucial issue of basic services such as health, education and clean water. I am concerned by what I know to be the ideological approach taken by many on the Government Benches about the role of the private sector in the provision of basic services. Instead of seeing steps forward such as those that were recently taken in Sierra Leone, where health care was made free for pregnant women and babies, I fear that we could see ill-advised and ideological voucher schemes, or other forms of private subsidy that fail to catalyse wider change and are more likely to exclude the marginalised and the poorest. Does the Minister of State intend to continue promoting the removal of user fees, including through the establishment of a centre for progressive health financing? Can he also assure the House that he will make efforts, as we pledged to do, to raise the crucial issue of water and sanitation further up the international agenda?

Related to that, there is the question of our effort and engagement on those vital issues. As we have already revealed in these exchanges, when it comes to international negotiations and diplomacy, it requires real and sustained effort and personal engagement at the highest levels to make the sort of difference that is demanded by the scale of the challenges that we face. So it was, again, sad but revealing that, when questioned in the House last week, the Prime Minister could not confirm whether he had even spoken to President Zuma, other African leaders or even other donors before the crucial summit on education in South Africa in a few weeks’ time. Perhaps the Minister of State could tell us what efforts the DFID ministerial team has been making to ensure that the summit is a success.

The Secretary of State has launched a review of multilateral and bilateral funding from DFID. I do not disagree with that approach—indeed, we regularly undertook similar reviews—but he needs to be clear about whether this is a serious review or whether he is merely creating straw men before destroying them. At the announcement of the bilateral programme review, he simply got it wrong by talking about Russia, when DFID has not had a bilateral programme in Russia since 2007. Clearly he is now belatedly catching up with the facts on China, too, since as recently as 28 May he wrote to The Daily Telegraph acknowledging that

“the China aid programme will end next year.”

He also knows full well since coming into office, thanks to the reviews that I and other Ministers regularly undertook, that it was already the case that 90% of our bilateral aid was focused on just 23 countries, and the vast majority of that on the poorest people.

The Secretary of State has spoken of taking the Prime Minister’s idea about the big society to the global level, saying that his

“approach will move from doing development to people to doing development with people—and to people doing development for themselves.”

Frankly, the idea that DFID or many of Britain’s leading charities, to which the Secretary of State has paid generous tribute today, “do” development to poor people bears little relationship to reality and how much has, thankfully, changed in the development community over past years. Country-led development was a principle that a Labour Government established when DFID was created, not to mention ending the Tory policy of tying our aid.

The Secretary of State talked a lot today about change, but I believe that the new Government have found that much of what they see in DFID shows that it is working effectively. Indeed, as he was forced to concede in one of his first speeches:

“I have been struck by how much DFID contributes to Britain’s global reputation. How it has broken new ground in international development and often succeeded where others have failed.”

We are told that the Minister of State, who is sitting next to him, has also been focused on change in the Department. However, according to the newspapers, that appears to have been more about ministerial accommodation. Out went the pictures of Africa and those whom we were helping and partnering; in came a flagpole, a velvet curtain and a framed photo of the hon. Gentleman beaming his inimitable smile with the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher. That is hardly inspirational to the staff of a Department that, under her Government, watched the percentage of gross national income halve after 18 years in which aid had been trebled. In all seriousness, however, what concerns me is not what is on the Government’s walls, but what is not in the statements that they have made so far.

What concerns me most about this Government’s approach to global poverty, even in these earliest weeks, are the limitations of the vision, and, indeed, of ambition, that have so far been revealed. With the greatest of respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I was deeply disappointed by his speech to the Carnegie Foundation in Washington last week, despite the fact that it dealt with vital topics such as gender and development. There was nothing particularly wrong with many of the assertions it contained, but it was a series of assertions in search of an argument. Indeed, I cannot recollect someone travelling so far to say so little.

I therefore ask the Secretary of State: what is the clear forward agenda, beyond the re-packaging of existing policies? With just weeks to go, where are the Government’s clear and concrete proposals and red lines for the UN millennium development goals summit in September? Where is the detailed vision about how we tackle climate change and promote development, and how those can be effectively aligned? Indeed, where are the serious commitments on issues such as climate finance?

The Secretary of State rightly talked about the importance of measures “beyond aid”, but where is the crucial strategy on issues such as taxation and development, highlighted, even in recent weeks, by the excellent work of charities such as Christian Aid and ActionAid? For example, how can we take forward steps on multilateral and automatic exchange of tax information or measures on country-by-country reporting?

Leadership in international development involves more than having a bonfire of straw men. It involves serious ideas and serious action. Benedict Brogan, writing in The Daily Telegraph last week, revealed:

“The other department that has got the mandarins talking is DfID, where there is a lot of disobliging muttering about Andrew Mitchell, the new broom. His view of what aid policy should be and how it works is going down badly and officials are muttering about abilities”—

so much so, apparently, that he is now being

“monitored closely by No 10.”

Surely the true lesson of leadership in international development can be drawn from the experience of Gleneagles five years ago. At that time, there was a dynamic, independent and vibrant global civil society campaign—connected with politics and politicians who instinctively shared the same values and ambitions—that had the ability, the tenacity and the willingness to work for that shared vision so that great things could be achieved. Sadly, at the moment, we see little sign of those dynamics at work in the most recent summit.

For the sake of those with whom we share a common bond of humanity, of those who today continue to be afflicted by needless and avoidable poverty, and of those with whom we share a common interest in a safer, more sustainable and more equal world, we on this side of this House will continue to scrutinise and challenge this Government where required, and, yes, support them, where deserved. The seriousness of the issues we debate today demands nothing less of us.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. A number of colleagues have asked to speak in this popular and important debate. We also have a few maiden speeches to be delivered. We will not get everyone in if Members speak at inordinate length. We have three and a half hours: I will be in the Chair and I intend to start the winding-up speeches at 5.30 pm, so that we have a decent time for the debate to be answered. Will Members please show some restraint? If they go wildly over 10 minutes, the Chair will have to look again at whether to impose any time limits.

13:53

[Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Deputy Speaker, given your role on the International Development Committee in the last Parliament. Indeed, having both Mr Speaker and a Deputy Speaker as ex-members of that Committee, I feel that international development will have the kind eye of the Chair during this Parliament.

I very much welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to his position. I believe that the speech he made—whatever the debating points arising out of it—showed that he is someone with a deep commitment to, and passion for, international development, who has a real desire to make an impact and make a difference.

Although Labour Members are entitled to challenge and criticise, I was a little disappointed with the tone of the speech by the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander)—not least because I wanted to open my remarks by paying a genuine and warm tribute to the Labour Government and the Labour party. I believe that the establishment of the Department for International Development and the International Development Act 2002 set the basis for reforming the mistakes made in the past. I think we should recognise that they are now a long way in the past, and all parties now acknowledge that that older style of overseas development has gone for ever. In DFID, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we created a Department that has provided world leadership in development, and it has made a huge impact. I give credit to Clare Short, the first Secretary of State of the Department, and to the right hon. Members for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, who have all made a contribution to that development.

It seems to me that we are trying to accept that we have perhaps the best Development Ministry in the world, but that it has to move forward and that there is scope for change, innovation and development. The new coalition Government will inevitably want to bring its own ideas to bear. It is certainly my hope that we will build on that, develop it and take it forward. I am the Chairman of this cross-party Select Committee, and we will of course monitor progress, ask questions and make periodic reports to the House.

On the exchanges we had about the 0.7% commitment, we should all be grateful that there is complete consensus in the House over the commitment to deliver that by 2013. In an informal conversation I had with the Secretary of State—I hope he will not mind my saying this—we realised that it is not this House that lacks commitment; the problem is the engagement with the wider public, which requires the House to maintain its united commitment and to engage the public to ensure that support remains for achieving this goal.

In that context, the Secretary of State clearly read out—as, indeed, did the shadow Secretary of State—what it says in the coalition agreement about enshrining the 0.7% commitment in law. I do not want to labour the point. I just want to say that the Select Committee took evidence on the draft legislation that came before us under the previous Government—I have to say it came very late in their programme, and the previous Government should acknowledge that—and it raised a number of questions. No one denied the value of having this legislation. If the present Government have the same commitment, I look forward to taking it forward, but some refinement will need to be made, in the light of the evidence our Committee took, if the legislation is to be fit for purpose. I hope that in due course the Secretary of State will give us an indication of how and when that legislation will be brought into law.

As a final point on this issue, the commitment does not require legislation—and neither does the lack of legislation in any way bring the commitment into question. What it does is set and reinforce the example, demonstrating to the public that Parliament is united over this achievement.

The Secretary of State set out a number of priorities that he wants to bring to bear on development in the future. Of course, there are some questions in the development community, and rightly so. He said that his primary aim is for aid to be transparent and accountable and that he wants to set up a new mechanism for achieving that. In due course, further details will no doubt be brought to the House. I appreciate that the Select Committee will have an important role to play in the process.

I agree with the Secretary of State that the more we can demonstrate the outcomes from our investment and aid, the more we can convince people that the programme is effective, that it works and that it does deliver. I add the cautionary note that not every aspect of aid can be so easily measured or monitored, and certainly not in the same time scale. I support the objective, but it is important to recognise that not every aspect of the budget can be subjected to the same objective criteria; we need some other ways to evaluate it. The principle, however, seems to me to be fundamentally sound and right.

There is perhaps also some concern about the definition of official development assistance, how it is applied and how it will be controlled across Departments. The vast majority of overseas development assistance currently goes through DFID, and I hope that that will continue to be the case; but the House needs to be sure that ODA which does not go through DFID meets the same objective criteria.

[Mr Thomas]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that transparency of development assistance is not something dramatically new? Does he recall, as Opposition Members do, that when the Conservatives were in opposition they used independent evaluations of DFID programmes to ask perfectly reasonable questions on the Floor of the House? Further measures may be welcome, but the right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that the last Government also took a series of measures to increase transparency.

[Malcolm Bruce]

I certainly accept that there was not only a lively debate but activity in the Department and the evaluation unit. The Committee visited the unit and met its representatives.

I do not suggest that there was a monopoly on one side of the House in this regard, but a permanent problem with aid and development is establishing what works, how the extent to which it works can be measured, and how people can be reassured that it works. We have all observed it in journalists’ correspondence, and in what is said by people we meet around the place. The bottom line is that people think that billions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money is being put into Swiss bank accounts on behalf of corrupt politicians. We all know that that is not what happens to the vast majority of UK aid—indeed, we hope, to any of it—but we must constantly improve presentation so that we can reassure taxpayers that that is demonstrably not the case, and that the aid really is making a difference. If it is possible to improve the existing mechanism, there is no reason why we should not try to do so.

The summit on the millennium development goals will take place later this year. The current Parliament is due to end in 2015, the year in which the MDGs are set to be delivered. We know that they will not be, but during this Parliament we must determine exactly how much we can prioritise them, and what we must do about those in regard to which we fall farthest behind.

Let me say something about MDGs 4 and 5. The Select Committee paid particular attention to maternal health in the last Parliament, and I was horrified by what we learned during that inquiry about the appalling and needless suffering of so many women in so many parts of the world. As has been said by the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), whom I welcome back to the Committee, the problem is often the treatment and status of women rather than our inability to deliver services that could meet the needs of women in poor countries. Certain societies do not recognise the importance or necessity of such services.

I was particularly shocked, when the Committee visited northern Nigeria, to be told that the education of girls involved learning the Koran by rote, on the grounds that that was all that they needed to know because they would be married by the time they were 12 and pregnant by the time they were 13—and, in many instances, dead before they were 14.

We should not even think of girls in societies of that kind in the context of girls in our own society, who, at 12 or 13, might be regarded as far too young to give birth, but who might none the less be quite well developed. In countries where nutrition is poor, many girls aged 12 or 13 are not fit to give birth to children, which is why they die. Worse, those who do give birth are expected to deliver their children alone, without any form of attendance or support. I consider that appalling. I welcome the commitment to treating it as a priority, but I think it reasonable to suggest that the health of children up to the age of five should be linked to it. While the welfare of women has a very big impact on children, an awful lot of children die at the age of three, four or five. Unless we consider the two issues together, we may not be able to achieve the results for which we hope.

I was slightly surprised that the Secretary of State did not say more about the role of economic development and the role of the partnership between the public and private sectors, although there was a passage in his speech about it. Unlike the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, I am not talking about the role of the private sector in delivering social programmes and the like. I am talking about how we can deliver economic development better in partnership: how DFID’s engagement can create a climate in which businesses, whether indigenous or external, will invest and commit themselves to developing countries, so that those countries can grow their economies and revenue bases and reduce their dependence on aid.

The Secretary of State mentioned CDC in passing. The way in which CDC operates—as a kind of arm’s length “fund of funds”—is very easy to criticise, and Private Eye has had a field day doing so. However, CDC has clearly delivered a substantial amount of investment at no cost to the taxpayer, and has increased our development capacity because of the profitability of the fund. There are question marks over the use of tax havens, although I see the logic of the argument that that releases even more money for investment. I do not particularly want to develop that argument, but I have felt for some time that there is a gap between DFID’s development activity and CDC and the business sector that could be addressed constructively.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell]

The Chairman of the Select Committee has made an extremely good point, but if he reads the report of what I said today, he will see that we are very much on the case. We are restructuring the way the Department handles the issues to which he has referred, and we are looking specifically at CDC to ensure that we secure as much development gain and value from its work as we possibly can. We aim to do more rather than less.

[Malcolm Bruce]

I shall be interested to see how that develops.

I entirely accept that investing in health, education and infrastructure helps to create a climate in any given country that will make the business community better able to thrive and survive, but there are times when a partnership with business is needed to establish what aspects of health, education and infrastructure will best deliver investment. If we could do that more effectively, we might speed up the process of economic development rather than just aid support, with the help of better trading relations, a World Trade Organisation deal giving people real access to markets, and the elimination of internal obstacles to trade, both within countries and between neighbouring countries.

The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) has left the Chamber, but I want to say something about climate change. There is concern in the developing countries that all the commitment to poverty reduction could be easily subsumed into climate change measures. The 10% ruling was arbitrary, but I consider it important for the Government to focus primarily on poverty reduction, and not to allow climate change to divert funds that could be used for that purpose. We need a safeguard to ensure that that does not happen.

I am conscious of your constraint, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall not say too much more, but I want to make two or three comments about the country programmes. The Secretary of State said that there would be a review of those programmes. We need a fairly early indication of how that will take place, so that people are not faced with too long a period of uncertainty about where it is heading. Other countries, notably and recently Sweden, have conducted such reviews. It might be best if our review focused on a smaller number of countries in which our assistance could be even more effective.

The Secretary of State will not be surprised to learn that I have a view on the debate about China. The hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), who is present, does not agree with the rest of the Committee on the subject. I entirely accept that the development relationship with China should come to an end—that is not a point of concern to me—but the general relationship with the country seems to me to have continuing value, and it will require some budget if it is to continue. The Committee heard effective evidence of how well that can be done, and what a contribution it makes to reducing the MDGs, given the size and scale of China. I urge the Secretary of State to look at our report again. It does not really disagree with his conclusions or those of his predecessor, but it does suggest that there should be a little more space in the continuing relationship with China. That would be very beneficial to UK-China relations and to poverty reduction in China, not because the Chinese want our money but because we would be able to work with them to deliver better ways of achieving poverty reduction. Such an approach might even lead to partnerships in third countries between Britain and China, which would be a remarkably interesting and worthwhile development. That is all I would ask that he take on board.

[Mr Mitchell]

The Chair of the Select Committee is on to a very good point, because the Conservatives have for years said that it was wrong to spend taxpayers’ money in China. That country has just spent £20 billion on the Olympics, it has a space programme and it is a nuclear power. Since we made that plea on behalf of the British taxpayer, the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) has spent tens of millions of pounds on British aid in China. The Chair of the Select Committee rightly says that we need a partnership, an elevated relationship whereby we work together on common objectives and have a high-level dialogue on partnering on aid and development. We are in the process of working out precisely how to do that.

[Malcolm Bruce]

I am grateful for that intervention. The only practical point I make is that it requires a bit of funding to do demonstration projects.

Interestingly, the same arguments will start to apply to India, and I suspect that we are unlikely to come to the same conclusion on India. I found it interesting that the arguments used by the previous Government to justify the closure of the programme in China were used in reverse to defend the programme in India.

[Mr Mitchell]

China and India are fundamentally different, because India has more poor people within its boundaries than the whole of sub-Saharan Africa and the average income of an Indian is a third that of a Chinese. Of course we also have deep historical links with India through the Commonwealth and many other mechanisms, so I do not think that there is a direct analogy between the two countries.

[Malcolm Bruce]

I think that intervention proves my point. The Select Committee may well wish to examine the issue of India again, but we have not yet been formulated and we have made no such decisions.

Finally, it is impossible to have a discussion on global poverty without examining this country’s engagement in Afghanistan. I am concerned about the debate about Afghanistan, because the situation is complicated. Inevitably, the focus is on the military engagement and the casualty rate, and rightly so. We have to show, and we do show, enormous appreciation of the bravery of our forces and the sacrifices that they are making in order to contain an insurgency and create the space for a successful Afghanistan that can manage its own affairs—we hope that that is what will happen. It worries me that people do not appreciate what is happening in Afghanistan. They do not appreciate that we are operating across the whole country, that we are having real success in large parts of it and that the military operation in the south is not the whole expression of what is happening. So it is important that the Department for International Development’s engagement in Afghanistan continues in a way that demonstrates that what we are trying to do is build a state that can not only run its own affairs and enable us to remove our military support, but deliver to its people a development programme that will take them out of poverty. That will be the best and strongest basis for a secure future for Afghanistan and it is the right and proper, legitimate aspiration of the people of Afghanistan. Our UK aid programme must be focused on that more than anything else. People are looking for a clear separation between aid and development, and military support and containment; they are not looking for confusion between the two. I hope that, provided we can keep that right, we will be able to maintain a programme in Afghanistan that will continue to command popular support, because it is a poor country that we should and would be engaged in even if it was not in a conflict situation.

This is an important debate. The change in Government clearly will result in questions from all parts of the House about the future of our overseas development assistance, but what is clear to me is that we have a coalition Government who are determined to deliver our United Nations obligations and to apply principles to development that will continue to mean that Britain is a leading global player. As Chairman of the Select Committee, I look forward to its engaging with the Department in a constructive way that will help to shape that policy and influence it positively.

14:14

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

It is almost five years to the day since the Gleneagles summit, which was a high point in the UK’s influence in global development policy. We led by example and we secured commitments from the other G7 members to double their aid and reach the UN’s 0.7% contribution target. Allied to that, the European Union gave a parallel commitment in the same year. I therefore deeply regret that the Gleneagles commitments were dropped from this year’s G7 communiqué, because that has given the impression, at least to some non-governmental organisations—the shadow Secretary of State mentioned Oxfam and Save the Children—that our country’s development policy under the coalition Government has fallen at the first hurdle.

I will say that the Prime Minister is right to lay continuing emphasis on the millennium development goals, as Tony Blair and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) did before him. However, I say to the Secretary of State that that is not an alternative to doubling aid, because the Gleneagles commitment on doubling aid was a means to an end; it was designed to get the world’s major donors to provide the resources to make meeting the MDGs possible. We simply will not get all children in least developed countries into primary schools if that doubling of aid commitment is not met; nor will we be able to reduce by three quarters the ratio of mothers dying in childbirth—that MDG is the most off track.

I therefore wish to focus on what I believe the Government should do to re-engage other G7 and European Union countries in order to get them to honour their commitments, and to build a continuing profile for our country as a development leader. There are two opportunities to do that over the next six months. The first is to use the negotiations within the World Bank on the 16th round of the replenishment of International Development Association funding—IDA16—to persuade donor countries to increase their financial commitments to the World Bank’s next three-year IDA period. IDA is the World Bank’s window for lending to least developed countries. This matter is important because the World Bank is the world’s biggest multilateral development agency and, for all its faults, we will not achieve the MDGs unless IDA has increased resources to do the work it does. The United Kingdom is in a particularly strong position to influence others on commitments to IDA, because in the current IDA round—IDA15—we were the world’s largest donor.

IDA16 will doubtless be discussed at the annual meeting of the World Bank in October and will probably be finalised at the spring meeting next year. IDA16 is particularly important in relation to the MDGs, because it will cover the last three-year period leading up to 2015, which is the target date for implementing the MDGs. Ending up with an IDA16 with less money pledged than in the current IDA round would limit the opportunity of donors to ensure that the MDGs are met. So I hope that the Minister of State’s response will set out the Government’s plans to talk to their opposite numbers in other G7 and EU countries and to seek from them the assurance that they will make commitments to IDA.

I chair an international parliamentary body called the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank, which is a network of some 1,200 parliamentarians, roughly half from developing countries and half from developed countries. We seek to hold the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to account, especially to parliamentarians.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell]

May I ask the hon. Gentleman a serious question on this point? On what basis does he believe the Government should decide on the amount of funding for the IDA replenishment? What is his view on the mechanisms by which we should reach that conclusion?

[Hugh Bayley]

I would like our Government to contribute to IDA16 at least the same proportion of their development finance during the three-year period in question as the UK contributed to IDA15. In other words, it would be more money in real terms but the same proportion of UK aid overall. That would be a good starting point. If the UK were to make such a commitment, implying an increase in our contribution to IDA for the crucial three-year period leading up to 2015, we would be in a strong position to seek commitments from other development partners. I know that, in reality, some G7 countries—Italy, for instance—have made very negative decisions on development spending. There are others, however—including France, which was broadly on track, although it might have slipped back a bit now—that we ought to be able to persuade to make a firm commitment in relation to IDA.

I can make an offer to the Secretary of State. Through the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank, I have been one of the architects of a campaign among parliamentarians in countries north and south to raise the question of the IDA16 replenishment in their Parliaments, and to seek commitments from donor country Governments to debate the financial commitment they will make to IDA16. We are also seeking a serious debate in the Parliaments of developing and developed countries on what can be done to improve the aid effectiveness of the World Bank’s IDA programmes, building on the Paris declaration, the Accra programme of action and the findings of the World Bank’s own mid-term review of IDA15. That review contained some good proposals about how the World Bank could achieve more with the money that it already has.

I would also like to see the introduction of a peer review mechanism, so that one World Bank office can review the performance of another, in order to drive up aid effectiveness. I would like parliamentarians in each country to have a role in these processes. In Ghana, for example, one would expect the country office of the World Bank to report to parliamentarians in Ghana. That is not to say that the constitutional relationship should change. The World Bank is owned by its shareholders, and they are Governments. In relation to achieving greater aid effectiveness, however, we want to see more openness and transparency.

We are going to run the campaign as well as we can and in as many Parliaments as possible, in the north and the south, during the period of discussion on the IDA replenishment. I hope that the UK Government will support us. I have already written to the Secretary of State to ask him to come to the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank’s annual conference in December as a keynote speaker. We are also about to launch a call to action to publicise what we are doing. If he were able to provide some sponsorship and support for that in July, or some time soon, we would welcome that.

[Malcolm Bruce]

The hon. Gentleman is a valued member of the Committee, and his work with the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank is also valuable. Does he agree that the effectiveness of such a campaign will be dependent on the amount of information that is published and made available to Members of Parliament, especially in the developing countries? Does he welcome in principle the Secretary of State’s commitment to publishing the detail of the funding on the website? Will he reinforce my request to the Secretary of State for as much detail as possible, in order to illuminate what is going on and enable parliamentarians to be more effective?

[Hugh Bayley]

Yes, I do welcome that commitment, and I very much endorse what the Chairman of the Select Committee says. I should perhaps acknowledge that one of the reasons that the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank is able to launch its campaign is that the Department for International Development has supported the core cost of running our Paris-based secretariat, which is developing the campaign.

A second opportunity for the UK to re-engage with our G7 and EU partners and win commitments from them in the next few months will be in the work leading up to the September UN summit on achieving the millennium development goals. Again, it would be helpful if the UK Government were to set out their plans for any bilateral conversations with other EU and G7 Heads of Government and to seek to influence the statements those Governments will make at the UN summit on the level of their aid funding. There will certainly be an anticipation in the developing world that donors will come up with the resources to back up the conclusions of the summit on achieving the millennium development goals.

The Secretary of State said that the Government intended to legislate to commit the United Kingdom to providing 0.7 % of its gross national income for development aid. The Chairman of the Select Committee reminded the House that the Committee had examined the draft Bill and made a number of recommendations. The first of those was that the millennium development goals summit is an important opportunity to renew commitments to aid allocations. The Committee’s report also identified the real danger that, as aid levels increase to meet the 0.7 % target already agreed, more official development assistance will be spent through other Government Departments that are not subject to the UK’s International Development Act 2002. I agree with the Chairman of the Select Committee that we need greater clarity from our Government if a proportion of the increased aid to which they are committed is going to be spent by Departments other than DFID. We need reassurance that the goals of that spending will remain similar to those of DFID, and that poverty alleviation remains the key goal, whether the money is spent in DFID or any other Department. There has been a great deal of interest in this point among the NGO community.

We live in a globalising world. I do not need to remind hon. Members how much the world economy, environmental challenges and migration bind us all together; that is well understood. The centre of gravity of global politics is moving from west to east. In that context, “east” does not just mean Japan, China, Korea and India; it also means the Pacific basin as a whole, including California and British Columbia. Were there more time, I could say a lot about the UK and Europe’s need to recast their foreign and defence policy—to some extent, the UK Government will be doing that in their strategic defence review—but I shall just say a few words before I sit down about EU policy.

The European Union as a whole still has the world’s largest GDP—some $16.5 trillion a year, compared with $15 trillion for the United States, $5.5 trillion for China and $5 trillion for Japan. The UK’s share of that is some $2.5 trillion. The EU remains economically a big player on the world stage, but the UK on its own is rather less so. I believe that the EU punches below its weight. I am not in any sense a federalist, but I want the new European External Action Service, under Baroness Ashton, to deliver a great deal more for people living in Europe than the old directorate-general for external relations. I want to see a comprehensive approach whereby the European Union’s common foreign and security policy and common security and defence policy, as well as its development policy, EU aid policy and trade policy, all pull in the same direction to ensure that long-term development, state building, peace building, trade, foreign relations and reform of international institutions such as the UN also all pull in the same direction better to co-ordinate the development policies of the European Union and member states and to strengthen the poverty focus.

We have a strong poverty focus in this country, whereas the EU has a much less stronger one. Only half of EU aid goes to the least developed countries compared with about two thirds among donors as a whole. We need to minimise duplication and wasteful competition between individual bilateral donors, reduce red tape and increase the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of our aid. Now, 60% of all the world’s aid—some €50 billion out of a total €80 billion—comes from Europe, both from EU member states bilaterally and from the EU acting on behalf of the Union as a whole. If the world is to succeed in achieving the millennium development goals by 2015, the EU and its member states must deliver more with the resources that are already committed to development as well as increase their spending to meet the commitments given at Gleneagles.

The Government are in a position to use the EU to multiply the value and effectiveness of aid from member states. It would be wrong, in my view, to back away from the EU or to reduce the UK’s contribution to EU development programmes. Our aid alone, however well spent, will not be enough to ensure that the least developed countries achieve the millennium development goals. Glorious isolation would make us less influential and less effective than concerted action to get the new European External Action Service to improve the EU’s performance.

14:32

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech during the debate on global poverty—a debate in which I was inspired to speak after meeting class P of Hayfield primary school in Upton. If I had not spoken today, I am convinced that they would never have forgiven me—so more of class P later.

First, may I say that it is a great honour to be here to represent the people of Wirral West? For those who do not know Wirral West, it is placed on the north-west tip of the Wirral peninsula between the River Mersey and the River Dee, with wonderful views of the Welsh hills and the Liverpool waterfront. It is described as a hidden treasure, made up of a beautiful collection of towns and villages—West Kirby, Hoylake, Greasby, Frankby, Irby, Pensby, Barnston, Thingwall, Upton and Caldy—like a string of pearls, each one a jewel, sitting next to one another. However, let us not get carried away. Beyond the natural beauty, we have struggles and concerns: the small village shops, fighting for survival against the giant supermarket chains; youth unfulfilled and unemployed; debt; and financial hardship. To that end and for those reasons, I shall be supporting my constituents. They had the faith to vote for me, and I have the strength to support them.

Some distinguished MPs have done so before, for I follow in the footsteps of some notable predecessors, distinguished by their considerable ability and dedication of service: Lord Selwyn-Lloyd, who served as Foreign Secretary, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Speaker of the House; David Hunt, now Lord Hunt of Wirral, who became Secretary of State for Wales and Secretary of State for Employment; and, more recently, Stephen Hesford. They all served their constituents tirelessly, and I hope that I will follow that tradition.

On a personal note, I want to thank David Hunt and his wife Paddy. They both still play a significant role in the community and, in particular, with Hoylake cottage hospital, Wirral marine disabled association and the Wirral sick children’s fund. They have been a source of tremendous support to me, helping me throughout the 10 years for which I have tried to win this seat. It has been a long journey. To anyone who says that it is a fast way into politics, I say that it is not. But it was a journey worth taking, and those 10 years have made it all the more pleasurable to be here.

Wirral West is an enchanting and enriching place that is full of history, legend and the spirit of Vikings. I shall explain some of that today, but hon. Members will have to discover the rest when they come to visit, which there will be plenty of opportunity to do. Golfers are likely to want to visit the Royal Liverpool golf club at Hoylake, which will host the Open again in 2014 and the women’s British open for the first time in 2012. There is also sailing, particularly the annual Wilson trophy championship, in which 200 Olympic-class sailors compete. It is frantic and frenetic as they spin across the water touching grand prix speeds. Our home team, the West Kirby Hawks, is one of the best around and won last year.

Wirral West has been shaped by its geography, the prevailing winds and the high seas. Back in AD 900, they brought the invading Vikings who settled there and made their parliament at the hamlet of Thingwall. On Thurstaston hill, the highest point of the Wirral, is Thor’s stone. Legend has it that when Thor, the great Viking god of thunder, fertility and the law, rode across the heavens on his chariot, the noise would be the rumble of thunder, and when he threw his hammer there would be a flash of lightning across the skies. His hammer is meant to be buried under the stone. It is said that Thor had a simple way of making laws and righting wrongs: killing those who stood in his way. Being mere mortals, and not gods, we have produced a moderate way of performing those duties which begins here in the House.

King Canute is said to have stood at the sea port in Meols attempting to turn back the tide from flooding the north shores of Wirral. Whether that is fact or fable, it is a lesson that neither man nor king can turn back the tide. But, when given the right to govern and to work in consensus, as this historic coalition has been, we can look forward to creating and altering our future. The people of Wirral know all about that, for they have strength of character, warmth of heart and a sense of humour; perhaps there is a bit of Viking left in them. They know what is good for their area and they will fight hard for what they believe.

To those who say that democracy does not work or that a person or community cannot change things, I say, “Take heart from the people of Wirral.” They were threatened with the closure of their libraries and leisure centres, and it was viewed as a fait accompli, but it was not. Some 60,000 people took to the streets in Wirral, demonstrated, lobbied and held public meetings, and the decision was overturned. People can make a difference and the people of Wirral have done so.

I did not know which debate I was going to make my maiden speech in, because they were all relevant to the people of Wirral West and to their aims and ideas. A health debate would have been relevant, because we are home to Arrowe Park hospital, which employs 6,000 people and serves 400,000 people across Wirral. The acute trust is the biggest and busiest in the north-west. Education is also important; Wirral West has some of the best and progressive schools, including Calday, West Kirby grammar, Hilbre, Pensby and Woodchurch high school. Work and pensions issues are also important to us, as the young search for employment and the old search for support. However, when I received 20 letters from class P at Hayfield primary school, and another letter from the sixth-form girls at Upton convent, I knew that I had to make my maiden speech in this debate.

Class P has signed up to the 1GOAL campaign to help global poverty through education. The campaign is trying to use the profile of the 2010 World cup in South Africa, bringing together footballers and fans of all ages with charities and local and world leaders, to make education a reality for 72 million primary school children worldwide by 2015. I asked class P to explain what poverty meant to them. They said it was about not being able to go to school to learn and make friends, about being sick but not having a doctor and about living in fear. Most of all, poverty is about living with no hope and dying with no one caring. According to UNICEF, 24,000 children die that way each day, and 10.6 million children die before the age of five—that is the same total as all the children of France, Germany, Greece and Italy added together. So today I bring the message of the next generation to the attention of the current generation—beat poverty through education.

Yes, and I believe in the goodness of human beings and the thread of humanity that touches the core of every one of us. It is here in this Chamber, on all sides of the House, and it is in class P at Hayfield school.

All of us come here with the desire to help others and, ultimately, to enable them to help themselves, but different times—and we are living in different times—require different solutions. We are living in a financial downturn and at a time of financial restraint. We have inherited a record deficit, so we have to do things differently. We have to have a different strategy but, that said, we must work together and use and acknowledge the successes of past Parliaments.

So I welcome the new coalition Government’s commitment to spending 0.7% of gross national income as aid by 2013, helping the poorest in the world. I hope that that is welcomed by all Members of the House, and I am sure that it will be—just as it will be welcomed by the children at Hayfield school.

14:41

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

May I begin by welcoming to the House the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey)? She gave a very confident and lucid speech, and raised the very pertinent issue of how the vision of children can often inspire us to consider some of the greater global problems that we face.

As the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) correctly said earlier, the environment for a debate on development is very different from what it was five years ago, when we had the Make Poverty History protest in Edinburgh. Obviously, we are facing much greater economic pressures domestically, but the two problems are not separate. Increasingly, our future is bound to that of the developing south, in an age of growing volatility.

The millennium development goals must remain at the heart of our policy direction and development. I welcome the new Government’s commitment to the MDG process and the 0.7% target, but many of us would be much more comforted if we had a more settled timetable for passing binding legislation to achieve that. In increasingly difficult times, the issue of ring-fencing will be coming under pressure, and it is important that all sides retain support.

However, I also think that this is a time to look back and reflect on how we can sustain and improve performance in respect of the MDG targets. I believe that we need to move away from a narrow focus on technical intervention and move to a focus on supporting citizens’ ability to exercise their rights. Our overarching philosophy should be that poverty is not inevitable. We should not believe that aid in its current form should be a permanent fixture in world affairs; rather, we should believe that it is the means to help countries out of dependency and to empower them to tackle their national problems by their own means.

As I have argued before in this House, I believe that one area of poverty that does not receive sufficient priority is employment. Globally, more than 1 billion people are currently unemployed, under-employed or working poor. As populations in the developing world continue to escalate, global official unemployment has now reached a record high of over 185 million.

Nearly half that total are people under 24 years of age, yet younger people represent only a quarter of the working-age population. That problem may well get worse in the coming decade, when young people will make up the highest ever proportion of the world’s population. Currently, there are 1.5 billion people aged between 12 and 24, of whom 1.3 billion live in the south. It is estimated that, due to the global recession of the last few years, 64 million more people worldwide will fall into extreme poverty this year alone. If we do not wish the progress on the MDGs to recede, we need to give employment a much greater priority at every level.

Increasing urbanisation in poor nations is exacerbating the problem, as more and more people are concentrated in shanty towns, often without access to basic utilities and at increased risk of disease, abuse and marginalisation. Obviously, that can lead to increasing domestic political instability, with little enforceable domestic security. It also provides the perfect environment for human trafficking and other forms of criminal activity, such as drugs and arms trading, the consequences of which we can see in every town and city in Europe. We face not only global bank and debt crises, but a global unemployment crisis, both at home and abroad, but too often in their language and responses, our world leaders fail to place employment at the core of their priorities.

Now is exactly the right time to revive world trade talks, and I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments on the Doha round. We must not bury trade talks or pander to protectionist instincts. This time, we need to ensure that the talks focus on creating jobs rather than on increasing corporate profits. The UK is one of the leading international donors, and should use its influence at both bilateral and multilateral levels to promote investment in job-rich industries and services, and to make a decent work agenda a core factor in its support for private sector development. Trade agreements must not signal a race to the bottom in terms of income, and they need to be accompanied by firmer agreement on minimum labour standards.

However, another reason why getting greater numbers into the formal economy is important is that we want to create a permanent, stable tax base, which is a key element in reducing dependency on aid. In a world that is changing rapidly—politically, economically and environmentally—we can anticipate greater periods of turbulence, higher food and energy prices, water depletion, fish depletion, and deforestation. Demand growth is accelerating, and the World Bank estimates that food production will need to increase by close to 50% between 2000 to 2030. Increasingly, a nation’s resilience in the face of disruption will mark its ability to survive successfully. Those of us who live in richer nations have distinct advantages: strong states, an ability to harness sophisticated technology and highly skilled citizens. To differing degrees, developing countries lack many such advantages, and accordingly have much higher levels of vulnerability.

If the ambitions of the MDGs are to bear fruit, it is important to protect the advances that have already been made before we seek further progress on the targets. Despite the fact that we have made considerable progress since 2000, those who have been taken above absolute poverty remain very close to the threshold. They live in emerging economies, so they are subject to much more pressure and are more vulnerable, and there is a very high risk that they will go back into absolute poverty.

Increasingly, we need to consider innovative ways in which to improve resilience and sustain the improvements that have been made. Rather than focusing only on developing basic public services, we need to consider how wealth can be redistributed within societies to achieve social progress, how the voice of the poor can be properly recognised, and how democracy, and thus the accountability of Governments to their citizens, can increase. All three elements are vital to progress on the MDGs.

Christian Aid recently made two specific calls in respect of taxation to aid a fairer distribution. I hope that when he responds, the Minister can provide an assurance that the Government support multilateral, automatic exchange of tax information between tax jurisdictions, so that we can better tackle the pernicious impact of tax havens, and a new international accounting standard that requires corporations to report on profits that they have made in every country where they operate. Those two measures will not cost the UK taxpayer a penny, but they could make a real and substantial difference to millions of the world’s poorest. I am sure that they would pass the Secretary of State’s value-for-money test.

I should like briefly to address gender. Sadly, it is no surprise that MDG 5, on maternal mortality, is the most off track. Women account for 70% of the world’s poor, and because they face systematic discrimination, their opportunities to escape poverty are correspondingly fewer. The interlinked problems of high fertility rates and maternal mortality continue to impede economic and social development. The underlying causes of high fertility, morbidity and mortality are not lack of contraception, blood loss and infection, but rather, as the right hon. Member for Gordon correctly said, apathy and a lack of respect for women and their fundamental rights. One symptom of that is that the data on women and girls are patchy. Key statistics, for example, are available only in about one quarter of developing nations. That in turn leads to women’s concerns being given low political priority and to a lack of impetus to change.

I believe that the UK should continue to be at the forefront of working with others to press for voluntary family planning that is universally accessible, and I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments this afternoon, but we also need to prioritise support for social and legal measures that stem the widespread practice of early marriage of young girls in many parts of the developing world. For a number of reasons, we in the west have shied away from this issue, but it is fundamental. It goes without saying that getting girls into school is important, but if we simply rely on primary education for success rather than the full range of secondary and tertiary education, we will not make much change.

Sixty per cent. of the world’s out-of-school children are girls, and they are less likely to progress to secondary and tertiary education as a result. Children of mothers who can read themselves are likely to achieve significantly higher results and accordingly continue their education longer. Tackling illiteracy, particularly among girls and women needs to have priority if we are going to give women better opportunities. We also need to give greater support to initiatives to encourage girls to continue their education and address the cultural barriers to female employment. Currently, 82 million girls in developing nations who are now aged 10 to 17 will be married before their 18th birthday. Where the birth rate in countries has fallen, between 25% and 40% of economic growth is attributable to demographic changes. Tackling those issues would bring fundamental and permanent improvement to the rights of women and tackle the millennium development goals on which we are most lagging behind.

What we need most in the year to follow is political will of the type that saw the birth of the MDGs and was prepared to look not just at the latest emergency but at how we want the world to be in the next 10 to 15 years. The outcome of the G20 summit last week was disappointing for development; there is no doubt about that. We need the UK Government to provide continued leadership in the tough times as well as the good. September’s summit gives us an opportunity, and I hope that it will be grasped.

14:52

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

I think the whole House will have agreed with the comments by the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) until her peroration about the UK Government not showing leadership. As I hope I will show, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister showed considerable leadership in Canada. Until she spoiled her speech with that last bit, it was actually a very good speech. The whole House is grateful to her for the work that she does on the all-party group on trade, aid and debt.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) for an outstanding speech, which was fluent, articulate and very much to the point. I am sure that the House will look forward to hearing her speak in future debates on many topics that she also highlighted. It is heartening that the maiden speeches, certainly on this side of the House, have been of the highest quality that the House has heard for many a new Parliament.

I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development in his place. He showed outstanding commitment as shadow Secretary of State and he has shown extreme grip by what he has done already in the Department. I know that he will do an extraordinarily good job for international development during his time as Secretary of State.

[Chris Kelly]

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Secretary of State on his fantastic work in Rwanda, where he has led Project Umubano for several years now? He took the then Leader of the Opposition to Rwanda and the then Secretary of State, who is going back to Rwanda this summer, as am I for the second time on this fantastic project.

[Tony Baldry]

I certainly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to my right hon. Friend for what he did with the project in Rwanda. It reinforces one of the three points that I want to make.

I am conscious that others want to speak. What I would like to say in this debate can be summed up by one paragraph in the Prime Minister’s statement to the House earlier this week on the G8 and G20 summits. He said:

“Even at a time when our countries face difficult budget decisions, it is important that we maintain our commitment to helping the poorest in the world. The UK is maintaining its commitment to increase spending on aid to 0.7% of gross national income. That gives us the opportunity to exercise leadership on behalf of the poorest. At the same time, in order to take the public with us, we also need to ensure that every penny will reach those who need it most. That means transparency and accountability along the lines that we are introducing. It also means that the projects we support must be deliverable, practical and measurable, addressing the causes of poverty and not just alleviating the symptoms.”—[Official Report, 28 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 566.]

My first point is that it is good to see so many Members in the House this afternoon for a debate on international development. We will all have to recognise, as times get difficult when the spending cuts bite, that we continually need to make the argument that spending on international development is valuable and is in our national interest—in terms of stability, security and a sense of common humanity, and, as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday during Prime Minister’s questions, because it enables us to have our voice heard much more clearly in the world. We are also entitled to look for the support of the non-governmental organisations in making that argument.

Secondly, there has, quite rightly, been a lot of talk this afternoon about Britain meeting the 0.7% target by 2013. We are not far off that already. According to the Muskoka accountability report, published at the end of last week’s G8 summit, the Development Assistance Committee estimates that in the 2010 calendar year the UK’s official development assistance spend will be equivalent to $15.5 billion, or 0.6% of GNI. We are far and away the country that is nearest to meeting that 0.7% target. The nearest to us is France, at 0.46%.

Even with a ring-fenced commitment, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, skilled as he is, will not be able to extract from the Treasury during the lifetime of this Parliament any more than 0.7% of GNI for his Department’s budget. That means that if various NGOs or others think that extra money should be spent on a particular policy area, they will have to demonstrate to us all which parts of existing DFID spending should be reduced. DFID is not a bottomless pit, and the situation will become very competitive. If NGOs or pressure groups argue that a particular area of spending should increase, it will be beholden on them to explain to Ministers, and the rest of us, where they think spending should be reduced.

[Mr Thomas]

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he does not think any further resources should be made available for climate finance, and that if, as a result of the climate negotiations, further resources are asked of the developed world by developing countries, Britain’s contribution should not go beyond the 10% that the last Government said would come from DFID, and that other cuts in other programmes in DFID should take place?

[Tony Baldry]

It is a bit rich for Opposition Front Benchers, who left this Government with absolutely no money at all and in a situation where this country is the most indebted in the world, to have one chorus, which is “more money”. It does not lie in the hon. Gentleman’s mouth to give the impression that DFID and every other Department should receive further funding from the Treasury. The reality is that most ministerial colleagues face substantial cuts in their departmental budgets and spending lines. DFID is fortunate, because its spending is protected, but it must be clear to everyone, including Opposition Front Benchers, that, if they call for extra spending from the DFID budget in one policy area, they are beholden to explain—[Interruption.] I am answering the hon. Gentleman. They are beholden to explain where DFID spending will be reduced. They and some NGOs cannot just come along and suggest that somehow DFID has a blank cheque, and that, if it does not increase spending on their policy area, it is failing. That is intellectually dishonest.

Thirdly, we all agree that between now and 2015 it is important that we meet, in so far as it is humanly possible, the millennium development goals. I hope that as many Members as possible will read the accountability report that was published following the G8 summit, because NGOs such as Oxfam, which the shadow Secretary of State prayed in aid, would do well to start working out how they engage with other G8 countries to ensure that they meet the obligations that the UK has already met. Some of the amounts that are being spent are pitiful. Russia spends just 0.07% of GNI on overseas development, the United States spends 0.19% and even Japan spends only 0.18%. If the other G8 member states spent anything like as much as we in the United Kingdom spend on official development assistance, as agreed by the Development Assistance Committee, the volume of money going into international development would increase substantially.

The Prime Minister reported to the House on Monday, and I hope that the NGO community joins him in making it clear that we need not just accountability and transparency at DFID, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has guaranteed, but to ensure that all G8 member states live up to the commitments that they made at Gleneagles. Otherwise, come 2015, we will all be frustrated by the lack of progress. It cannot be made by the United Kingdom on its own, and if people think that it can they will be disappointed. The United Kingdom is effectively at its 0.7% target, and there will be a finite amount of money available to DFID, however committed we all are to international development.

I hope that the NGO community, including organisations such as Bond, and all the various NGOs that subscribe to and are members of Bond, will see that there is a need for them to start focusing outwards and engaging other countries in meeting their 0.7% target. The same could apply equally to climate change. Copenhagen did not fail because of what the UK Government did or did not do; it was a disappointment largely because the international community had not engaged sufficiently with China on that country’s aspirations and concerns.

If we are going to meet the millennium development goals, we will have to ensure that the other countries which promised so much at Gleneagles and have so far delivered so little live up to and deliver on their promises. In that way, I hope that by the time we get to 2015 we will see that as many of the millennium development goals as possible have been met.

15:05

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I, too, welcome the Secretary of State and his team to their posts and wish them well. I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate on an issue that, perhaps more than any other, defines how the UK is seen in the wider international community, and matters to people in constituencies across these islands.

Five years ago today, in 2005, I was in The Meadows in Edinburgh making final preparations for the Make Poverty History march and demonstration that took place ahead of the G8 summit in Gleneagles. I was privileged to play a role in organising that event and in the movement that grew up around the Make Poverty History campaign. The Gleneagles summit was very much a defining moment for the anti-poverty movement, not only because of the international commitments that were made there but because civil society made itself heard on that occasion. Some 250,000 people marched through Edinburgh that day. For a city of half a million people, that was a phenomenal outpouring of civic statement about what was really important to those people, and indeed to those from all over the UK and further afield who joined the demonstration.

Citizens demanded that the G8—the richest countries of the world—take action. As the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) said, the £50 billion in commitments that was made at Gleneagles is currently about £20 billion behind. For example, in real terms, the £25 billion pledged for Africa has translated into only £11 billion. That is a shameful shortfall. Frankly, last week’s manipulation of the statistics that came out of Gleneagles, whereby people used the fluctuation in the value of the dollar to make it look as though they were giving a lot more than they are, was a real disgrace. In that context, I welcome the commitment by the new Government that they will honour the 0.7% aid target and focus efforts on achieving the millennium development goals. I am very pleased that DFID’s budget is being protected in the current spending round. I am also glad about the non-partisan approach that the new Government are taking, which is a reassurance to Members across the House.

I welcome the emphasis that is being placed on transparency in how aid money is going to be spent. Much has already been said about transparency and accountability. Increasing transparency has obvious potential to improve accountability in aid delivery. It is important to say, however, that a great deal of work is already going on to make aid spending accountable and transparent. Many NGOs are already highly innovative in how they monitor the effectiveness of aid. At an international level, organisations such as CIVICUS are improving the practice of aid delivery and ensuring that there is a highly regulated and well-monitored and evaluated sector. I urge the Government not to reinvent the wheel when they consider their own moves forward.

It is also important to recognise the potential of increased transparency in raising public awareness of the fantastic work that is being done by DFID and the organisations that it funds, and in making visible the positive impact of development aid. We always hear about the downsides of aid—the mistakes, the failures, the things that go wrong—but we do not hear nearly enough about the success stories. It would, however, be unfortunate if increased transparency were to result in a proliferation of more abstract data and increased monitoring and evaluation at the expense of an enhanced profile for the life-changing impacts of aid. In that respect, I am concerned that the new independent quango charged with impact assessment that the Government are proposing will add little to the existing accountability mechanisms. It is somewhat ironic that they are keen to encourage civil society in developing countries as a means of holding their Governments to account, while they are slashing funding to the excellent civil society and educational organisations here in the UK that are equipping our own young citizens to hold the Government to account. That is deeply regrettable.

It is important to emphasise that aid really does work. Since 2005 and the Gleneagles summit, 4 million extra people have received life-saving antiretroviral HIV and AIDS treatment, 4 million more children have survived beyond the age of five and 33 million children are in school who would not otherwise have been. However, let us acknowledge both the scale of the problems and the impact of the shortfall in the aid commitments. As others have mentioned, 350,000 women are still dying in pregnancy and childbirth every year, and almost all those deaths are preventable. Some 9 million children under five are still dying every year, also almost all from preventable causes. On current projections, millennium development goal 4 on child mortality will not be met until 2045, which is an unacceptable abdication of responsibility by the international community.

I should like to outline some of the challenges in improving accountability and transparency in aid. One of the key questions that we need to ask is: transparent and accountable to whom? Clearly, citizens here and in the countries that receive aid need to be involved in the process. One of the practical challenges that we face is that developing countries receive support from a range of governmental and non-governmental sources, which all have different reporting requirements, some of which are highly bureaucratic.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell]

The hon. Lady, whose constituency I visited during the general election campaign, is making an excellent speech. She asks to whom the accountability should be extended, and she is absolutely right to do so. The answer is, first, to our own taxpayers, who need confidence that their hard-earned money is being spent well, but secondly to the people in poor countries whom we are trying to help and support. If we place in their hands the ability to see what is happening to the money, we help them to make their own civic leaders and politicians accountable for how it is spent.

[Dr Whiteford]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I reiterate that the way to do that is not to slash funding to the very organisations in this country that will make the work that is going on far more transparent to taxpayers and put it in a format penetrable to people other than policy wonks and statisticians. I urge him to think again and go back to the drawing board on that point before we see a lot of very good work undermined and destroyed.

There has been some progress in recent years on streamlining and co-ordinating reporting mechanisms for NGOs and developing country Governments, and I stress the value of doing that. The resources that are spent on servicing bureaucracies could be better utilised elsewhere. Another concern about the accountability of development spending is that a lot of it tends to be project-based, short-term and unco-ordinated and to duplicate existing structures. Consequently, it is often monitored in technocratic ways and measures inputs rather than impacts.

There is a dreadful monitoring and evaluation culture in the development sector, which has grown up around very short-term interventions. I would welcome assurances that the Government’s plans will not add to the pick-and-mix plethora of short-term, fashionable projects that fail to have any sustained, long-term impact and that just create a full employment scheme for highly paid, and often highly qualified, consultants based in northern countries. I would rather make a plea for monitoring that is commensurate and proportionate and does not place an undue bureaucratic burden on developing countries, and for impact assessment that is qualitative and longitudinal, not just quantitative, and helps people to improve how they work rather than simply tick boxes.

Let us face it—most people working in development already have an ultimate accountability mechanism in the aid sector. If they do not deliver within a year or two, their funding is cut. It is as simple as that. That contrasts rather markedly with how Government Departments operate in many parts of the developed world and even more sharply with the UK, where bankers in failed businesses seem still to be receiving bonuses.

Much has been said this afternoon about the importance of economic development and questions have been asked about how DFID will take forward its engagement with the business community. No one would deny that foreign direct investment has an important and invaluable role to play, especially in middle income countries. However, I wish to stress to the Secretary of State and others that it cannot be a substitute for aid in meeting the millennium development goals. There are few examples of places where foreign direct investments generate enough economic growth to finance essential services such as health, education and access to water. Those are the services that underpin poverty reduction everywhere it has been achieved.

It is fascinating to note that regardless of the political ideology and economic philosophies underpinning the success of countries in poverty reduction, they have all ensured that their citizens have access to basic health care, education and clean water. We are talking about countries as disparate as Cuba and the so-called tiger economies of south-east Asia. They could not be more distinct in their philosophy and ideological approach, but they have all had essential public services at their heart. They have also had strategic economic investment and planning, as well as proper investment in infrastructure. Those are the things that will create the necessary pre-conditions in which businesses can thrive, but one cannot be done without the other.

One of the key economic challenges in the efforts to address global poverty is that women are significantly over-represented among those living in extreme poverty, those missing out on school and those unable to read and write. They are also grossly under-represented in political forums, corporate boardrooms and decision-making bodies around the world. We will not be successful in addressing global poverty unless we tackle the economic, political and social exclusion of women. There is no doubt that economic investment and growth have the potential to lift people out of poverty, but women need to be part of that and they need education to be able to be part of that.

Increasingly, people connect to global markets for labour, goods and services, but a lot of evidence suggests that the benefits of economic development bypass the poorest, most of whom are women. In and of themselves, the markets will not address poverty and, in particular, will not address the inequality between women and men—indeed, they can compound existing gender inequalities. I hope that the Government will look closely at that issue and consider how the support that the UK offers in business development overseas benefits both women and men.

Part of the answer lies in improving the accountability of business and corporations operating in developing countries. I warmly welcome the fact that the Government are committed to establishing a grocery ombudsman, as that has the potential to improve significantly the welfare and working conditions of the predominantly women workers in the global food supply chains that supply our supermarkets. Numerous constituents have written to me on this issue, and I hope that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will work closely with DFID to bring forward concrete proposals in this area. Incidentally, the ombudsman will also have the potential to deliver benefits to agricultural producers in the UK, including thousands of people in my constituency who work in farming, fishing and food production.

My final point on accountability is about our own accountability to the global community with regard to climate change. Developing countries are already experiencing the adverse effects of increased flooding, droughts and extreme weather events associated with man-made climate change. Few poor countries have the resources to invest in mitigation measures. Nor do they have the resources to rebuild infrastructure and houses that are damaged or destroyed. Climate change is destroying habitats, reducing food security, fuelling conflict and creating refugees. I hope that the Secretary of State can assure me that he intends that, distinct from the aid budget, we should meet our obligations to those countries that have not caused climate change but have to cope with the consequences. I echo the questions posed earlier about climate financing and ensuring that aid money is not vired over to deal with the effects of climate change.

Poverty reduction is fundamentally a matter of political will and priorities. That will does exist in our civil society, and the challenge for Members of Parliament will be to rise to the expectations of our own citizens and keep the aid promises that we made five years ago.

15:19

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), who spoke warmly and eloquently about her constituency, and the issue being debated. I also thank the people of Stevenage for placing their trust in me. I will endeavour to repay that trust by working hard to represent their interests in the House. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Barbara Follett, who is well known within the House and the constituency. I hope that she will be remembered for her many impassioned speeches against apartheid. She followed Tim Wood, who is still remembered fondly in the constituency as a man dedicated to helping local people.

The constituency of Stevenage is centred predominantly on the town of Stevenage and the surrounding villages of Knebworth, Datchworth, Codicote and Aston. The town of Stevenage grew out of a small Saxon settlement in the early 700s, but began to expand massively when, in 1946, it was designated as the first new town and the building of large-scale housing estates began. The town continues to expand to this day. However, it is a very green area, with more than a third of the space being parklands and green spaces. It has few traffic lights, for which we are grateful, and an integrated cycle network. Furthermore, Stevenage football club won promotion to the football league this year, and we are very proud to be hosting league football for the first time ever. The town is also home to many high-technology major employers, such as MBDA, which builds complex weapons systems, Fujitsu and GlaxoSmithKline, which has one of the largest research and development facilities in the area. Arguably, it could even be called the space capital of the UK, as Astrium builds its satellites there and the Mars Rover is under development in Stevenage.

Coming back down to earth, on the edge of the town is the village of Aston, which has a long history and was the home of Aston house, where the Special Operations Executive designed, tested and produced secret weapons. Near this is the village of Datchworth, which is a typical English village with an enormous village fête that attracts people from many miles around and illustrates the sense of community present in the area. Then we have Knebworth, which is a much larger village with an interesting history. It is one of the largest open air concert venues in the UK and has seen numerous acts play, from Led Zeppelin to Robbie Williams. The latter drew a crowd of more than 300,000 people, while 3.5 million watched on television. The southern most point of the constituency is Codicote, where there are dynamic plans to improve sports facilities for the whole community for many generations to come.

The fantastic history, transport links, high-tech industries and sense of community show why so many people choose to come to my constituency from all over the UK to set up home and make a better life for themselves and their families. It really is a microcosm of British society today, which brings me to the issue that I would like to tackle. We must move away from a culture where spending money is seen to be the answer to all the problems in our society. We have to target our resources both at home and abroad to focus on activities that deliver results and will make a real impact on the lives of millions of people.

I will take two examples of where significant progress can be made quickly. The first is the millennium development goal to reduce by two thirds the mortality rate among children under the age of five. There is concern that this, like many of the other goals, will not be achieved by 2015, but if we take targeted action we can make real progress. At the moment, around the world, one child dies every 15 seconds from pneumonia, which is the leading killer of children under the age of five. The majority of those deaths are preventable because there are effective vaccines that can protect against the majority of strains of the disease and effective treatments such as antibiotics.

Increasing evidence shows that pneumonia is linked to global poverty, and 98% of these deaths occur in the developing world, mostly in marginalised communities. Yet pneumonia is a disease that can be managed relatively simply if the resources are available. I am proud of the leading role that GlaxoSmithKline, a major employer in my constituency, has taken to try to save the lives of millions of children in the world’s poorest countries. GSK is one of the first manufacturers to sign an advanced market commitment, which, by guaranteeing an affordable long-term price, will support the sustained use of vaccines. GSK has worked closely with GAVI and IVAC—the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation, and the International Vaccine Access Centre—the leading NGOs in trying to sort the problem out, and whose work I commend.

Turning closer to home, we know that here in the UK, it is possible to help a child out of poverty and improve their chances in life if they receive a good education. However, we are not doing enough; we are not lifting enough people out of poverty. In my constituency, like in so many others across the UK, there are children who have tried so hard in school. There is a cadre of dedicated and professional staff who have helped them along the way and invested so much of themselves in helping those children try to improve their life chances, but the system does not seem to work. Those children are being forced through an education system that pushes them out the other end with little chance of getting a job, as they do not have the skills that local employers want.

We need to encourage employers to work with local schools and colleges, to get fully involved in education, to highlight the skills that are missing and even perhaps to take preventive action, possibly by designing some of the more vocational courses. Perhaps the prize at the end of the course should be a job or an apprenticeship with the employer. We need to be innovative and flexible, so that courses can reflect the skills gap locally and more local people can get local jobs. Only by focusing on results here and abroad will we be able to help people lift themselves out of poverty.

Finally, I would like to finish by urging us all to remember that it is very easy to discuss statistics in these debates in the House, but we must never forget that behind the figures are real people—real families and real lives—who have to live day to day with the decisions that we take.

15:26

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

I, too, would like to make my maiden speech and contribute to the debate. Before I do that, however, I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland). I was particularly pleased to hear that there are very few traffic lights in Stevenage, which makes me concerned that there are far too many in Rochdale.

As is customary, I would like to start by paying tribute to my Liberal Democrat predecessor. Paul Rowen prided himself on being Rochdale born and bred, and I have no doubt that he would have contributed to this debate. Indeed, he devoted much of his time to overseas issues and was often a champion for countries such as Bangladesh, Uganda and Kashmir. I am sure that he will be sadly missed by those with an interest in such issues.

I also want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Mr Woolas), who had Milnrow and New Hey within his constituency boundaries until general election day. He is an exceptionally good MP, and I consider him to be a good friend.

Although Rochdale is commonly perceived as a classic Lancashire town with problems of its own, there is also much debate about international affairs. I started as the candidate in 2007, and it was not long before people were impressing on me the importance of the problems faced by the Palestinian people. The concern was so great from people in Rochdale, who felt passionately about Palestine, that in 2008 I visited the west bank for myself. The most saddening aspect of the situation is that the poverty experienced by the Palestinians is caused by an Israeli state that seems, to me at least, determined to wear the people down, to push them into a smaller and smaller area, with fewer and fewer resources, and to hide the Palestinian people behind what can only be described as an apartheid wall. Although our Governments find a strong voice to criticise other countries whose actions inflict such poverty on their neighbours, for some reason our Governments cannot or will not speak up enough on the Palestinians’ plight.

Earlier this year I visited Bangladesh, and I hope to visit Pakistan and Kashmir in the near future. There are lots of Rochdale residents whose origins are in those three countries. The reason I mention them today is that although poverty exists in those countries, there is also much potential for economic growth. We as a country need to do what we can to help them prosper, so that the poverty can be reduced. What we can also do for those countries is help them learn the lessons that the people in Rochdale have already learned about asbestos. Rochdale was home to the largest asbestos manufacturing plant in the world, and residents have suffered and continue to suffer from this deadly product. Indeed, Spodden valley, where the factory was located, is still heavily contaminated, yet we have developers wanting to build on it—something that I will continue to oppose.

The lessons learned in Rochdale are important. There are companies in developing countries that are playing fast and loose with asbestos, still creating years of illness, injury and death, which then leads to poverty for the families involved. That is why the global economy is so important. The jobs provided by the asbestos plant in Rochdale are long gone to businesses abroad—but at what cost to human life? Many of Rochdale’s textile mills and engineering firms have also gone abroad and we find ourselves in a position where unemployment remains unhealthily high. Our town centre has gradually deteriorated to the point where we have about 50 empty shops and a real loss of retail jobs.

The previous Government did much to invest in Rochdale, but that investment was not always handled well locally. Rochdale’s Kingsway business park has got off to a slow start; the council has not handled our town centre’s redevelopment well; and we now face financial delays and cuts. The new Government have put our transport interchange on hold, there are question marks over school building funds and they are proposing to close our magistrates court.

Although I have described a relatively bleak picture, there are many positives associated with Rochdale. Our football club moved up a division this year after languishing in the bottom of the league for more than 30 years—well done, lads. We have some amazing countryside, including Hollingworth lake, and great architecture such as our town hall. As many will know, Rochdale is the birth place of the Co-op, and co-operation continues with communities coming together cohesively. The churches and mosques and the voluntary sector do a fantastic amount of work across our town, and we have many excellent businesses and local entrepreneurs.

It is our people for which the town is most famous. They are the warmest and most honest people anyone could wish to meet. Hon. Members may not be aware of it, but during the general election, the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), had the opportunity to receive a real Rochdale welcome. I spoke with Mrs Duffy just before her conversation with the former Prime Minister and I have also met her subsequently. On a serious point, she is a very good woman; she was articulating what many people feel, which is that times are tough and that it is ordinary working people who are feeling the pain.

Sadly, I genuinely do not believe that ordinary working people are going to be helped by this Government’s Budget or its cuts. For instance, I, like many other people, was brought up on free school meals in a one-parent family helped by the welfare state. It was hardly surprising that I left school with no qualifications and little confidence to get on in life, but it was the availability of further education and the support of my trade union that combined to create a second chance for me. Now is not the time to attack public institutions that are vital for working people to move on in life. My worry now for the people of Rochdale, and for the people of Britain, is that the VAT increase, the cutting of free school meals, the growth in unemployment, the cuts to public services—all these things and more—will recreate the 1980s society in which I grew up, and that the second chances will no longer exist.

I am in no doubt that my primary responsibility as the MP for Rochdale is to fight for opportunities in our town, to make sure our people receive the life chances that are available in many other parts of the United Kingdom, and to make sure that Rochdalians are given the hope to succeed. It is a privilege to represent the people of Rochdale, and I will work hard in that endeavour.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. As Members can probably see, a great many wish to speak. If contributions can be limited to 10 minutes or less, I may manage to fit everyone in. May I gently remind Members that others wish to contribute to this important debate?

15:35

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will keep it brief.

I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral West (Esther McVey) and for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), on their excellent and thoughtful maiden speeches.

More than 60 years ago, the Beveridge report was published. It identified the five giants that threatened Britain in the wake of post-war reconstruction: want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. It showed a country scarred by the events of the great depression—one of the worst financial disasters that the world has ever witnessed—and sought to find a way in which to bring about a fairer society. Perhaps now, in the wake of the most recent recession—the deepest since the 1930s—we should reflect on how to reconstruct a fairer global community.

Fortunately, in our own country we have made great strides in tackling each of the five giants that Beveridge identified. Elsewhere across the world, people have not been so lucky. The facts and figures may be over-told, but they still make for sobering reading. According to the most recent millennium development goals report from the United Nations, 1.4 billion people live on less than $1.25 per day, while it is believed that more than half the world lives on less than $10 per day; 17% of the world are undernourished; 11% of the world’s children still do not receive a primary school education; 74 out of every 1,000 children die before they are five years old; 536,000 women and young girls die every year across the world as a consequence of complications in pregnancy; despite falling infection rates, about 2 million people die of AIDS every year; and 36% of people in the developing world live in poor housing. The statistics go on and on.

As we enter a new decade, has the time not come for the developed world to put an end to rhetoric and meet the fundamental challenges that confront the world in dealing with global poverty? The most important of those challenges is economic development, an issue that has been brought further to the fore by the global economic crisis. It is believed that, as a result of that crisis, nearly 100 million more people have remained in poverty than would otherwise have been the case.

According to the United Nations, while productivity—a primary indicator of economic development—has steadily risen in the developed world, productivity in the developing world has been sluggish. Between 1998 and 2008, output per person employed—measured in 2005 United States dollars—rose from $60,000 to $71,000 among those working in the developed regions, while in the developing regions output per person rose from $8,000 to $11,000. That is just over a quarter of the growth of the developed world. Limited increases in productivity indicate that an economy has little potential to create new jobs. Moreover, that can lead to stagnant wages, which keep hundreds of millions in poverty and prevent the creation of the stable domestic markets that are essential to further economic progress.

The link between economic development and reducing poverty seems obvious, but while a great deal of the focus has been on aid, it ignores the necessity of encouraging growth in developing countries. That is less eye-catching and more difficult to achieve, but in the long term it will produce better results.

A report published in 2006 by USAID, the United States Agency for International Development, highlighted the position of South Korea and Ghana. In 1950, South Korea’s per capita income was $770. Ghana’s was slightly higher, at $1,222. By 2000, however, South Korea’s per capita income had risen to $14,000, while Ghana’s remained at around $1,280. The figures for life expectancy, literacy and infant mortality have improved dramatically in South Korea since 1950, but the problems continue to dog Ghana. That is despite the hundreds of millions of pounds given to Ghana by Britain alone over the past few decades.

Although I do not doubt the necessity of aid to assist people in developing countries who live in poverty, we must not allow ourselves to mistake aid for the cure. Aid must be used as a short-term means in order to achieve economic development, which is the long-term end. Schools and hospitals, the beginnings of a solid infrastructure, are the things that aid can help to achieve. However, the real work of lifting people out of poverty will be done only by a growing economy, with the creation of jobs and rising wages.

That work can be done enough through encouraging a fiscal and administrative reform. Countries can, thus, be helped to adopt tax systems that are fairer, easier to implement, less vulnerable to corruption and less distorting to economic activity, in order to help to develop transparency. We also need to ensure that strong monetary frameworks are in place. I am glad, therefore, that the Government have taken such a keen interest in ensuring that economic development is placed at the heart of our poverty-reduction strategy. I welcome, for example, our support for a pan-African free trade area, which we hope will lead to the greater development of markets within developing countries and help to generate a cycle of prosperity.

Moreover, an issue that goes hand in hand with economic development is that of governance. As was worryingly reported only a few years ago by the National Audit Office, aid is often open to abuse. Poverty reduction budget support—that is money given directly to the Governments of recipient countries—represents more than £1 billion of DFID’s budget and is the preferred method of distribution. That comes with the risk of funds going missing and being misdirected for the private gain of individuals within Governments. We must ensure that Governments that receive this aid do not do this, and I welcome the coalition’s commitment to supporting the development of local democracy and civil society in order to create the environment necessary for stable governance to follow. Moreover, the commitment to ensuring that there is full transparency in aid and to publishing details of all UK aid spending is also a step in the right direction.

Aid given by this country has the potential to help tens of millions of people across the world and, as part of larger multilateral packages, to help hundreds of millions. However, I am reminded of the fact that the Department that deals with reducing global poverty is called the “Department for International Development”. That title recognises the simple truth that development—in particular, economic development—holds the key to reducing and eventually eliminating global poverty. As we look forward to tackling the great giants of global poverty, we should ensure that we place long-term economic development before eye-catching spending commitments. I am glad that the Government seem to be taking that course, and I hope that they continue in that direction.

15:43

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

First, I congratulate all the new Members who made their maiden speeches today: the hon. Members for Wirral West (Esther McVey) and for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), and, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), who so powerfully highlighted the plight of the Palestinian people. I am sure that he will be a great voice for peace, equality and justice throughout this Parliament, and I congratulate him on his election to this House. I also congratulate the Secretary of State for International Development on his new role and wish him all the best in his endeavours. I am also delighted to see the Chair of the Select Committee on International Development in the Chamber, and I look forward to serving with him on that Committee.

In this country, we are extremely proud of the fact that everyone has access to clean water, nutritious food, quality health care and a first-rate education, thus ensuring that everyone has a good basic standard of living based on equitable principles. If we really do believe in such rights and principles, we cannot limit their application to ourselves alone. In this regard—I use a legal phrase here—equity truly is equality. I strongly believe in the principles of equality and justice, both at home and abroad—indeed, they are the very reasons why I engaged in the political process in the first place. I passionately believe that every child, regardless of where they were born, should have the same chances in life.

Many hon. Members, in their travels to and from Parliament on the underground, may have seen the amazing photo of a young African boy playing football with his friends. The caption reads:

“Abello is also tackling hunger, poverty and disease”.

This incredibly moving charitable advertisement highlights the fact that even while the entire world is gripped with the outcomes of the football World cup, there are still millions of people around the world, many of them children, who are fighting poverty on a daily basis. Surely, in this day and age, that cannot be right. This is an age that the formidable former Member of Parliament Tony Benn has described as one in which

“we have the power and technology to be able to resolve many of the problems the world faces and improve the lives of so many people”.

I am fiercely proud of my party’s record on international development while in government. Since 1997, we have created a dedicated Department for International Development, and Britain’s aid budget has trebled, helping to lift an estimated 3 million people out of poverty. Britain was the first country to sign up to the United Nations agreed target of spending 0.7 % of gross national income on development assistance. We have also led the way in cancelling debts owed by the world’s poorest countries, and we are now the world’s second largest bilateral humanitarian aid donor. We have stopped aid being tied to commercial interests, enabling poor countries to use the money to buy goods and services from the most cost-effective sources. That is a legacy that we on these Benches are rightly extremely proud of, but it is also a legacy that must be built upon, not diminished, because a tremendous amount of work remains to be done.

Approximately 80% of people in the world still live on less than $10 a day. Thousands of people die every day due to lack of food, and nearly 30% of children in the developing world are estimated to be underweight. Millions of people die every year due to preventable diseases, around half a million women die every year while giving birth, and more than 1 billion people do not have access to safe drinking water. The list is endless.

I really cannot stress enough to the Government the importance of continuity, through ensuring that the millions of people we have helped over the past 13 years do not fall back into poverty and through continuing to take millions more out of poverty every year. We can do that only by maintaining pressure on the international community and working with our international partners to ensure that the eight millennium development goals—ending poverty and hunger, universal education for children, the elimination of gender inequality in education, improving child health, improving maternal health, combating HIV/AIDS, achieving environmental sustainability, and the creation of a global partnership for development—are all met.

The millennium development goals have galvanised extraordinary efforts to help the world’s poorest people, but it is widely considered unlikely that they will be achieved by the 2015 deadline, especially following the results of the recent G8 meeting and the G20 summit. I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) in his question to the Prime Minister yesterday when he said that our commitments to international development must be maintained because

“our national interest, security stability and sense of humanity very often begin overseas”.—[Official Report, 30 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 860.]

Hon. Members will therefore appreciate how hugely disappointed I was to learn that the Prime Minister did not manage to persuade other members of the G8 to stick to the historic aid commitments that they had made at Gleneagles, which were kept out of last weekend’s G20 communiqué. This is doubly disappointing when we consider the fact that the global economic downturn is having a devastating effect on the lives of millions of the world’s most vulnerable people.

The failure of France, Germany and particularly Italy to deliver on the commitments that they made at Gleneagles represents an unforgivable betrayal of the world’s poorest people, because, in the words of the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon,

“we cannot balance budgets on the backs of the world’s poorest people. We cannot abandon our commitment to the most vulnerable.”

For international development to be effective, it has to be a truly global effort on behalf of all developed nations. The Government must therefore do more to ensure that the future of the world’s poorest remains high not only on their agenda but on the agendas of other members of the international community.

If we are to address global poverty, we must address its root causes by making the global economy work better for the poorest nations. On a practical level, that means that we must ensure that the consistent and coherent approach adopted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander)—to whose contribution as the former Secretary of State for International Development I pay tribute—is kept as a part of our international trade policies by firmly placing development as their core guiding principle.

We also need to reform global financial institutions such the World Bank and International Monetary Fund by making their decision making processes more transparent and inclusive. We need to do much more to monitor and regulate international business and the impact that it has on the environment, because the effects of climate change are making it even harder than before to tackle global poverty. Developing nations now need significant sums of additional finance just to help them adapt to climate change.

Perhaps most importantly, we need to prevent tax avoidance in developing countries by helping to build and strengthen their tax administration and collection systems. More effective tax collection is vital because not only does it provide a sustainable stream of finance for developing countries but it promotes stronger governance through an accountable state-citizen relationship. The increased stability that it brings significantly enhances the prospects of economic growth.

The UN millennium development goals meeting in New York later this year represents a major opportunity to agree urgent action on behalf of the world’s poorest children. Globally, millions of children still have to work to survive and are having their rights denied as a result of poverty. In order to secure the best possible deal, the Government must, from the outset, put forward a clear agenda for the meeting in terms of the key objectives they wish to obtain. Otherwise they will risk having a re-run of the shocking episode that took place over the last weekend.

At a time when people question whether there is a global role for Britain to play in today’s world, what better role can there be for us than that of the leading voice for international development?

15:50

[Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)]

I am very fortunate to have in my constituency two of the only charity shops in Britain that donate all their profits to UNICEF, which campaigns to fight child poverty and exploitation around the globe. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able personally to give them an award earlier in the year for their sterling fundraising work and to see first hand the dedication of the volunteers and staff who make such a difference to children around the world.

In 2006, before the bubble burst, triggering the global financial crisis, the British public donated more than £33 million just to UNICEF and its global campaigns through direct appeals and fundraising activities in communities all over the UK, including the two shops in my constituency. In 2009, the year after the collapse and at the height of the global financial crisis, the British public donated more than £40 million to UNICEF and its global campaigns. Following the tragic earthquake in Haiti in January, the Disasters Emergency Committee—the umbrella organisation for the independent humanitarian relief agencies in the UK—raised a staggering £38 million in individual donations in less than one week from members of the British public who were horrified by the sheer scale of human suffering thousands of miles from our shores.

It is clear from those facts—I am sure that colleagues from all parties will agree—that the British public have not wavered in their generosity towards alleviating the suffering of the worlds’ poorest and most vulnerable people in the face of the world’s global financial crisis, and neither should we. However, I am sure that I am not alone in this House in being asked by constituents some searching questions about the Government’s commitment to ring-fence the foreign aid budget. There is worry about it, particularly given the pressure across all other budgets as we approach a spending review in the autumn and what will be economically challenging years ahead. Worse still is the sense that the aid budget might be poorly targeted or siphoned off due to corruption.

In an era of global responsibility, where 24,000 children die in poverty every day and more than 3 billion people live on less than $2.50 a day, it is right that we should maintain our international aid budget and do all we can through trade, diplomacy, business investment and climate change policy to ensure that our efforts to help the world’s poorest are not damaged by the uncertain state of the global economy. It is also right that in the current economic climate, more than ever every pound of taxpayer’s money that we deliver in aid must provide the most value possible and be distributed through a system that is completely transparent.

I am sure that many people in this House were alarmed by recent reports that billions of pounds in cash have been flown out of Kabul airport since 2007, suggesting that huge sums of aid from us and our NATO allies has been falling into the wrong hands and has been used for the wrong purposes. The misuse and mistargeting of international aid resources is still a big obstacle in the fight against global poverty and we need to seek out new ways to guarantee that aid is getting to where it has the greatest effect and does the most to alleviate poverty.

One issue that many people feel strongly about, which we have already covered today, is the aid that we have given to China. In the 2008-09 financial year, we donated £118 billion of aid to the People’s Republic, £40 billion of which came through the Department for International Development. By anyone’s observation, the British taxpayer is not getting value for money by continuing to give millions of pounds of aid to the second-largest economy in the world. I welcome the Government’s commitment to withdraw from its bilateral aid programmes with China and Russia. Similarly, the British taxpayer was not getting value for the money that they expected to go towards tackling global poverty. Millions of pounds were spent on UK-based awareness projects by the Department for International Development under the last Government.

As well as gaining more value for money from our aid budget, it is vital that the giving of all forms of Government aid is as transparent as possible. Taxpayers should easily be able to gain a real understanding of how their money is going to make a difference in the fight against poverty and they should also have access to as much information as possible so that they can form an opinion on where that money should go and on how effectively it is being spent.

I sincerely welcome every commitment that was outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his speech at Oxfam’s “21st-Century Aid” report launch earlier this month. I particularly welcome the introduction of the UK aid transparency guarantee to ensure that the most value possible is squeezed out of every pound of aid under this Government and that people can be fully reassured about where their money is going. I also strongly support the clearer linking of aid to the work and ambit of the National Security Council. One of the tragedies of Iraq was the failure to put in place a proper plan to restore and maintain the infrastructure that no doubt extended the insurgency. Linking our development work to our military work and responsibilities is difficult and includes risk. Many of the organisations that we work alongside will no doubt have reservations, but we cannot do anything but regard Afghanistan as a major priority development area. The focus on development and reconstruction is absolutely essential if we are to leave that country able to look after itself. Of course, the NSC allows us to take the broader view on which development projects both have intrinsic moral value and work towards our national security interests in the long term.

In conclusion, I want to underline the generosity and moral focus of the British public towards tackling global poverty, which has strengthened, if anything, in the recent global financial crisis. There is still a monumental battle to fight against global poverty; we are right to protect the aid budget and we look forward to providing greater value and transparency. In doing so, we can not only ensure that we lift as many lives as possible out of poverty but reassure the British taxpayer that international development works not only to the benefit of the developing countries but in Britain’s best interests.

15:57

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

May I begin by paying tribute to the hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches today? The hon. Members for Wirral West (Esther McVey) and for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) all made excellent contributions. My contribution will not be anything like as expert as those of my hon. Friends the Members for York Central (Hugh Bayley) and for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), who made wide-ranging speeches that covered many aspects. I want to highlight two specific points about global poverty, the first of which is the importance of trade, particularly fair trade. The second is the important role of democracy in tackling global poverty, particularly in relation to backing up organised labour in poor countries and supporting people on very low incomes in fragile employment.

On fair trade, we are all aware that aid is not the final answer but a tool to assist economic development. I have felt strongly for many years about the possibilities of Fairtrade labelling. The idea that started many years ago is now coming to fruition: by telling people in consumer countries that the goods that they buy somehow back up people on low incomes in producer companies, we have a mechanism for delivering on economic development. I pay tribute to the previous Government’s achievements in supporting the Fairtrade Foundation. There has been a massive expansion of the Fairtrade label, with 70% of people in Britain now recognising the label and understanding what it means—seven out of 10; that is a real achievement. Also, the Fairtrade label has been adopted by major brands in this country. Many people around the UK are choosing to back producers in other countries, and that is a victory.

I put this challenge gently to the Government that they should continue to support the Fairtrade Foundation. We are rightly seeking to reduce the deficit but, although the sums devoted to assisting international organisations to monitor free trade labelling are small, they have the power to do real good. I feel particularly strongly about this matter, as it combines two of my biggest passions in life—shopping, and supporting people on low incomes abroad. I have a personal commitment that I recommend to all Members of the House, and it is that I always buy any new product that carries the Fairtrade label, whatever it is—and then, before we know it, we are always buying Fairtrade coffee, which is great. As I said, I encourage the new Government’s Ministers to look at that programme carefully, to see what more we in this country can do to back up Fairtrade.

My second reason for speaking in this afternoon’s debate is that I came across an example in my constituency of Wirral South of trade union members in this country backing a campaign being run by trade union members in Pakistan. I found it quite inspiring and I want to share with the House the success that has been achieved but, before I do, I shall read a quotation from the Nobel laureate Amartya Sen. He is a fine philosopher and economist who has done extensive research into the subject of famine and food security. He said that

“no major famine has ever occurred in a functioning democracy with regular elections, opposition parties, basic freedoms of speech and a relatively free media”.

I think that the lesson for us all is that we must support the good functioning of democracy in other countries. We cannot allow a discussion about global poverty to pass without recognising the politics that exists in other countries.

In that light, well-functioning trade unions are especially important. I mentioned that that had been highlighted for me by local members of a trade union in Wirral South. The company Unilever is based in my constituency and, by and large, it is a fine employer. I hear great reports from people in my constituency, who say that it is fantastic to work for. However, Unilever has a tea production plant at Khanewal in Pakistan, where 723 workers were contracted through an agency on a no-work, no-pay basis.

Now, I am from Merseyside, and I grew up with the tales of what used to go on in the Liverpool docks. There are memories in my family of what it was like to go down to the dockside without knowing whether there was any work or whether the family could be fed. Therefore, I feel passionately that we must seek to end these practices, wherever they are. What happened in Liverpool all those years ago was not right, and it is not right if it happens anywhere else in the world today.

The workers in Pakistan had no sick leave or annual leave, and no right to join a trade union, but they organised themselves. With the support of the IUF, an international trade union, they were able to make representations on how to deal with the problems that they faced, and they received support from trade union activists all over the world. Eventually, the IUF helped them to undertake negotiations with Unilever, which took place under the auspices of the UK’s national contact point responsible for the application of the OECD’s guidelines for multinational enterprises.

The two sides came to a settlement, under the terms of which Unilever agreed to create 200 additional permanent jobs, and many other successful outcomes were also achieved. The IUF general secretary said:

“The Khanewal agreement…is a great moment for hundreds of our members in Pakistan who will now take up permanent employment…It brings better livelihoods for their families and some dignity and security at work…Unilever’s willingness to work with us so constructively through the OECD process suggests we may be able to look forward to an ongoing and structured dialogue with Unilever.”

I wanted to highlight that because it is a real success. That shows what people can achieve when they are given the dignity to stand up for themselves and their work, and to influence their terms and conditions. That is one small example, but it is the pattern we need to follow. I call on the Government to work across Whitehall to stand up for low-paid workers internationally.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North had much to say about the importance of considering employment as a factor in poverty, and Professor Sen, whom I quoted, has also investigated that in great depth. We should all learn that the things that we are calling for in other countries are what we would want for our friends and families in employment in this country. I hope the Government go forward on that basis and I look forward to debating such issues in future in this Parliament.

16:06

[Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)]

I congratulate all those who made their maiden speeches today. They have made the afternoon fly by, such has been their quality.

I wish to express my wholehearted support for the vision for UK aid outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, especially in so far as it is driven by a desire to focus the UK programme on outcomes and value for money rather than on inputs and on what quantities of money are shovelled overseas. I particularly welcome his comment that he intends to review the UK’s aid relationship with India. As he said, there is now a double duty to demonstrate not only that aid money is well spent but that it is spent where most needed so that the Government can carry the country with them at a time of intense budgetary squeeze and retrenchment.

Under the coalition Government, the Department for International Development is already curtailing aid to China and Russia and promising much greater value for money. I believe that it is time to scale back DFID’s substantial India programme. I say that in response to the question asked of the Opposition by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who asked them to show where money could be saved in the DFID budget.

When we look at DFID’s expenditure, we see that the India programme is the single largest country programme by quite some distance—it is worth £825 million over the three years to 2011. By my calculations, that means that the flow of grant aid from the UK to India is greater now than at any point for at least the past 20 years and, although I cannot trace the figures, perhaps more than at any time since independence in 1947.

Defenders of the aid programme to India can legitimately argue that progress towards meeting the millennium development goals by 2015 hinges on India—that is quite right. However, nuclear-powered India can now fund its own development needs, considerable though they are in a country that is home to 450 million poor people and a third of the world’s malnourished children.

Those who follow Indian affairs will know that it has a defence budget of $31.5 billion and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) mentioned, it has a very ambitious space programme, including plans for an unmanned moon shot. It also has a substantial aid programme of its own. It is obviously not yet at China’s stage of development—India is not China—but it is a claimant to a permanent Security Council seat and to a place at the top table of world affairs. As such, it is hardly a natural aid recipient.

Of course, the moral arguments are very finely balanced—a poor person is a poor person wherever he or she is in the world—but to my mind, common sense suggests that it is a better idea for the UK to prioritise aid to countries that cannot afford to fund their development over those that take the money just because it is going free. Many other donor countries in recent years have been kicked out of India for being too small—managing their donations was simply too bureaucratic and cumbersome a process to be worth the Indian Government’s while. The aid flows of others such as the US peaked 50 years ago in 1960. The US has stated that it is “walking the last mile” in India. The result is that the UK, perhaps inappropriately, now accounts for as much as 30% of all foreign aid to India. That is arguably money that New Delhi could allocate to its own development if it chose to do so. My view is that we must, as the coalition programme states, work towards a new partnership with India for the 21st century —a “new special relationship”, as the Conservative manifesto originally put it. It must be based on strong bonds of trade, not anachronistic ones of aid that hark back to a previous relationship between our two countries.

16:11

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I should like to say a few words about the issue raised by the withdrawal of a grant to an organisation based in my constituency, which I raised briefly in an intervention on the Secretary of State. I appreciate that we are considering many issues of great international significance in this debate, and I do not want to take up too much time on what some may regard as a relatively tangential matter, but I want to raise my concerns about the way in which, certainly on the information I have, a small organisation doing good work has been unfairly treated. That decision also raises issues about the Government’s approach to development awareness activities in the UK funded by the Department, and the Minister should say something about it in his reply to the debate.

I shall first give some information about the grant that has been withdrawn and the organisation that received it. Hon. Members will recall that at the start of the debate the Secretary of State, as he set out his decisions, headlined one of the five projects from which funding has been withdrawn—a Brazilian-style dance troupe with percussion in Hackney. That project was certainly given some attention in the media. I presume that the only reason why the Secretary of State headlined that project was that “Brazilian-style”, “dance troupe with percussion” and above all “Hackney” are phrases that set every bell ringing in the right-wing media and pressure groups. If one mentions “Brazilian-style dance troupe” and “Hackney” together, one does not really have to argue any further in some people’s minds. That is an unfortunate approach to the debate and I suspect that it stereotypes that particular group in Hackney. I have no knowledge of the group, but I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) who intervened on the Secretary of State wanted to suggest that it was somewhat more than the latter had portrayed.

In any event, I assure the House that when I visited the very small office of the organisation based in my constituency, there were no samba bands practising in the room and no indication of anything to which anyone would have any objection if they studied its work. Scotdec—the Scottish Development Education Centre—is based in my constituency but does work in many parts of Scotland. It is a respected educational organisation that works with local authorities, the Scottish Government and development organisations and has been supported by DFID for work with teachers over many years. I can only assume that the work was recognised by the further grants that were given to it for the current project, which has now had its funding withdrawn just one year into a three-year project.

Scotdec tells me that it works with almost half the schools in south-east Scotland. That is a lot of work for just three staff, not only answering inquiries but going into 228 schools. I have had letters from staff at Jewel and Esk college in Edinburgh and other organisations with which Scotdec has worked, saying that it performs valuable work that fits into wider educational programmes and teacher training programmes in south-east Scotland. Mention was made of the fact that the project works with nursery teachers, as if that was sufficient to say that it must in some way be a bit dotty. Let me assure the Secretary of State that, according to my information, the project works not only with the occasional nursery teacher but with further education colleges and their educators as part of programmes that have been validated and recognised for their value since the project started just over a year ago.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman is making a strong case for his constituents and the organisation that is based in his constituency. We are endeavouring to get him a copy of the letter that should have reached him this morning; I hope that it will arrive during the debate.

The issue is not really whether the expenditure that he has identified is of good quality; it is whether it should come from the budget that I mentioned earlier. The hon. Gentleman may wish to consider whether it is an appropriate way to deploy international development expenditure or whether there are alternative forms of support that his constituents might be able to attract.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I know that the Secretary of State’s office has been trying to get a letter to me this morning and this afternoon. Unfortunately, despite contact with both my office here and my constituency office, it appears still to be lost somewhere in cyberspace. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I have to proceed on the basis of the information that I have.

I shall address the Secretary of State’s comment about whether this project is the type of work that should be funded by DFID, but I want first to say something about the project itself. The Secretary of State has almost given support to my argument because he does not appear to suggest that there is anything untoward about the project. I understand that he had no criticism of the work that the project has undertaken. Indeed, I am informed by Scotdec that it was about to submit its first-year report to DFID, but had not actually gone into the Department, so presumably the decision to withdraw the funding could not have been based on any knowledge or understanding of the project. The Secretary of State’s comments seem to suggest that that is the case: the decision was based on a general principle rather than any criticism of the project’s work.

The project organiser was very unhappy—I can see why—about the fact that the first information the organisation had that the project was going to lose its funding was a phone call and e-mail received late on a Friday afternoon, followed by a press notice on the Monday. Apart from being extremely discourteous, that was hardly a fair way to allow a small organisation to respond to a withdrawal of funding which has severely impacted on its ability to carry out its work.

I shall look at the letter that the Secretary of State is seeking to send me. It may well arrive by more conventional means during the afternoon.

Behind the Secretary of State’s decision there is, as he has indicated, a clear political choice to stop funding for projects of this nature. Is there now a general policy of not funding projects promoting development awareness and education in the UK? If so, that takes matters further than the Department’s press statement on 17 May, in which the Secretary of State said:

“There is a legitimate role for development education in the UK, but I do not believe that these projects give the taxpayer value for money.”

No evidence has been given that these sorts of projects do not give value for money. The project in my constituency has been cut just over a year into what was to be a three-year project. A lot of preparatory work has been carried out for the next year, which suggests that it would not be good value for money to cut it at this stage.

In any event, the press notice from the Secretary of State seemed to suggest that there might be some circumstances in which development education was to be funded in the UK by DFID, but if the policy is now that no development education will be funded in the UK, that is extremely regrettable.

The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister face criticism from some of the more right-wing elements on their Back Benches and in the media for agreeing, with all the qualifications that we have heard in this debate, to maintain spending on international development. It seems that a few projects are being thrown to the wolves—a bit of red meat for the right wing—in order to distract their attention from the rest of the Department’s work, and if that is the case it is extremely regrettable. If the Secretary of State is, indeed, withdrawing support for development education in the UK, I ask him to reconsider that decision in respect of the project in my constituency and more generally, because it would be a retrograde step and a reversal of what Governments of all parties have recognised as a minor, but important part of the activity that DFID funds here in the UK.

I shall briefly make the case for Government support of development education in the UK. Everyone in the debate so far has recognised that an essential component of international development is justice—trade justice and debt justice. That requires action not only by Governments and international organisations, but by civil society, including citizens, business organisations, trade unions and many more besides. Such action is more likely to be achieved, and Governments are more likely to move towards greater trade justice and debt justice, if as many people in this country as possible are able to engage with and understand the issues—yes, through awareness-raising work among the general public.

If the Government are withdrawing funding from such programmes, I find that extremely regrettable. In terms of the project in my constituency, where better to start on awareness-raising work than with our youngest citizens-to-be? I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider his decision on that project and, if it reflects a wider policy, the wider policy as well.

16:21

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

It is a real privilege to have the opportunity to speak in today’s debate, and I congratulate all the new Members who have made their maiden speeches today. They put mine to shame. This is only the second time that I have spoken in the Chamber, and I was very excited at the prospect. However, I was a little disappointed to hear the tone that the shadow Secretary of State chose to take and, especially, the fact that he cast doubt on our Secretary of State’s attitude to development, because we only have to look at his leadership of Project Umubano, in which he has taken hundreds of Conservative activists and Members to Rwanda and Sierra Leone, to see exactly what commitment he has. It is a practical commitment and an effective commitment, and the shadow Secretary of State might like to take some advice on how to behave in opposition.

In Oxford we have a proud tradition of playing our part in international aid. After all, Oxfam takes its name from the city, and in the midst of this discussion about the value that the public place on aid we should give our electors more credit for their compassion and personal commitment to the issue, not to mention their understanding of the basic fact that global poverty promotes global instability. I have seen the evidence of that compassion and understanding in my constituents again and again, and it is in exactly no one’s interests to let the poorest countries get poorer.

Just last week, I was so proud to attend the sixth anniversary of Helping Hands, a local charity that works to improve child health in Uganda. The celebration was at Cumnor primary school, which has long been linked with a school in Uganda. The children whom I met were so excited to tell me about how they fundraised to buy equipment, wrote letters to their friends in Uganda and, if they are able to raise the money, will visit that school in October. Not one person there—child, teacher or governor—expressed doubt about the value of that investment.

However, speaking to those girls and boys, whose enthusiasm and resourcefulness would be a lesson to all Members, I was struck by the fact that, were I speaking to a similar class in parts of Afghanistan or sub-Saharan Africa, I might well find similar levels of ingenuity, but I would not find similar numbers of female pupils or staff. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) said, the statistics on gender inequalities are still shocking. Women and girls are affected disproportionately by poverty, and they are more likely to become victims of the main causes of poverty. That means that women still make up a staggering 70% of those living in extreme poverty. They perform 66% of the world’s work and produce 50% of the food, but earn only 10% of the income and own only 1% of the property. Of an estimated 93 million children who are out of school, the majority are girls, meaning that women make up two thirds of the world’s 1 billion people who can neither read nor write. An estimated half a million women die every year as a result of pregnancy complications in childbirth, with 99% of those deaths occurring in developing countries.

These statistics, shocking as they are, do not convey the humiliation and suffering that they are intended to represent, and they do not show the ripple effect that poverty, lack of education and poor access to health care have on entire communities. Fatima’s story does, though. It clearly shows the dire consequences that a mother’s death can have for her entire family and community. Fatima and her husband Ahmed already had nine children and were barely surviving on his salary as a security guard when she became pregnant again. He nearly lost his job taking care of the family during her difficult pregnancy. Then Fatima died giving birth to twin boys in a Kabul hospital. Because of Afghanistan’s shattered health care system, one in every six Afghan women will die from complications of pregnancy and childbirth.

Fatima’s hospital expenses put Ahmed into even deeper debt, so he took their 13-year-old son out of school to work. The twins had to be fed on expensive formula, and they were often ill with diarrhoea or acute respiratory infections, the most common killers of infants worldwide. The family’s 11-year-old daughter was then taken out of school to care for them. At seven months, the smaller twin died. Ahmed remarried, increasing his debt and poverty, so he married off his oldest daughter when she turned 13. She became pregnant at 15, before her body was ready, and suffered an agonising obstructed labour. Her baby was born brain-damaged and she was left with an obstetric fistula that made her incontinent. As a result, her husband abandoned her, and she had to return to her family to live in increasing poverty.

Stories like that are all too common, and they are the reason millennium development goal 5 calls for massive reductions in maternal mortality. International failure to stay on track with this MDG undermines progress in achieving all the other MDGs on education, gender equality, child health, and poverty—for everyone, not just for the women who die unnecessarily. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has recognised that improving performance on MDG 5 needs to be a DFID priority, and I am sure that the UK’s representations at the September summit will include strenuous calls for other countries which are not living up to their international commitments to do the same. I hope, too, that those discussions will include in-depth considerations of the impressive impact that abolishing user fees for maternal health has had in Sierra Leone—despite the fact that I do not want to agree with the shadow Secretary of State. Finding a workable way to deliver this policy alone may go a significant way towards meeting MDG 5 by 2015.

This is not exactly breaking news: it has long been recognised that women face greater obstacles to escaping poverty than men, and there have been many campaigns to try to improve the situation; the MDGs are evidence enough of that. However, while this campaigning has been superbly effective in catalysing Governments and multilaterals into developing strategies to address these obstacles, there has been an unintentional and unfortunate side effect. All too often, women are seen as helpless victims—the passive recipients of aid programmes that can never quite manage to stem the tide of violence and disease that preys on them. This is complete nonsense, and it is dangerous nonsense, because by consigning half the population to victim status, we dismiss 50% of a developing country’s human resources—a 50% who are already active and engaged.

This trend is particularly noticeable in the area of food production, security and climate change. Despite traditional stereotypes, women are engaged in agricultural production in increasingly large numbers. Data offered by the UN hunger taskforce suggests that of the 4 billion poor and hungry, 50%—2 billion—are smallholder farmers, and the majority of those are women. The Food and Agriculture Organisation further suggests that women account for 70 to 80% of household food production in sub-Saharan Africa, 65% in Asia, and 45% in Latin America and the Caribbean. That so-called feminisation of agriculture means that women are becoming increasingly important to agricultural production systems. The reasons for the trend are wide-ranging but include rural-to-urban migration of men, war and its demographic impacts and mortality linked to HIV/AIDS. In many instances, it actually means that the role of men in agricultural production is becoming less significant than that of women.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly in the context of food security, the production of crops and produce is frequently divided along gender lines. Men are often involved in non-food produce such as tobacco or higher-value food crops for export. Women, on the other hand, are much more likely to be involved in the production of staple food crops for sale in the local market or for household subsistence. In that respect, they are the ones who ensure that the food security needs of families and communities are met.

Climate change is only increasing the challenges that they face. Where it has acute effects on land productivity, women run a higher risk than men of losing their means of livelihood. There is already evidence of that in areas with prolonged drought or heavy flooding, where men have left the rural areas in search of employment leaving women and children on farmland with dwindling resources.

Because women continue to be regarded as home producers or farming assistants and not as economic agents in their own right, they continue to be left out of policy support for mitigating and adapting to climate change. Climate risk insurance, for instance, is unlikely to reach women farmers if farming policy continues to ignore small-scale food growers. In fact, women in forestry, fishing and agriculture receive just 7% of total aid, and in Africa women receive just 10% of the credit for small-scale farmers. When women do obtain credit, the average value is 42% of what is granted to male farmers, and they often require a much higher percentage of collateral. That is clearly unsustainable. As the realities of climate change and food insecurity are beginning to bite—I am thinking particularly of the Sahel food crisis—it is becoming increasingly clear that one hope of effectively increasing the resilience of communities at risk is to engage, resource and train women who are already doing more than their fair share to clothe and feed some of the poorest communities in the poorest countries.

I hope that I have gone some way to showing what effective agents for development women in agriculture already are. As developing effective strategies to tackle food insecurity and climate change becomes ever more urgent, I hope that investing in women in agriculture will be seriously considered as a cost-effective and sustainable way of creating more sustainable communities in the areas in question.

16:32

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

May I take this opportunity to welcome you to your post, Mr Deputy Speaker? This is the first opportunity that I have had to speak in a debate with you in the Chair.

I also welcome the Government Front Benchers, and I welcome much of what the Secretary of State said in his opening contribution. The political commitment to ring-fence the international development budget is extremely significant, particularly given the huge cuts that are being announced in other departmental budgets. My hon. Friends are right to say that there will be political pressure from some quarters to reconsider that over the coming period, and I am sure that many Members in all parts of the House will speak up on the matter and provide support to ensure that the level of funding provided to the Department is maintained.

The previous Labour Government had an excellent track record on international development. They trebled the amount spent on aid during the period from 1997, and, on top of that, a huge amount of work was done to ensure that the types of project that the British Government funded were as effective as possible. It is important that we say that again and again, and that the coalition Government build upon it.

As we have heard, huge numbers of people on the planet struggle in abject poverty, and I would like to focus particularly on the impact on those people of the global economic crisis that we have gone through and are still going through. The situation is getting worse rather than better. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) has already mentioned the estimate by the World Bank that by the end of this year 64 million more people will be in poverty than at the start of the year. It also says that 53 million more people were trapped in poverty during 2009 as a direct result of the global economic crisis. The World Bank says that that will have a long-term effect, with estimates suggesting that by 2020 poverty rates will be higher, even if everything goes well from now on, than they would have been if the global economic crisis had not taken place.

The concern is that the cuts announced in this country and in other European countries may have an impact on growth, and the developing countries will feel the effect if people in this country do not buy their products and provide a market for their goods. It is therefore vital that we maintain the levels of aid that we provide. We should also do everything that we can—at the international events in which the Government are involved—to ensure not just that Britain moves towards the 0.7% target, but that as many countries as possible make similar progress, because this will be a very difficult time for developing countries as their exports decline, prices fall and pay rates are lowered.

Developing countries are also dealing with a food crisis. In 2008, because of international events, the prices of the foodstuffs bought by people in many developing countries soared. According to the most recent millennium development goals reports, food prices remain high, and that will have a significant impact on malnutrition rates in many countries.

Members on the other side of the House have mentioned the scepticism about aid in some quarters among the British public, but I suggest that only a significant minority are concerned about Britain spending money on aid while we are also cutting back at home. It would be unjustifiable for Britain to take any other course. If we do not do everything that we can to try to take people out of poverty in other parts of the world, we—and they—will have to live with the consequences. We are already seeing the impact on human rights in those countries, with significant amounts of unrest because of long-term increases in economic inequality within countries as well as between countries.

We have already seen, for example, an increase in the number of trade unionists being killed. In a recent report, the International Labour Organisation, which is part of the UN, said that there had been a 30% increase between 2008 and 2009 in the number of trade unionists killed. Similar figures are being recorded relating to other aspects of human rights.

Several hon. Members have mentioned the position of women, and I welcome the fact that the Government have said that they want to put women at the heart of development issues. Several colleagues have talked about the figures on, and the concerns about, maternal mortality. United Nations millennium development goal 5 was aimed at reducing maternal mortality by 75%, and I urge the Government to maintain the previous Government’s strategy of putting women at the centre of their policies.

We need to consider other ways of providing further funding for aid. However, I ask the Government to consider not just aid, but some of the suggestions from the various non-governmental organisations campaigning on this issue, particularly the suggestions for a Tobin tax and international forms of taxation, the funding from which could be earmarked for, and directed towards, trying to do something to bridge the huge gap in the world between rich and poor, both within and between countries. I have heard the comments about providing aid to relatively well-off countries, but although countries such as Colombia are relatively well-off in international terms, they still have huge inequalities of wealth and millions of people still living in shanty towns. Even for relatively well-off countries, where there is abject poverty and where people are living in squalor, it is appropriate that the British Government take a stance and look for ways to provide assistance.

It has been a pleasure to make a contribution to this important debate. I hope that all Members will do all they can to hold the new coalition Government to account on this issue and maintain the politic pressure that clearly exists in the country to ensure that Britain is at the forefront of efforts to address global poverty.

16:41

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

It is a privilege, if a little daunting, to speak in the same debate as my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral West (Esther McVey) and for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), who made outstanding and passionate maiden speeches.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, aid is not the final answer. Nations become sustainably prosperous not through our charity or redistribution, but when they can create their own wealth. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) mentioned the letters and e-mails that a number of hon. Members are getting from people who are unhappy that, at a time when the Government are having to cut back severely on spending programmes, we are still committed to spending money on aid. I do not know whether, as the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) said, those people constitute a small or a significant minority, but they certainly exist, and we have to work hard to carry them with the programme.

The line “charity begins at home” holds a certain attraction, but, as we see again and again from the generosity of the British people when called upon, charity here certainly does not end at home. The moral and altruistic argument for aid is strong, but as politicians we can, and must, do better than hitherto in explaining to, and convincing, people why aid can also be in our own interests when properly targeted and as long as we know that other wealthy nations are also making their proper contribution alongside ours. A larger world gross domestic product benefits not just newly developing countries, but the entire world economy, through bigger markets, specialisation and trade. It ensures that the world’s scarce resources, including human resources, are put to better use, and through the promotion of stability in otherwise volatile parts of the world, it contributes to our security. Furthermore, there are benefits in terms of climate change, economic migration and so on, and often direct benefit can be had from strategic bilateral relationships, which of course are competitive exercises between countries.

Private enterprise is the single most important driver of development. It creates jobs, wealth and opportunities. It also harnesses the talents and the enterprise of entrepreneurs, who in turn, through their ingenuity and drive, will create opportunities for their countrymen and women to prosper. However, in the world’s developing economies, just as here at home, that hinges on access to credit.

Like everybody else, poor people need money if they are going to start businesses. However, mainstream banks often do not want to deal with them, because the sums of money involved are so small and because it is difficult to find an attractive return once the full operating costs have been factored in. A key to successful development is microfinance, providing loans to some of the world’s poorest people and playing a key role in generating a real private sector. In some countries, such as India and Bangladesh, the microfinance sector is already well established. The Grameen bank, which is the best-known example, having pioneered the sector in 1983, has since made loans to more than 8 million borrowers. In other countries, however, there is still a lot of work left to do.

My introduction to microfinance came in Rwanda in 2008. Like a number of my hon. Friends this afternoon, I have had the opportunity a couple of times to join my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on two of the volunteering projects that he has organised in that country, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) referred earlier. In the short time spent on such a project, the contribution that one can make is tiny. However, although one’s contribution may be modest, it is fair to say that what we learned could hardly be overstated.

One of the things that I learned about was microfinance. I had the opportunity while in Rwanda to pay a short visit to the country’s largest microfinance institution, the Urwego Opportunity microfinance bank. We saw the two extremes of that organisation’s operation. The first was the bank’s flagship city branch, which looked a bit like a small branch of Barclays and was very high-tech, with all sorts of fingerprint identification technologies. The second example, at the other extreme, was what one might call the field operation—quite literally—in a market on the edge of the city, where no such technology would be available. Instead, gathered on a patch of ground were the 30 or so members—most, but not all of them, women—of a microfinance circle. The majority were sole traders in that market.

Microfinance there works in cycles of four months. People get the money at the start of the period and, so long as they pay it off at a rate of 3% a month, they can borrow again in the next four-month period. Critically, each member of the circle vouches for the others, and if someone defaults, the other members have to pick up the slack. The system is therefore largely self-policing, and before someone joins a circle, Mr Deputy Speaker, you can bet that the other members will ensure that their business is viable.

In that circle and that cycle, a lot of money changed hands. For example, 9.6 million Rwandan francs, which is almost £10,000, was brought to the circle by a female Urwego employee in a paper bag—it is quite astounding that there is not more theft on such occasions. The biggest borrower—a lady called Veronique—had borrowed almost £800, which, when we consider that this would be almost £2,500 over the three cycles in a year, is quite a lot of money. She uses that money to finance her bar and pay for the satellite television service, so that she can charge keen Rwandans to watch English premiership football teams—notably, I am pleased to say, the Arsenal—on her television set.

The sums of money involved in such projects are now such that one could say that they straddle microfinance and mainstream finance. Indeed, one needs credit at all levels to finance the development of such an economy. In rural areas of Rwanda, there are much smaller-scale operations, sometimes involving loans as small as just £1. Around the world, microfinance programmes have shown again and again that poor people can and do have a strong repayment record—in most cases over 95%. However, according to the World Bank, the industry is not even close to meeting the demand for its services. There could be up to 500 million poor people in the world for whom a small business loan would be a great opportunity, while two thirds of the world’s population have no access to a bank account at all. The problem is particularly acute in sub-Saharan Africa.

The chance to witness microfinance in progress in Rwanda left a great impression on me. People talk about developing market economies, but there was a market economy developing before our eyes. I hope and trust that, in our programme of help for the poorest of the world, we will focus very much on those helping-hand programmes, which enable people to help themselves. I also hope that more airtime is given to those programmes, so that the British public can increasingly see aid as an investment in the future and in a rising rate of world growth, and not just as money spent.

16:50

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I begin, like others, by paying tribute to three excellent maiden speeches. It was delightful to hear those speeches and I am sorry that the Members who delivered them are no longer in the Chamber to hear my speech. They are probably celebrating in the Tea Room, having got through the first milestone here in Parliament. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), who spoke passionately and with great knowledge about his constituency; to my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), who is clearly going to be a great contributor to the field of defence and, indeed, international development; and, last but not least, to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey). Those of us slightly older in the tooth on the Government side—and that might include yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker—might recall her giving a passionate speech at the annual conference in Blackpool on the theme of “What is a girl like me doing in the Tory party?” That was a fantastic speech, and from her performance here again today, we can see why a girl like her is in this place. I am sure that she will represent her constituents well.

Before moving on to my main theme, I would like to respond to the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), who made a passionate plea to keep funding based in the UK, which has been stopped by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] Let me quote to that hon. Member—

[Ann McKechin]

rose—

[Mr Ellwood]

Let me finish the point.

[Ann McKechin]

It was my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) who said this, not me.

[Mr Ellwood]

I stand corrected; I mean the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar). What it says on the tin—I presume that this was true from when the Department for International Development was created—is that DFID is

“the part of the UK Government that manages Britain’s aid to poor countries and works to get rid of extreme poverty.”

That is not in line with what the hon. Gentleman was pleading for—for funding to remain in his constituency—so perhaps he wants to see the definition of DFID change. I will come back to the definition and its importance later in my speech.

What do we mean by poverty? It is not just about an individual, a community or a country being poor; it is about being economically challenged. Poverty is multidimensional. It is lack of food and water, yes, and it is a lack of shelter; it is also the lack of health and access to medical support. Poverty is also about the lack of education and the inability to read, not having a job, and fearing for the future, living one day at a time. In essence, poverty is about powerlessness, lack of representation and lack of freedom.

I am pleased that we are having this debate so early in this Parliament in order to discuss the issues and the role Britain can play in the future. It is an important debate. I—like many other Members, I am sure—was challenged during the election about why we were ring-fencing funding for international development when there was so much economic pressure on all the other Departments. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spelled out the importance of keeping aid working and of making sure that we are able to support the countries that need it so that they can help themselves. Otherwise, immigration issues and environmental issues will grow, and the problem will become much bigger in the long term.

The causes of poverty can be broken down, crudely, into two areas—the natural and the man-made. On the natural side, there is the swell of population in places like India, or crop failure in places like Sudan or indeed disease and epidemics such as HIV/AIDS in places like South Africa and southern Africa. On the man-made front, equally affecting, we have things like corrupt leadership as we see in Somalia, or civil war as we see right across Africa and particularly in places like Angola. Then there is economic failure or even the deliberate denial of funding to poor communities for necessary projects.

Climate change can also be seen to be man-made as well. If sea levels continue to rise, places like Bangladesh would be hugely threatened. What is called water stress would be the result, and the lack of drinking water is estimated to affect 1 billion to 3 billion people. These are issues that we in the developed world need to debate, even though they may affect more people in the developing world.

The yardstick for our debates is now the millennium development goals, put forward in September 2000 by the United Nations with eight clear aims. The first is the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger. Unfortunately, we are a long way from achieving our 2015 target in that respect. The second is the achievement of universal primary education. The number of children receiving primary education has risen to 89% in the developing world, but we are still short of our millennium goal target. The third is the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women. That remains out of reach, as, indeed, do the reduction of child mortality and improvement in maternal health, which are the fourth and fifth goals.

The sixth goal is the combating of HIV and AIDS; the situation seems to have stabilised in many regions. The seventh is the ensuring of environmental stability, and the eighth is the development of a global partnership for development, which involves developing open trading and financial systems. My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) spoke passionately about his attempts to establish and promote such systems in Rwanda.

Those are the eight themes that we will use as our benchmarks. When the countries meet for the summit in New York in September there will be much to discuss and much food for thought, given the huge shortfall between where we are now and where we would like to be by 2015.

What is our role in all this? What can the United Kingdom do to tackle the problems, either individually or with other countries, and how should we contribute? I believe that there are many ways in which the UK can make its mark. We often put our hand up when other countries do not, and it is fantastic that we continue to be willing to step forward and encourage other developed countries that may be reticent.

As I said in an intervention on the shadow Secretary of State, the G8 and the G20 are new organisations that have been able to bring in many voices that may have been excluded in the past. They make decisions and agreements, and issue challenges. Older organisations such as the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which were created when life was very different during or just after the war, have to pick up the pieces and deal with the details of those challenges.

The older organisations are out of date, and are in dire need of modernisation. While we have renewed and are reinvigorating the methods with which we distribute aid to ensure that we receive value for money, I do not believe that the same can be said for those major organisations. That is why I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been hesitant about handing over money before he has guaranteed to ensure that it will be well spent.

[Ann McKechin]

Let me gently suggest to the hon. Gentleman that confusing Glasgow and Edinburgh is not a practice that he should try to repeat. However, he has made an interesting point about the current management of the World Bank and the IMF. Does he agree that we should try to ensure that donee nations have a much bigger say in management and decision making than they do at present?

[Mr Ellwood]

The purpose of the debate is to enable ideas such as that to be put into the pot. In this instance, we are not taking about minutiae, but about the need for a root-and-branch change in the way in which organisations both operate individually and interconnect. Afghanistan is a good example of the failure of huge organisations to co-ordinate their activities sensibly in order to assist with post-conflict reconstruction.

As long as conflict continues in developing areas, poverty will thrive. Only when it ends can peace flourish, which will allow support and investment to move in, and business and trade to flourish as well. That is our role. It is dual-faced. We can use what Joe Nye used to call soft and hard power, or soft and hard influence. On the soft side there are, for instance, the Fairtrade initiatives, and ensuring that we support businesses in developing countries in the knowledge that buying a product in the supermarket will genuinely help people in need rather than corrupt organisations. The setting of tariffs can also help, as can targeted investment and funding—which has already been mentioned—and choosing support responsibly.

Any of us who have travelled to African countries will have observed that China is taking full advantage of those countries’ desire for hard currency, but I am afraid that it is doing so in an irresponsible way. The Chinese are not allowing local skills to be developed. They bus in their own people, rob the country of its minerals, drain it dry and then go home or move on to another area. That is happening on a huge scale, and no one seems to want to challenge it.

I will finish my contribution by discussing conflict and the relationship between DFID and other organisations. For 10 years, DFID has been waking up to the fact that it has had to do something very different from what it was set up to do. It does tackle poverty well, and it has been congratulated on that, but it has had to develop a new role in working in insecure and dangerous environments. I am pleased to say that the stabilisation unit and the other work being done are working well, but we took an awful long time to get there. For the first year in Afghanistan the budget was £47 million but the current budget is £5 billion a year. Had we bothered to get the reconstruction and development right when there was a small window of opportunity to win over the hearts and minds of the locals, we would have been out of Afghanistan by then. I am pleased that DFID has moved forward, I am glad that the new management have pledged to ensure that there is better scrutiny, and I wish the new team well.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Four Members are trying to catch my eye and half an hour is left before I call for the wind-ups, so if those Members could divide the time among themselves, everyone will get a fair crack of the whip.

17:00

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

Sadly, I, like many other Members in the Chamber, have received letters and e-mails from constituents saying that we are going to be subjected to cuts in most departmental budgets, so we should also cut DFID’s aid budget. I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State say that “charity begins at home, but it does not end there”, because I will be able to go back to my constituents to tell them that we have a duty in this relatively wealthy country to help others.

I know that this will upset many of those correspondents, but I am very pleased to see that the Chancellor, the Prime Minister, and the Secretary of State and his team understand the importance of the budget for developing countries. I congratulate the Secretary of State on the start that he has made in changing the priorities in his Department because, as many Members have said, we need to ensure that money is well spent. There is a lot of corruption and we must ensure that the money goes to the people whom it needs to help and does not just go into the pockets of some politicians. That is why I am particularly keen to see measures put in place that stop that money going astray.

We do have poverty here in Britain, but the poverty in developing countries is very different and we can make a difference. Even in these difficult times, 0.7% of our gross national income is not a huge sum, but it might save some lives and help countries to escape from the worst life expectancy rates and early deaths from disease. Places such as Africa have to deal with many illnesses, such as HIV/AIDS and malaria. If we can help these places by providing the correct medicines at an affordable price and bed nets to save children from mosquito bites, which cause malaria, we will help with the population’s education. Children cannot go to school if they are ill; if they do not get an education, they cannot get a job; and the cycle is perpetuated. Much of Africa does have primary education but many children never go to secondary schools. Even if they do, girls may have to miss one week in four because they have no sanitary protection and have to stay at home. That cannot be right in 2010.

Aid money must be spent well, because we need to reduce the difference in the life expectancy of people in developing countries and that of ourselves—that is crucial to the well-being of these countries. I was one of those people who went on Project Umubano with the Secretary of State, and we saw so many things that impressed us. It is not that the people in these countries are stupid or unable to study; they have fantastic minds, but they do not always have the opportunities.

I have organised my own aid project in a small way in Uganda, so I have seen at first hand what direct aid can do to help communities. Such aid could be for an education project—we constructed one school and helped another to finish the building that included a hall, now called Derby hall, having been named after my constituency—or it could provide a water butt to collect water because there is none on site and people have to walk half a mile to collect it. We started a women’s co-operative using old British Singer hand-sewing machines to give AIDS widows the opportunity to learn to make school uniforms and to have an income, rather than live without money.

We are also helping farmers to start to become self-sufficient in growing crops. We give each farmer that has cleared 1 acre of ground 10 kilos of maize seeds to plant. At the end of the season, they give 10 kilos back, replant another 10 kilos for the next season and either sell or consume what is left. That is a highly sustainable way of getting farming off the ground. Those farmers should now be able to make money each season from their very fertile ground, which was previously underused because of a lack of leadership in the area. This year, we have given money to enable some farmers to start growing upland rice on the same principle.

That is just one of many thousands of private projects. The students I have taken out there and I have not changed poverty in Africa, but we have helped one small area of Uganda, and we hope to continue to do so. There are many thousands of projects in Britain helping countries throughout the developing world, and I suggest that we harness that tremendous enthusiasm and get them to work with us—rather like the big society idea and the fact that we are asking people out there what laws and regulations they want to see scrapped. Why not ask churches and schools that have their own projects, along with the many other volunteers, to tell us what has worked for them and whether any projects financed by outside aid have failed? That would give us a clearer insight into the matter. Big charities such as Oxfam do fantastic work, but they sometimes get carried away with what they are doing and do not see what is happening in small pockets of the country where the small groups of volunteers are working.

I should like my project to help in that way, by helping the coalition Government to come up with inventive ideas for helping people in Africa and elsewhere. We have the expertise out in Africa. My project in Uganda is in an area not far from Kampala—it is only two and a half hours’ drive away—yet most of the people there had never seen a white person before we started going out to them. As with everything else that the coalition is trying to do, we need to ensure that there is value for money, and that every pound we spend in a developing country gets to where it can make the maximum difference to the real people, and not to corrupt politicians.

Rwanda’s President has a fantastic vision of what he wants his country to be like, and it is possible to see the difference that he has made, year on year. It is a clean country that is improving its environment day by day. In fact, it is the cleanest African country I have ever been to. Much of Kigali has pavements, which few other poor countries would even think of having. That is because the President has a vision of what he wants his country to achieve.

Uganda has oil, but I fear that the people will not benefit from any revenue. Oil could put the country into a completely new ball game, providing money for decent housing, sanitation, education and better health care. We have a duty to persuade Presidents in this situation to use their country’s natural resources to produce wealth to help everyone, not just themselves. I urge the Secretary of State to take this into account whenever he speaks to the leaders of such countries. Those Presidents should enable their countries to become self-sufficient through their own wealth, and give it to the people to spend rather than spending it on their own pet projects. That would create wealth-generating communities, and we would need to provide less aid, which in turn would enable us to help more people in other countries, rather than having to spread the aid too thinly.

17:08

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I congratulate those hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches today, including my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral West (Esther McVey) and for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk).

Last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), whom I welcome to his position as Secretary of State, wrote:

“In a globalised world, we are all bound together, our destinies linked.”

I fully agree with that. He has made a compelling case for the importance of the UK’s international development programme. That case is a moral case, and we have heard the reasons behind it, including the fact that 25,000 children die of preventable diseases every day. However, there is also a case to be made for our national interest, and I would go beyond saying that it lies simply in ensuring that people no longer wish to flee the conditions in their own countries to seek a better life elsewhere. That is part of it, but I would echo the words of Sir Terry Leahy this week. He said that

“we need to think more about how we can engage in the world as it is and will be.”

He went on to say:

“I think it is a wonderful thing that already a billion, and potentially billions, are going to be taken out of poverty”

leading to

“an incredible business opportunity where Britain is well positioned.”

I pay credit here to the work of the previous Government on international aid.

For much of my working life, I have worked in developing countries in business and I therefore declare an interest. I remember that in the late 1980s there was always a lot of tension between those involved in business and those involved in development. These days, it is very different. It is accepted that the best way to tackle poverty is through economic development and that the private sector will play the leading role in that. Indeed, the private sector has come a long way in recognising that it, too, has social responsibilities. It recognises that Government and development organisations are its partners. If there is no functioning health system, its staff and customers will suffer. If schools are inadequate, where will it recruit the staff that it needs? I have the good fortune of being married to a doctor who ran a health education programme for 11 years in Tanzania, and she always reminded me of the importance of that sector.

There are three areas in which aid has an important role to play in economic development. The first is agriculture, which has been so eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood). There was a tendency in some parts of the developing world to see agriculture, and in particular smallholder agriculture, as a business of the past, to be superseded by the brave new world of state-owned industry. Many of those factories have long ceased to function while the smallholders continue to earn their living from the land.

Agriculture is a business of the future, certainly in Britain, in my constituency and around the world. Any country, including ours, that ignores the potential of agriculture does so to its cost. The OECD’s report on sustainable agriculture states that in 2005 to 2030, food demand is expected to increase by 50% across the world. That is a huge opportunity for farmers in developing countries. Agriculture, especially on small farms, is an excellent way to promote economic development. The International Fund for Agricultural Development has found that a healthy agricultural sector acts as a multiplier in local economies, spurring higher incomes and increasing access to markets. That is why I am delighted that the Secretary of State has highlighted agriculture as an essential building block of wealth creation.

The second area in which aid is important is small businesses, which have been mentioned. I might as well say “other small businesses”, as smallholder farmers are business men and business women. In the UK, we recognise small and medium-sized enterprises as the engine of the economy, and it should be no different in developing countries. Employment and unemployment are critical, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) said, yet anyone wishing to set up a business in many developing countries faces great problems: the cost of registration, tax authorities that often want taxes to be paid before the business has started trading, and, above all, lack of finance. That was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who talked about microfinance.

Of course, the growth of microfinance has been a great success story in the past 15 years, but there is a gap between microfinance and the level at which private risk capital will lend—typically, $50,000 or $100,000 and above. Banks do not fill the gap and they usually require security, which the entrepreneur cannot provide. I urge the Secretary of State to consider how the UK can work to overcome that financing gap. It is not straightforward, as I know from being involved over the past six years in helping to finance small businesses in Tanzania through a charity, but it can be done. Well-managed revolving equity or quasi-equity funds enable a pound of aid to be used several times over. The Secretary of State rightly emphasises the importance of the effectiveness of aid, and that is an opportunity.

The third area in which aid is important is infrastructure. It is of little use to produce crops only for them to rot in the field because they cannot reach the market. Transport costs in Africa have been estimated to be on average double those in Asia. Infrastructure projects in the past have been riddled with corruption and beset by special interests, but if countries come forward with serious business cases for not only building but maintaining the necessary infrastructure, we should look at them. As the Conservative party’s Green Paper states

“we are convinced that effective support for infrastructure has a central role to play in boosting growth and development around the world, particularly in Africa.”

I have spoken about agriculture and infrastructure, and to some this might seem a throwback to the early days of international development. People might point out that many countries have not yet thrown off the shackles of poverty, but it was precisely because agriculture was ignored for 20 years and infrastructure was built and not maintained that the benefits of that investment were often not realised. What is, perhaps, new is the appreciation at last that no country will develop economically without allowing its small businesses, including smallholder farmers, to flourish. Give them firm property rights, fair taxation, access to affordable finance that will not take the shirt off their back if things go wrong, and a good basic infrastructure, and they will create the jobs that are so desperately needed. They will also create the tax revenues that will pay for the health, education and other services on which they depend, as well as the stability without which no real development is possible.

17:15

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on their excellent maiden speeches. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), whom I met at the beginning of her 10-year journey. I think I will remember her class P for ever.

There has been much talk since the emergency Budget about austerity and hardship, and it will be a tough few years for many as we deal with the excesses of the past and move our country back on to the road to recovery. As a developed nation with a Government who are committed to the principles of responsibility, freedom and fairness, we cannot turn our backs, even in these difficult times, on those in greater need than ourselves.

As we are talking about the ongoing challenges caused by global poverty, it will be useful to define poverty. The World Bank says that people who live on less than $1.25 a day in developing countries are living in poverty. That is the level of income deemed necessary to fulfil basic human needs in the developing world, where some 1.4 billion people have been living below that poverty line. We need to address that. The concept of poverty is brought to life more vividly by this World Bank description:

“Poverty is hunger. Poverty is lack of shelter. Poverty is being sick and not being able to see a doctor. Poverty is not having access to school and not knowing how to read. Poverty is not having a job, is fear for the future, living one day at a time. Poverty is losing a child to illness brought about by unclean water. Poverty is powerlessness, lack of representation and freedom.”

None of us can listen to that description without feeling a call to action and a need to do all we can to address the unfair balance that is suffered by people purely because of the lottery of where they were born.

Many people have talked about the eight millennium development goals, which represent the human and basic needs that every individual around the world should be able to enjoy, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) has described those goals. The confirmation of the goals was a real step forward in international efforts to combat global poverty, but, as the Secretary of State said this morning, measurable outcomes of the goals are needed to make them effective.

It is fair to say that progress has been made, with some countries achieving many of the targets, but others are not on track to achieve any. Key successes include the significant progress towards eradicating poverty, the major progress on getting children into school, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, and the reduction in child deaths owing to HIV/AIDS, malaria and other infectious diseases. However, the report on the goals concedes that progress has been severely challenged, particularly given the global economic crisis of the past few years. Without a major push forward, many of those goals are likely to be missed. We need to address that.

There is considerable regional variation, with areas such as eastern Asia benefiting most from the continued economic growth in China and India. In contrast, sub-Saharan Africa suffered from low levels of economic growth and faced significant challenges to reaching targets. Even within countries, there are major differentials between rural and urban areas, which we must address. We have to get aid to where it is really needed.

There has been some criticism of the implementation of the G8-backed funds, which some believe have at times been hijacked to pay for natural disasters. Although worthy, that use of the money might not have a direct impact on the achievement of development goals. Others have criticised the distribution of funds, suggesting that elements of cronyism can be detected in the allocation of funds. Some feel that not enough has been done to tackle corruption in the countries receiving aid and to ensure that aid gets to the right places. However, despite increases in international development aid over the following years, in 2007 a total of $103.7 billion was committed, which represented only 0.28% of developed countries’ GNP. We still have some way to go to achieve our goal, but I welcome the announcement made by the Prime Minister at this week’s G8 summit in Canada. He confirmed the UK’s commitment to 0.7% of GNP being spent on international aid, and said it was an

“opportunity to exercise leadership on behalf of the poorest.”

I have been fortunate, in my time as an ambassador for ActionAid and as part of the Leaders’ Quest programme, to have visited many countries that suffer extremes of poverty. They include China, India, Mozambique, South Africa, and I also visited Rwanda with the Secretary of State. Although seeing the difficulties that people face every day can be distressing, more often than not I have found it to be an uplifting experience and have been inspired by those who have so little.

Sometimes, not only money but connections make a difference. I found that with the school twinning exercise that I organised between Kayonza modern secondary school in Rwanda and Brentford school for girls in my constituency. Many of the people I have met have been full of hope and optimism for the future, just looking for a way to help themselves get out of the situation that they have found themselves in through no fault of their own. The famous Chinese proverb states:

“Give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you will feed him for a lifetime.”

In the same way, providing support for building skills and education is critical to creating the self-sustaining cycle that will break developing countries out of poverty.

As I said, it is not sufficient just to provide effective aid internationally. We also need to ensure that there are fair global policies in place to ensure access to finance and remove trade barriers so that developing countries are able to compete in the global marketplace. Alison Evans, the director of the Overseas Development Institute, put this succinctly when she said:

“Think aid, think smart aid but also think beyond aid.”

It is critical that Governments from the developed world play their role in ensuring fair practices to support developing nations. I visited sugar plantation farmers in Mozambique who were desperate to be able to trade with us to create a strong, stable and sustainable economy for the long term in their country. They pleaded with us to remove EU tariff barriers so that they could achieve that.

In my constituency of Brentford and Isleworth is a company called Microloan Foundation. We have heard already from my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) about the role that microfinance can play. What Microloan Foundation does is a real example of how we can provide loans to people in rural areas to enable them to set up their own self-sustaining businesses. Peter Ryan, the founder of Microloan Foundation, said:

“The challenge of building the operation from the ‘ground up’ has resulted in the creation of a social model which, coupled with strong business management, is beginning to yield exceptionally good results.”

This week, the company launched its Pennies for Life campaign, and I encourage everyone to join it. People who sign up pay an extra lp every time they buy something, and that money helps to support this microfinance initiative. This is a great success story.

Finally, I believe that, even in these difficult times, as a developed country we must do our utmost to maintain our commitment to eradicating the causes of global poverty. In so doing, we will all benefit from a safer and more secure world.

I applaud the UN’s efforts to focus the hearts and minds of the developing nations on making progress towards reducing global poverty, and the role that the millennium development goals have played in that regard.

As we move forward, I believe that we need to focus on the best way to translate the MDGs into bottom-up, practical projects that achieve the shared objectives as well as value for money in terms of aid spent. I endorse what the Government are doing with their aim of transparency and their desire to address the causes of poverty.

We have an important role to play in reducing extreme poverty globally, and in creating a world that is more stable, more just and more secure.

17:23

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Some sceptics say that charity begins at home and use that argument to resist spending on international aid. I agree that charity begins at home, but it depends how one defines the word “home”. There are geographic boundaries but there are also moral boundaries, and we are all neighbours. Just because someone lives thousands of miles away does not mean that the moral boundaries are any different. We should be building bridges, not walls. When aid is well spent, it is hugely in the national interest. I know that the Secretary of State is aware of that, as he came to my constituency before the election and met the paralympian Anne Wafula Strike, who does so much work with Africa. However, for aid to work we need three things—more bilateral aid, more know-how and more transparency.

I believe that aid must cut out the middle man. For example, why do we often give aid through the EU, for the EU to distribute? Why do we not give it directly? Why not give more aid directly to schools and other community institutions? The localism for which we yearn here is yearned for abroad as well. As the policy paper “One World Conservatism” states, when aid is well spent, it

“has worked miracles: eliminating smallpox, almost eradicating polio…helping get millions of children into school and saving millions of families from hunger and disease.”

The best form of aid is sharing expertise and knowledge—know-how. Many of my hon. Friends spoke about Project Umubano in Rwanda, which I have been privileged to go on for two years to teach English. People are hungry not only for food and work but for knowledge. Voluntary Service Overseas does a huge amount to share concrete practical skills. The Westminster Foundation for Democracy, with which I worked a few years ago in Uganda and Tanzania through the Conservative party, shares knowledge with democratic parties abroad. All the evidence shows that greater democracy means less poverty. By democracy, I mean not just regular elections but the rule of law and property rights. Perhaps in future, as part of the sharing of expertise, businesses could sponsor aid apprentices through their social responsibility initiatives to build up technical capacity overseas.

On transparency, we need a much clearer idea of where our money is going. When Hillary Clinton pledged hundreds of millions of dollars in new aid to Palestine in 2009, she said that it must not benefit Hamas. Why? Because she knew that aid to the Palestinian Authority had ended up in the wrong hands in the past. That is just one of many examples from around the world, but it proves that transparency must be at the heart of what we do and what we demand from our partners.

That is why the revolution in open government is welcome. Taxpayers ought to be able to track overseas aid on the internet from the moment it is allocated to the moment the results are delivered. I also welcome the proposal in “One World Conservatism” for the £40 million “MyAid” fund, which would be controlled by taxpayers, because it would introduce popular competition among aid projects and increase democratic control.

Bilateral aid, know-how and transparency must be our watchwords in reducing global poverty. Now that we are united in our coalition, I should like to conclude by quoting a Liberal. Gladstone said:

“Nothing that is morally wrong can be politically right.”

I agree. Helping our neighbours overseas is morally and politically right, and it will ensure that the British Isles continue to be a beacon of light and hope for the most vulnerable in our world.

17:27

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome this early opportunity to debate global poverty, but with the UN’s poverty summit so close, this debate could and should have been on the Second Reading of Labour’s 0.7 % legislation. As I reviewed the speeches of the Secretary of State and the Minister in preparation for this debate, I saw many of the themes and examples that recent Ministers have used, so I certainly warmly welcome many of the concerns highlighted by the Secretary of State. However, recent events and the debate have revealed both the lack of action at a key moment by the coalition Government and a lack of strategy for the Department’s future work. That should alarm hon. Members and those outside the House who see the declaration in 2000 that gave birth to the millennium development goals as a direct challenge to our generation to help the world’s poorest.

We heard three excellent maiden speeches, the first of which was from the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey). The pupils of class P at Hayfield school can indeed be proud of their work in support of the 1GOAL campaign, and indeed for influencing their Member of Parliament to speak up on their behalf. She rightly raised the continuing plight of 72 million children who are still denied the opportunity of an education.

The hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) also made an excellent maiden speech. It takes a certain talent to work Led Zeppelin and Robbie Williams into a speech on global poverty, but he did so with some panache. He also raised the important issue of access to medicines and the need for continuing work on that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) made a particularly impressive maiden speech, deploying humour about one particular election moment to make a nevertheless important point about the views of many of his and, I suspect, all our constituents. As someone who has the honour to chair the Co-operative party outside this House, and having attended the Co-operative Congress in Plymouth only last weekend, I warmly welcomed my hon. Friend’s reference to the contribution of the Rochdale pioneers to this country. In the context of this debate, I welcomed his reminder about the profound challenges facing the Palestinians, and his call for all of us to do more to help them was particularly timely.

We heard a strong speech from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) who, having worked for Oxfam and helped organise the Gleneagles rally five years ago, has real authority on these issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) crucially reminded us of the importance of the decent work agenda and the continuing need to champion labour standards. Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar), whose election to the International Development Committee I welcome, she raised the important need for progress on tax issues, which, as she rightly reminded us, Christian Aid does so much to champion so well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) reminded us that we all need to continue to buy Fairtrade goods—a point also raised by the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). She also referred to the need for democracy and a strong civil society as basic pre-requisites for development progress, making a particularly acute point about the role of trade unions in civil society, which was heard, I noted, in absolute silence by Government Members.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) and the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) made strong cases for continuing investment in developing countries. In the case of the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, her argument was spoilt only by two mild reproaches to my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), which I suspect were designed more to please those on her Front Bench rather than made because she took them particularly seriously. I was tempted to put a membership form for the Labour party in the post to her, so good was her speech.

The Secretary of State highlighted the particular challenges of unsafe abortion. It would have been helpful if he had mentioned the last US Republican Administration, who bear a particularly heavy responsibility for the fact that more progress was not made more quickly in their eight years to provide proper facilities for women to have an abortion. The previous Government strongly supported investment in health care to tackle this issue directly and funded international bodies such as the United Nations Population Fund and the International Planned Parenthood Federation, which remain pivotal to further progress.

I also welcome the Secretary of State’s interest in the broader issue of maternal mortality. We committed to scale up support for maternal and newborn health to help save the lives of 6 million mothers and babies by 2015; so if the right hon. Gentleman intends to continue our work in this area, I certainly welcome that commitment.

I worry about the growing number of aid sceptics in the Conservative party. The honest speech of the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) was an interesting example of that. I wonder whether that is the reason why the Secretary of State will not or cannot announce a timetable for introducing legislation to put the 0.7% contribution goal on our statute book yet.

The Secretary of State made important points about the case for development, which I welcome. There is a moral case for not standing by in countries such as Zimbabwe and Burma, where the Governments are failing to help their peoples, as well as for helping Governments in countries such as Zambia, Malawi and Ghana, who want to do the right thing by their people, to build up their economies, health systems and school systems.

The right hon. Gentleman also made the crucial point that there is a strong self-interest for Britain in championing the needs of developing countries, perhaps most acutely at the moment in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a point touched on by the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) in the final Back-Bench speech of the debate.

What is now needed is action to back up those fine sentiments from the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central were right when they made it clear that other countries must meet their commitments on aid. It is for exactly that reason that the failure to fight at the G8 for meaningful language on the Gleneagles commitments is a deeply worrying sign of the extent to which the Government are really willing to champion the needs of the world’s poorest. A supposedly new initiative on maternal health, with no extra money behind it, is frankly a dismal return from the Prime Minister’s first international outing. Indeed, his failure to fight for the world’s poorest does not augur well for any effort the new Government are intending to put in to make a success of the UN review of progress to meet the millennium development goals in September. If the Secretary of State cannot get his own leader, or even No. 10 staff, to press for the world’s poorest at meetings of the richest nations in the world, it suggests that his influence at the heart of Government is not particularly high. Coming so soon after the Gracious Speech, which talks not of legislation on the target of aid being 0.7% of GNI but of a mere parliamentary mention, challenging scrutiny of his performance is what the right hon. Gentleman must now expect from Opposition Members.

[Tony Baldry]

The hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) have played on this point. The hon. Gentleman makes assertions about the Prime Minister not doing enough in Canada, but what is his evidence? I can only assume that he was not in the House for the Prime Minister’s statement on Monday, when he made it very clear that he had stressed the importance of transparency and accountability, and of meeting the MDG targets. What my right hon. Friend said to the House bears no relation to the travesty of the facts being put forward by the Opposition today.

[Mr Thomas]

With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, the fact that this G8 communiqué was the first in five years not to include any mention of the Gleneagles commitments and that organisations as significant as Oxfam—which he has praised in the past—damned the communiqué and the actions of the Government for failing to get such language included should be a gentle reminder to him of why we are concerned about the Government’s performance.

[Malcolm Bruce]

I can understand the Labour party’s desire to protect its record, but has not the problem been that we have had a commitment to the Gleneagles goals in every communiqué from every G8 in the last five years—and absolutely no delivery? Words are no use unless we get delivery.

[Mr Thomas]

I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has been elected to resume the chairmanship of the Select Committee. The notion that there was no delivery on the Gleneagles commitments in the last five years is simply wrong. I accept that there was not enough delivery, and the hon. Member for Banbury and others are right to say that some countries need to do more. The Secretary of State has yet to prove that his Department is as influential and as central as it was before 6 May.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell]

I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman, of whom, as he knows, I am a great champion, should descend to this level. What matters about Gleneagles is that those solemn commitments, made, rightly, in front of the whole world community and its press, should be acted on. If, after the debate, he looks at the reports that have come out of the summit, reads the statement made by the Prime Minister and sees what organisations such as ActionAid said about the summit, he will see that our Prime Minister banged the drum for standing by those commitments and made it absolutely clear that Britain’s commitment leads on this point.

[Mr Thomas]

I want to champion the right hon. Gentleman’s career, too, and I suspect that he will need me to, so I say gently to him that the G8 was the international community’s pivotal meeting before the UN’s poverty summit, and not to refer to the Gleneagles commitments in the communiqué sends a powerful signal to the rest of the international community, which, I worry, will be a signal for them not to do what they should do at the UN poverty summit in September. It would be a terrible shame if the Department developed a reputation as the place where the Prime Minister sends not only those he does not want to sack yet, but those he does not want around. I hope that I am wrong, but I fear that the Secretary of State and the Minister are in danger of becoming Parliament’s answer to Jedward: they are both political treasures, and there is plenty of sympathy for them and a strange fascination about what they will do next, but at one performance soon neither will be in their usual place.

As my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State said, what is striking about the Secretary of State’s speech today and, indeed, his speeches so far outside the House is the lack of any clear strategy for the Department. Under the previous Government, DFID sat at the heart of development thinking. It was sought out by Governments internationally, valued in Europe and respected by development bodies throughout the globe, from UNICEF, which the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) mentioned, to the Grameen bank, which the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) rightly praised.

Under this Government, the Department should be at the centre of development thinking, but it simply is not yet. It could champion reform of the World Bank, which, despite doing a lot of good, needs to evolve quickly, get its staff out of Washington and into the African countries that it is supposed to help, and continue the reform of its governance. However, there has been nothing from the right hon. Gentleman on that issue yet. Under him, DFID could champion reform of the UN development system in order to help all developing countries, including those with whom we do not have bilateral aid programmes. It could continue to demand a change to how the UN humanitarian system works—or, in the case of Haiti, did not work anything like well enough. The Department could demand that UN agencies work together better in developing countries, but we have heard nothing from the right hon. Gentleman on that topic, either. He could certainly lead the development community on highlighting the finance that is necessary to help developing countries deal with the impact of climate change, but there has been radio silence on that issue, too.

What signal does the right hon. Gentleman think the £10 million loan that he announced today to the Turks and Caicos Islands sends to his Back Benchers, who are desperate to see more impact made in developing countries to help the needs of the world’s poorest? The lack of clarity about the Government’s strategy for the UN’s millennium summit was particularly striking in his speech, because he spoke more about what he will not fund and will not do than about what he will fund. In particular, he said very little about what he plans to do about the principal development event of the year. He wants an action plan to emerge from the summit, but what does he want to see in it, and how will he get it? What conversations has he had with the Deputy Prime Minister, who is due to represent us there, and what are the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister going to do to help secure the outcomes that the Secretary of State desires?

The Department is a great place in which to serve, and I join the right hon. Gentleman in praising the officials who serve there. The Ministers who serve there have a heavy responsibility to champion, challenge and mobilise for the world’s poorest, but the striking thing about what the Government have said and done so far is, first, the lack of any clear strategy on what they will do next in order to help those poorest people, and, secondly, the failure in international meetings to do the heavy lifting that is required in order to keep development at the centre of global political attention. I hope that things will change, but I fear that they will not.

17:44

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)]

I start by being nice about the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), even though he does not seem to have been inclined to be nice about me this afternoon. I do, after all, sit at his former desk. I have lifted the chair a little so that I can see things, but it would be churlish not to acknowledge that, as my predecessor, he remained in post for almost seven years—a record in the Department, I think—and did a lot of good when he was there. Indeed, having heard the debate this afternoon, such is my affection for him that, should he so wish, I am very happy to endorse his application to become Governor of the Pitcairn Islands.

It has been a genuine pleasure to listen to this debate. It is evident from the quality of the contributions and the passion with which they have been delivered that global poverty is a topic about which Members on both sides of the House care very deeply. I should like to thank them for their observations, and I will turn to their contributions in a moment.

In opening the debate, the Secretary of State made it clear that we cannot allow current economic pressures to deflect us from our goal of helping the world’s poorest people. We will not turn away and abandon those whose need is so great. True leadership is forged in the heat of adversity, and this Government will not be found wanting. However, neither will we be prepared to squander the hard-earned money of British taxpayers.

My right hon. Friend spoke of the radically new approach that this Government will take to international development—an approach that has accountability and transparency at its core. These are not empty words. It is these principles that will allow us to demonstrate to the British public that their money is being put to good use: that it is saving lives, creating futures and, ultimately, securing a more prosperous and peaceful world for us all. Combating poverty is not only morally right: it is, as the Secretary of State has said, very much in our national interest. Abroad and at home, development is the right thing to do.

Last weekend, the Prime Minister took to the global stage to reaffirm Britain’s commitment to meeting the internationally agreed goal of 0.7% of GNI to be spent on aid from 2013. We all know that some G8 members have not kept to the promises they made five years ago at Gleneagles, and that is utterly shameful. However, those who say that we should cut our aid budget are asking us to break our word; we are not prepared to do that, and nor would we ever wish to. Two wrongs do not make a right. Since when has someone else’s weakness been a good reason for us to surrender our belief in a fairer, safer and more secure world? We will do our bit, and we will continue to hold others to account at each and every opportunity.

Britain is in the lead on international development. Indeed, developed countries are looking to us for inspiration as much as developing ones are looking to us for help. We are the first country to say that we will enshrine the 0.7% contribution in legislation; and unlike America, for example, our aid is not tied to commercial interests. We have a dedicated Whitehall Department whose Secretary of State has a seat in Cabinet, and now, too, a seat in the National Security Council. This Department has a voice, and this Department is being heard. Put simply, Britain can be proud that it is the standard-setter and principal leader in a world in which charity confined to home would be an abrogation of our wider responsibilities. As many hon. Members have said, charity may start here, but it must not end here.

Despite all this, we must be frank and honest: there are some who, through the pages of the press or elsewhere, still question the validity of spending taxpayers’ money on international development. They speak of money given in good faith but diverted into the hands of tyrants or used to prop up corrupt regimes. The natural corollary seems to be that we should therefore give up and go away, at whatever human cost that might entail. I, and we, and I think Members on both sides of this House, profoundly disagree.

As the Secretary of State has said, the answer lies in greater rigour, more transparency, and full accountability. It lies in the new UK aid transparency guarantee that will help us to track money far more accurately. It lies in our conviction that internal evaluation is not enough and that we must set up an independent body to scrutinise where and how we are spending taxpayers’ money. The answer, in short, lies not in passive defeatism but in active resolve.

I wish to acknowledge all the speakers who have contributed to the debate. The first after the Front Benchers was my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), who said that it was good that we were trying to measure results but pointed out how difficult it is to measure everything easily and consistently. No doubt the Select Committee that he chairs will look into exactly that type of issue in the months ahead.

The hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) made a strong plea for us to engage fully in negotiations on the structure of IDA16. We will do that, and indeed we are doing that. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) made a charming, thoughtful and generous-spirited maiden speech, and I think it is fair to say that it was listened to admiringly by all of us in the Chamber and also, I noted, by the noble Lord Hunt, her Conservative predecessor.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) rightly wants aid to be so successful that it does not need to be permanent. We wholly agree. That, in a nutshell, is exactly what the “development” bit of international development is all about. We look forward to the continued wisdom and consistent expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), and the House, and particularly we on this side, appreciated the consensual tone of the contribution of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford).

My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) made his maiden speech. It took me a little time to tune into his Stevenage accent, and I hope he will let me know when Robbie Williams is next playing locally. His thoughtful comments on international development were much noted, and I hope that his interest in the issue will continue. Likewise, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), in his maiden speech, made a passionate defence of the interests of beleaguered Palestinians, an issue that will figure in both our foreign and defence policy. I am sure that he will make many such comments on the topic in future. I enjoyed his warm account of his own meeting with Gillian Duffy as well—someone I would quite like to have met, I have to say.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) said that we need to tackle Beveridge’s five evils globally. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) made a very good speech, and I look forward to his contribution to the International Development Committee. Many other Members spoke, and I fear that I will not quite have the time to go through their contributions, but I think I have covered all the maiden speeches. I hope the House will forgive me if I do not mention everyone who has spoken. I certainly urge everyone who has contributed to continue to participate in our debates and oral questions, and to form a cadre of informed opinion in the House that will continue to raise international development to the position that it deserves in our deliberations.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

Many of the speeches this afternoon rightly referred to the human rights of women and girls around the world. Will my right hon. Friend make a brief comment on the extent to which the human rights of gay people are under threat in some parts of the developing world with which we have significant ongoing relationships? I am wary of any sense of using aid as a political weapon, but I hope that the influence of the Department can be brought to bear as appropriate.

[Mr Duncan]

As my hon. Friend will appreciate, I have a particular interest in that issue, and I follow it and feel for it closely. I see the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) in his place, and he is also a champion of the issue at home and abroad. We do not want to use aid as a weapon, but we will always be very forthright in defending people’s rights. The whole issue of gay equality is moving from a domestic argument to a global one, and that is where our passions should now more sensibly rest.

I have mentioned the good speeches that we have heard today, but sadly I have to say, and I think the House feels, that the tone set by the shadow Secretary of State lived down to our expectations rather than up to them. It added to our deliberations a nasty and divisive flavour that simply does not need to exist on this topic. The right hon. Gentleman has experience, which we value. Might he not have had the inclination to share that experience and appreciate that his reputation and the House would both benefit from learning from it? We would much rather do that than watch him hop around looking for a scrap in the playground. Also, for him to use his former position to say that he knows the name of the particular official who worked on the speech for his successor as Secretary of State is nothing short of contemptible.

The right hon. Gentleman seemed to blame half the world’s poverty on a strange historic conspiracy between General Kitchener and the Conservative party. If he wants to know the real feeling of the modern Conservative party on this issue, he need only look at the number of people on the Benches behind me today to realise what they feel. He accused us of being ideological, but I can assure him that we are wholly non-ideological. To us, what matters is what works. On user fees, for instance—which he mentioned—we want to get children into school, and in many cases we are paying for those user fees out of our budget. He laboured the point about 0.7% this afternoon—talk about giving a dog a bone—as if there were a great issue about a departure from the clear policy on which we stood at the election. We are committed to enshrining 0.7% in law from 2013. As he well knows, we are considering how to proceed, not whether to proceed, as he implied. He will just have to wait for an announcement at the appropriate time.

Additional climate finance, as the previous Government made clear, will come from the existing aid budget. On the question of how the G20 working group on development will be held to account—something that he knows all about as a former Secretary of State—it will report to leaders through their sherpas. On the forthcoming millennium development goals summit, the UK ambition is to agree on an ambitious action agenda for attaining the MDGs. The shadow Secretary of State absurdly asked for our post-2013 spending plans. But so badly did his party mess up the public finances that he could not even, when he was Secretary of State, give us his own figures for next year.[Official Report, 6 July 2010, Vol. 513, c. 1MC.]

I have acknowledged the insightful contributions that we have heard from Members today, but I now wish to acknowledge the influence and record of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. His passion for international development is known to all in this Chamber and none can doubt his genuine commitment and considerable expertise. Indeed, rarely has a Member of Cabinet shadowed their portfolio for the length of time—nearly five years—that he has done. Only yesterday, Jon Snow said:

“Andrew Mitchell is unquestionably the best prepared Secretary of State—nobody has waited longer in the wings and everyone in the sector knows of his commitment to the sector”.

It is telling that within a few short weeks my right hon. Friend has already set in train a number of initiatives that will allow us to bring about a fundamental re-think of the way we give aid. He has, for example, launched two critical reviews—a bilateral review that will look at how we spend money directly with specific countries, and a multilateral review that will follow the money that we are channelling through other bodies such as the EU, the World Bank or the UN. Meanwhile, the full scale value-for-money review that he has commissioned is already yielding savings that can be directed back to the front line.

In today’s economic climate, we need—more than ever—to be able to show the British taxpayers that their money is going where it can do most good, and that when it gets there, every single penny of it is put to the best possible use. Our focus will be at the sharp end, where it matters—on results not process. It will no longer be the number on the aid cheque that matters, but the number of people it helps. As my right hon. Friend said, our thinking and action will not stop there. We will look ahead to the millennium development goals summit and we will push everything that we can to focus on poverty.

Britain can be proud of its position on international development. We can hold our heads high and I hope that Members on both sides of the House will join us in the fight and the cause ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of global poverty.

Act of Settlement

Thursday 1st July 2010 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Vara.)

18:00

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

We move from a matter of modern, enormous significance to one of historic significance. None the less, it matters to today’s society, particularly, I would suggest, to many Roman Catholics in this country, as well as to people of other faiths. I am talking about the Act of Settlement, which makes a series of provisions. I will not deal with them all, because some have been dealt with in previous legislation. I shall instead focus on those that state, first, that the throne was to pass to the Electress Sophia of Hanover and her Protestant successors; secondly, that the monarch

“shall join in communion with the Church of England”;

thirdly, that anyone who is married to a Catholic should be barred from the line of succession; and fourthly, that the monarch should make a series of oaths and declarations when they accede to the throne or are crowned.

The provisions of the Act of Settlement built on the Bill of Rights of 1688, particularly where it reads that

“whereas it hath beene found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfaire of this protestant kingdome to be governed by a popish prince or by any King or Queene marrying a papist the said lords spirituall and temporall and commons doe further pray that it may be enacted that all and every person and persons that is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or church of Rome or shall professe the popish religion or shall marry a papist shall be excluded and be for ever uncapeable to inherit possesse or enjoy the crowne and government of this realme”.

In addition, the Coronation Oath Act 1688 provided that the new monarch would have to take an oath upon their coronation that they would

“maintaine the Laws of God the true profession of the Gospell and the Protestant reformed religion established by law…and…preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this realm and to the churches committed to their charge all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them or any of them.”

One further provision springs from common law and means that the succession in the United Kingdom falls to a male, rather than a female, which is known as male preference primogeniture—another element that many people now would think to be rather outdated.

Subsequent Acts have amended elements of the Act of Settlement. The Scottish and English Acts of Union in 1707 ensured that there would be no alteration to the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, that the new monarch, when monarch of both kingdoms, would ratify the confession of faith, and that a new oath would be undertaken by the monarch in relation to the Church of Scotland stating that the monarch

“shall inviolably maintain and preserve the foresaid settlement of the True Protestant Religion”—

I note that “True Protestant Religion” always comes with a capital T, capital P and capital R—

“with the Government Worship Discipline Right and Privileges of this Church as above established by the Laws of this Kingdom.”

Subsequent reforms also included the Royal Marriages Act 1772, which provided that the monarch could determine who any member of the royal family or anybody in the line of succession could marry. Today, still, the Lord Chancellor has to issue certificates for anyone in the line of succession stating whether they have married a Catholic or someone who has now renounced their Catholic faith. Not the most recent—there was an instance last June when the Lord Chancellor had to do this—but the better known recent case is probably that from 9 April 2008, when the marriage of Peter Phillips and Autumn Kelly had to be signed off by the Lord Chancellor.

In 1801, when the Parliaments of Ireland, England and Scotland were joined together, there was further reform of the Act of Settlement, which meant that the Irish agreed to the provisions in the Act. Later, the Accession Declaration Act 1910 specified that on accession, the monarch would have to declare:

“I am a faithful Protestant”—

capital P again—

“and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne of my Realm, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.”

The Statute of Westminster 1931 further determined that if there were to be any changes to those or many other provisions, they ought to be consulted on around the Commonwealth so that, on a particular day, one could not have a different monarch for Australia from the monarch for Canada and the United Kingdom. However, it is worth pointing out that, because we had to perform another piece of legal jiggery-pokery over the abdication of Edward VIII, there was one day when Ireland had a different monarch from the United Kingdom.

There was one further, tiny, Church of England measure that affected the position, which was the Admission to Holy Communion Measure 1972. That meant that any person in good standing with their Church—in other words, not necessarily a member of the Church of England—was able to receive communion in the Church of England. In theory, that could mean that a monarch who was not an Anglican—or, for that matter, a Presbyterian member of the Church of Scotland—but was, for instance, a Methodist, would be able to enter into communion with the Church of England without being a member.

All those different provisions have meant that, in sum and in total, there is a complete bar on any Catholic—and probably also any member of various other religions—sitting in the line of succession or becoming the monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and, by extension therefore, of her further territories and the Commonwealth. I believe that this is now wholly inappropriate. The legislation that was written in 1688 and 1701 was, in one sense, deliberately offensive to those whom it termed “papists” or “followers of the popish religion”, because it was believed to be against the secure interests of the people of this land. Notwithstanding the fact that anti-Catholicism is, unfortunately, still a vibrant part of many sections of the British media and British society, I do not believe that there are many in this country who believe, in all honesty, that the Roman Catholic faith undermines our national security.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for raising something that is not only offensive to Roman Catholics and people of many other faiths, but offensive to anyone who wants equality under the law in our constitution in all respects. He will know that one of the arguments made against taking any such measure forward with urgency is that it would require agreement among all the countries of which the monarch is the Head of State. If by some chance we were to amend the legislation here in the UK, but Tuvalu, Belize, or St Vincent and the Grenadines, for example, inspired by some form of anti-Catholicism, did not change their constitutions, so that we ended up with a different monarch in the UK from those countries, would that really be a particularly worrying matter?

[Chris Bryant]

I do not think that it would be, but I happen to know that some of those discussions have already happened with many parts of the Commonwealth, and I do not see any reason why we would not be able to proceed fairly swiftly. It is worth pointing out that, for the abdication of Edward VIII, we had to ensure that the rest of the countries to which my hon. Friend referred also subscribed to the change of monarch, so that not only Edward VIII, but any of his children or successors would also be barred from the succession. I therefore do not think that the issue that my hon. Friend has raised is too much of a problem, although I will come to some of the problems that I think the Minister might raise a little later.

The other point is that it is not just Catholics, but Muslims, Jews, Unitarians and Quakers who are all barred from being the monarch, either by virtue of the fact that the law expressly says that they have to be in communion with the Church of England or by virtue of the fact that they have to make a series of oaths that they would not be able to make. In addition, we have this ludicrous process of certification by the Lord Chancellor of those in line to the throne. The state in this country should not be deciding who can marry; the Crown should not be deciding which distant relative is able to marry or whom they can marry. That should surely be something of the past; indeed, it was much criticised in 1772 as well.

We also have a series of oaths, including a Protestant declaration, an oath in defence of the Church of England and an oath in defence of the Church of Scotland, which are made at different times—either in a Privy Council meeting, at the coronation service or at the first meeting of Parliament—but this is all hideously anachronistic now. We have protection for the Churches of Scotland and England but, to be honest, I think that the Churches of Scotland and England can defend themselves. There was a time, in the 13th century and the early 14th century, when the lower clergy, as well as the prelates, of the Church of England were invited into Parliament, but that has long gone. I hope that in the near future we will see the end of the prelates in Parliament, but it is surely time to give the Church of England and the Church of Scotland their own protection without any special pleading.

It is also wholly wrong to have a male preference in the line of succession. Now is the time to change this, before the young princes have children—just in case they were to have a daughter before they had a son, whereupon there would suddenly be a constitutional crisis. In other countries that have changed the law, they have sometimes had to do so when they are already effectively changing the next in line to the throne. I think that it would be better to do it now.

What would I like to see, then? First of all, we should remove all objectionable references to Catholicism from our constitutional settlement. That means significant repeal of large elements of the Act of Settlement 1701. Before anybody says, “But the Act of Settlement is quintessential to our national identity; this will be undoing and rubbing out parts of our history,” it is worth noting that we have already rubbed out large parts of that history. One element of the Act of Settlement states that the monarch should never be allowed to travel abroad without permission of the House of Commons. That was repealed many years—indeed, several centuries—ago, and rightly so. We need to make sure that our constitution is silent—absolutely silent—on this matter, so that there is equality for all.

Secondly, I believe that we should have a new single accession and coronation oath. This oath should be determined by this House—not by the heir to the throne; not by the monarch when he or she decides to come to the throne; and not by the Archbishop of Canterbury in consultation with anybody. It should be determined by this House, as has been our history and our tradition. I think the oath should be made between the monarch and Parliament, all sitting together, having been previously determined by us.

Thirdly, we need to remove all references to marriage. We need to repeal the Royal Marriages Act 1772. We need to make sure that any member of the royal family or anyone in distant line to the throne—it is remarkable, looking down the list, who is still caught by this provision—is free to marry precisely as they want to. We should establish in our constitutional settlement absolute, straightforward equality between men and women.

I was contacted by Hansard and asked whether I could provide a copy of my speech. I pointed out that it was unusual for Members to read out their speeches—indeed, it is proscribed—but Hansard said, “Well, it is absolutely certain that the Minister will read out his speech, so he is likely to send it to us beforehand.” I hope he has not, as I want him to respond to the things I have said. I suspect, however, that one thing he might say is, “Yes, but this is awfully complicated, as there are so many bits of legislation.” I hope he will not do this, but he might go through all the legislation with which I have already bored the House. I hope he is not suddenly going to say, “Aha, the hon. Member has left out Princess Sophia’s Precedence Act 1711.” I can see from the Minister looking through his notes that he was toying with mentioning that Act.

To be honest, when I have heard Labour Ministers advancing from the Government Benches the argument that it is all too difficult, I have said, “Poppycock. Absolute tosh. Posh tosh maybe, but absolute tosh.” I know that the Minister is a stout, worthy, independently minded person, who is determined to see reform in many things. He is bringing forward, I hope, many pieces of legislation that we will be able to support. I hope he is not going to advocate delaying “because it is so awfully difficult in the Commonwealth” or say that we do not want to open up this Pandora’s box. If he is thinking of invoking Pandora’s box—it has been written into many Ministers’ speeches in the past—let me point out that at the bottom of that box is one important thing: hope.

I very much hope that the Minister is going to open Pandora’s box so that we can move forward. There are many people—not just Catholic prelates, not just Catholic priests, not just Catholics—who find it deeply offensive that we retain a piece of legislation that we could change, which would bring in full equality. I hope that this Minister will be like Alexander and cut through the Gordian knot. It will be a simple piece of legislation. Many others have brought forward legislation before and Labour Ministers have found ludicrous reasons for saying no to them in the past. I hope that this Minister is not going to be like that, and I hope that we shall be able to say of him, as the Archbishop of Canterbury said of Henry V in Shakespeare’s play “Henry V”,

“Turn him to any cause of policy,

The Gordian knot of it he will unloose,

Familiar as his garter”.

18:15

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) tests us with flattery, hoping that it will get him somewhere, but I fear that he may be disappointed.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his choice of subject. The House will know that it is a subject in which he has been interested for some time. Indeed, in 2008 he presented the last Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), with his plans for reforming the constitution. I presume that they were broadly in line with what he has just proposed. He nods in assent. I understand from a report in The Guardian at the time that his plans were given to the last Prime Minister’s new adviser on the constitution, but not much seems to have happened to them in the following two years.

[Chris Bryant]

Apart from their getting into our manifesto.

[Mr Harper]

They may have got into the Labour manifesto. Many things may have got into the Labour manifesto. I fear, however, that the hon. Gentleman might have been disappointed even if Labour had been successful in the election.

As the hon. Gentleman said, many Members of both Houses have sought debate on this issue, and it is important for us to discuss it. However—I know that this will disappoint the hon. Gentleman—it is complicated. He himself listed a significant number of pieces of legislation that would have to be considered, amended or possibly repealed: the Bill of Rights 1689, the Coronation Oath Act 1688, the Act of Settlement 1701, the Royal Marriages Act 1772, the Union with Ireland Act 1800, and the Regency Act 1706. This is not a straightforward matter, and I do not think that pretending it is straightforward or simple does any of us a service.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Government —indeed, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I—will be introducing a number of pieces of legislation that are mentioned in the coalition Government’s programme for government. We will introduce legislation on a referendum on the alternative vote, on reviewing the boundaries, on fixed-term Parliaments, and indeed on reform of the House of Lords, which may deal with the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised about the position of bishops in the other place. He can be confident that we have the appetite for reform, but I think that this particular matter involves a number of complicated issues.

[Chris Bryant]

As I said, posh tosh. The Minister is going to cite arguments that the civil servants around the corner will have prepared for him about how awfully difficult this is and how many pieces of legislation are involved, but if he is going to reform the House of Lords he is going to have to start with Magna Carta, and that is going considerably further back than the Act of Settlement.

[Mr Harper]

I said that merely to illustrate that this is a Government who are happy to carry out reform when it is necessary.

Clearly we would not legislate today to give men precedence over women in the line of succession, and I do not think that we would concern ourselves today with the religion of the monarch’s spouse or treat differently members of a particular religion. However, it is one thing to say that we would not legislate in that way today, and quite another to say that there are no obstacles to change. We need to think through the changes and their consequences before making them.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Act of Settlement is part of a political and constitutional settlement with strong historical roots. It does not, of course, prevent those in the line of succession from marrying Roman Catholics; it merely means that if they do so, they will lose their spot in the line of succession. It raises complex issues about the relationship between Church and state. There are many who, like the hon. Gentleman, do not think that the Church of England should be the established Church—

[Chris Bryant]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Harper]

That was the implication of what the hon. Gentleman said when he talked of allowing the Church of England to rush off by itself. In any event, the Act raises issues connected with the establishment of the Church, and it does us no service to pretend that it is not so.

The issue of primogeniture, particularly male preference primogeniture, has been raised from time to time, as has the hon. Gentleman’s point about giving female descendants of the sovereign the same rights as their male siblings. The title to the Crown, however, derives not just from statute but from common rules of descent. Succession to the throne in this country is based on a form of primogeniture which favours sons over daughters, but favours daughters of a sovereign over the siblings of that sovereign, so an older sister would lose her place to a younger brother but not to an uncle. Again, changing that arrangement would be a major constitutional measure. The hon. Gentleman pointed out one thing that is important to note, which is that currently the first three members of the royal family in line to the throne are all male and so we have some time until there may be a pressing issue to address.

The hon. Gentleman highlighted an issue that is complicated and I do not think it is right to sweep it away, pretending it is not. I am talking about the fact that this is not just an issue for the United Kingdom, because Her Majesty the Queen is sovereign of a further 15 independent nations and they have a right, with us, to decide on the line of succession. I do not suggest that they would necessarily have any problems with removing outdated provisions, but it is not the substance of the issue that is the problem; the problem is how we go about doing that. Because of the nature of our Parliament, this House and the other place can change the most fundamental of our constitutional provisions by a simple Act of Parliament, so the Act of Settlement could indeed be amended in this House, as could any of the other Acts that he mentions. That is true of some of the other countries of which Her Majesty is Queen, but it is not true of all of them. For some that have a federal constitution, such as Australia and Canada, amending those rules is a more complicated process, involving the states in those countries; it is not as straightforward as it is here.

The relationship between the Crown of the United Kingdom and the Crown of the other realms is complicated. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the one occasion when it has been tested, which was the abdication of Edward VIII. In those days, there were only six realms involved—Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Newfoundland and Eire. Only three still survive as realms, although there are now a further 12, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), who is no longer in his place. Even then, when the concept of the “imperial crown” and the “imperial Parliament” was much stronger, there were, as the hon. Member for Rhondda highlighted, a number of different views about the extent to which the United Kingdom could legislate on their behalf and the extent to which if we changed the line of succession to our throne, that would automatically feed into their arrangements. So if we were to go ahead and legislate in the UK alone, we would either be presenting the other realms with no choice in their own Head of State or we would cause a divergence in the line of succession.

The hon. Gentleman alluded to the fact that discussions have started with those Commonwealth countries and are continuing, but they should involve careful consideration of how we would implement change, the consequences and the timing. I do not think that those matters should be unduly rushed. Dealing with our non-codified constitution is complicated without having unexpected consequences. The Act of Settlement is part of the backbone of our constitution, and tinkering with it lightly without thinking through all the changes would have unforeseen consequences.

[Chris Bryant]

I sort of sympathise with the Minister because he has officials who want to make life difficult for him about this. But the truth about timing is that if Prince William were to have a daughter first and then a son, in realms other than this, where people wanted to assert that they thought it was unfair to have an unequal system that disfranchised or shoved the daughter further down the list, there would be a constitutional crisis. That is why it is timely to do this now, while there is not a problem.

[Mr Harper]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, but that is why I thought it was important to highlight the fact that discussions are under way with other Commonwealth countries. It is not that the Government are in favour of no change; we are simply considering change carefully and thoughtfully.

The hon. Gentleman mentions timing, so it is worth picking up on the issue relating to the exclusion of Roman Catholics from the throne. We should examine the view of the Church on this, although I appreciate that there are divergent opinions. The previous Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, said that he thought that the Act of Settlement was

“discriminatory. I think it will disappear, but I don’t want to cause a great fuss”.

The current Archbishop of Westminster has said:

“I wouldn’t rush to support such a change in the law. I think that the position of the Queen and the monarchy is to be handled with great sensitivity”.

[Chris Bryant]

However, Catholic cardinals in Scotland have asserted very forcefully that they believe the law is entirely discriminatory and should be changed, and many prelates in the Church of England have also said it should be changed. I think I am right in saying that the General Synod of the Church of England also believes that it should be changed.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that point. Cardinal O’Brien in Scotland, for example, is much firmer about wanting to move quickly on this. However, this merely highlights the complexity of the debate. There is not even a single clear view within the Catholic Church in these islands. Some very significant Catholics think that the law should be changed, but should not be rushed or done in a way that causes the monarchy difficulty.

[Chris Bryant]

But there is not a single Catholic in the land who does not think that the law should be changed.

[Mr Harper]

I cannot possibly know the views of every single person in the United Kingdom, and neither can the hon. Gentleman.

As I have said, the Government are not saying that there should be no change. We are simply saying that, if we are to undertake change, we need to do it in a careful and thoughtful way. We are not saying that the parts of the Act of Settlement that we are discussing should never be changed. We do not rule out change. We simply argue that, if there is to be a change, it should be thoughtful, and undertaken carefully and with due consideration for our obligations to the other Commonwealth realms of which Her Majesty is Queen. We should also have consideration for the consequences not only for the Crown and the succession but for the position of the established Church in this country.

To give the hon. Gentleman hope, let me assure him that we have not ruled out change, but it would need to be done carefully and thoughtfully. If done in that way, it is much more likely to endure and not have unforeseen consequences. I shall leave him with that positive message, although I am sure that he will go away disappointed. I will also leave him with the thought that, although I will give the Hansard reporters a copy of my speech, I have waited until after the debate to do so, rather than giving it to them in advance, as he suggested. He was probably expecting the comments that I have uttered tonight. I fear that he will have to be disappointed in the pace of reform in this area, but when we bring to the House the measures on other areas of constitutional reform that were in our manifesto, I shall look forward to his wholehearted support for them.

Question put and agreed to.

18:27

House adjourned.

Petitions

Thursday 1st July 2010 Petitions

Thursday 1 July 2010

Mr Mohammed El Sharkawi

Thursday 1st July 2010 Petitions

The Petition of the people of Croydon,

Declares that Mohammed El Sharkawi has been imprisoned in Eygpt without trial for 15 years despite 16 court orders issued supporting his release, and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention deeming his incarceration unlawful.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to hold talks with the Egyptian Administration to ensure Mr Mohammed El Sharkawi is at last brought to a fair and just trial.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Mr Andrew Pelling, Official Report, 7 April 2010; Vol. 508, c. 41P .]

[P000823]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs:

The Government’s approach to foreign policy is based on a belief in freedom, human rights and democracy for all. We will always speak up for these values.

We are concerned about the circumstances of Mr Mohammed El Sharkawi’s detention in Egypt. We believe Mr El Sharkawi is one of many administrative detainees who continue to be held indefinitely and without charge in Egypt under the provisions of the persisting State of Emergency. Regrettably, the State of Emergency was extended for a further two years on 11 May 2010.

We will continue to press the Egyptian Government to address a wide range of human rights issues including arbitrary detention. We will encourage Egypt to accept and fully implement the recommendations of February’s United Nations Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review, including Egypt's commitment to put an end, as soon as possible, to the State of Emergency which has been in place since 1981 and to ensure that the provisions of future anti-terrorism law do not impose restrictions on the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms that are contrary to international human rights standards.

Our Embassy in Cairo will continue to raise Mr El Sharkawi’s case with local civil society and humanitarian organisations.

Westminster Hall

Thursday 1st July 2010 Westminster Hall

Thursday 1 July 2010

[Mr Joe Benton in the Chair]

Supporting Carers

Thursday 1st July 2010 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(James Duddridge.)

14:30

Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair): Before I call the Minister, I want to explain, chiefly for the benefit of new Members who are attending Westminster Hall for the first time, that the procedure for this debate will be that I will call the Minister, after which I will call individual Back Benchers. I hope that we can begin the winding-up speeches from the Opposition spokesman and the Minister at about 5 pm.

14:31

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Paul Burstow)]

It is a great pleasure to open the debate and to do so as a Minister. I look forward to working with the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) in her new role as an Opposition spokesperson on health. I forgot to welcome her to her role at Question Time the other day, so I put that right now.

We are here to debate a very important issue for our society: how we offer proper support for the nearly 5 million adults in England who spend a significant proportion of their life providing unpaid support to family members or friends. Among those 5 million adults, there is real diversity with respect to the amount of care they provide, how long they provide it for, and when they provide it during their lives.

For instance, the biggest group of carers is made up of older people in their 60s or 70s, or even their 80s. Typically, they are looking after a husband or wife who is in declining health, although they themselves might be in poor or frail health. They are often devoted to their husband or wife, yet they are deeply concerned about what the future holds. The existence of that group reinforces the need for better identification of carers, for better ongoing support to ensure that they stay healthy and well, and for better integration of services across health and social care to ensure that those carers are fully involved in the treatment and ongoing care of their spouse.

Next, there are carers of my generation—people in their 40s or 50s—who find themselves caring for a parent or partner for several years, or perhaps longer. Those people need real flexibility and control to ensure that they can balance their caring duties with their work responsibilities and bringing up their own families. They are the “sandwich generation” that is often talked about.

There are also significant numbers of lifelong carers, who might have a son or daughter with a physical disability or a learning disability. They can become carers in their 20s. They have a lifelong commitment to support a loved one, which means that we are looking for support that can help them to lead a life outside caring, and to have a career, a marriage, friendship and hobbies—all the things that the recent carers week survey told us that so many of them do without.

Let us not forget about young carers. Officially, there are 175,000 of them, but I think that we all know that that figure is just the tip of the iceberg and that there are significantly more. Young carers are children who do not have a recognisable childhood because of their caring responsibilities. They do amazing things to support parents, brothers or sisters, but they need considerable support themselves. They need tailored and integrated support, with schools, social services and community groups working together to ensure that they have the same opportunities as other young people: a good education; good health; training opportunities; a social life; and, yes, the ability just to be children and have fun, which is what childhood should be about.

I am making the point that the policies that we introduce and the support that we offer must reflect that kaleidoscope of carers’ backgrounds, experiences and needs. Although many carers enjoy their caring responsibilities, I have no doubt that hon. Members in the Chamber have met carers in their constituencies who are at the end of their tether. Those carers feel undervalued and overlooked, and frustrated that the care and support available is not tailored to fit their families’ needs. Sometimes they feel a whole host of emotions: anger that such a thing could have happened to their family; grief at a life forgone out of love and duty; and guilt for feeling that they need a break, a breather and a bit of time to themselves.

That is why mainstream statutory services can make a massive difference. A comparison of the findings of the personal social services survey by the Department of Health, which was published yesterday, with the findings of the recent Carers UK survey entitled “No life of my own” reflects that point. The Department of Health survey of 35,000 carers, all of whom were in contact with statutory services, found that only 13% reported having no time to do anything that they valued or enjoyed. In contrast, the Carers UK survey of more than 3,000 carers who may have had little contact with the NHS or social services reported that 76% of respondents did not have a life outside their caring role.

What does that tell us? I think that it suggests that when carers have contact with services—whether in the voluntary sector, the local authority sector or the private sector—they are more likely to have a positive experience. That makes it all the more important that such services work harder for carers.

There are four points that I want to emphasise today. First, we must identify more carers so that we can put them in contact with the services that can help them. Many people simply do not identify themselves as a carer and hence do not come forward to get the help to which they are entitled. This is an area in which GPs can play a role, which was reinforced to me recently when I visited an excellent GP centre in Lambeth.

Just a few days ago, I attended a round-table event organised by the Afiya Trust at which a number of speakers told me about the specific challenges faced by certain ethnic groups. On that point, I intend to look at how we can break down some of the barriers that exist and ensure that we get culturally sensitive support to those who need it.

Secondly, we must ensure that there is effective integration across the whole system. We need joined-up planning, joined-up commissioning and joined-up delivery for carers and the people for whom they care. Public services need to talk to each other, but not just to each other—they also need to talk to the voluntary sector. They must respond to the whole picture of a family’s circumstances, rather than just considering their own specific area of expertise. We need one system pulling together, rather than different systems pulling apart.

Better integration across health and social care is particularly vital. Such integration has been talked about for years—I have attended debate after debate about it. If we want to make progress for carers, councils and health authorities will have to make such integration happen on the ground, along with their partners in the third and independent sectors.

Thirdly, we must make personalisation a reality for everyone and ensure that packages of support genuinely fit around a family’s needs and the way in which they want to live their lives. We plan to do that by encouraging the far wider use of direct payments, which is already a very popular way of giving carers more flexibility and control. The Government have made a clear commitment in the coalition programme that we will encourage more local authorities to offer direct payments. We will also challenge local authorities to provide those payments, and we will encourage others to hold local authorities to account so that they provide them.

One thing that we will not do, however, is to make promises that we cannot keep, which was what the previous Government did when they promised £150 million for breaks for carers. Thanks to the Princess Royal Trust for Carers, it is now well documented that primary care trusts siphoned off that money to spend on other things. Speaking from my personal experience, I can say that getting information from PCTs about how they were spending that money was like pulling teeth. Despite the fact that inquiries and freedom of information requests were made, some PCTs conspicuously failed to answer the local population that they exist to serve.

Let me be clear that local NHS commissioners should have full autonomy and control over how they spend the money that is allocated to them. Therefore, if we are putting money into the baseline, a Minister cannot claim credit by saying that they are going to spend the money on x when they know perfectly well that they cannot guarantee that.

I stress, however, that if we agree to loosen Whitehall’s grip, it is important that there is much greater local accountability. As part of a series of far-reaching reforms, we will set out shortly a programme for much greater transparency and accountability for the NHS at local level. Hon. Members and their constituents will be able to hold their local health services to account for how they spend taxpayers’ money. As a starting point, strategic health authorities have already reviewed how PCTs actually go about prioritising support for carers. We will publish the results of that audit and they will be put in the House of Commons Library in the near future.

I am afraid that I have to inject a dose of realism into this debate, as we also have to deal with the repercussions of the financial legacy that the Government inherited. As the recent Budget made clear, the Government will need to make significant cost savings to help the country to reduce the deficit. There will be a premium on efficiency and on ensuring that every penny of taxpayers’ money counts, reaches the front line and makes a difference to carers’ lives.

That may involve difficult judgment calls. For example, I have just made the decision to terminate the caring with confidence training programme on the grounds that it was not delivering value for money or giving carers training where it mattered. We will be providing the training materials from that programme free of charge to carers’ centres and others so they can carry on, with local partners, delivering training for the benefit of carers who need it. Having cancelled that programme, we can now ensure that the money does much more to benefit carers on the ground. We will shortly roll out a training programme to raise GPs’ awareness of their role in, and contribution to, supporting carers.

Better support is not necessarily about spending more money; it is about spending more wisely, which is what we intend to do. At the same time, the state should not over-reach itself. There are limits to what the Government and statutory services can do on carers’ behalf. As demography and patterns of disease remould our society, the wider community has a responsibility to adapt to those changes. That involves a big role for charities and voluntary groups, which can do much to stimulate grassroots response to many of the day-to-day issues that carers face. As a Member of Parliament for 13 years, I come to this debate not because of my personal experience in a caring role but because I have been taught and shown the issues confronting carers by my own carers’ centre in the London borough of Sutton.

Whether we call it active communities, social capital or the big society, we need to reignite the latent sense of collective responsibility that leads people to look out for each other and make the small gestures that can help in a big way. Employers also have a big role to play in making it easier for carers to stay in work. We pledge to extend the right to request flexible working to all employees, but a right to request is not a right to have. I am conscious that change depends on whether organisations across the private and public sectors grasp the economic arguments about what making such a commitment will deliver. We will be making those arguments strongly in the coming weeks and months, and I hope that all hon. Members in the Chamber will make the case when talking to employers and employers’ organisations in their constituencies. We must also make staff much more aware of the opportunity to ask for a break. The right to request was introduced four years ago, yet recent research indicates that half of those entitled to it did not even know that they had that right.

In conclusion, carers are and will remain a vital thread holding our society together. We pick at that thread at our peril. We will use this summer to develop a fresh, new carers strategy. We will build on what went before and acknowledge what the last Government did, but ensure that what we have is deliverable and affordable, and that it addresses carers’ concerns. I hope that today’s debate will play its part in shaping that refreshed strategy, and I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ contributions.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I refer again to the fact that 10 Members have so far indicated that they want to speak. As Members know, the debate will finish promptly at 5.30 pm. Obviously, I will do my best to accommodate everybody, but that is not a matter for me. However, I ask hon. Members to bear that in mind so that everyone can speak.

14:43

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

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, not least because it is an important chance for us to pay tribute to the tremendous contribution made by carers across the country. I pay tribute particularly to the carers in my constituency.

As the Minister rightly said, many people do not even identify themselves as playing a caring role, yet they make a substantial contribution to supporting family members. That, of course, saves the public purse an enormous amount of money, but it frequently puts such individuals and their families under great pressure and stress.

I want to highlight the importance of providing carers with the financial support needed to participate fully in a life beyond care. That is at the heart of all the other forms of engagement and support rightly identified by the Minister, such as service support and measures enabling carers to get out into the community and, if they want to and can, to take up paid work.

I am concerned that carers are facing a raw deal financially. Many carers are placed in a position of relative poverty as a result of their caring role. I am concerned that recent announcements and the effect of the spending cuts that are still expected could put them in a yet more difficult position.

I am particularly anxious that, in the medium term, linking the value of safety net benefits to the consumer prices index will depress the value of carers’ income. I think that we would all agree that carer’s allowance is far from generous. Many other benefits important to families that include carers will be hit by the same constraint. The financial resources available to carers are a concern. Clearly, adequate financial resources are a prerequisite of every form of social participation: for example, the ability to take time out to go to the cinema, to go swimming or even just to have the pleasure of a cup of coffee in the town centre down the road.

The second issue about which carers have expressed concerns to me, not because it directly affects them individually but because of its effect on the people for whom they care, is the Government’s intention to test eligibility for disability living allowance. Carers recognise that their entitlement to carer’s allowance is affected in many cases by the assessment made of the individual for whom they care and whether that person is entitled to DLA.

I alert the Minister to the difficulties already arising in the processes for testing people for the new employment and support allowance. If testing is to be widened significantly, it is important that those problems are not replicated and that people’s eligibility for benefits to which they are entitled can be confirmed quickly. It is extremely retrograde to run people through medical tests for a disability living allowance intended not specifically to meet medical needs but to support much wider social participation needs. This is about meeting the extra costs that come with disability and long-term ill health. Medical assessments do not get to the nub of those problems.

Another of the Government’s financial announcements affecting carers that is causing concern is the decision not to continue with the savings gateway. Caring eats into savings, leaving families with little to fall back on. The savings gateway has been a success story, enabling people to set aside modest amounts in the knowledge that their saving plan would be supplemented and supported by Government investment. Many carers are disappointed that it will not continue.

I am sure that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members will also want to speak about the impact on the wider service network available to carers and concerns about the implementation of public service cuts. The cuts must be made in a way that protects carers and ensures that their needs continue to be met. I highlight particularly the concerns in my constituency about the tremendous time lag in assessing family members’ needs that frequently leaves carers without any support at all. Often, in due course, that support is put in place, but it is quite unacceptable that assessments should take weeks, months or, in some cases, even years. In the meantime, carers are put under great pressure to manage as best they can.

Other hon. Members will also want to draw attention to the opportunities for carers to participate more fully in paid work. I was pleased that the Minister referred to the need to ensure that people are aware of their right to request flexible working and acknowledged that we have a significant job to do with regard to employers. I certainly accept his challenge to ensure that the employers in my constituency are well aware of the issue. There is a particular imperative on the public sector to lead the way and to show that it can be the sort of employer that exemplifies the highest of standards in this field.

Of course, the real problem for carers entering paid work is the massive financial disincentive that they face as soon as they earn only a modest amount of money and the cliff-edge threshold that comes in as soon as they are on earnings of more than £97 a week. I think that we can all agree that that is a modest sum—for a large number of carers, work simply does not pay. We cannot afford the carer’s allowance to become the new equivalent of the much criticised dumping ground that, in effect, incapacity benefit became, when it was used as a way of massaging people out of the workplace on to some other form of inadequate benefit. It is important that carers can make work pay through a more generous disregard of earnings and a more gradual withdrawal rate as they move into paid work.

Everyone understands the financial pressures on public expenditure, but it is absolutely wrong that carers, who contribute so much and who are among the poorest, should take the biggest hit. They are being hit by the triple whammy of poor benefits, a difficulty in making work pay and a worry about the future investment in the services on which they rely. Those factors cumulatively add up to a severe limitation on the ability of carers to participate in the activities outside caring that so many of them desire to undertake. I very much hope that the public spending round of the comprehensive spending review will provide more generosity towards that vital group of people than the Budget has given us cause to hope for so far.

14:52

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

As a member of the Select Committee on Health and secretary of the all-party group on disability, I take a keen interest in this important matter, and I am very grateful to the Government for arranging the debate.

The figures mentioned in the debate are clear. As a nation, we rely on a silent army of carers—some 6 million people or 10% of our population—to look after and support the most vulnerable in society. Those people dedicate and sacrifice their own time and lives for the sake of those whom they love. Family members depend upon such people—as we all do—to ensure that those in the greatest need live the best possible lives, as they deserve.

We should not have this debate today without admitting the enormous emotional and, at times, physical cost that the role of a carer can bring. Some 1.9 million people care for more than 20 hours a week and around 1.25 million people care for more than 50 hours a week, although I suspect that the hidden figures—those that no Department is able to calculate—are probably far greater. Often the people who have to care for a relative, husband or wife—with whom they have spent their entire lives—who is incapacitated by dementia or physical frailty are themselves elderly. It is estimated that over-65s account for around a third of all carers who provide more than 50 hours of care a week. As a result, it is sadly of little surprise that carers are twice as likely to suffer from ill health, because they are providing such substantial care.

As the Minister said, caring comes to dominate the lives of such people, and as the recent figures released by Carers UK reveal, 76% of carers have no time left at all in their lives to do anything other than care for the relative concerned. We know that carers, through their selfless dedication, make an enormous contribution to society—estimated at some £87 billion a year—yet we must realise that carers do not do what they do for money or see their role in terms of the economic benefits. Carers looking after a relative or a member of their close family—a son or daughter, their father or mother—do so because of love.

I suspect that each of us in this Chamber has in some way cared for a relative—either in the final days of their life or through some period of illness or accident—and at times have been the single person responsible for that person’s well-being. That is an awesome burden to bear on one’s shoulders, yet we must consider that it is carried by some people every day, with tireless devotion. However, with that devotion, comes the sheer exhaustion of wanting to do one’s best to ensure that a loved one is best looked after. There may also be frustrations caused by the fact that such love is not reciprocated by the person being cared for and that, for whatever reason, they are unable to say thank you.

If a relative has a degenerative condition, a carer will also have anxiety about what the future might hold. At the same time, for a carer, considering having a few hours break or a temporary escape seems a betrayal of the love that is so clearly there. Too often, it is easy for politicians and policy makers to revert to statistics and jargon that is in many ways all too familiar to us in such debates. We must not forget that every carer has a personal story that cannot always be easily told—one that we can never put a price upon. However, we must accept that caring will take an ever greater role in the structure of our society.

As a result of improvements in the quality of treatment and medical technology, more children and young people are surviving with complex health conditions. It is estimated that 1.7 million more people will need care and support by 2026, because they are living longer, and they will need that care and support for a longer period. More people are living longer, with the number of people expected to live beyond 90 soaring. However, one in four of those people will probably suffer from some form of dementia. We must therefore recognise that, in this decade, more people than ever before will become carers.

The new Government are determined to do all that they can not just to recognise, but to improve the lives of carers across the nation—we must do so at every level—and I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has said that the Government want to

“enhance and support that role”—

of carers—

“ensuring that carers are valued throughout what we do”.—[Official Report, 14 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 600.]

There is a need to ensure that the benefits system is easier for carers to access. Carers UK has said that:

“carers want to see the benefits system simplified since its complexity often prevents people from finding out about their entitlements”.

The welfare system that was inherited from the previous Government is hugely complicated, and simplifying the system should encourage fairness and responsibility. It is encouraging that the Government have stated that they

“will consider carefully the needs of carers as we develop our thinking on welfare reform.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 5W.]

I, for one, thank them for that.

There is an urgent need to balance the needs of carers who work—something that has been touched upon already in the debate. It is estimated that as many as one in five carers have left or turned down a job because of their caring responsibilities or because they feel social care support is insufficient. As the Minister has outlined, there is a strong case for increased flexible working. Currently, flexible working is available to employed parents of children aged under 17, disabled children under 18 and carers of certain adults. Therefore, approximately 10.5 million employees benefit under the current legislation, including 8 million parents and 2.65 million carers of adults, yet Carers UK points out that up to 79,000 carers do not request flexible working

“because of the way that the complex definition of carer has been put together.”

That must change.

Extending the right to request flexible working to all employees should help those carers. The coalition agreement contains the commitment to

“extend the right to request flexible working to all employees, consulting with business on how best to do so”.

Following on from that, the Government have maintained that extending the right to request flexible working to all will ensure that individuals within the wider caring structure—for example, grandparents and neighbours—can also take a more active role in caring and managing their work and family lives effectively. That extension will also remove the stigma attached to flexible working requests, as the Minister has mentioned. Both those developments are welcome.

I welcome what the new Government are setting out to achieve in improving the lives of carers and in granting them greater independence, so that they can live their lives as best they possibly can. As the Prime Minister has said,

“carers are the unsung heroes of our society…the work they do to help disabled people is simply invaluable. Just imagine what would happen if all the carers in this country suddenly packed their bags and left. It’s not just that the financial cost of looking after so many disabled people would be a massive burden on the state. It’s the sheer emotional effect on all the people who depend, day in, day out, on their love and care.”

Carers across the country do so much for so little. We must do even more to ensure that they are supported and looked after, which I know the new Government will do their best to achieve.

14:58

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. I remember with affection the long hours we spent together on the Housing and Regeneration Bill. I know that you will keep us in order to the best of your ability. I welcome the Minister to his new role and I wish him all the best in making sure that there is a real champion for carers in Government.

I shall concentrate on some of the issues for carers in my constituency. I know that many hon. Members will disagree with this, but I am fortunate to represent Hartlepool, as it is the best place in the country. Hartlepool is a strong, close-knit community, and a sense of community and family remains an enduring part of the Hartlepool character. Despite the knocks and disappointments that we have had over the years, and the social and economic challenges we have faced, that selfless sense of wanting to help one’s neighbour down the road, or to assist one’s partner, parents or grandparents as they get older, runs strongly through the Hartlepool character.

It might often be derided in sophisticated, metropolitan circles, but in Hartlepool it is not unusual for three or four generations of the same family to live on the same street or in the same estate, all providing help and support to each other. That could be a grandmother caring for her grandchildren so that the parents can work, or a son or daughter caring for older relatives. That sense of caring is very strong in Hartlepool, where people do it almost without thinking and where it is seen simply as part of being a member of a family, or as part of the “in sickness and in health” vow.

The hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) referred to the silent army of carers—an apt phrase—in his excellent and thoughtful contribution, and he is absolutely right. The strong sense of community is obviously demonstrated by the high quality of carers in my constituency. In a town that has a high-quality third sector, a local charity, Hartlepool Carers, stands tall with its great blend of professionalism and informality. In the past 12 months, Hartlepool Carers has provided help to more than 1,200 people. Led by Tracy Jeffries, chaired by Ruby Marshall, and with 11 paid members of staff and more than 100 volunteers, the charity provides long-term support to 560 adult carers and 125 young carers. It is estimated that the charity saves taxpayers about £150 million every year by reducing pressure on NHS resources and keeping those being cared for out of care homes and the formal care system.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the overall national bill for the work done by carers. If we were to send such a bill to the Exchequer, it would be for more than £87 billion, more than four fifths of the NHS budget, which puts into perspective the invaluable contribution carers make. Carers provide not only an invaluable and personal service for their loved ones or neighbours, but a huge and often unrecognised contribution to the national finances. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude.

I think that we all agree that, as a country, we should be doing much more to assist carers. As the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) have said, carers often feel isolated and unsupported. Caring for someone can be physically demanding, and if a loved one has dementia or some form of degenerative disease such as Alzheimer’s, that can be psychologically distressing. As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, that can affect a carer’s own health. They might feel a failure, or they might need a stiff upper lip to keep going.

In Hartlepool, many carers have given up employment because of their caring responsibilities. Not going out to work can be not only isolating, but result in real financial hardship. That is why the events that charities such as Hartlepool Carers provide are so vital for carers’ well-being. They provide drop-in services so that carers can take a break and have a good cup of tea and a chat. In addition, the charity provides volunteer services, which offer carers access to low-level, but vital, support services such as gardening, dog walking and collecting prescriptions. That extra help and support might not sound like much to us, but it is absolutely vital in providing a degree of respite.

I have several questions for the Minister, and my main line of questioning follows the comments on finance made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston. Frankly, I was worried by some of the comments the Minister made in what was, I thought, a decent and civilised speech, as he might have been lining us up for further cuts to the care sector. Rather than cuts, I would like to see some of the £87 billion that has been saved given back to carers. What can the Government do to encourage carers to receive what they are entitled to? Carers in Hartlepool, in keeping with the Hartlepool character to which I have referred, are far too modest and reticent to request all that they are entitled to, but it is right and proper that we should do our utmost to ensure that that happens.

I genuinely do not want to make narrow, partisan points on the matter—the remarks I am about to make do not apply to the Minister—but I am concerned that the rhetoric from the new Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions somehow suggests that all benefit claimants are not to be believed or that they are somehow scroungers. Given the enormous contribution carers make to society and the savings to the public finances that have already been outlined in the debate, what steps will the Government take to ensure that carers are able to come forward and receive what they are entitled to with confidence? In an era of tight public finances, what will the Minister do to ensure that some of those savings are handed back to carers?

In a similar vein, some of the low-level support services that Hartlepool Carers provides, which really enhance a carer’s quality of life, are very much dependent on finances from local government. There is a strong partnership between Hartlepool borough council, Hartlepool Voluntary Development Agency and Hartlepool Carers, but the local authority is expected to find £1.7 million of savings from its area base grant this year and is bracing itself for cuts of about 30% from its total budget over the next couple of years, so tensions will naturally arise between local government and the voluntary sector. What reassurance can the Minister give to carers in my constituency that those vital services will be safeguarded?

That brings me to a particular concern about young carers. Those young people have their whole lives ahead of them and should be able to fulfil their potential, but because a family member might be ill and require support, they often sacrifice their education, their free time, their friends and their future, all because they love their family and want to help. Young carers in my constituency are ably helped by Karen Gibson of Hartlepool Carers, but I would like the Government to do so much more for them. When I was a Minister in the Department for Children, Schools and Families, I looked into the life chances of young carers, which was absolutely heartbreaking. Young carers tend to underperform in educational attainment, which in turn limits their job prospects. The Government should be giving them as much help and support as possible in order to break that artificial barrier.

Again, I do not want to make narrow party political points, but I am concerned that the Government are cutting specific programmes that could be used to help young carers, such as the future jobs fund, the working neighbourhoods fund and, in Hartlepool, a quarter of the education element of the area-based grant, which was helping young carers fulfil their potential. When I had some responsibility in government for apprenticeships, I tried to prioritise young carers for places. What work will be done across the new Government to ensure that more help will be given, particularly to young carers, to help with training places and apprenticeships that will allow them to fulfil their potential so that their love for their family is not a barrier to a successful future?

My final point relates to foster carers. This week I received an e-mail from a constituent, Dawn Robinson, who demonstrates her commitment to the local community not only by being joint secretary of the Burn Valley North Residents Association, a great residents’ association where I enjoyed a fantastic pie and pea supper on Saturday night—I urge hon. Members to come along and sample the next one—but by being a foster carer and a carer to her husband. Dawn has expressed concern about the lack of flexibility for young people in foster care, as support tends to end abruptly when they reach the age of 18. She has been looking after a young person for about three and a half years, and he is fast approaching 18. She writes:

“He is autistic, diabetic and epileptic. Over the years he has grown in self confidence but still needs help regarding taking insulin etc. and constantly needs someone with him. He now goes to college and for the first time has started to make friends. His teacher at his review said he didn’t want his home life to affect his education and moving him on would be the worst thing to happen to him.”

When he is 18, he will have to leave Dawn’s home, and a carer and a warden-run placement will have to be found, which will obviously put additional pressure on hard-pressed resources. It would be reasonable to have the flexibility to allow Dawn to continue the current situation for several years beyond the age of 18, so will the Minister ensure that greater personalisation? He mentioned direct payments and personalisation in his opening comments, so what extra flexibility can be put into the system to ensure that the artificial break point at age 18, when the young person becomes an adult, does not hinder their progress?

The positive role that carers play across the country, especially in Hartlepool, is absolutely invaluable, as other hon. Members have said, and I hope that the Minister will recognise that in his closing remarks, as he did in his opening comments. I also hope that he will ensure that the appreciation of the role that carers play, which has been evident throughout the debate, is demonstrated by giving hard-working carers something back.

15:10

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

This is not my maiden speech, but it is the first time that I have spoken in Westminster Hall and under your chairmanship, Mr Benton, and it is an honour to be doing so in this debate.

I want to speak briefly to signal my interest in the important issue of supporting carers. I am not an expert, a carer or a mother, and my parents are, thankfully, still physically and mentally well, so I literally have no personal experience of caring for anyone. However, in the past few years of being a candidate, and now as an MP, I have met many people who care or have cared for loved ones, and that has opened my eyes to an area of policy, a set of issues and a group of almost invisible workers who need our support.

The first carer I met in my constituency was a man called Maurice. He wrote to me about dementia and his views on the service that his wife had received. When I went to see him, I asked him to explain what had happened from start to finish. The point of the story that had most impact on me was when he started to tell me how his wife had ended up in full-time residential care because he could no longer cope with caring for her. This brave man, who has served his country and who now fights and fights for improved health services for other local people with dementia, welled up in front of me as he recalled his guilt when he realised that he could no longer care for his wife. Although so many parts of his story needed attention, it was that very point that made me wonder why he had felt so alone and unable to cope. What help had he received? Where was the support network? It might well have been there, but if a man who wears a military badge with honour suddenly realises that he cannot cope, something is not quite right.

I appreciate that caring for someone with dementia is difficult and that dementia is not the only condition that requires full-time care. To learn more, I recently visited the Medway carers centre, which is run by the Princess Royal Trust for Carers. There are 21,000 carers across the Medway authority, which includes the Chatham part of my constituency, but only about 5% of them are known to the centre, which demonstrates, as all of us in the Chamber know, that a huge number of carers out there are forgotten, unrecognised and probably inadequately supported.

I had the good fortune to meet some carers who were at the centre on the now departed caring with confidence course—I would welcome an opportunity to speak to the Minister further about his announcement about that in his opening remarks. As I spoke to those carers, a number of things became clear. The first supremely obvious point was that carers come from all backgrounds—rich, poor, male, female, old and young. Requiring care does not discriminate. I met carers who looked after their husbands and wives, and a carer who looked after her mentally ill son. I met a carer who looked after her mother and her children—she was part of the sandwich generation that the Minister mentioned. I met a carer who looked after two disabled children, but who never had a day off because respite services would take only one of them at a time.

That leads me to my second point: no two carers are the same. They might share experiences, but their needs are often very different, so the support for them needs to be flexible so that it recognises those different needs. As the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) mentioned, what a young carer needs is very different from what a senior carer requires. We talk a lot in policy terms about flexible working for carers, which is welcome, but many carers require flexible living, and respite care is still patchy. Supporting carers’ physical and mental well-being is essential if we are to help them to carry out their role safely and effectively.

Although direct payments are excellent in principle, we still need to ensure that carers are supported so that they can make the right budgetary decisions. The carers I met were genuinely anxious about becoming, in their words, “self-employed business men”. The fear of doing the wrong thing and making the wrong decision should not outweigh the benefit of giving carers more control and purchasing power. There are agencies and charities that can help, but the signposting needs to be strong and available at the earliest possibility.

I made it clear at the start of my speech that I am no expert and that I would talk only briefly. I have only a new interest in this issue as a result of meeting so many dedicated carers recently. As someone who will turn 35 shortly, and who is at the start of what I hope will be a long political career, I cannot begin to comprehend how other people suddenly change their lives to care for a member of their family or a loved one. However, I am sure that I would join the 6 million carers who do that if I needed to.

Of course, people who care for their loved ones often want to do so, but they do so more often because they need to. When I think of the many young carers who give up playing on their bikes or going out with their friends because they need to look after mum or dad, or of the working woman who gives up her job to wash and bath a parent who struggles to remember her name but can recall the time she bought a loaf of bread, my heart breaks for them. Carers really are the unrecognised heroes of society, and it is our responsibility as a Government to do as much as we can to support them.

15:15

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton, although the matters that I have to deal with are somewhat distressing. I wish to address the proposed closure of the Hammersmith and Fulham carers centre, which is the main carers centre in my constituency. Hammersmith and Fulham council is closing the centre at the end of July in the most irregular and arbitrary way, and that will leave no service for carers in the borough for the foreseeable future.

I should perhaps begin by declaring an interest. The centre was set up in 1998, when I was the leader of the council, and I have been a strong supporter of it over the past 12 years. The centre occupies substantial premises in Hammersmith road, which is about five minutes’ walk from Hammersmith Broadway, so it is located in the centre of the borough and highly accessible for the carers who use it. It has a lot of space, so it can run activities, and it has—or had—six staff. It has provided a service to many thousands of people, and I shall read some of their testimonials in a moment, but let us just say for present purposes that it has run a good service. It should now be delivering a service to adults and young people using its budget of £300,000, which is split roughly 70:30 between those two groups. In addition to providing services in the main building, it also provides outreach services across the borough.

In 2008, the then relatively new Conservative council decided to conduct a tendering exercise. It is a moot point as to whether that was necessary, and the council failed to identify whether the body involved should be voluntary or whether staff would be employed by the council, but it went ahead. The problem was not the exercise itself, but the fact that it was so incompetently managed that three separate tendering exercises were carried out over the ensuing two years with no successful resolution. Despite the council going to great lengths and spending a lot of money on the process, the most recent exercise had only one bidder, which was the existing carers centre. The centre passed its appraisal, at least as far as the adult part—the majority part—of the quality assessment was concerned, so it anticipated being awarded the contract. However, at that point—again, entirely arbitrarily—the council decided that it would terminate the contract with immediate effect. Indeed, it should have been terminated yesterday, on 30 June, but a winding-up extension has now been granted until the end of July.

Some people thought that these events might be connected with the fact that the council, as part of its fire sale of most of the borough’s capital assets, wanted to sell off the building for an estimated £1.7 million. It had initially tried to move the centre into small, unsuitable premises in a less accessible location, which had to be accessed through another charity’s premises, but it then decided to get rid of the centre altogether.

Events then take a more remarkable turn. The chair of the management committee, Kamaljit Kaur, who has an extensive background in the voluntary sector, has been trying to run the centre in an exemplary way over the past few years since taking over that role. She met the council’s director of adult services on 23 June and failed to persuade him—because his mind had already been made up by politicians—to reconsider or even to extend the centre’s tenure while alternative provision was made. We now know that there will be no alternative provision until at least April. After the failure of that meeting, she wrote a letter to carers and other interested parties, including me, in very mild terms given the circumstances. Part of her letter read as follows:

“The Council went through a tendering process for Carers Support Services and made three attempts to attract potential bidders for this contract. However, we were the only bidders for their adult and young carer’s contracts. Our bid was evaluated by the Council's TAP: our bid was successful in the adult carer’s contract and was recommended for funding by the TAP, but eventually turned down at senior officer level.

The Council have been informed that the prime reason for the lack of interest in this contract for potential bidders was the requirement to employ existing centre staff and the financial liabilities that go with this requirement. We now believe that the Council's sole intention behind closing down the Carers Centre is part of its strategy to remove existing staff, thereby removing the requirement for new bidders to take on this financial responsibility. We also believe that this will attract national organisations to bid for this contract.”

That is quite likely, because that is a method that the council has used before—getting rid of local organisations and bringing in national ones that they believe can handle matters cheaply if not as well.

The response to that letter, which also explained how people could protest about what was happening, was an extraordinary six-page letter from the director of adult services making serious personal allegations against the chair, including an allegation of an improper family relationship with someone who had a pecuniary interest in the contract. Late last night, the councillor responsible—Councillor Carlebach—and the director of community services had to issue an apology:

“Since issuing our letter of 28th June on this matter, we have received a single representation that we have misunderstood and mis-stated the position”.

They state that they are

“writing to clarify that it has now been made clear”

to them that the individual in question

“is not the brother of Kamaljit Kaur.”

The letter continues in an exculpatory way to try to excuse them for what happened. The chair informed me earlier that she now feels under an obligation to resign and is taking legal advice with a view to an action for defamation. I do not want to pursue that matter, but I simply set out those facts to show that the local authority is out of control and behaving in a highly improper way—as it is in many other respects.

Leaving aside the process, what is the effect on carers? Hon. Members might have seen in the debate pack an article from The Guardian of 16 June, part of which I shall quote:

“For 12 years, Margaret Turley has known where to go in a crisis. Eighteen months ago, when the 26-year-old learning-disabled son she cares for developed epilepsy and began going blind, Turley headed for the Princess Royal Trust Hammersmith and Fulham Carers Centre.

‘You’re among people who know what carers do,’ she says of the Hammersmith Road centre in west London. ‘I can come in here just because I’ve had a horrendous day.’ The centre provides advice and peer support, and runs a Department of Health-funded programme, Caring with Confidence, offering free training for carers who want to develop their caring skills.”

Later the article says:

“Pat Williams, who cares for her disabled son and runs the Caring with Confidence sessions, says: ‘It’s a fait accompli—get us out of the building, don’t give us the contract, and run the organisation down.’ ”

Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that I have received an extraordinary number of letters about this matter. I will not take up too much time, but I want to read excerpts from some of them, as I think that hon. Members should realise what a serious matter this is for thousands of carers in my constituency. I shall not give names, but one letter states:

“I have been a member of Hammersmith and Fulham Carers Centre for the last 10 years and have relied on the Centre for support through all my times of crisis during those years…I am shocked and devastated at the closure of the Carers Centre…Not only will the Centre close, but there will be no co-ordinated service for carers…How can the Council close down our service and offer nothing in its place? What on earth are the Council playing at?”

The letter continues:

“I can get no sense from anybody at the Hammersmith and Fulham Council…In the meantime, where will we H and F Carers meet for our support groups? Who will we talk to when we need help? Will a building be made available to us? Without a place to come to, when we are in distress, how will we manage?”

Another carer wrote:

“Dear Andy, I am one of the borough’s many fulltime carers and have learned this week that after some 12 months of what the council has termed ‘review’, they have pulled all funding from the carers centre…My 2 sons use the services of the Young Carers Group, and get the kind of support and respite that we will not, again, find anywhere else. I feel passionately that carers are such a soft target, as our responsibilities make it so hard to mount the kind of defence of these services that they deserve.”

Another of my constituents writes:

“I care for my mother who is over 90 years, and also my daughter who is disabled. I do use the carers centre and found that the people who run it are very helpful.”

A further letter reads:

“I have been caring for my wife with severe dementia for 20 years, and the aspect that worries me most is the fact that the centre holds the emergency contact to look after my wife, if anything happened to me; an accident or such like.”

This is the letter that touched me most:

“I am an eleven year old boy. I have a brother with cerebral palsy. My dad died when I was seven from a heart attack. I love my brother so much but I had to face very difficult things. Children have made fun of me because of my brother’s condition. People that don’t understand my brother’s condition treat me differently to other people. I didn’t go on holidays. People made fun of me when I was near my brother. I missed a lot of school. I felt stressed and unsure. I was unsure if I was doing the right or wrong thing. I didn’t have anyone to talk to.

When I first went to the young carers project I made friends quite quickly. I told them my experiences and they told me theirs. The young carers project took me on trips and I was able to express my emotions and feelings. They helped me to understand bullies and that there was nothing wrong with me. They helped me realise that I did do things correctly. They also took me camping, which was lots of fun and taught me different dances for example street dancing and martial arts style dancing. It is a chill out zone for all young carers and adult carers. It gives us freedom from our caring role.

If you close the young carers project, you'll be closing a family of people who came together because of difficulties. Which is unfair for all young carers and adult carers. I just can’t believe you’re closing down the young carers project for all the good work they have done.”

There is, of course, substantial resistance to the decision. There are daily pickets outside the town hall. I have written to the leader of the council to ask him, at the very least, to extend the contract until alternative provision is in place, and to allow the carers centre to bid again for the contract. The matter was debated at full council last night on a motion from the Labour opposition, but of course that was voted down by the Conservative majority on the council. Given the exceptional circumstances that I have set out, I ask the Minister to take a personal interest and to look at the matter. I believe that the situation has arisen not simply because the council is a Conservative one; the local authority is acting without its jurisdiction, in a highly improper way.

What I have described is not an isolated incident. Some hon. Members might know about the council newspaper in Hammersmith and Fulham. Last weekend, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, referring in part to the Hammersmith and Fulham council newspaper, said:

“Councils should spend less time and money on weekly town hall Pravdas…our free press should not face state competition from propaganda on the rates dressed up as local reporting.”

To read the paper in question one would think that everything was well at the carers centre. According to its front page, the leader of the council says:

“We will sell assets we no longer need because, when times are tough, we have to put services before buildings.”

Last night, the council announced a fire sale of most of the public buildings in the borough, ranging from the Irish centre in Hammersmith Broadway, which has an international reputation, to Fulham town hall and many voluntary sector buildings, including one that was referred to in the article in The Guardian, Palingswick House, which is home to more than 20 voluntary groups but is to be sold later this year.

Lest there be any doubt, the incident that I am recounting is not a mistake or isolated incident; it is a calculated attack on the poorest and most vulnerable people in the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, in the guise of putting through a policy that was never agreed. It is being put through not just callously, but without the remit of the local authority. I ask the Minister to take a particular interest in what is happening in Hammersmith and Fulham not just because of the staff and the build-up of expertise in the past 12 years, which will be lost for ever at the end of next month if a stop is not put to what is happening, but on behalf of the thousands of people—we believe that there are more than 11,500 adult carers and many young carers in the borough—who rely on an excellent service, but will be without it from next month.

[Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)]

Before I call the next speaker, I ask all hon. Members to ensure that they have switched off their mobile phones.

15:30

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. After 24 years as a doctor, I do not need to be told how important carers are, and I pay tribute to the many whom I have met in my experience as a doctor—they really are extraordinary people.

I would like to focus on young carers in particular, and to draw hon. Members’ attention to the fact that the average age of a young carer is 12, which is extraordinarily low. The 2001 census showed that there were 175,000 young carers in the UK, 13,000 of whom cared for more than 50 hours a week. Those young carers provide not only help with cooking, cleaning and shopping, but often very intimate and personal care, and emotional support to parents with severe mental illness. Organisations such as Barnardo’s need our thanks for their work, particularly in helping young carers to cope and in identifying them before they find themselves in crisis.

My constituency takes in much of Torbay, where there are 350 identified young carers. Those children suffer low attainment at school, which is partly due to their poor attendance as a result of their caring work. They are also particularly prone to living in poverty. I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to a particular subset of young carers: the 20% of the children and young people in the Torbay area who are carers as a result of alcohol and drug abuse, and associated mental illness. Those who have been identified are the tip of the iceberg. Some fear coming forward for help because they worry that they might be taken into care. Those children have no access to the carer’s allowance. They are particularly prone to living in poverty and to going on to misuse drugs and alcohol themselves, and also at risk of domestic violence.

My interest is in prevention as well as cure. We know that drinking adversely affects up to 1.3 million children in the UK, and that group especially needs our help. Police forces estimate that 40% of all child abuse cases and 62% of incidences of domestic violence are directly related to alcohol. I would like the Minister to look again at the evidence on what works to reduce alcohol-related crime and violence, and therefore the number of children becoming young carers. The evidence shows that that is about pricing and availability, so I hope that there will be support for the Health Committee and NICE, which is clearly on the side of minimum pricing as the way forward.

I pay tribute to the caring organisations in my constituency. A fortnight ago, I was privileged to attend the opening of the Brixham carers centre. Brixham is particularly fortunate as it is also home to Brixham Does Care, which supports 150 carers and has 150 volunteers. Those organisations asked me to raise with the Minister the time that volunteers’ Criminal Records Bureau checks take. Only this morning I was told that some checks submitted in April were still pending. We need to look closely at how we reduce the barriers to volunteering, because volunteers are a lifeline for carers. I welcome the review of the vetting and barring procedure that has been announced by the Home Secretary, but I would like the Minister to look at the time that the checks take.

Respite care is another concern of carers in my constituency. Will the Minister consider the issues facing the John Parkes unit, which provides respite care for some of the most severely disabled children in my constituency and is used by many of my constituents?

15:34

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

This is the first time that I have served under your chairmanship, Mr Benton, or made a speech in Westminster Hall, and I am delighted to be taking part in the debate.

Two recent experiences in my constituency have led me to understand better the challenges faced by many people who care for a parent, child or other dependent. I recently spent a morning at the Liverpool carers centre, which is run by Local Solutions, a social enterprise in my constituency. I heard at first hand about the experience of many carers, who come together weekly for a couple of hours in a supported environment to do activities such as tai chi and to use the gym. Many carers told me about the numerous challenges they face, such as feeling isolated or seeing a loved one’s condition deteriorate. Those carers were the fortunate ones, however, as they were able to join a support group at which they could share their load each week.

Unfortunately, not every carer has the opportunity to have some respite and to mix with other carers and share experiences, as I saw when I spent time at a local supermarket for parent and carers day—a campaign run by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. Its object was to raise awareness among the staff of the help available. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) highlighted, while it was striking that most parents knew of the support available to them, carers were significantly less aware of the support that they could access, such as carer’s allowance, help at home, aids and equipment, vouchers and direct payments. I met a teenager who had left school at 16 to care for her disabled mother. She was working at the supermarket for 20 hours a week, but did not qualify for carer’s allowance as she was earning slightly more than the £97 limit. She was struggling to get by and to pay her bills.

That leads me to the focus of my speech: the plight of working carers. I support USDAW’s campaign to end barriers to work by extending the carer’s allowance to low-paid workers who earn up to £150 a week. If the allowance was tapered at the same rate as tax credits, all full-time carers earning up to £300 a week would receive some support. I also support USDAW’s call for carer’s allowance to be improved. It is £53.90 a week for anyone who cares for more then 35 hours a week, but that is one of the lowest rates in Europe, amounting to £1.54 an hour—less than a third of the national minimum wage. I would like carer’s allowance to be increased to at least the same amount as jobseeker’s allowance, as that would provide better support to the estimated 4.8 million carers of working age. Yes, that would come at a cost of about £1.1 billion at a time when cuts are being made, but considering that carers save our economy an estimated £87 billion a year, I believe that that is a small price to pay.

USDAW recently carried out a survey of its members that highlighted some of the pressures faced by people who juggle paid work with caring for a disabled, elderly or vulnerable relative or friend. Some of the comments highlight the challenges that a working carer can face, such as

“pressure and more pressure, the dreadful feeling when the phone rings and you have to ask for time off.”

Another comment states:

“My mum is regularly committed to hospital, usually at the drop of a hat. My personnel manager refuses to recognise me as a carer because my mum’s condition fluctuates.”

A further comment is:

“The pressure of looking after my elderly mum and working full-time was getting too much for me. I had no support whatsoever from my employer. I had to leave because I felt if I had a breakdown I would be no use to my mum.”

The situation for carers at work has to be improved and the enormous pressures on those with caring commitments who work must be relieved. What will the Minister and his Department do to ensure that carers know about their rights? He mentioned the right to request flexible working hours, but has he considered introducing the right to paid time off work at times of family illness or emergency?

During the week before last, we celebrated carers week in the House. Its theme was that carers deserve a life of their own. Whether we are talking about the 4.8 million working carers or the 1.2 million carers not of working age, whom many hon. Members have spoken about this afternoon, I urge the Minister to do everything to ensure that carers have a life of their own.

15:39

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton, for my first speech in Westminster Hall.

I was pleased to hear from the Minister that we will have a new carers strategy—it is very much needed. I would like to focus today on three aspects that I believe are important in allowing carers to have a life beyond caring.

The first aspect—working carers—has been touched on by the hon. Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger). I would like to take a slightly more specific approach than they did when they spoke about the cliff-edge factor in earnings, and look at the needs of carers who want to work and go to Jobcentre Plus hoping to find a job. When they get there, they do not get the help that they need, for several specific reasons revealed in a National Audit Office report, “Supporting Carers to Care”, at this time last year. I shall highlight those reasons for the Minister.

There is an enormous army of carers, as we have recognised today, but they form a small part of the work load at Jobcentre Plus. Many advisers rarely deal with more than one or two carers each month. It is vital that the centres have specialist advisers to deal with carers who are looking for employment. Because of their caring duties, many carers do jobs that, inevitably, are part-time. Therefore, they do not form part of what Jobcentre Plus has to submit to meet its targets for placing people in full-time employment. Because carers do not help Jobcentre Plus to hit the targets that central Government want it to achieve, they are seen by Jobcentre Plus not as a priority but as a marginal part of its business.

I am also concerned by what I read in the NAO report about many Jobcentre Plus advisers not being certain of what they are doing. For example, the report found that two thirds did not realise that carers who claim only carer’s allowance do not need to attend work-focused interviews. It worries me that two thirds of the staff do not understand a crucial part of the needs of carers. Finally, as an example of a Kafkaesque bureaucracy gone mad, Jobcentre Plus advisers are encouraged to hand out carer’s allowance application forms but are not allowed to help fill them in. “Here’s a form, but don’t ask me any questions, please, because I can’t answer them”—I am afraid that we hear that so often. I hope that the new carers strategy will try to address some of those specific issues so that those who go to Jobcentre Plus to look for work get the help that they need.

The second area that I would like to focus on is the need for respite care. I welcome what the previous Government did in recognising that it is good to give carers respite care, but I regret the fact that, for one reason or another, as the Minister said, much of the money never quite made it to the front line. That shows the danger of raising expectations within a group of people that are then not fulfilled.

I pay tribute to organisations such as Vitalise, a charity that provides space for 7,000 people to have respite breaks each year. Its work stretches from Cornwall in the south to Southport in the north; I regret that it cannot manage an extra 20 miles to make it to Blackpool and provide breaks there, but perhaps I can encourage it to do that bit more—who knows? As its part of carers week this year, it set up a care to share forum, which was an opportunity for people who need respite breaks to share experiences of what they had had and, indeed, what they did not get, having expected something as a result of the previous Government’s announcements. That was a useful thing for Vitalise to do, because carers’ nervousness about going abroad, going away, or leaving the person for whom they care, is a significant issue. There are many hurdles to overcome if they are to have that ambition, and the more that we share information and allow carers to feel more confident about leaving the people for whom they care, even for just 24 hours, the easier it will be for respite care to become an established part of the caring agenda.

Will the Minister therefore ensure, in the national health service operating framework and in NHS Vital Signs, that provision of carers support is not just an optional extra for primary care trusts but critical—either tier 1 or tier 2? By having it at tier 3, PCTs are basically given permission not to bother with it. Unfortunately, that is just one of the ways in which micro-management from the centre can become an excuse for not providing a service.

I would also ask that when this or any Government make new moneys available, they make the announcement only when they are confident that they can monitor implementation and ensure that the money is spent on what it is supposed to be spent on. It is not acceptable to raise the hopes of vulnerable groups so that they think that they will get something but then, through no fault of Ministers, the Government or Departments but just because the layers of bureaucracy absorb the money bit by bit, it does not happen further down the line. That simply is not fair.

I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) said about young carers. She was right to identify in particular the needs of the 20% who do not do what I would call traditional caring, where the relative has a progressive disease associated, perhaps, with old age. I think that the figure is higher than 20% in a constituency such as mine. Blackpool North and Cleveleys is a deprived area with many public health needs, and I would have thought that many younger carers are dealing with relatives who have a drug addiction, alcohol or mental health problem.

At the back end of carers week this year, I went to the local branch of Frankie and Bennys near the Odeon cinema in Blackpool. The local carers centre, which is funded by the Princess Royal Trust for Carers, as so many carers centres are, has a particular interest in the needs of young carers. Nigel McMurdo, who runs the project, does a fantastic job in trying to give them treats every now and again. One of the treats was dinner at Frankie and Bennys, so I trundled off to meet them, to listen to their stories and to understand a bit more about what they go through.

Nigel told me one tale about how caring can impact on education. A young man caring for his mother, who had a mental health problem, had a geography exam one day, but she would not let him out of the house. There was a real battle just to get him to school to sit the exam. That demonstrates how caring for parents, as an act of love, can be a bar to educational attainment. For many of our young carers, caring has an impact on their health, education and ability to have a social life.

The inadequacy of child and adolescent mental health services is a long-standing problem. If mental health services are the Cinderella service of the NHS, CAMHS is Cinderella’s daughter—it is a Cinderella service within a Cinderella service. I have raised this matter with the Minister in respect of autism but, more widely, I have great concerns about the condition of CAMHS in this country, and how it excludes far too many people who need help. It is a real problem.

In addition, in terms of education, bullying has a major impact on the lives of many young carers. It occurs when someone is seen to be different. If they have a caring responsibility, it means that they cannot hang around outside the school gates after school, or they might be 15 minutes late, or they might not always get their homework done on time. Inevitably, bullying takes place, and young carers need support in relation to that.

Young carers in Blackpool are at present trying to draw up a young carers charter. At the top of their list is a demand that every school should have a nominated teacher who can pay attention to the needs of young carers, as a kind of early warning system. Such a system is needed, and I do not think that we can place the burden entirely on general practitioners, as we always seem to try to do, to act as early warning gatekeepers. There is a difficulty in identifying young carers. We know of about 200 in Blackpool, but we are certain that there are some 600 more whom we simply do not know about—we cannot find them, they are not there. We often speak about the unmet need and how to reach the hard to reach. I fear that that is a perennial question in public health policy.

Platitudes abound in the debate on carers. I desperately try to avoid platitudes in anything that I do, but it is often difficult to avoid them when mentioning this topic. I should like some concrete steps to be taken that benefit carers, including benefit simplification. I have lost count of the number of times that I have tried to explain to people in my constituency that to be able to apply for the carer’s premium they must first apply for pension credit, which they know that they are not entitled to. The people that I explain that to find it illogical, and so do I, but it still seems to go on. Can we please try to change that?

When I first became involved in health policy some 10 years ago, the file in my office marked “Care” focused on the width of doors for wheelchairs as described in the Care Standards Act 2000. I watched the Minister raising care issues many times in the House of Commons. Carers week was regarded as a peripheral matter 10 years ago. The large queue in Portcullis House during carers week, for the photo opportunities and so on, was testament to the progress that is being made, but I still think that we have to go one step further. I may be a new MP, but I am already a little bit tired of photo opportunities—during which I stand beneath a Perspex stand, smile and shake hands—that are somehow meant to provide evidence of my commitment to an issue. I would rather MPs took fewer photo opportunities and visited more local carers centres, as many hon. Members in this Chamber have, to hear what is going on and speak to real carers. That would bring a bit more reality into this place.

It was good that the previous Government recognised that carers have a role to play, and I welcome that. However, we now have to focus on how we enable carers to live a more ordinary life: a life beyond caring. We need to start to fit provision around the needs of carers. As with too much in public life, we expect people to fit into existing tick-boxes on forms and woe betide them if their circumstances do not enable them to fit neatly into those boxes. That is not good enough.

We need to build provision around the individual. I know that that will be difficult, but not every carer wants to play bingo and not every young carer wants to go to the cinema of an evening. We all have individual requirements as carers. We are all individuals, after all, and we should remember that. I hope that the carers strategy that is being drawn up over the summer will mean that we will start to regard carers not just as a group with a label attached and a set of demands, but as individuals who need to be empowered. I look forward to seeing what emerges after the summer.

15:52

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I will try not to repeat things mentioned by my hon. Friends and other colleagues in this important debate, but it is difficult when several have spoken previously.

We all recognise the huge savings that carers make for the economy—some £87 billion a year—and we recognise that they are not just economic savings. With some understandable and notable exceptions, the majority of people who are cared for by carers have a far better quality of life if they can stay at home, being looked after by their friends and family, and can take part in their social life as fully as possible, rather than going into an institution, no matter how good it is. However, unless we put in the support yet more people will reach crisis point, with carers not being able to cope any longer. Other solutions have to be found. However, some of the solutions are often not satisfactory, either for the family or the person being cared for.

Of course, for economic reasons, carers like to stay in work if they can. Many people become carers gradually over time, rather than suddenly, so they try to keep going, but they face a number of barriers. I am a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and I have supported its campaign for carers. I am pleased that the Labour Government introduced the right to request flexible working for carers some four years ago, but as hon. Members have mentioned, there is still a mentality in some workplaces that does not allow that. This is a serious issue, because it affects not only whether people can ask for flexible working, but attitudes towards promotion. Women carers are particularly affected, and although they might like to do something different or something new, they do not like to ask because they feel that they might have to go through an interview and explain about being a carer, and they feel that that might be viewed negatively. We are missing talent and not using people to the full.

It is well documented that, often, carers take a job below their qualifications or have to compromise what they do in other ways. That is a great shame, because we are missing out on a lot of talent. Yet with a bit of flexibility and understanding—as long as employers understand that there may be certain needs: people should be able to take their loved ones to hospital, or whatever—a lot more can be done to help.

Many carers suffer financial hardship because they cannot work much or have to give up work altogether. I implore the Minister to make certain that there is no cut to the carers allowance. I am worried about the current economic situation, because the rise in VAT will put additional pressures on families with the lowest incomes. I implore the Minister to ensure that, in addition to not reducing the carers allowance, at every opportunity an increase is made to it to try to keep up with the increasing costs of living.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) explained, a great step forward would be to increase the earnings disregard to £150, for example, with an additional tapering—similar to how tax credits work—so that people earning up to £300 a week receive some benefit from it; doing so would target help to people who need it most. Targeting is important during a period of economic restraint throughout the country.

I am considerably worried about the provision of respite care. Many carers can only cope throughout the year if they have the opportunity to take advantage of respite care, even though doing so may be difficult, as the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) said, because they worry about leaving somebody, even for a short while. Respite care is not just an opportunity for carers to gallivant around the world. Often, it allows them to paint a room in the house, for example, because it would not be practical to do so while the person they care for was there. Perhaps the carer wants to attend their son’s wedding a couple of hundred miles away, or to do something similar. Without some respite care, such simple tasks can become impossible. This is not just about residential respite care. Respite care can involve someone sitting and looking after the person being cared for, allowing the carer to do the shopping.

People in my constituency are being denied respite care opportunities, where previously they were offered them. I am worried that that might be regarded as an easy cut for local authorities to make and that it might be an invisible cut, because, for example, one family would not know that another family had also had their request for care turned down. The criteria can be confusing and families can find that although in the past it has been possible for a family member to go into care, that is no longer so.

In taking up such matters with the local authority, I have found that some of the reasons given are economic, but it also says that it does not have the proper equipment. An increasing number of people who need to be cared for need hoists, for instance. An increasing number of carers are therefore coping at home with quite complicated issues, and when the person whom they care for goes away, equipment such as hoists, which is needed, is no longer available in an easily accessible form through the local authority.

Clearly, we must ensure that respite care does not become a Cinderella service, because it is often the only way in which people keep going. If it is not provided, the obvious alternative is that carers will stop doing the job and we will have to find full-time care for the person who was being cared for. Obviously, that is to everyone’s detriment, and the situation may end up being not so happy. Whether provided by the council or charitable organisations—help comes from many different funding streams, including third sector organisations and so on—we must ensure that funding for care in the community does not diminish.

The incoming Government must take a national care strategy by the horns, because we all know that in the next 20 or 30 years the number of older people will increase, people will live longer and the number of those who need various forms of care will increase. If we do not have a national care strategy in place quickly, cuts will be made, homes will be closed and all sorts of care services will be withdrawn. We will build up a dangerous backlog of problems that will have to be sorted out. We must get that national care strategy moving quickly, because it will have enormous implications for funding. It must be a long-term proposal; it cannot be adopted tomorrow. I beg the Government to take up the excellent work that has been done on that to date.

Finally, I want to speak about research into conditions such as dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. We all know how distressing a physical illness may be, but at least the sufferer can carry on a dialogue with loved ones and negotiate, discuss and decide the best thing to do. Sadly, diseases such as dementia and Alzheimer’s are often the Cinderella of medical research services. But the long-term impact on families of the distress caused by someone who does not recognise them and makes all sorts of accusations may be difficult, added to which sufferers may be kept alive for a long time and remain physically well. Sadly, I have seen cases of early onset dementia, which is distressing because the sufferer often needs 24-hour supervision. We must prioritise the research that may not attract big funders. Some research subjects are fashionable, but for others, such as dementia, it is much more difficult to attract funding, often because they are not pinpointable as specific diseases. There are many generalised and different forms of dementia, and we need support and backing for research.

Thank you, Mr Benton, for giving me the opportunity to speak. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of my questions.

16:03

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

I am grateful to you, Mr Benton, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the debate. With Baroness Pitkeathley in another place, I co-chair the all-party group on carers. We succeeded the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), who during the last Parliament carried out that task alone and so brilliantly that it took two of us to succeed him. I pay tribute to his work—I am sure that he will continue to be a contributing member of the group—and many of those who have contributed to the debate have joined the all-party group because we want to be a strong collective voice in the House for carers.

The Minister is in a privileged position because the hon. Gentleman, the Minister and I were made parliamentary champions for carers during carers week earlier this year. It is rare to move from being a parliamentary champion to being a ministerial champion for carers within a few days. We will see how my hon. Friend delivers in his new and challenging task on behalf of carers. It is rare in Whitehall for a Minister to walk into a Department understanding part of the brief that he has been asked to cover.

[Mr Iain Wright]

That is dangerous.

[Tony Baldry]

The hon. Gentleman may say that, but I think that it provides a phenomenal opportunity for my hon. Friend to stride out and seize the agenda. I will try to keep my comments short. During carers week, I made a long speech which, for hon. Members and others who are new to Hansard and who may wish to read it, is on my website at tonybaldry.co.uk/campaigns/carers. We are all in the new technological world, and I do not want anyone to believe that only the new intake is up to date with the internet. Some of us who have been around for a bit can keep up with the new global technology.

I want to make various points to my hon. Friend the Minister. I am glad that we frequently have debates on carers, largely as a consequence of carers week and the previous Prime Minister’s intervention. Last year, we had a topical debate, and I am glad that we are having a full afternoon’s debate in Westminster Hall. One of the first issues is identifying carers. Many carers do not recognise themselves as carers, so they are not recognised in the system as carers. It would help them enormously if social services and the health service recognised and encouraged people to recognise themselves as carers. We would then have a much more accurate picture of the number of carers in the community.

GPs may have thought—I defer to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) on this—that it would not be beneficial to identify carers because they could do little for them. The ability to recommend respite care for carers may have prompted GPs to ask themselves, “Is this person a carer; is there something I can do to help them and to support them through respite care?”

We are about to move to GP commissioning for services. I will try to ensure on my patch that I identify which partner in every GP practice in my constituency has the lead responsibility for carers. One objective of organisations such as the Princess Royal Trust for Carers and Carers UK is for them and us collectively to encourage GPs to engage with carers and to recognise and note those GP practices that are particularly helpful in supporting carers. With the best will in the world, the picture is patchy. Some practices work hard to support carers, but others, which may not be insensitive, have not taken such support fully on board in their list of priorities.

We must all recognise that the number of carers will inevitably increase with an ageing population. There is something else, which I fully appreciated only recently during carers week. At a reception in the Jubilee Room, I listened and talked to a number of carers who were looking after relatives with Parkinson’s disease. My mother was a theatre sister during the blitz in Coventry, and people either survived or died. People from earlier generations went into hospital for one acute incident from which they either recovered or died. Generally, the Greco-Roman medicine of western Europe works on the basis that people are given drugs or medicine and they get better.

The truth, however, is that an increasing number of people in our society have to care for people whom they love very much, but who are progressively getting worse and know that they will never get better. There are people who have Parkinson’s disease, dementia or Alzheimer’s disease, and in addition to the financial and other challenges that carers face, the psychological drain of knowing that, however much someone is loved and cared for, they simply are not going to get better but will progressively get worse must be enormous.

The number of people who have to care for people with age-related dementia and Alzheimer’s is increasing. When I was first elected nearly 30 years ago, each Christmas I would go round every nursing home in my constituency. Most of the residents were frail widows in their 70s who were perfectly spritely and intellectually sound. I have now given up going around nursing homes on my patch at Christmas, because almost everyone is suffering from some form of age-related dementia and they have absolutely no idea who I am at all. There is that standard joke where an MP goes in and says to a resident, “Do you know who I am?”, and they say, “No dear, but if you go and ask matron she may be able to help you.”

The pressure on staff is enormous, and if someone is old and frail, their chances of getting into a residential care home are increasingly less, so people have to be looked after at home by carers. Furthermore, the number of people who have early, pre-senile dementia and are waiting for places to get into a nursing home is increasing, and those people have to be looked after by carers. Therefore, the number of carers in our communities will increase substantially over time, and we must ensure that any carers strategy takes account of that.

We must ensure that new policy initiatives, such as GP commissioning, help carers and do not work against them. There are also other initiatives. For example, local authorities are, quite rightly, being enjoined to ensure that they get value for money in all services, including carer services.

In Oxfordshire, as in the constituencies of other hon. Members I am sure, carer services are going to be tendered. However, in Oxfordshire, we already have three good carers centres that are manned—or womaned—by volunteers. There is the Princess Royal Trust for Carers and other carers centres that have grown up over a period of time. The North and West Carers Centre in Banbury won the Queen’s award for unsung volunteers. Those people are not going to go away; they are committed to supporting carers.

However, there is a risk of an inevitable momentum, and that the county council social services department might feel that it has an obligation under some EU or Government directive to put services out to tender. It might feel obliged to contract out carers services to some completely different provider in some other part of the country. That does not seem to go with the grain of what I understand when I hear colleagues from all sides of the coalition talk about the big society. If the big society—as opposed to the big state—means something, it means building on the work of those volunteers and on the community spirit within one’s own community. It means building on civic pride and local roots, not undermining those things. I hope that ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health and other Departments will understand that although we should ensure that every Department gets value for money, that should not undermine the volunteers who have the competencies that are needed.

That brings me on to how we train carers, and I make this point simply so that my hon. Friend the Minister can respond to it should he wish. There has been some concern about the Department’s contract with Caring with Confidence, which is an organisation that has trained carers at carers centres. The Department has felt it appropriate to cancel that contract, possibly because it felt that sufficient carers were not being trained. However, there is an issue about how one ensures that carers and people who, often late in life, find themselves as carers can acquire the skills and competencies that will help them.

I make my final point so that we can have some clarity on this issue, either now or at some stage in the future when the carers strategy is published. Hon. Members from all parties have drawn attention to the carer’s allowance. At present, the only assistance that a working carer receives is the carer’s allowance, but those who are retired—many carers are above retirement age—get no further recognition in the system because Treasury rules state that people cannot claim two benefits. That is not new; it is a long-standing rule. If someone draws a state retirement pension, they can draw only that and cannot get anything more for being a carer.

During the previous Parliament, a couple of Select Committee reports were published on this subject, and that work should not be lost. The new Government must respond to those reports, and either make it clear that they cannot afford any further financial support for carers, or give some indication that they may be willing to consider recalibrating the benefit and financial system in support of carers.

In 2008, the Work and Pensions Committee recommended an overhaul of the benefits system. A report entitled, “Valuing and supporting carers”, which was the fourth report of the 2007-08 Session, recommended a new two-tier support system with a carer support allowance paid at the same rate as jobseeker’s allowance and a caring cost payment that would be available to all carers in intensive caring roles, similar to child benefit and set at between £25 and £50. That element would be available to some carers who were unable to claim the first element, including those carers in receipt of a state pension. The Committee also recommended that the Department for Work and Pensions commission an urgent examination into introducing a taper to the carer’s allowance earnings limit and lifting the 21-hour study rule.

Like so many Select Committee reports in the last Parliament, that report got lost in a review—I do not wish to criticise; it is just a fact, a process. The then Government said that they were introducing the carers strategy and would take the report on board and think about it, but I cannot recall anything coming out at the other end on what they thought about the Committee’s recommendations.

Last year, the Public Accounts Committee published a report on “Supporting Carers to Care”, which criticised the confusing and complex processes and poor communication involved in the support that carers received from the Department for Work and Pensions, including benefits and employment support—that point was made tellingly in a good contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). The Committee found that one fifth of carers who received benefits struggled with the application process, which is not surprising if no one helps them to fill in the forms. It found that the complexity of the system discouraged applications, and that Jobcentre Plus advisers were not given enough incentive to help carers to find part-time work. I am not sure that we ever had a response from the last Government to the Public Accounts Committee’s report.

It would be helpful if, early in the life of the present Government, we had an indication of how Ministers collectively see the opportunities for supporting carers financially. Of course, everyone recognises that that is set against a background of very difficult financial constraints and circumstances. That is a given. It should not be necessary, every time that one makes a speech now, to explain that we are the country with the largest amount of debt in the world, due to circumstances. However, it would be helpful, with a view to taking forward policy on carers, if we had an understanding of how the Government see the ability to give carers further support. I am referring to support that is valuable not only in financial terms, but because it makes carers feel that they are being recognised by the wider community for the work that they do and the role that they play.

My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes rightly raised the issue of young carers and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys raised the issue of young carers being bullied. I am always at a loss to understand why, in the 21st century, schools, the education system and all the people involved are not capable of being more supportive of young carers. That goes back to the point about identifying carers. Young carers deserve to be identified just as much as any other carer. One would hope that the education system and schools were capable of recognising young carers, that social services, GPs and others would try to ensure that schools knew who the young carers were and that schools would give young carers support. Often, they deserve double the support for the tasks that they are undertaking.

Many hon. Members, at different times in their lives as constituency MPs, come across families that include young carers and find out that the stress is incredible because they are often asked to take on adult responsibilities. Another difficulty is that the parent for whom they have taken on responsibility is sometimes able to look after themselves and be a parent, and sometimes is unable to look after themselves and is being cared for. For a child, having to cope with a parent who sometimes acts as a parent and an adult and sometimes is not capable of looking after themselves must be incredibly difficult, because they never know when they go home whether their mother will be poorly, drunk or whatever and whether they will be the carer or the child.

Schools and the system therefore need to give young carers particular support. I do not understand why every year when carers week comes round, we continue, a bit like groundhog day, to have the same debate about young carers. This area does not require huge amounts of extra money; it just requires the system and the community—society—to work out how we give younger carers greater support.

It is clear from the debate and I can tell the Minister that it is clear simply from the number of hon. Members who have joined the all-party carers group—I am sure that many more Members of both Houses have not yet got around to joining it but are equally interested—that there is considerable interest in and support for carers in Parliament. Those Members will be anxious and keen, in the course of the Parliament, to see what further work we can do in support of carers. Particularly for Government Members, if what my right hon. Friends in the coalition Government are saying about the big society and about engaging the community is to have any meaning at all, a very good test of that will be how we deliver enhanced and better lives for those who are caring in our society.

16:24

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton, and to speak in this important debate on carers. I thank the Minister for his comments on my new role. He may know that carers issues were of importance to me before I came to this place. I have always made it a priority to champion carers and carers organisations. It is very important that a number of hon. Members who have spoken today feel the same way and might take on that role, too. If we believe that carers have been a silent army, it is up to us, as Members of the House, to be a voice for them in relation to Government. Many hon. Members here today will be able to do that, and I hope that they do.

I pay particular tribute to the work of the all-party carers group, which has always been a very strong voice in the House. The chair, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), has just spoken. The group is ably supported by Carers UK. I pay tribute to the work of the Princess Royal Trust for Carers, Crossroads Care, Age Concern and the many other organisations that provide vital advice and support to carers. I also pay tribute to the standing commission on carers—whose chair, Philippa Russell, is with us today—because it provides a voice for carers.

In relation to supporting carers to have a life outside caring, I think that the key issues are respite care and breaks, supporting carers financially and supporting young carers and the people for whom they care, so that those young people do not have to take on the heavy burden of caring that many of them do. In the debate, we have already touched on most of those issues.

The Labour Government’s vision for carers as detailed in the updated national carers strategy identified the following outcomes. It stated that

“carers will be respected as expert care partners and will have access to the integrated and personalised services they need to support them in their caring role; carers will be able to have a life of their own alongside their caring role”—

the subject of our debate—

“carers will be supported so that they are not forced into financial hardship by their caring role; carers will be supported to stay mentally and physically well and treated with dignity; children and young people will be protected from inappropriate caring and have the support they need to learn, develop and thrive, to enjoy positive childhoods and to achieve against all the Every Child Matters outcomes.”

I hope that the Minister supports those or similar outcomes in the refreshed carers strategy that he announced. New Members may not know that we did not have a national carers strategy at all until 1999. It has been refreshed once, but however good those strategies are, looking at them again and taking them forward is very welcome.

I support the comments of the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). The revised NHS operating framework mentioned making dementia a priority, but did not mention support for carers, which carers organisations have noted. I hope that it is an omission that can be corrected in the next revision. We did not have an oral statement in the House when the important changes in the revised operating framework were announced, so today has been the first chance that we have had to ask questions about that. I hope that it can be taken on board. Ministers and civil servants need to understand that these days there is so much support in the House for carers that if carers are not mentioned in a document, it will be noticed pretty quickly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) and other hon. Members rightly highlighted the importance of respite care and breaks for carers. The coalition agreement states that the Government will use better community-based provision to improve access to respite care. I asked the Minister yesterday to tell the House how the Government planned to deliver that promised increase in access to respite care through improved community support provision, because support provision is already starting to fall away. Carers organisations are reporting that cuts in local authority funding are already leading to cuts in funding for charities and other providers of care. The Minister repeated the commitment that the Government will deliver on their promises to carers, but he did not give us any more information. Carers and carers support organisations need to know exactly how community support provision will be improved.

A 25% cut in local authority budgets, together with further pressure from the council tax freeze, could pose a substantial risk to essential care and support services. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) made a passionate case against the local council action to axe the carers centre in his area. I am very glad that he was able to do that. I hope that his contribution helps to highlight the case against what sounds like a damaging and unnecessary action by that council.

In debates last year, both the Minister and the former shadow Minister for care services, who is now the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, expressed concerns about whether the £150 million allocated to primary care trusts for emergency respite care was used for the purpose for which it was intended. If the Minister and his Conservative colleagues were concerned to see ring-fencing of budgets for respite care, I hope that now that they are in government, they will be committed to ring-fencing of budgets for essential social care services. I am not convinced that the transparency at local level that he mentioned is enough. History has proved that ring-fencing is the best way to ensure that money goes where it is intended to go.

The coalition Government say that they understand the urgency of reforming the social care system to provide much more control for individuals and their carers and to ease the cost burden that they and their families face. The Minister said yesterday that an announcement will be made soon about the commission on long-term care; I should be grateful if he would tell us more about that today. I am pleased that all the options for funding care will be considered, including an inheritance levy, which the Opposition support.

The Government have pledged to extend the greater roll-out of personal budgets to give people and their carers more control and purchasing power. The Labour Government made the social care reform grant available to local authorities to enable the development of personalised care and personal budgets, but that grant is now in its final year. How will the Government encourage local authorities to extend the roll-out of personal budgets and to provide more control to individuals and their carers, given that, as we heard earlier, local authorities are facing cuts to their social care budgets?

I shall touch on the caring with confidence programme. Training for carers in their caring role is a vital way of supporting them and giving them confidence. The hon. Member for Banbury mentioned that aspect. The Minister announced the decision to cancel the caring with confidence programme; will he consider how local carers groups and carer centres are to fund that vital training? Offering materials for free is to be welcomed, but the organisations also need trainers and premises and to have their costs covered if they are to run that training. The carers strategy aims to ensure that carers will be supported so that they are not forced into financial hardship through their caring role. I hope that the Minister will support that aim. However, many carers are now concerned about Government plans that will hit disability and carer benefits. We have heard quite a bit about that this afternoon, and rightly so.

Concern was expressed this afternoon about the measure to increase benefits annually by the consumer prices index rather than the retail prices index. Carers UK estimates that indexing carers allowance by the consumer prices index over the past 10 years would have cost carers £5 a week, or about £270 a year. The Labour Government did not do that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said, whatever the country’s financial difficulties, carers should not have to take the biggest hit. Under the coalition Government’s plans for indexing benefits, carers allowance would be worth £62.95 by 2015 if uprated by the retail prices index, but only £60.35 if the consumer prices index is used. That is a difference of some £130 a year. Does the Minister think it fair to hit carers in that way? Carers and those whom they care for will also be affected by a similar change to the attendance and disability living allowances. Carers UK has said that single parents caring for a disabled child, a partner or elderly parent may have to rely on carer’s allowance, disability living allowance and the other means-tested benefits as their only source of income. Carers UK believes that making savings in that way will hit hard the incomes of the most vulnerable—those who are already struggling to make ends meet—and I agree.

Hon. Members have referred to the extreme concern among unpaid carers caring for relatives with disabilities about the introduction of a medical assessment for the disability living allowance. If the person cared for becomes ineligible for the allowance, the carer’s own income would be hit, as carer’s allowance and other benefits are based on the disabled person receiving a certain level of disability living allowance. A poor medical assessment could spell financial disaster for carers and their families. I understand that the Office for Budget Responsibility questions whether savings could be achieved, given the cost of implementation and the large volume of subsequent appeals. I urge the Minister and his colleagues to ensure that any changes are fully thought through, and that they avoid the stress and anxiety that a new system or poor decision making, or both, could cause.

My final thought about carers and financial hardship is on the axing by the Government of the savings gateway scheme, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston. The savings gateway would have given carers in receipt of carer’s allowance an additional 50p for every £1 that they saved. I am sure that Members will have seen research by Carers UK showing that carers spend their savings over the years, which leaves many of them caring unpaid around the clock, and with no savings and no buffer against large purchases. That places an enormous strain on carers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) made a strong case for raising carer’s allowance. When the Minister was in opposition, he asked the then Minister for a timetable by which carer’s allowance would be raised. He also asked for its eligibility to be extended so that pensioner carers would get proper recognition in the payments that they receive. Will the Minister take on board comments about the coalition’s plans for benefits for carers and those whom they care for, and will he consider giving us the timetable that he asked for when in opposition for increasing carer’s allowance and dealing with the eligibility of pensioner carers?

A further matter is the work being done by carers organisations, with primary care trusts and schools, to identify carers and refer them to sources of advice and support. In Salford, The Princess Royal Trust for Carers has two excellent projects to identify and support carers. One works with primary care teams and the other with local schools. The primary care project run by the excellent Julia Ellis has developed effective partnership working with teams at Salford primary care trust and at Salford Royal hospital. Over recent years, Salford has moved from having a low level of recognition of carers to a situation that sounds as good as might exist elsewhere. There is a carers link in most GP practices and a new GP toolkit; NHS staff and staff at the Salford Royal hospital act as the lead on carers issues; there are carers information files on all wards at Salford Royal; and there is increased awareness among carers’ social workers at the hospital. Another recent development is that pharmacists and other professionals in Salford are now supporting the work of identifying carers.

The coalition Government propose radical changes to primary care trusts; they also propose that schools could opt of local authority control. I am anxious that excellent practice in identifying carers, such as that developed in Salford, will be affected by the changes. How can carers organisations ensure that a strategic view of the needs of carers in an area can be taken once GPs and schools are acting independently?

The importance of signposting carers to sources of information should not be underestimated. Signposting is done by carers centres and carers support groups, but I believe that it can and should be done more by GPs, their primary care teams and by hospital staff. However, we must be realistic about the work that it entails. Members have spoken of the big society and volunteers, but identifying carers means reaching a large number of people working throughout the health service. The figures for NHS and social services staff in 2008 are as follows: there are 33,730 GPs and 88,435 hospital doctors; 92,000 people working in primary care trusts, including 4,200 doctors involved in primary care delivery; and 49,800 social workers, of whom 2,205 provided health-related social work.

The role of reaching out to all those GPs and primary care staff, hospital doctors and health-related social workers cannot be left to primary care projects such as the one in Salford. The Princess Royal trust has recently worked with the Royal College of General Practitioners in developing an action guide to help GPs and their teams to support carers. That guide has been distributed to every GP practice. The royal college also piloted a training programme for GPs. I believe that the Government could give more of an incentive for GPs to undertake the vital task of identifying carers.

I commend to the Minister and the House the private Member’s Bill that I introduced to the House in April 2007—the Carers (Identification and Support) Bill. The Bill would require health bodies to identify patients who are carers or who have a carer, and would require identified carers to be referred to sources of help and support. It would also require health bodies to ensure that health services for patients and carers took the carers’ needs into account. In a second version, it would have required schools to have a policy to identify and support young carers. Without such legislation, GPs have as an incentive only three points in the quality and outcomes framework awarded for work undertaken to identify carers in their practice population. That does not seem much of an incentive. I hope to reintroduce my Bill to the House, and I hope that the Minister and all present today will support it. I understand that the Minister has said that he wants to see GPs identifying carers more often.

An important link has been identified today—that of raising the matter with GPs and developing similar guidance for schools. Ofsted highlighted in a report that local authorities were identifying fewer young carers than might have been expected. We do not know the precise number of children and young people who care for family members. In my Worsley and Eccles South constituency, the young carers project supported by Salford carers centre is doing some excellent work on identifying and supporting young carers in two local high schools. I met the young carers on an adventure day out and also when they launched their DVD on bullying—bullying is a serious problem for young carers.

Family pathfinder projects have done some good work on improving support for young carers. The Labour Government provided funding to the Princess Royal Trust for Carers and the Children’s Society to help them raise awareness of the issue and to build skills in supporting young carers. They published guidance for schools, developed information sheets for GP practices and produced other materials, such as DVDs on listening to young carers. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues in the now Department for Education support the continuation of that funding, and adopt and develop the good practice coming out of the 19 young carer pathfinder projects.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) spoke movingly about the needs of young carers and the difficulties that vulnerable young people have in their transition to adult services. A possible impact of the personalisation agenda might be that a family that includes a young carer of a person who is self-funding through an individual budget may have little or no contact with professional agencies. If professional agencies are not good at identifying carers when they have contact, they will definitely not be good at it if the family is managing the budget themselves. There is concern about that, and it makes awareness-raising work with professionals important. The role of schools and GPs in identifying carers becomes crucial to ensure that the child or young person gets help and support.

It has been a pleasure to be part of this debate today. Some 10 Members and the Minister have made contributions. As the hon. Member for Banbury said, the Minister understands the issues for carers and for social care. He also understands, I think, the strength of our expectations that he will continue to be a champion for carers. It is delivery on commitments that matter to them.

16:41

[Mr Burstow]

I absolutely agree with that point, and that is why we will not promise to pay cash sums into the NHS baseline that therefore cannot be delivered to where Ministers claim that they will be delivered, and it is why we will ensure that we, as a Government, will provide both leadership and, when appropriate, direction to deliver the sorts of things that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have outlined today.

This helpful and useful debate will help to take our thinking forward as we begin our work on refreshing the carers strategy. Hon. Members cited many examples of good practice on the ground, and they offer beacons of hope for how services might look across the country. Challenging those who commission services locally to ensure that they learn from such examples of good practice is a task for not just the Government, but everyone. Examples of best practice do not come from the statutory sector alone, even though the most innovative parts of that sector are themselves beacons. As many hon. Members have said, we also have to applaud and encourage the social enterprises and social entrepreneurs who have spotted opportunities to do something for their communities and found the resources to do so.

I have identified a number of key issues from this debate: what we can do better to identify carers, whether they are young, old or from ethnic minority communities; what we can do to provide information and support for carers so that they can navigate their own way through the system; and what we can do to make the system simpler so that it is not the maze of benefits and complex rules about which we have heard so much in the debate. We realise that people who wear the label “carer” are not all the same. Carers are unique individuals confronting unique circumstances that require individualised and personalised responses. I agree entirely with hon. Members’ points about the need to empower carers as well as the people being cared for.

I will try my best to answer the questions that have been put today, but if I miss anything out, I guarantee that I will write to hon. Members with a fuller response than I can give today. I will also ensure that the points that have been made, particularly in respect of benefits, are raised in cross-ministerial and cross-departmental discussions on the carers strategy at the right place and at the right time. I want them to be taken into account as the work around simplifying and modernising the benefit system is taken forward.

The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), who spoke for the Opposition, made a number of points, many of which we can work on together. Many hon. Members will be aware of her track record inside and outside the House. Elements of her speech made me feel that she expected me to take full responsibility for the things that the previous Government did not quite get right, such as the times when their implementation of a measure was flawed or when they failed to take note of representations. Although it is entirely fair for her to rehearse the points that I made in opposition—I certainly take those to heart—she will understand if I say to her that the last Government’s record left a lot to be desired, by which I mean that the improvements for which carers were hoping were not actually delivered.

Reference has been made to the huge financial pressures in many of our public services at the moment. I was struck quite strongly by the way in which the cuts that have been in train in local authorities for many months are somehow being laid at the door of this Government. In reality, those cuts were initiated and conceived under the last Government, and I just wish that there was a bit more humility and understanding of that. We have a shared challenge when it comes to dealing with the huge public sector deficit in this country. It is all well and good challenging this Government about what they will do in terms of the spending review over the next few months, but it would also be appropriate for a responsible Opposition to offer up suggestions that they believe would be painless that we could do instead.

[Barbara Keeley]

I do not know whether the Minister has experienced this during his parliamentary career, but the constituency that I represented between 2005 and 2010 covered two local authorities, and it was interesting to see the different priorities that those authorities gave to their work in social care and for carers. We heard a very good example of that in the debate, as Hammersmith and Fulham is adopting a swingeing policy that could take away a vital resource from carers, which I hope that something can be done about. I have heard the leader of Salford council hotly defend the fact that he would rather spend money on adult social care than on potholes, yet quite a lot of people in the city want money spent on potholes. Transparency and localism is one thing but, as with other aspects of health and support services, we could end up with a situation whereby a council such as Hammersmith and Fulham could remove a service, leaving its carers with nothing, while another area, such as Salford, would have excellent voluntary organisations and a council that prioritised social care.

[Mr Burstow]

The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) made some important points about the situation in his constituency and what his local authority was doing. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) also made references to the impact of tendering. Those are issues to consider, but I am not going to become a Minister responsible for micro-managing every single local authority and the decisions that they take on the allocation of resources—that is not a Minister’s job. However, we do need to ensure that there are not unintended consequences with respect to the rules and procedures followed by local authorities that fall under the Government’s responsibility. I will be very happy to hear further from both hon. Members, either in this debate or afterwards, to ensure that we have the correct rules. We want to support local services that are appropriate to a local community and that the community actually values.

[Mr Slaughter]

For the avoidance of doubt, I just want to say that it is not so much the financial situation in my area that I am concerned about, because my local authority says that it will, in due course, provide a service for carers. I am more concerned about the impropriety and mismanagement that has led to a long-standing service being simply dissolved overnight although there is no provision in place for the best part of a year to come. I would have thought that that was something in which a Minister and the Government would be interested. It is not to do with involvement in individual cuts; it is to do with the fact that a local authority is unable to manage its own affairs.

[Mr Burstow]

The hon. Gentleman has been a Member for some time, so he will know that there are regulatory systems in place that would deal with local authorities that were performing in the way that he describes. I am not aware that the authority’s activity has been reported in such a way. However, I stand by the offer that I have made, and I will be happy to receive further representations about the impact of tendering arrangements.

I want to pick up on the references that were made to the operating framework because the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South was right to point out that, in the operating framework that the Government issued just last week, we identified a requirement in the local priorities for the publication of dementia strategies. We think that that is an important signal. It was a signal to local PCTs that we wanted them to be more public facing and accountable to their local communities, and that they should account for why they have chosen not to spend money on dementia strategies. The signal was not specifically about dementia, but that we expected more of that sort of transparency in general. People should not need freedom of information requests to get information from PCTs about how public money is being spent, and I hope that that message will be understood by our local organisations that deliver such services.

The hon. Lady also talked about ring-fencing more broadly. The Government are determined to ensure that there is as much flexibility as possible for local authorities to make choices about how they prioritise their resources to deliver what is necessary to meet the needs of their local communities. We have made it clear that because we see the social care transformation grant as such a priority for investment in changes to services, so that they are genuinely personalised in the future, the budget for the final year in which it is available to local authorities will continue to be ring-fenced. We wanted to send the signal that we considered that grant to be important, and we want to ensure that local authorities deliver that grant during the course of this year.

The hon. Lady made a number of very useful points about good practice and the way in which GPs, schools and others play a part in delivering early identification of carers, whether those carers are young, old or otherwise. That should certainly inform the thinking of any Government when it comes to delivering a good carers strategy.

The hallmark of this important debate has been the great consensus about what needs to be done and the value that Members from all parties place on carers. I shall now try to address some of the other points that have been made.

The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) talked about financial issues and benefit changes, and such concerns were echoed by others. The carers cross-government programme board, which is charged with providing cohesion around the carers strategy, will look at those issues and hold cross-government discussions about them to ensure that the way in which we go about simplifying the benefit system actually delivers the right results at the end of the day.

The hon. Lady also expressed concern about the impact of public service cuts, which was also referred to by several hon. Members. Again, it is important to remember that some of the measures that are already in place were not initiated by this Government. Nevertheless, we have to be mindful about the impact of any budget decisions that we make through the spending review process. That will certainly be at the forefront of Ministers’ thinking in the coming weeks and months as we consider all the options that will have to be considered as part of the review.

The hon. Lady also talked about the difficulties faced by carers coming back into the workplace—the cliff edge, as she described it. The coalition Government’s programme sets out very clearly a desire to improve this country’s tax system significantly so that we raise the amount at which someone starts to pay income tax to £10,000. We believe that as we move towards implementing that change, we will begin to smooth out some of that cliff edge and start to have a significant impact on easing people’s return to work.

The hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) made a very good speech in which he set out a number of the challenges that we face. In particular, he rightly discussed the current complexity in the benefit system and the way in which it can be an obstacle to take-up of benefits.

The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) made a very good speech. He set out a range of issues relating to young carers in particular, but he also raised other points. He made a very important point about the Hartlepool carers centre, which he mentioned a lot in his speech, and it clearly provides an important service in his area. He also cited the £150 million a year that it saves taxpayers by reducing pressures on NHS resources. We need to ensure that such examples of social enterprises playing a part in easing pressure on public services and helping carers are considered. Such mutual operations can really make a difference.

The hon. Gentleman, like several hon. Members, talked about the role of GPs. He also made some comments about benefits. I refer him to what I have said about how we intend to move forward on benefits.

The hon. Gentleman also asked specifically about young carers. The key point I would make is that the Department of Health is piloting personal health budgets. In my written ministerial statement on Monday, I announced how we intend to evaluate those schemes. The schemes should give us yet another way of smoothing and removing some of the cliff edge that we have heard about by providing access to resources for care and health in a way that allows people to exercise real control over them and therefore much more control over their lives. That is particularly important for managing and smoothing the transition from childhood into adulthood, and we all want to ensure that that transition is made smoother.

The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) spoke about the key issue of the identification of carers. She said that only 5% of carers in her area had been identified by the local carers centre. A large number of people are hidden at the moment and do not necessarily identify themselves as carers. The identification of carers is a key challenge as part of the process of refreshing the carers strategy.

We have heard about the importance of flexible support for carers. Again, that is why personalisation will remain an absolutely central part of how the Government take forward the development of services. Such services should be tailored to fit around people’s lives, rather than requiring people constantly to navigate around them, often for the convenience of the service provider rather than the convenience of the person or family themselves. We want to accelerate towards achieving that vital aim, and we also need increased use of more user-led organisations that are much closer to the circumstances of the family, meaning that they can play an important part in advocacy, brokerage and helping families to navigate around the system.

I think that I have already addressed the main point made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, who clearly put on record a number of powerful testimonies from his constituents about the value that they place on the centre to which he referred. However, as I have said, I will not attempt to micro-manage the decisions of local government colleagues of any particular party persuasion, as it is for them to account to their electorate for the way in which they spend public money.

The hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) discussed young carers and talked about the devastating impact that alcohol can have on people’s lives. She offered advice about some of the ways in which the Government might tackle that issue, such as a pricing policy, and cited advice that the NICE has given. I can tell her that we will be publishing a White Paper on public health later this year setting out the Government’s approach on such challenging issues. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will say more about that White Paper in the not-too-distant future.

The hon. Lady also talked about safeguarding, and we have announced a review of the vetting and barring system. I am one of the Health Ministers with responsibility for safeguarding, so I will receive the recommendations from that review. We need to ensure that the system is proportionate to the risk and that it delivers the appropriate safeguards, but it must not be so bureaucratic and difficult that it actually becomes a barrier to people participating as volunteers, so that is one of the tests that we will apply to the system.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) talked about the USDAW campaign, as well as the importance that she attaches to the role of carers in her constituency, some of whom she has already visited. She also discussed the plight of working carers, their interaction with the benefits system and the need for an examination of tapering as a way in which people could retain an element of carer’s allowance. All I can say at this stage is that the Government are committed to reviewing the system with a view to simplifying it.

The hon. Lady also asked how we could ensure that there is greater awareness of the right to seek flexible working. Again, that is not just a challenge for the Department of Health. We will need a cross-government approach on the issue involving my colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Work and Pensions. Together, we have a part to play in ensuring that people are genuinely aware of that right.

The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) spoke very effectively. I was in the House when he made his maiden speech and it was one of the most impressive that I have heard. I know that his speech was excellent compared with mine 13 years ago.

[Mr Wright]

Hear, hear.

[Mr Burstow]

I wish that I had not put it that way, but there we go. That is the trouble with putting things on record.

We heard about the National Audit Office report on Jobcentre Plus, and it is important that the Government pay close attention to the work of the NAO. I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee during the last Parliament, and when the NAO identifies opportunities to obtain value for money and get more out of existing resources, it is important that we take them. If the report is not already required reading for DWP Ministers and officials, it should be.

The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys also discussed the care to share forum that was set up to consider respite. We see peer support as a powerful part of what the big society is all about. It enables people to step up and support each other, rather than seeing local authority services as the solution to everything. The right to respite has been discussed a lot in this debate. It is often not the case that a carer wants a week off; a matter of hours can make a huge difference. When I was visiting some services in Newham recently, I met the people who run a telecare project and several carers who had benefited from it. It was clear that what was important to them was the knowledge that the person for whom they cared was safe so they could have a cup of coffee with a friend, a chat and a bit of real life, as that refreshed them. We need more such opportunities for many others.

The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) discussed how we can ensure that carers can both stay in work and return to work. She also mentioned Alzheimer’s and dementia, and research into those diseases. I am sure that she will know that, in the coalition programme for government, we indicated a clear commitment to prioritise dementia research. I am the Minister who chairs the board with responsibility for considering the issue, and we will be making announcements about how we will take it forward in due course.

The hon. Member for Banbury said some kind things, as a result of which I now feel immense pressure—thank you very much! He also made a good point about carers week that I read in this way: carers week is not an annual event; it is every week. We need to find ways to make that not just a platitude but a reality for carers throughout our country. He spoke a lot about the role of GPs as commissioners and the difference that they can make. They are one of the universal services and they see many carers. We must ensure that all GPs understand that when someone comes to see them because of a sickness or disability, the person with them is often the carer, who needs to be identified and offered the signposting and support that will make a difference for them.

The hon. Member for Banbury mentioned the caring with confidence programme, as did several other hon. Members. I purposely included it in my opening remarks because I wanted to be up front about what I had decided to do. My view, having considered the evidence about the programme, was not that the training materials were not excellent—they are well regarded by the carers who have been through the programme—but simply that we were not getting value for money from the delivery. Not enough carers had been through the programme, and there was no evidence that delivery would accelerate significantly. Now the money will be reinvested into delivering more training—including GP training, which has been mentioned—and more support for carers. We will make further announcements in due course.

[Barbara Keeley]

As with other developments, I did not hear about this in the House; I heard about it from carers organisations. Does the Minister realise the extent to which carers support groups and organisations are concerned? They were geared up and trained to deliver the programme. Having useful materials will be a good thing, but materials are not enough to run a course. They need somewhere to run it, a trained person—probably paid—and resources during the day. It would be useful if some of the money could be diverted to training GPs, but that is a mainstream NHS matter. I emphasise that there is a great deal of concern among carers organisations about the programme, so anything that the Minister can do will be a help.

[Mr Burstow]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that point. I spent time earlier this week on the phone with all the carers organisations that have a direct interest in the matter. We are discussing actively with them the best way to reinvest the money to deliver good outcomes for carers. As and when that becomes clearer, I will certainly make further announcements to the House.

[Tony Baldry]

Will my hon. Friend tell us when the general issue of funding for carers will be addressed, and whether it will be addressed in the carers strategy?

[Mr Burstow]

I am looking at my notes on the points about benefits that the hon. Gentleman made and the precise time scales. Obviously, I am not the Minister responsible for the review of welfare benefits, which several hon. Members have mentioned, but it is clear that the timetable is quick and that reports back will be made during the spending review. Hon. Members who have representations to make about how we ensure that carers’ interests are served within those changes should therefore make them now. This debate is a good part of that process, and I will ensure that the matter is kept in the minds of Ministers and officials.

There will be tough decisions, one of which has been my decision about caring with confidence. We will need to ensure that every penny we spend has an impact on the lives of carers, but we must make no false economies. One of the themes of this debate is that we must ensure that the investments that we make deliver good outcomes, and that when we must reduce public expenditure, we do not just shunt costs around the system. We understand that point.

I hold to the view that carers are an important thread that holds communities together. We need to do more to support them. Their value will grow as our society ages and people with disabilities live longer. We must ensure, both across parties and within the coalition, that the refreshed strategy delivers tangible results, rather than being just a statement of intent. It must be clear about delivering change for carers. That is this Government’s commitment, and I look forward to making the difference, along with colleagues, as we go forward.

Question put and agreed to.

17:08

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Thursday 1st July 2010 Written Statements

Thursday 1 July 2010

Ministerial Responsibilities

Thursday 1st July 2010 Written Statements

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

The new “List of Ministerial Responsibilities” has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Vote Office and the Libraries of both Houses. Copies will also be sent to each hon. Member’s office in this House.

The list can also be accessed on the Cabinet Office website at:

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/government-business/government-ministers-responsibilities.aspx

Armoured Vehicle Contract

Thursday 1st July 2010 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)]

: I am pleased to announce a major contract award in favour of General Dynamics (UK) for the prototyping and demonstration of a new armoured combat vehicle intended to replace the existing combat vehicle reconnaissance (tracked) (CVR(T)). This award represents a major step towards equipping the British Army with a fleet of new highly capable, modern specialist tracked combat vehicles, able to conduct a wide range of military tasks representative of both current and anticipated operational scenarios. Initially this contract will focus on an improved reconnaissance variant called Scout but will also demonstrate a common base platform which will be the basis for other essential variants, and offer logistical commonality and benefit.

We have chosen a tracked vehicle design, that builds upon a mature platform already in service with other European nations, but which offers growth to meet the UK’s current and anticipated requirements over the next 30 years. As a result, the specialist vehicle family will benefit from increased protection, modern systems, improved fire power and, importantly, greater survivability over existing vehicles, and will be optimised for deployment world wide.

GDUK is based near Newport, Gwent, where the main programme management team will be situated; their proposed manufacturing solution has a high UK content (over 70%) with many UK-based subcontractors involved. Skills required are largely high-value engineering design skills, which will help sustain and develop the UK defence engineering sector.

This contract only commits MOD to the demonstration phase at this time. Commitment to full production will not happen until around the middle of this decade, when sufficient evidence has been gathered from the trialling of prototypes and other demonstration work to ensure the vehicle designs are optimised and fully fit for purpose. This second decision point also allows SDSR to inform whole fleet numbers, based on the future size and shape of the British Army, before the major investment decision is taken.

The award of this contract, to progress the replacement of the current CVR (T) fleet, demonstrates commitment to long-term equipment planning for the Army. This will be welcome news to our soldiers.

Quality Accounts

Thursday 1st July 2010 Written Statements

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

This Government’s ambition is for health outcomes—and our national health service—to be as good as any in the world. To achieve this, the NHS will need to focus on providing high-quality care, led by empowered clinicians, with the patient at the centre of the service. The NHS, free of bureaucratic interference and the tick-box culture, will make quality improvement the central principle along the entire care pathway, integrated with a reformed social care service.

A quality account is an annual report to the public from providers of NHS healthcare services about the quality of their services. It allows clinicians to demonstrate their commitment to continuous, evidence-based quality improvement. By making boards and leaders of healthcare organisations visibly accountable for service quality, in the same way that they are responsible for finances, quality accounts put what matters to patients at the heart of the NHS.



Quality accounts require boards and leaders of healthcare organisations to review quality across all of the healthcare services they offer, and to identify objectives for continuous quality improvement that meet the needs of the public they serve. They are therefore a tool to empower providers and patients to produce the best possible outcomes of care.



The first quality accounts—for providers of acute national health services—have now been published. They are available from the providers themselves, and from the www.nhs.uk website.



We want staff, patients and the wider public to read their local providers’ quality accounts, and then make their views known to the boards and leaders of those providers. The public’s input to their local quality accounts has demonstrated a great willingness to get involved—which provides a clear spur for boards of provider organisations to focus their attention on improving patient care.

This is a step towards focusing the NHS on continuous quality improvement, and allowing patients to see the information they need to make an informed judgment about that commitment to quality improvement. More needs to be done to standardise our definition, measurement and reporting of service quality—along lines that clinicians will recognise as evidence-based and be accountable for. We need to drive up the range and quality of information published, to enable patients to exercise choice. Quality accounts help with this transformation.

For the future, quality accounts will evolve to reflect the Government’s aim of developing a new culture of leadership and responsibility across the NHS. Following a formal evaluation over the summer, we will consult on how the potential of quality accounts can be better realised, including by:

relating the content to emerging outcome measures and quality standards;

building in third party assurance through external audit; and

extending quality accounts to primary and community care providers, following the evaluation of the pilots in the North-East and East Midlands strategic health authorities.

Proposals will be consulted on in the autumn, with updated regulations and guidance to follow later in the year.

H1N1 Pandemic

Thursday 1st July 2010 Written Statements

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

I have today placed a copy of the report of the independently chaired review of the United Kingdom response to the 2009 H1N1 (“swine flu”) pandemic in the Library of the House. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office. The review was jointly commissioned, and the chair appointed, by all four of the UK Health Ministers in March 2010. Dame Deirdre Hine chaired the review.

The four UK Health Ministers set up this independent review with a remit to review the appropriateness and effectiveness of the UK strategy for responding domestically to the swine flu pandemic, and make recommendations for any future influenza pandemic. The review was not asked to comment on operational matters.

I would like to thank Dame Deirdre Hine and her team for their work and I welcome her report and recommendations. I will take these into account, alongside financial and operation considerations, and other research evidence, when reviewing our future pandemic plans in the national framework for responding to an influenza pandemic.

I would like to express the Government’s thanks to everyone who has assisted and advised on the response to the swine flu pandemic.

Turks and Caicos Islands

Thursday 1st July 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

Following the last Government’s statement about the situation in TCI in October 2009, I would like to update the House. The financial situation in TCI has worsened to the point where it was not possible for its Government to meet their June financial commitments, including payment of public sector salaries. Without immediate UK support, TCI would fall further into economic crisis.

Following discussions with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I have decided to provide a temporary package of financial support. This support is conditional on the TCI Government strengthening their capacity and systems to manage their public finances, and balancing their budget within the next three years. We are finalising the details of the package, which we want to put in place together with commercial lenders over the coming months. We intend these arrangements to be at or near zero cost to Her Majesty’s Government over the medium term.

In order to address the immediate shortfall, we last week agreed a short-term loan of up to £10 million to help meet unavoidable commitments including staff salaries for the police, health and education services. This loan will be repaid in full as soon as the package outlined above is in place. Our aim is to restore and firmly embed the principles of sound financial management, sustainable development and good governance. This should help rebuild confidence in TCI and its ability to manage its public finances.

EU Transport Council

Thursday 1st July 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)]

I attended the second Transport Council of the Spanish presidency in Luxembourg on 24 June.

The Council adopted a decision to sign a protocol amending the 2007 Air Transport Agreement with the United States. I noted the UK’s support for the decision and that we would look forward to further co-operation and reform in the future under the mechanisms set down in the agreement, particularly with regard to the liberalisation of investment opportunities in airline operators. The protocol itself was signed by the presidency on behalf of the EU, by Ministers on behalf of the member states, and by the US ambassador to Luxembourg and the US Assistant Transportation Secretary for Aviation on behalf of the US.

The Commission updated Ministers on the work requested by the extraordinary Transport Council on 4 May on the topic of the volcanic ash cloud. The Commission reported that there was ongoing technical work in refining the limit values that would provide a definition of a safe environment for flying and on adopting new mechanisms and approaches for co-ordinating action at the EU level. Guidance had been produced on how passenger rights legislation should be applied and work was ongoing with respect to a European mobility plan. In respect of state aid, the Commission noted that the treaty opens the possibility for member states to compensate airlines, but to date no member state had in fact made a formal request for state aid clearance, nor had any draft proposals been presented to the Commission. I noted that more technical work was needed to refine limit values and that there was a need to maintain pressure in order to establish safe tolerance levels. I further noted that there was an opportunity to pool efforts for conducting research flights. Although we acknowledged the losses suffered by business as a result of this event, I indicated that in current circumstances, with constrained budgets, the UK would not wish to raise expectations that financial assistance would be forthcoming. While passenger protection during the closure of airspace was vital, I asked the Commission to review Regulation 261/2004, on passenger rights, in light of the European Court of Justice decision of November 2009 which has resulted in some perverse and disproportionate consequences with respect to the financial impact on airlines of having to compensate passengers for delayed flights.

Council conclusions were adopted unanimously on the Commission’s Urban Mobility Action Plan, which sets out a framework of initiatives to promote integrated policies and optimise urban mobility. The conclusions support the development of sustainable urban mobility policies, while maintaining the principle of subsidiarity.

The presidency noted that the European Council had recently agreed its Europe 2020 strategy for growth, and invited views on how transport could contribute to the strategy. The Commission stated that, although it did not feature prominently in the Europe 2020 package, transport was important for growth, and the strategy provided a suitable basis for the Commission to take forward its work on transport. A White Paper would be forthcoming before the end of the year which would include views on intelligent transport systems, multi-modality, and alternative sources of funding. I noted that the UK’s overarching national objectives for transport were to support economic growth and contribute to the 2020 carbon reduction targets. Additionally, I stressed the importance of having competitive transport services, and the need to avoid excessive regulatory burdens on business.

Following the Detroit terrorist incident at the end of 2009, the Commission presented its communication on the use of security scanners at EU airports. I stated that EU restrictions which currently prevented the effective and efficient use of security scanners needed to be removed and urged the Commission to bring forward the necessary legislative proposals to facilitate this, in order to allow scanners to be used as a primary method of screening at UK airports.

The Commission informed the Council of the adoption of the Galileo Action Plan in June and that the focus would now be on co-ordination of efforts, with regulatory proposals only being bought forward if necessary.

During a further discussion on the Galileo programme, I informed Ministers that, following the success of a joint bid with France to host the Galileo Security Monitoring Centre, the UK would be withdrawing its bid to host the Galileo Supervisory Authority and would instead support the bid of the Czech Republic to host this entity in Prague. I also informed Ministers that the UK would not support any additional funding requests for the Galileo programme, within the current financial perspective.

The Commission announced that it intended to withdraw the proposal to exclude self-employed drivers from the scope of the 2002 Road Transport Working Time Directive following the recent rejection of the proposals by the European Parliament. With support from the other delegations, I urged the Commission to continue with efforts to seek a compromise solution with the Parliament.