House of Commons

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 14 July 2010

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—

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

1. What recent discussions he has had with trade union representatives on reform of the civil service compensation scheme.

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

I wrote to the chairman of the Council of Civil Service Unions immediately after making my statement to the House on 6 July. I have invited the unions to begin discussions with us on developing a sustainable and affordable long-term successor to the current civil service compensation scheme. I met the unions yesterday, and my officials have had further meetings with them.

[Katy Clark]

I thank the Minister for that answer. As he will appreciate, thousands of civil servants currently face losing their jobs as a result of this Government’s policies. Will such people be able to rely on their contractual terms?

[Mr Maude]

It is common ground that the current civil service compensation scheme is unaffordable. The hon. Lady’s own Government attempted to introduce a new scheme that introduced modest changes to the current scheme. That was agreed by five out of the six civil service unions, but sadly, the sixth did not agree, went to the High Court, and had it struck down. The result is that savings that had been scheduled to be made by the previous Government now cannot be made, so there is an additional cost. I have taken the view that it is not responsible to leave matters as they are. Nor is it fair to leave in limbo for ever people who know that there is, through no fault of their own, no job for them for the future, which has been the case for some time.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

Does the Minister accept that any plans severely to restrict redundancy payments for hundreds of thousands of low-paid civil servants will be seen as a kick in the teeth for thousands of workers who have faced uncertainty about their jobs over the past few years, and who face uncertainty in the future?

[Mr Maude]

It is precisely for that reason that I want to engage quickly with the unions to negotiate additional protection for low-paid workers. Contrary to general belief, large numbers of civil servants are not very well paid—half of them earn £21,000 a year or less—and we want there to be extra protection for them. I want to engage as quickly as possible with the unions to negotiate an arrangement that has not only fairness but accountability built into it.

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

Last week, the Minister said that his proposals may not have been necessary if the Public and Commercial Services Union had joined the other five trade unions in agreeing to the previous Government’s reform package. That being so, will he start his negotiations with that package, which would have saved £500 million over three years and protected the lowest paid?

[Mr Maude]

As I say, we are very keen to have proper protection for the lowest-paid workers. Had that scheme been in existence when the coalition Government came into office, a pressing case would have been made to leave it as it was and work on that basis. That option is no longer on the table, so it seemed to us right to look at a scheme that is sustainable for the long term. The previous revised scheme made only relatively modest changes, and it was still way out of kilter with anything available under the statutory redundancy scheme or, indeed, throughout most of the private sector.

[Paul Goggins]

I am grateful for that answer. However, it is hard to take the Minister seriously about these negotiations when after all the press speculation, and more than a week after he sent his letter to the trade unions, the 600,000 staff who are affected still have no details of what he is proposing other than the threat of a 12-month cap on redundancy payments to all staff. Why should the lowest-paid staff—the junior official in a jobcentre—be treated in exactly the same way as the permanent secretary of a Government Department?

[Mr Maude]

It is precisely my intention that that should not be the case. That is why I want to engage with the unions quickly to develop a scheme that protects the lowest paid. It is quite a complicated thing to do—it is not capable of being done in the course of a Bill—so we need to negotiate it. I want to ensure that it works and is effective in providing fairness, but is also affordable. I hope that we can engage with this as soon as possible. I have made it clear to the unions that it is our intention not only to negotiate on the ceiling that is available for voluntary redundancy schemes but to provide protection for the lower paid.

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

2. What plans he has to review arrangements for the use of consultants for Government projects.

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

In May, we announced an immediate freeze on the use of consultants. Where there is an operational necessity and the work cannot be carried out by in-house staff, any new consultancy spend above £20,000 a month must be signed off by a Minister. In addition, all consultancy spend, whether pre-existing or newly approved, must be re-approved on a rolling basis every three months. Processes are now in place whereby both my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and I must personally approve any request to employ a consultant beyond nine months.

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Has he considered the fact that by reducing the use of consultants, we will be able to help public servants to develop their own careers more successfully, and that that will have the added advantage of protecting jobs, because we can keep the work with them rather than putting it out to consultants?

[Mr Maude]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The excessive use of consultants—we discovered that there were 2,500 consultants embedded in Whitehall across Government—is not only expensive and a wasteful use of money but demoralising for mainstream civil servants, who feel that they are undervalued. By cutting back on the use of consultants we can begin to re-equip the mainstream civil service with the professional skills that it wants.

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

Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will not employ any consultants at all on the experimental free market schools strategy at the Department for Education? I am sure I heard a rumour that the Government had paid half a million pounds to the New Schools Network.

[Mr Maude]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if there are any consultants being used, that will have been signed off personally by a Minister in the Department for Education and will be made public online shortly. He should address his question to my colleagues in that Department and scan the website for notification.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

3. What plans he has to reduce the regulatory burden on the voluntary and community sectors.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

9. What plans he has to reduce the regulatory burden on the voluntary and community sectors.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

12. What plans he has to reduce the regulatory burden on the voluntary and community sector.

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

We thoroughly accept the implication of the question. Voluntary organisations are subject to much too much regulation and monitoring. That is why, in addition to the important work that Lord Young is doing on reducing the impact of health and safety legislation and the compensation culture on those organisations, we are about to launch a specific taskforce to examine the impact of regulation on small organisations. We hope to announce the chair of that taskforce very shortly and that it will complete its work by next spring.

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the Minister for his answer. One of the key areas of the Government’s big society project is to encourage volunteering. However, it is accepted that in many disadvantaged areas there are lower levels of volunteering. For example, school governor places remain vacant. Will he consider how we can break down the barriers, whether regulatory or otherwise, that deter a broader number of people from coming forward to volunteer, particularly in disadvantaged areas?

[Mr Letwin]

The short answer to my hon. Friend’s question is yes. She is absolutely right that we need to break down those barriers, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is currently looking at how we might do that.

It is important to note that the accusation that is sometimes made that school governors will need to have Criminal Records Bureau checks is not correct. Unless those governors are involved in working with children in school on a day-to-day basis, all that needs to be checked is the list 99 bar. We are, of course, also looking at how we can reduce CRB checks to a common-sense level and at the vetting and barring regime. I hope that all those things will help persuade people that it is well worth doing important voluntary work.

[Jane Ellison]

All over the country this Sunday there will be “big lunch” street parties, and Battersea is no exception. In my area it has been greatly facilitated by the council issuing a flat-rate charge for street closures with an easily completed form, and generally being accommodating and encouraging. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should encourage all councils to do that?

[Mr Letwin]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her part in getting that to happen, and her council on taking that admirable attitude. One reason why we are so keen to decentralise and to give councils much more responsibility and power is precisely that they can then take sensible local initiatives of that kind to encourage local and community groups to flourish, which of course is part of our big society agenda.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to face the House so that we can all enjoy his mellifluous tones?

[Mrs Grant]

What plans does my right hon. Friend have to extend longer-term funding to voluntary sector organisations so that they can do more?

[Mr Letwin]

I should say, Mr Speaker, that no one has previously accused me of having a mellifluous tone.

My hon. Friend is on to something enormously important. It is not just that we need to extend additional funding—it is much more than that. We need to involve the voluntary sector in a whole range of massive reform programmes. We hope to see it involved in schools, in the rehabilitation revolution, in the Work programme, in drug and alcohol rehabilitation and in much else besides. We are moving away from the micro-management of processes in contracts and towards a very exciting new world of payment by results, so that voluntary organisations can use their talents and initiative to achieve real results.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

One of the biggest barriers to volunteering and volunteer groups is taxation, not just the increase in VAT that was voted through last night but the level of taxation that volunteer drivers have to pay on their mileage. Will the Ministers please talk to HM Customs and the Chancellor about the increase in that taxation, in line with the petrol duty increase over the past decade?

[Mr Letwin]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to do something that a ministerial career cannot long survive—speak for the Chancellor of the Exchequer on tax matters. I certainly undertake to continue the discussions with the Chancellor, which I have on all occasions, about how he can further our general programme to favour community groups in the voluntary sector. That is high on his agenda as well as ours.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that increasing the rate of VAT for charities will help them deal with the real difficulties of over-regulation?

[Mr Letwin]

It appears that there is a combined effort on the Labour Benches to persuade me to adopt the role of a Treasury Minister, which I am not and cannot do. Of course, we are conscious of the burdens that fall on the voluntary sector. However, for many people in that sector, a framework that enables them to do what they do best, in a way that achieves results, is what really counts. My response to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) is the response to that.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

4. What progress he has made in establishing the Big Society bank.

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

The Government are committed to setting up that independent wholesale bank to develop the market for social investment. It will be funded by dormant bank accounts and I will work with ministerial colleagues to establish it by April 2011.

[John Glen]

When visiting the River Bourne community farm in my constituency in Salisbury and many other community groups, I found that one of their big concerns is the bureaucracy that they might face when accessing the funds from the Big Society bank, though they are encouraged by its creation. Will my hon. Friend confirm the process and the means whereby small community groups, which do not have the information, can access those much needed funds?

[Mr Hurd]

The intention is for the bank to be as independent and unbureaucratic as possible. It will be a wholesaler, not a retailer, so it will support intermediaries that are growing the market for social investment. If it invests in social enterprises in Salisbury, it will do so through intermediaries that have structured financial products, such as social impact or community bonds that connect private capital with the opportunity for good, and for social impact.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

Has the Minister had any discussions with credit unions? The big idea of a bank is very similar to what already exists. Why reinvent the wheel?

[Mr Hurd]

I have had a series of discussions with several intermediaries in the marketplace that are in the business of trying to encourage and support social investment. The intention is for the bank to stand behind and support those intermediaries to allow them to do more.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

5. What recent representations he has received from trade unions on proposed changes to the terms and conditions of employment of civil servants.

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

I met the Council of Civil Service Unions yesterday. The main issue discussed was the proposed changes to the civil service compensation scheme, which I covered in my reply to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark).

[Mr Chope]

Did my right hon. Friend discuss yesterday a subject of great public concern: civil servants on average have higher pay, get better pensions, work shorter hours and have longer holidays than their private sector counterparts, and they also have lower productivity? What are the Government doing about that?

[Mr Maude]

Public sector productivity generally fell in absolute terms in the past 12 years, whereas private sector productivity rose by between 20 and 30%. There is therefore a problem with productivity in the public sector. However, I must tell my hon. Friend that median pay in the civil service is lower than that in the private sector, but pay in the wider public sector is higher.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Does the Minister think that a career in public service is a good thing?

[Mr Maude]

Yes, 100%, which is why I adopted one.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

6. What plans he has to support the voluntary sector.

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

As the House has heard, we intend to reduce the bureaucratic burdens on the sector and get more resources into it, not least through the Big Society bank and a new community grants programme. We want to reform commissioning to make it easier for voluntary sector organisations to compete for public sector contracts.

[Mr Spencer]

Rumbles is a charity in my constituency that provides training for young people with learning difficulties. It has enjoyed a good relationship with local colleges, supplying national vocational qualifications, but recent budgetary pressures have put the whole system under threat. What will the Minister do to help support the relationship between local colleges and local charities and volunteers?

[Mr Hurd]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving me advance notice of his specific constituency interest. I have liaised with the Department for Education, which is very clear that the voluntary sector has an important role in ensuring that all 16 to 18-year-olds can access learning opportunities that best suit them. However, the Department pointed out that it is for colleges to decide what their learning offer should be. On a more constructive note, if Rumbles believes it has a learning offer that will fill a gap in the 16-to-18 learning market, it should discuss it with the local authority and seek to become a 16-to-18 provider in its own right.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

7. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the compact between the Government and the voluntary sector.

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

The right hon. Gentleman has a long-standing interest in this area. The Government are fully committed to the compact, as the Prime Minister stated when he launched the big society programme at No. 10 on 18 May. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General has written to Ministers with responsibility for the big society agenda to ask them to consider the compact as decisions on in-year budgetary savings and efficiencies are taken.

[Alun Michael]

I welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities, and I am sure that we will look at the detail of this matter in the coming months. Departments and Government agencies are large and powerful, whereas voluntary organisations are generally small and innovative. Does he therefore agree that supporting the compact process is an important responsibility of Ministers across Departments, as is ensuring fairness in how Departments deal with the voluntary sector organisations that are vital to their work?

[Mr Hurd]

I totally understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point. That is why we have set up a group of Ministers with responsibility for the big society agenda. The first meeting of those Ministers will be chaired by the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General next week. The compact and our plans to strengthen the transparency and accountability of its implementation will be on the agenda.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

8. What efficiency savings have been identified by his Department’s efficiency and reform group.

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

We have identified significant scope for efficiency savings through a variety of means, including moratoriums on information and communications technology spending of more than £1 million, on consultants costing more than £20,000 a month, on advertising and marketing spend, on new websites and on new or renewed property leases. Other means include a freeze on recruitment, the procurement of goods and services for the whole Government using our aggregated scale to drive down prices, removing discrepancies such as the variation of 170% in the cost of a standard computer monitor, and renegotiating with the Government’s biggest suppliers on a portfolio basis to take out excessive cost. I met the 20 biggest suppliers to the Government last week to kick that process off. That is just the beginning; there is much more to do.

[Richard Ottaway]

In the light of that important answer, does my right hon. Friend remember the pledge given in 2006 by the previous Government to reduce dramatically the 794 websites that they ran at that time? Accordingly, was he as astonished as I was to discover just a few weeks ago that the number of websites had actually grown to 820? What is he doing to reduce that inefficient use of public resources?

[Mr Maude]

My hon. Friend is completely right that the result of the previous Government’s attempt to cut the number of websites was actually a significant increase. We will take urgent steps to cut the number of websites, particularly in relation to those that compete with each other. I discovered that the Department of Energy and Climate Change was bidding against the Carbon Trust for spots on Google, which is one indication of the lack of discipline in that field.

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

Has the efficiency and reform group made an assessment of the Government’s programme for converting 800 schools into academies at a cost of £495 million over the next four years? In particular, has the group formed a view on whether that represents good value for money when set against the loss of hundreds of new school buildings following the cancellation of the Building Schools for the Future programme?

[Mr Maude]

That was a very good effort from the right hon. Gentleman, but we believe that the coalition’s programme to increase the number of academies is very valuable. It is part of the process of giving much more power to parents, and of giving the schools that are available for local people the ability to reflect what they want rather than what central planners dictate.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

10. What progress has been made in setting up a national citizen service.

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

13. What progress he has made in establishing a national citizen service.

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

The coalition Government are committed to introducing a national citizen service to give young people an opportunity to develop the skills needed to be active and responsible citizens, mix with people from different backgrounds and get involved in their communities in order to promote engagement, cohesion and responsibility. Details of this programme will be announced by the Cabinet Office later this year, with a launch expected in 2011.

[Graham Evans]

The national citizen service will provide a vital outlet, especially for disadvantaged young people in my constituency of Weaver Vale. How can we ensure that this group of young people get involved?

[Mr Maude]

The whole point is to bring together young people from different backgrounds, rather in the way that national service was a great leveller. People from all sorts of backgrounds and geographies came together to work together, and that did promote cohesion. We are especially concerned that young people from disadvantaged backgrounds should not be excluded from this process. I hear what my hon. Friend says and it would be good if one of the pilot schemes next year could involve disadvantaged young people from his constituency. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. An enormous number of private conversations are taking place in the Chamber, and it is not only unseemly, but unfair on the Member asking the question and on the Minister to whose reply we all wish to listen.

[Julian Smith]

North Yorkshire county council has four fantastic outdoor education centres, including Bewerley park in Nidderdale in my constituency. I suspect that my right hon. Friend does not have time for potholing, but would he come and meet me so that I can show him how those four centres could deliver on the national citizens programme?

[Mr Maude]

It is not so much not having the time for potholing as not having the inclination. However, I would of course be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss these very desirable locations with which he tempts me.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

11. What plans he has for future Government support for local voluntary groups; and if he will make a statement.

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

We want to encourage more people to set up and join local voluntary groups, and we want those groups to have much more influence over the issues that affect their communities. Our plans include the training of new community organisers, who can be fantastically effective in that context, and a new community grant programme to help put money in the hands of neighbourhood groups to implement their own neighbourhood plans.

[Robert Halfon]

Is the Minister aware that in Harlow the big society has been operating for some time? Will he agree to visit successful charities such as the Michael Roberts charitable trust and Rainbow Services, which are ready to pilot the big society reforms, independently of Government and at the heart of the community?

[Mr Hurd]

I am delighted to hear that the big society is alive and well in Harlow, and I know that my hon. Friend is a passionate advocate of the values that underlie it. I am happy to confirm to him that I will visit Harlow on 29 July and I look forward to seeing what is being done, what we can learn from and what we can build on.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Does the Minister share my concern that many voluntary and community organisations that deliver public services and value for money could be targeted unfairly for cuts in the present economic environment if sufficient and proper consideration is not given to their efficiency and effectiveness?

[Mr Hurd]

I share that concern, and that is why I am working with colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government and our strategic partners to try to identify examples of best practice, especially where local authorities are working in a partnership with the voluntary and community sector to manage this difficult transition carefully.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

I welcome what my hon. Friend said about the community grant fund, especially given the difficult financial climate that many local authorities face. Can he tell us more about the timing of that fund?

[Mr Hurd]

The programme is subject to approval in the comprehensive spending review, but all being well our intention is for it to be operational early next year. The focus will be on trying to provide grass-roots community grants to deprived areas that are characterised by high levels of economic deprivation and low levels of social capital.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

14. What efficiency savings have been identified by the efficiency and reform group.

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

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to Question 8.

[Steve Baker]

The last Government spent a fortune on advertising themselves. How will this Government make savings in that area?

[Mr Maude]

We established at an early stage a moratorium on new advertising and marketing spend. Any exceptions to that moratorium have to come to me personally, and I am delighted to find that remarkably few applications are being made for exceptions. The amount of taxpayers’ money spent by the Government on advertising and marketing has been significantly reduced. At the end of the year, I expect to be able to show a very significant reduction in what was being spent by the last Government on what I have to say was a pretty incontinent basis.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 14 July.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to our soldiers who have died in Afghanistan over the last week. They are Bombardier Samuel Robinson, 5th Regiment Royal Artillery; Marine David Hart, 40 Commando Royal Marines; and a Marine from 40 Commando who died yesterday. We also pay tribute to the three soldiers from 1st Battalion the Royal Gurkha Rifles who lost their lives yesterday and to their comrades who were injured. We believe this incident was caused by the actions of an Afghan soldier betraying his Afghan and international comrades. I spoke to President Karzai about this issue yesterday, and a joint investigation by the Afghan authorities and international forces is under way, which will cover every aspect of the incident and the lessons to be learned from it.

I have to say that there should, however, be no knee-jerk reaction and no change in our strategy. We must continue to work with the Afghan army to create a stable Afghanistan able to maintain its own security and to prevent al-Qaeda from returning. At this very sad time, our thoughts should be with the families and friends of all these brave servicemen. What they do on our behalf is brave, courageous and shows their dedication and professionalism. It is right that we pay tribute to them.

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

[Tom Blenkinsop]

I would like to echo the warm words of the Prime Minister about our service personnel serving abroad.

Will the Prime Minister join me in praising One NorthEast and Redcar and Cleveland Labour council for helping develop a £600,000 regeneration plan for the market town of Guisborough in my constituency in order to help small business? Is it not the case, however, that for those who run small businesses, the Government’s VAT increase is the real jobs tax?

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House. I know he used to work for Ashok Kumar, who was widely liked and respected across the House of Commons. What we are doing to help small business is to cut the small business rate of corporation tax. We think that is the best help we can give. The future for small business will, of course, also be helped by our local enterprise partnerships, which we think will be much more focused, much more local and will deliver better than the regional development agencies they replace.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Loughborough university student union rag committee, which as well as providing many volunteers to local groups has this year raised more than any other rag in the country—more than £1 million, including raising £34,000 in one day for the Royal British Legion? Is not this an example of the big society in action?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She is absolutely right. Sometimes students can get a bad press for what they do, but we can see from the example of Loughborough that they have focused on doing things for other people and raising money for charity. They should be congratulated.

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

I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Bombardier Samuel Robinson, 5th Regiment Royal Artillery; to Marine David Hart, 40 Commando Royal Marines; to the Marine from 40 Commando Royal Marines who died yesterday; and to the three soldiers from 1st Battalion the Royal Gurkha Rifles who lost their lives yesterday and those who were injured. Everyone will share the Prime Minister’s concern about what happened. It is right to have a thorough investigation, but as he said, we must not lose sight of the importance of the work our troops are doing in Afghanistan.

May I ask the Prime Minister about Northern Ireland? Although it is now highly unusual for people in Belfast to see such violence on their streets, everyone will be worried about the events of recent days. Will the Prime Minister update the House and tell us what discussions he has had with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister? Although this is a devolved responsibility, will he join me in paying tribute to the professionalism and bravery of the men and women of the Police Service of Northern Ireland?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly join the right hon. and learned Lady in paying tribute to that police service. Anyone watching the pictures on our television screens last night could see how brave and how restrained the police were in the way that they dealt with behaviour that was, frankly, completely unacceptable. To update the House, last night was the third night of violence, the most serious of which was in the Ardoyne district in north Belfast. Over 80 police officers have been injured after being attacked with, for instance, petrol bombs, pipe bombs and bricks. The police came under fire on Sunday night, and shots were fired again last night. The police have been forced to retaliate with battle rounds and water cannons, but, as I have said, I think that anyone who watched what they did or who, like me, has had a briefing from David Ford, the Policing and Justice Minister, will know that they acted with real restraint.

I keep in touch regularly with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has been in Belfast as well, to ensure that everything that needs to be done is being done. As the right hon. and learned Lady knows, however, this is a devolved issue, and, having devolved policing and justice, we should allow David Ford and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to give the lead that they are indeed giving.

[Ms Harman]

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his answer. I reiterate what I said earlier: we will continue to support and work with the Government in their efforts to ensure a peaceful future for all the people of Northern Ireland.

This week the Government published their White Paper on the national health service. They say that they will get rid of targets. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether patients will keep their guaranteed right to see a cancer specialist within two weeks of seeing their GP?

[The Prime Minister]

May I first make one further response on the Northern Ireland issue, with which I think everyone will agree? Now that we have a police service that is fully representative of the whole community in Northern Ireland, there is no excuse for anyone not to co-operate with that police force. We all know that in the end these things are not dealt with just by the police; they have to be dealt by the communities as well, working with the police to bring people to justice for completely unacceptable behaviour.

As for the NHS, what we have decided is that we will keep targets only when they actually contribute to clinical outcomes. We all want to see a higher cancer survival rate. I am afraid that, after 13 years of Labour government, we have not the best cancer outcomes in Europe, and we want the best cancer outcomes. That means rapid treatment, yes, but it also means rapid follow-up, and it means people getting the radiotherapy, chemotherapy and drugs that they need. Those are all essential. The one thing that we on this side of the House will do is continue to put real-terms increases into the NHS, whereas I understand that it is now Labour policy to cut the NHS.

[Ms Harman]

Quite apart from the anxiety of having to wait, results are best if treatment starts as soon as possible. That is why it is important to be diagnosed and to see a specialist quickly.

The Prime Minister has not answered the question. The whole House will have seen that. He has dodged the question, just as his Health Secretary did. This is what the Health Secretary said in the House when he, too, was dodging the question:

“I have not said that we are abandoning any of the cancer waiting-time targets at the moment”.—[Official Report, 29 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 698.]

I ask the Prime Minister to give us a straight answer. Will cancer patients keep their guarantee to see a specialist within two weeks—yes or no?

[The Prime Minister]

For some people, two weeks is too long. That is the whole point. If a target contributes to good clinical outcomes, it stays; if it does not, it goes.

Now let the right hon. and learned Lady answer a question. Is it your policy—[Interruption.] I know that the right hon. and learned Lady is not involved in the leadership election, which basically involves sucking up to the trade unions, but she is capable of answering a question. Is it Labour policy to cut the NHS?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I hope that the right hon. and learned Lady will confine herself—as I know she will want to do—to her role, which is not to answer questions but to ask them.

[Ms Harman]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and the Prime Minister has still not answered. He is obviously ditching the guarantee for cancer patients, but he has not the guts to admit it to the House. Perhaps he can be more straightforward with this question. The White Paper says that his reorganisation of the NHS will mean extra up-front administration costs, but it does not give the figure. Surely he must know the figure. How much extra will it cost next year?

[The Prime Minister]

We are cutting £1 billion of administration from the NHS. We are cutting administration costs by 45% over the next Parliament. Obviously Labour Members cannot answer questions, because they have no answers, but perhaps it is not unfair to point out that they are now defending the bureaucracy of the NHS. We say that the primary care trusts and the strategic health authorities—all that additional bureaucracy—should go. We want the money to be spent on treatments, on patients, on doctors and on nurses. The right hon. and learned Lady is left defending the vast bureaucracy that saw the number of managers go up far faster than the number of nurses. Is that still Labour policy?

[Ms Harman]

The Prime Minister is talking about longer-term speculative savings, but he has not answered my question. It is no good him resorting to his usual ploy of asking me questions. I am asking about the real costs of his reorganisation next year—the very time when he says his priority will be cutting administration and cutting the deficit. The White Paper admits that there will be extra costs because of loss of productivity, staff relocation and redundancy. Does the Prime Minister stand by what he said just a few months ago about NHS reorganisations? He said:

“The disruption is terrible, the demoralisation worse—and the waste of money inexcusable.”

[The Prime Minister]

We are not reorganising the bureaucracy; we are scrapping the bureaucracy. Is it really Labour’s great new tactic that the right hon. and learned Lady will be left defending the bureaucracy of primary care trusts and strategic health authorities and all the quangos and all the bureaucrats, all of whom are paid vast salaries and huge pensions? Is that the new divide in British politics: they back the bureaucracy, we back the NHS? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) should calm himself. If he is trying to catch my eye, he has not got much chance at this rate.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Voluntary organisations and charities were not responsible for the banking crisis, nor for the financial crisis left by the last Labour Government. As we both value voluntary organisations and charities, will the Prime Minister discuss with his Treasury colleagues how the increase in VAT that those organisations have to pay can be refunded to them?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly have those conversations with the Treasury, and we will want to do everything we can to help what used to be called, rather condescendingly, the third sector but I believe is the first sector: the excellent charities, voluntary organisations and social enterprises that do so much for our country. One thing we should do is look at funding them on the same basis as the Government fund themselves. The Government are always very generous with their own bureaucracy, and they need to recognise that so often these first sector organisations have the right answers to the social problems in our country.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Q2. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that firefighters and police officers, who we all rely on to undertake dangerous and physically demanding jobs, will retain the ability to retire and access their occupational pensions before reaching state pension age?

[The Prime Minister]

First, may I welcome the hon. Lady to the House? I will look very carefully into what she says. As she knows, we have a review of pensions taking place, which is being carried out by the former Labour Minister, the former Member for Barrow and Furness, who has great expertise in this area. He will be making two reports, one before Christmas and another in the new year, where we can look at the issue of public sector pensions and try to reach some fair resolutions—and I think that is something all parties should be involved in.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister consider having another conference call with Mark Zuckerberg, co-founder of Facebook, whose site is currently hosting the group “RIP Raoul Moat”, where a whole host of anti-police statements are posted? Can the Prime Minister have a conversation with Mark Zuckerberg about removing this group?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. As far as I can see, it is absolutely clear that Raoul Moat was a callous murderer—full stop, end of story—and I cannot understand any wave, however small, of public sympathy for this man. There should be sympathy for his victims, and for the havoc he wreaked in that community; there should be no sympathy for him.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Q3. In 2005, the pupils of Joseph Leckie community technology college made a DVD depicting their crumbling school. The Labour Government gave them £6 million. Morally and legally their legitimate expectation was to have their funding continued, so please will the Prime Minister ask the Secretary of State for Education to take some time out from his “I am sorry” tour of the country to meet me in Walsall South and explain his decision—the fifth version—to Joseph Leckie school, and also to Alumwell business and enterprise college?

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be happy to meet the hon. Lady, whom we should all welcome to this House. Presumably, she has come here to keep an eye on her brother and to see what he has been up to. Let me just say this about the apology tour. I think there is something quite refreshing about a Minister who makes a mistake, comes to the Dispatch Box and makes an apology. [Interruption.] They have got their hands in the air—the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) has got his hand in the air. Can anyone put their hand up if they ever remember him apologising for anything, ever? He can start by apologising for the fact that for the last three years, he has been telling us that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) is actually the best thing since white sliced bread, and now we are being told that he is mad, bad and dangerous.

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

The BBC Trust has described BBC 1 and BBC 2 as boring. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the gaiety of the nation would be immeasurably enhanced by the televising of a 17-part psychodrama called “New Labour”, with Lord Mandelson playing himself?

[The Prime Minister]

I think—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Much as it might be fascinating to hear the Prime Minister’s reply, I do not think it is a matter of Government responsibility at all.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

Q4. Taking account of the measures in the Budget and the briefing the Prime Minister has received from the Treasury, does he believe that unemployment in the north of England in 12 months’ time will be higher or lower?

[The Prime Minister]

What you can see from the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast is that, according to it, there will be a fall in unemployment in every year during this Parliament. That is because, like others—like the OECD, which made it so clear yesterday that the Budget is courageous, responsible and right—we are putting this country back on the path to prosperity from the complete picture of ruin that the last Government left.

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Q5. Thanks to the massive deficit left by Labour, all but two departmental budgets are to be cut by between 25% and 40%. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether we are about to see a 40% reduction in the funding sent to Brussels, and is the European budget also to be cut?

[The Prime Minister]

It is very true to say that all international organisations have to recognise that, as we make painful budget reductions in this country, they should be looking to their budgets also. I have to say that one thing we will not be doing is giving up part of the rebate for absolutely nothing in return, which is what Labour did.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

Phase 2 of the Ministry of Defence strategic defence review is currently reporting back. Under consideration for closure and cutback in Scotland are two of three airbases, the only Royal Marine base in the country, minesweepers on the Clyde and aircraft carrier contracts—and that is before we even get to the Army. We expect regimental and battalion amalgamations and the remaining command functions at Cragiehall to go, and there is also the question of the future of Fort George and the Territorial Army network. Does the Prime Minister not understand that this is a wholesale destruction of conventional defence capability in Scotland?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously, we have to have a defence review, as the Opposition recognise. I always find the position of the Scottish National party on this quite confusing. I did not think that the SNP was in favour of having a British Army, a Royal Air Force or the British Navy. Perhaps if the policy has changed—[Interruption.] What we will be having is a defence review, and if the hon. Gentleman wants to make a submission to it he is very welcome to do so. I am sure it will be taken extremely seriously.

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

Q6. As far as I am aware, it is not standard practice in the public sector for workers to fund and equip their offices out of their own pockets, and then to negotiate a bureaucratic obstacle course in order to get the money back—if they are lucky. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he thinks this a good system for Members of Parliament, or whether it is undermining efforts of MPs in all parts of this House, who want to offer a good service to their constituents?

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend asks a popular and well-placed question—[Interruption.] I will answer him seriously; I think it is important. What we wanted to have and what is necessary is a properly transparent system, a system with proper rules and limits which the public would have confidence in, but what we do not need is an overly bureaucratic and very costly system. I think all those in the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority need to get a grip of what they are doing, and get a grip of it very fast.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

May I, along with my colleagues on these Benches, pay tribute to those who have lost their lives in recent days in Afghanistan—I join the Prime Minister in that—and to the police officers in Belfast who have been injured? May I specifically mention a Gurkha who lived in my constituency and was killed, tragically, over the past days? I visited his home last night, speaking at length to his family and, in particular, his father. They were very proud of the fact that he had achieved so much in his short life. His ambition was to be an officer with the Gurkhas. He was commissioned this year, he went to Afghanistan in March and he died in July. Can the Prime Minister assure this House that whatever investigation is held will be thorough and that details will be given to the family? May I say in closing that this House will know that, when it comes to the Crown forces, young men and women of Northern Ireland have never been found wanting? Today, we have lost another son and we hope it is the last.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman pays a very eloquent tribute to his constituent. He is right to say that we need an inquiry that gets to the bottom of what happened in this tragic, although I believe isolated, case. There is nothing you can say to parents who have lost a child that will help with the sense of grief and loss; there is nothing you can do. But it is important that they get the information to try to help achieve some sort of closure on what has happened. That is one of the many reasons why this review will be so important. Let me just say that there are now about 5,000 British troops that are fully partnered with Afghan forces, working together day and night. When we hear their stories about how well they are working together it does gives us hope that we are building an Afghan army that we will be able to hand over to. We must not lose sight of that, in spite of all the difficulties.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

Q7. Three years ago, the Conservative council in my constituency recognised the need for a new primary school. It identified the site and, having sorted out the financial mess that the Labour council had left before it, committed the funding. Despite being left the funds, the Labour council leader is now publicly failing to commit to building this school. Does the Prime Minister agree that my constituents should conclude that this is the reality: the Labour party is saying one thing and doing another, and is endangering schoolchildren’s education?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes not only an important local point, but a very important national point, which is that Building Schools for the Future did nothing for primary schools. There is actually a growing problem of a shortage of primary school places, which was not being addressed by the previous Government but which will be addressed by this Government.

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

Q8. The Prime Minister will be aware of members of his own party using parliamentary rules to try to undermine the national minimum wage. Can he, here and now, dedicate himself to maintaining the national minimum wage, not only ensuring its support, but ensuring that it increases in line with inflation in the years to come?

[The Prime Minister]

I can absolutely give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We support the national minimum wage, we support its regular updating and that is one of the many good things set out in our coalition agreement.

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

Q9. In south Acton, the Acton Community Forum is piloting an extremely good scheme called “Generations Together”, which is all about encouraging each generation to pass on its own skill sets to each other; basically, it is about getting the community to help itself. Does the Prime Minister agree that this is an excellent example of what the big society is all about?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree. I have to say to Labour Members, who sort of sigh every time an hon. Member actually mentions a worthwhile charity, voluntary body or project that is doing something in their communities, that we are going to change the way we do politics in this country. Instead of endlessly talking about the money that goes in, let us talk about the outcomes that come out. I think that that is a better way of doing things.

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

Q10. I am delighted to report that GCSE pass rates have doubled in Westminster in recent years and four brand-new schools have opened. This week, the Prime Minister was quoted as saying that he was “terrified” of his children attending a local school. May I ask him to swallow his fear and instead join me in acknowledging the enormous progress that has been made, particularly in London’s secondary schools, in recent years?

[The Prime Minister]

I am pleased to say that my children attend a local school in Conservative-controlled Kensington and the other part of her constituency, Conservative-controlled Westminster. Of course there are good schools in London and of course progress is being made, but like any parent looking at the state of secondary education, you want to know that there are going to be really good schools, really good choice and a diversity of provision. That is what we are going to ensure and I hope that the hon. Lady will vote for it when the time comes.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Is the Prime Minister aware that I and colleagues had the privilege of a visit this week from the Royal Anglian Regiment. Will he join us in thanking them for their amazing professionalism and for the work that they do for us?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly do that. The regiment’s members have served in Afghanistan on a number of occasions and on one occasion I met them in Helmand province and heard them speak about some of the incredibly difficult decisions that they had to take and some of the very brave things they had done. We should recognise that we have been in Afghanistan in one form or another since 2001. Many soldiers are going back again and again. That puts pressure on them and on their families and it just means that we need to redouble everything we do to support their families and our brave servicemen and women.

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

Q11. Dr Kieran Breen, the director of Parkinson’s UK, has been on the BBC this morning discussing the start of a clinical study in Oxford using skin cells. All of us in this House want to see ongoing research into finding answers to degenerative conditions such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that despite the global economic conditions this Government will not cut back on their funding for medical research?

[The Prime Minister]

No one wants to see reductions in those programmes—they are very important—but, like everything else there is a comprehensive spending review—[Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Members making that point—whoever was standing here right now would have to look at public spending programmes and make sense of them. I have to say that they should perhaps listen to the speech that the shadow Trade and Industry Secretary is going to make this afternoon. Quite rightly, he is going to say that fighting

“the cuts is a tempting slogan in opposition…But if that is all we are saying the conclusion will be drawn that we are wishing the problem away.”

We have a new problem in British politics. They are called “deficit-deniers” and I am looking at a whole row of them.

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

Q12. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the case of Mr Nur and his family, who have moved into a £2,000 a week house in Kensington at taxpayers’ expense, is exactly the sort of thing that the coalition was elected to fight against?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The housing benefit situation, particularly in central London, has got completely out of control. The idea that a family should be able to claim £2,000 a week for their house is an outrage for people who go to work every day, pay their taxes and try to do the right thing for their family. That is why we will cap housing benefit levels from April next year so that the maximum that can be claimed will be £400 a week for a property with more than four bedrooms. Many people on ordinary incomes will look even at that £400 and find it to be very generous help for people. Every penny of that comes out of hard-earned taxes.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Q13. The coalition agreement mentions rural fuel derogations. My constituents in the Outer Hebrides pay more fuel tax per litre than just about anybody in the UK. However, there is no mention of VAT in the coalition agreement, and that will affect road transportation. Is it not reasonable, surely, to ask for a rural fuel derogation before January, when the VAT rise comes in, in the interests of respect and fairness?

[The Prime Minister]

We are looking at the rural fuel issue and obviously the hon. Gentleman has a friend, as it were, in the Treasury in the Chief Secretary, who also has a large rural Scottish constituency. I know that the issue will be considered seriously and that discussions will be had. When we have something to say, we will come back and talk about it.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Q14. In the week of the NHS White Paper, will the Prime Minister resist calls—wherever they come from—to cut the NHS budget?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Yes, we have to take difficult decisions but, when we look at the NHS, we know that there are expensive drugs coming down the track, expensive treatments and an ageing population, and more children born with disabilities and living for longer. There are cost pressures on our NHS that mean that even small real-terms increases will be an heroic thing to achieve. I think that the Opposition have completely lost touch and lost their senses to think that you can somehow cut the NHS.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

As a former head teacher, I endorse the commitment given by the Prime Minister to improving discipline in schools and in education more widely. May I ask him what special measures he, as the Head of Government, plans to invoke in relation to his Education Secretary, who has failed to do his homework properly on five occasions in the past week?

[The Prime Minister]

In the week of the Mandelson memoirs—to get a lecture on ill discipline. We used to say that the Labour Government were dysfunctional and shambolic and that they were all at each other’s throats, but we were wrong—it was much, much worse than that.

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

Q15. The Prime Minister will be aware that former Para and Teessider, Anthony Malone, has languished in an Afghan jail for more than two years and is still being held in lieu of payment of an outstanding debt. Given that his imprisonment is potentially in breach of international law, will the Prime Minister put pressure on the Afghan Government to secure Mr Malone’s release?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this case, which is worrying. I can assure him and Anthony Malone’s family and friends that the British embassy continues to raise this case with the Afghan authorities. The ambassador in Kabul has raised the case with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and we are in discussions at the moment with the Afghan Attorney-General about why Anthony Malone continues to be detained. If my hon. Friend keeps in touch with my office, we will keep in touch about developments in this case.

Points of Order

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

12:31

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have made it very clear on a number of occasions that Ministers should make statements to the House first, rather than making them elsewhere. In response to a number of recent questions, the Secretary of State for Defence has refused to say what the outcome of the review of the costs of Trident is and has urged Members to wait until the statement at the end of the month. However, today’s Guardian reports that, in a speech yesterday at Chatham House, he decided, unannounced, that Trident was “pretty good value” for money, giving an indication that the review is of no consequence whatever and therefore that he has already made up his mind on this matter. Is there any way in which you can ask him to make it clear to the House whether his answers mean anything or not?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but I am not sure that there is a matter for me immediately to rule on because I do not have the material in front of me. However, it does seem to me a point that he can reasonably raise with the Secretary of State for Defence, and I have a feeling that he is likely to do so sooner, rather than later.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I ask you, and, as he is in his place, the Leader of the House, to look into something that has come to light this morning? I have inquired at the Public Bill Office about the procedure regarding the Academies Bill next week and it appears that amendments for Committee are to be tabled after Second Reading, but as the first day of Committee is next Wednesday, amendments from Front Benchers have to be given to the Clerk at the Table of the House at 10 o’clock on Monday. They will then have to be checked in the House and if there are any technical issues, there will be a problem. This system means that if any Government, Opposition or other Back Benchers decide during Second Reading that they want to table an amendment, they would have to know that they had to do so at 10 o’clock, before the closing of the House at 10.45 pm, or whenever the business finishes. Is it not an extraordinary way of running business to say that people have to table amendments on the same day as Second Reading? That is highly unusual and will make it very difficult for us properly to hold the Government to account on this Bill.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I think I am right in saying that if there were to be a facility for amendments to be tabled before Second Reading, that would require a motion in the name of the Government. In the absence of such a motion, I think that the Chair would give sympathetic, and certainly due, consideration to starred amendments. I hope that that is all readily intelligible to the hon. Gentleman and, of course, the whole House.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not know whether you are aware that shortly before Parliament opened today, the road outside Westminster was temporarily closed by a demonstration by the stop the trafficking campaign. Is it not amazing that so many people can be so bothered and concerned about 20th-century slavery that they can actually stop the traffic outside Parliament?

[Mr Speaker]

It is, indeed, amazing and it also enables the hon. Gentleman, whose work on trafficking is respected across the House, to underline the importance of the campaign. That is precisely what he has done and I have a feeling that he will share the Hansard report of his point of order with people in Wellingborough.

[Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The issue of the five lists and the mishandling of the Building Schools for the Future announcement was raised at Prime Minister’s questions. You will know that, on Sunday, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Education and copied the letter to you, to ask for a clear answer to the question of whether, a week ago, before the first list was published, the Secretary of State was advised by his departmental officials not to proceed on this course but to consult local authorities instead, because of the danger of getting the lists wrong and causing both confusion and legal challenge. I have had no reply yet from the Secretary of State. I wonder whether you think that that is in order or a gross discourtesy both to you and myself.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think that there is anything disorderly at all at this stage, but if the right hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied by the absence of a reply to his letter, it is perfectly open to him to table questions to inquire when he can expect a reply. I have a feeling that that device, and possibly other parliamentary devices, will spring into the right hon. Gentleman’s fertile mind.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I thank the Prime Minister for restoring to its proper place the reading of the names of the fallen in Afghanistan? As you know, that has not happened in the past three weeks, and there was considerable unhappiness because the names were read out at other times. Can we look forward in future to the names of those who, sadly, will fall in the next few weeks being read out at a time of the maximum attendance of MPs and the maximum attention on the House from outside?

[Mr Speaker]

The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that I think that there is great merit in that proposition, which is in no sense a partisan or political one. If there is to be any change on this matter from what has happened this week or that, it is something that should usefully be discussed with the people who make these announcements. Rather than pronouncing upon that here, it would be better for me to talk to other people who are directly involved in these matters, and the upshot of any such discussion will become known to the hon. Gentleman sooner rather than later.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We heard in Prime Minister’s questions about the difficulties being experienced in Northern Ireland. May I bring it to your attention, Sir, that the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs is not yet up and running, despite the fact that I had the honour of being elected its Chairman some weeks ago? I am not making accusations, but I understand that the problem is that the Labour party has not submitted its names to the Committee of Selection. I understand that that Committee meets later today. Will you use your good offices to try to encourage the Labour party to submit its names, so that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee can begin to undertake what could be very important work?

[Mr Speaker]

The difficulties that the hon. Gentleman describes in respect of his Select Committee apply also to a number of others. Of course, I am in favour of the speedy constitution and operation of Select Committees; but, sadly, that matter is not in my hands. I have no power in this regard, notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm to ensure that I have. I hope that that is helpful, but his point will have been heard, not least by those to whom he was indirectly addressing it.

Carers (Identification and Support)

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

12:38

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require health bodies and general medical practitioners, and certain other organisations, to identify patients who are carers or who have a carer; to require identified carers to be referred to sources of help and support and to make further provision in relation to such arrangements; to make provision in relation to the responsibilities of local authorities and schools for the needs of young carers and their families; and for connected purposes.

In April 2007, I introduced a similar Bill aimed at helping to ensure that carers and young carers were identified and referred to sources of advice and support. I am reintroducing the Bill today because, although some progress has been made, there is still much work to be done. We have a population that is living longer and living more often with dementia, illness or a long-term condition. It has become clear that more and more families are stepping in to provide full-time and high levels of care.

The 2001 census found that 10% of all carers in the UK were caring for more than 50 hours a week. Provisional figures published last month by the NHS Information Centre show that that figure has now more than doubled to 22%. In Salford, which is the local authority that covers my Worsley and Eccles South constituency, the proportion of carers providing full-time care has been at a higher level for some time. In 2001, some 24% of Salford carers provided care for more than 50 hours a week, which was more than twice the national figure for those with the heaviest caring commitments.

Carers play a vital role in helping with social care. They are key partners in care for the NHS, but their own health is threatened by caring. We know that full-time care can take a toll on carers’ health, so the health needs of carers must be recognised. Carers who care for 50 or more hours a week are twice as likely to suffer from ill health, while those caring for a person suffering from dementia or stroke disease are even more at risk of ill health. We must act to ensure that those who care for more hours than are associated with a full-time job are identified and then supported.

Early identification and support for carers means that they can maintain their health, and better manage and sustain their caring role. My Bill would require GPs to identify patients who are carers, or who have a carer, and to take the carers’ needs into account. It would also require schools to have a policy to identify young carers.

Some progress has been made over the past 10 years on identifying carers and referring them to support. We started with the first national carers strategy in 1999, when GPs and primary health care teams were given a five-point checklist for use with carers in their practice populations. By 2008, The Princess Royal Trust for Carers and the Royal College of General Practitioners had created a best practice guide and self-assessment toolkit called “Supporting Carers: An action guide for general practitioners and their teams”. GP training pilots followed, as did awareness training modules on carers in the skills for care and skills for health programmes.

Research shows, however, that the work done nationwide by GPs to identify carers in their practice populations is still inconsistent. Only a small proportion of the total number of carers is identified. Even those GP practices with good links to their local carers centres are not identifying all the carers whose health might be affected by caring responsibilities. A pilot programme in Devon that was featured at the recent international carers conference reported that one of the crucial factors in the sustainability of such work in primary care was having a lead GP in each practice to act as a strategic figurehead. The Princess Royal Trust Salford carers centre is working on that so that the lead GP ensures that their GP colleagues are on board and making the necessary referrals. Salford carers centre works jointly with many local practices and gives them access to the list of carers of whom the centre is aware. I have no doubt that such work in primary care has increased the registration of carers and is leading to positive outcomes. “Personal Social Services Survey of Adult Carers in England—2009-10”, which was the first national user experience survey of carers, found that carers in Salford whose GP knew that they were a carer reported that they always or usually felt supported by their GP.

The Bill also contains an important provision for schools to recognise the needs of young carers and their families. Young carers are the most hidden group of carers. Research conducted in May by The Princess Royal Trust for Carers found that only 40% of young carers said that their teachers were aware of their caring role. Figures in the last census suggested that 2% of all children in the UK were young carers, but it is difficult to obtain accurate figures because of the hidden nature of such caring, so the percentage could be much higher.

Young people and their parents are often silent about the extent of the support that a child provides because of guilt or fear of separation. To combat that, we need to introduce measures so that schools and local authorities recognise the problems faced by young carers. It is likely that the most vulnerable young carers will continue their caring role throughout their childhood without any support. Young carers might have parents with substance misuse or alcohol problems. The extent of that problem is not fully understood, but according to the charity Turning Point, up to 1.3 million—or one in 11—children in the UK live with parents who misuse alcohol or are problem drug users. Such children might find themselves responsible for their own and their parents’ safety. My Bill would place duties on social services authorities to consider what support services are needed to sustain the parenting role in such families. When a parent is assessed for community care services, support should be offered if it is found that the adult relies on the caring role of his or her child so that we ensure that the health, education and well-being of the child or young person are not impaired by such caring responsibilities.

Young carers may have a parent with an illness or with a learning or physical disability, and the parent may rely on the care from their child. Such children miss out on their education and can find themselves misunderstood at school. When they are missing from school due to caring responsibilities they are treated as truants by teachers and often bullied by other children. My Bill would require that both schools and local authority children’s services have written policies in place to support such young carers. The Princess Royal Trust for Carers is campaigning for schools to have a nominated lead on young carers’ issues, and this could be implemented by the Bill.

Many health and social care professionals are frustrated by the different thresholds for service provision for different client groups. An adult mental health worker may be aware of children affected by their parent’s mental health condition, but unless the children are at risk of serious harm, the health professional will probably not be able to help them, so the general duties to young carers and their families outlined in my Bill would help. A simple joint working protocol between children’s and adults’ services, combined with a training programme for staff, would help with this problem.

The measures in my Bill would ensure that health professionals identify carers and refer them to much needed help and support. My Bill is supported by Carers UK and The Princess Royal Trust for Carers. I would like to thank Carers UK and Luke Clements for helping me to draft the Bill, and Gordon Conochie of The Princess Royal Trust for Carers for his input. I would also like to thank Julia Ellis and Dawn O’Rooke from The Princess Royal Trust Salford carers centre, whose work has created an excellent example of good practice in identifying carers within primary care.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the House for giving me the opportunity to present the Bill today.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Barbara Keeley, Diana R. Johnson, Andrew Gwynne, Ann Coffey, Kate Green, Nia Griffith, Luciana Berger, Mr. David Anderson, Tony Baldry, Annette Brooke and Caroline Lucas present the Bill.

Barbara Keeley accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 November 2010, and to be printed (Bill 55).

Police Grant Report

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

12:47

[The Minister for Police (Nick Herbert)]

I beg to move,

That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) for 2010-11: Amending Report 2010-11 (House of Commons Paper No. 47), which was laid before this House on 10 June, be approved.

The Government’s top priority is to reduce the unprecedented budget deficit that this country faces. As a first step towards achieving that aim, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 24 May a £6 billion package of savings across the public sector. The Home Office share of this spending reduction is £367 million. In order to minimise the impact on the police service, the Home Office has cut a greater than proportionate share of its central budget by bearing down significantly on overheads and reducing waste, including cuts to consultancy services, marketing costs and travel. National policing organisations have been required to make significant savings too. For example, the National Policing Improvement Agency will make a saving of £40 million this year, on top of a £73 million saving already planned for this year. That is a greater proportionate cut than we are asking police forces to make.

However, the police account for well over half of Home Office spending, so we cannot make the necessary savings at the centre alone. We need the police to contribute to the drive to efficiency. On 27 May, I announced my intention to reduce this year’s core Government funding to the police by a total of £135 million. I propose that this will mostly be achieved by a £115 million reduction in rule 2 grant, for which the Government today seek the House’s approval. Those proposed reductions to police funding are fair and reasonable. Every force is treated equally, with a cut equivalent to 1.46% of their core funding from central Government.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

rose—

[Nick Herbert]

I give way first to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Keith Vaz]

Obviously the Minister regards those reductions as fair and reasonable; others might not regard them in that light. At the end of the day, he must have received some advice from his officials, so will we have fewer police officers on the front line as a result of what the Government propose to do?

[Nick Herbert]

We do not believe that there need be fewer police officers as a consequence of the savings that we are asking the House to approve today, for the simple reason that, as I said, the savings amount to less than 1.5% of the core funding that forces receive from central Government. Police forces can make those savings and the front line can be protected.

[Mr Binley]

My right hon. Friend clearly makes the point that there will be equal cuts throughout the country, yet the previous situation meant a massive imbalance thanks to corrupt formula funding and the damping effect, which affects my county of Northamptonshire immensely unfavourably. Will he consider the matter and tell the people of Northamptonshire that he will review formula funding and remove the damping process?

[Nick Herbert]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern and hear the passion with which he intervenes on me. The purpose of damping was to ensure that no force received less than a minimum increase in funding each year and therefore to provide financial stability, but I appreciate the concerns about the process, not least from forces such as my hon. Friend’s in Northamptonshire, which feel that they have lost out by subsidising others. It has been the intention for some time—it was the intention of the previous Government—to remove the damping mechanism, and I shall look again at those issues and the position of individual forces once we know the situation in the spending review, to which I shall come. I shall try to ensure fairness, but I should say to my hon. Friend and to right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the House that there is no pot of gold or easy solution to the situation that all forces currently face and will face. Whatever the funding formula and the adjustments, we and every force will all have to make significant savings, and I should not pretend otherwise to my hon. Friend.

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

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in constituencies such as mine, where the police are already having to make efficiencies, these further efficiencies—of £6 million throughout Wales, I think—will inevitably lead to cuts in front-line policing, and that, alongside cuts in education, which will lead to more drug abuse, and cuts in the number of public service workers, which will lead to unemployment, there will be greater pressure on the police and fewer police to sort out that pressure? Will we not see an increase in crime, as we did under the previous Conservative Government?

[Nick Herbert]

No. I accept no part of what the hon. Gentleman says. We are talking about in-year cuts in relation to police forces of less than 1.5% of their Government funding, and we do not believe that that will mean that police forces have to cut front-line services. We believe that forces can make efficiencies, albeit in in-year services, so we do not believe that it will impact on crime levels. Indeed, I should say that the reason we have to make these savings is this Government’s inheritance from the previous Government, which left us with a budget deficit. It is our responsibility to tackle it, and if the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have concerns about future police funding levels, they should address them to their right hon. Friends who were in charge of the country’s Exchequer and finances, and who supported the misjudgments that have left us all in this position.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Obviously we want an honest debate that is essentially focused on the evidence. Is it therefore noteworthy that on 20 April the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), specifically ruled out guaranteeing that police numbers would stay the same or increase? That is important for Opposition Members to take into account.

[Nick Herbert]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. On 20 April, in a “Daily Politics” general election debate, the right hon. Gentleman, now the shadow Home Secretary, was asked in terms whether he could guarantee that police numbers would not fall if Labour formed the next Government. He replied, “No.” He could not offer any such guarantee. But more than that, we know that the Labour Government were planning—indeed, we inherited spending plans—to cut departmental budgets by £44 billion a year by 2014-15. That would have been £44 billion of unallocated spending cuts. Where did they think they were going to get that money from? What services were they going to cut? They would not tell us, but the figure implied an average real reduction for unprotected Departments of 20%. Let us be clear: where cuts have to be made to police forces, they are Labour’s cuts; they are the cuts that Labour bequeathed to us because of its financial mismanagement.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

What assessment has the right hon. Gentleman made of the increase in costs to the police of having elected police commissioners?

[Nick Herbert]

We will shortly say more about the policy of directly elected individuals. It was a manifesto commitment that we made, and that reform will be valuable in protecting front-line policing and neighbourhood policing. I shall come on to that shortly, if the right hon. Lady will forgive me.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Does the Minister accept that 50% of a police officer’s time is actually spent at the police station doing paperwork, and that if we get rid of such paperwork and targets we will get more police out on the street and therefore save the taxpayer money?

[Nick Herbert]

I strongly agree. There would be little point in recruiting additional police officers—if we had the budget to do so, and we do not—if they did not spend their time out on the beat, delivering the visible and available policing that the public want. One paradox of the past 10 years is that, in spite of a substantial increase in police officer recruitment, the public still feel that the police are not sufficiently visible or available.

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

What discussions has the Minister had with Boris Johnson about the impact of these cuts in London? I ask in the context of the Mayor having already decided to cut 455 police officers, and refusing to guarantee the long-term future of safer neighbourhood teams in each London borough.

[Nick Herbert]

I have discussed these matters with the deputy Mayor who has responsibility for policing. I shall discuss them with the Mayor, and I have had a number of discussions, as has my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. They do not believe that the budget cuts, which the House will vote on today, amounting to—I repeat—less than 1.5% of what the Government provide to forces, require them to reduce the number of officers in the force. However, we will take no lessons about cutting police numbers from Opposition Members, as they clearly would not guarantee force levels and left this Government with the responsibility of managing the public finances properly.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

When my local police make an arrest, it takes them seven hours to complete the paperwork. There are great savings to be made in police time, and some of that work can surely be passed to civilians. There are savings to be made, but we can still keep front-line police on the beat.

[Nick Herbert]

I agree. Of course there are savings to be made through more efficient working practices. We are determined to try to drive down bureaucracy in order to free up more police time, and there will be better management of police officers’ time. For instance, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner pointed out this week that he had increased the availability and visibility of the police by requiring officers to patrol individually rather than in pairs.

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

The right hon. Gentleman talked about manifesto pledges. What does he say about the manifesto pledge of his coalition partners, who promised us 3,000 extra police?

[Nick Herbert]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have a coalition agreement that has superseded manifesto pledges. The truth is that no Government would now be in a position to increase police numbers because of the fiscal inheritance bequeathed to us by Labour.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Nick Herbert]

I am going to make some more progress, if my hon. Friends and others will forgive me.

I made this announcement at the earliest opportunity to enable forces to plan ways of managing reductions that will not impact on the front line of policing. I am aware that forces will have slightly less money this year than they expected, but this is still £124 million more grant funding than was received last year. Let me repeat: even after this reduction in grant, police forces will still have more cash this year than they did last year, and Government funding for the police in this financial year will be £9.6 billion. To put the grant reduction further in context, it represents, for every force, less than 1% of their expected spend this year.

It is for chief constables to use their expertise to decide what savings make most sense for their force, but I am quite clear that these can be achieved by driving out wasteful spending on support functions, reducing bureaucracy and increasing efficiency in key functions, leaving the front line of policing strong and secure. We expect forces to be held to this by their police authorities and by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, ensuring that they are delivering the most effective service possible.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

rose—

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

rose—

[Nick Herbert]

I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies).

[Claire Perry]

It will not be comfortable to stand up and defend the reduction of almost £1 million in the police grant for Wiltshire. However, we can see that this process offers enormous opportunities to improve efficiency. I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees, for example, that police forces waste about £400 million a year by not procuring together. We have 43 police forces which all buy their own uniforms, all in the same shade of blue, thanks to the fact that Labour Members taught them that money was a free commodity. Police forces waste about £17,000 a day on renting cars because they procure them separately. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are enormous efficiency opportunities, the value of which could be about £10 million for each police force in the country?

[Nick Herbert]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the Minister responds, may I say, first, that I hope the hon. Lady will now have an opportunity to breathe, which would be a very healthy thing; and secondly, that I encourage Members who intervene to bear in mind that the total duration of the debate is three hours?

[Nick Herbert]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Of course there are greater opportunities for the 43 forces to share services and to procure collectively. I will say more about that later, if she will forgive me.

I promised, perhaps unwisely, to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley.

[Philip Davies]

I agree with everything that the Minister has said so far: nothing that he is announcing today will in itself cause a problem to the police. My concern is not what he is saying but things said by other Ministers that will drive up pressures on the police. For example, the Secretary of State for Justice has decided not to send persistent offenders to prison but to let them out into the community, and to stop the police using CCTV and DNA to their full capacity. Does my right hon. Friend accept that these things are putting upward pressures on the police that are not consistent with what he is announcing?

[Nick Herbert]

I knew that it was a mistake to give way to my hon. Friend. He must not inadvertently misrepresent what my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary said about the use of imprisonment. We have said that we must do more to reduce reoffending. Reoffending rates, particularly in relation to short-term prison sentences, are far too high. We must break the cycle of crime. That means doing far more, innovatively, to ensure that offenders can be supervised and supported using “payment by results” models. I am sure that when my hon. Friend investigates that more closely, he will welcome the radicalism in what we are saying.

The Government will play their part in helping to protect the front line by reducing the burden of bureaucracy on forces, which several of my hon. Friends have mentioned. The Home Secretary has already announced that we will scrap the central targets, overt and back-door, that have bedevilled policing, and we are reviewing the nature of force inspection with the same aim. Labour’s 10-point policing pledge will go. The previous Government spent £6 million of taxpayers’ money on promoting that pledge, including on totally misleading advertisements that claimed that 80% of police time would be spent on the beat—adverts that were censured by the Advertising Standards Authority. We know what that pledge was about—propaganda and spin. That discredited Government have gone, and so has their approach.

In place of the centralised, bureaucratic accountability of the past decade, which undermined professionalism and added cost, we will introduce local democratic accountability. The introduction of directly elected individuals in 2012, together with a new focus on outcomes rather than processes, will not only strengthen the links between the police and public but unshackle police forces from Whitehall’s tick-box tyranny. We want the police to be crime fighters, not form writers. We want forces to work for local people, not for Whitehall officials or Westminster politicians.

[Geraint Davies]

As regards the democratic election of these police officers, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a danger, first, that they will no longer engage with the wider democracy of MPs, Assembly Members, councillors and so on; and secondly, that they will be hijacked by a small group about a niche issue and ignore some of the important things that the police do, such as counter-terrorism?

[Nick Herbert]

No, I do not believe that either of those two things is a risk. In relation to London, for instance, we now have policing arrangements that Members of Parliament in London find it perfectly possible to engage with, and we have a system whereby those who are responsible for supervising policing still attend to the functions of policing that reach beyond the local. It is perfectly possible to institute a more democratic arrangement that addresses that requirement. The important point is that there is an exchange in this regard. If we want to reduce the amount of central direction on policing and free the police to take more decisions for themselves and to have the ability to manage their forces and address local issues, then the police must answer to someone, and that is why we propose to enhance local accountability.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Unlike the deficit deniers, the Minister has pointed out that there is no golden pot of money. Can he confirm that the previous Government wasted £500 million on the idea of forced police mergers, and that there is a far more efficient way of providing the democratic accountability that our police service needs and directing the money to the front-line policing that we need?

[Nick Herbert]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who had experience of the problem of force mergers as leader of West Sussex county council, where such a merger was strongly resisted. Huge sums of money were wasted by the previous Government on attempting, and failing, to drive that policy through. That is not a course that this Government will pursue.

[Mark Tami]

rose—

[Mr Thomas]

rose—

[Nick Herbert]

I am going to make a little more progress.

Of course, the challenge of tackling the deficit does not end this year; as we go forward, it will be vital for the police to deliver better value for money. The Government’s spending review will report in October, and we will not know until then what future police funding will look like. However, the Chancellor made it clear that unprotected Departments, including the Home Office, will face spending reductions, implying an average real cut of around 25% over the next four years. Whatever the outcome of the spending review, value for money considerations will become a new imperative for police authorities and forces.

We have been working constructively with the Association of Chief Police Officers to discuss how forces can meet the considerable challenge of reducing spending on this scale. Our joint ambition is to do everything possible to protect front-line services. We appreciate the importance of police functions that the public do not always see. Those can still be front-line services, but as I have repeated to chief constables, the people’s priority is to maintain visible and available policing, and that is what we must all strive to protect.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

The Northumbria police force is expected to make in-year cuts in the region of £3.5 million this year, which causes great concern to people in my constituency. We all experienced the massive manhunt in Northumberland only last week, which ended on Saturday morning. It has cost Northumbria police something in the region of £3 million, making a double whammy of about £6.5 million. Does the Minister agree that that is unsustainable, and will he review the initial £3.5 million cut?

[Nick Herbert]

I do not think it would be appropriate to review the spending reduction that we are asking every force to make on an equitable basis, which we announced some weeks ago subject to the approval of the House. However, there are special arrangements that can apply in relation to unforeseen expenditure by police forces. Northumbria police and its authority are well aware of that, and we will happily discuss the matter with them.

The Government’s view is that more can be done to achieve greater value for money in policing through national procurement, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes suggested, and through sharing services, outsourcing and working more efficiently. If 43 forces can buy equipment more cheaply together, we can no longer allow anything to stand in the way of that. If tasks can be performed just as well or better by civilian staff, and so reduce costs and release sworn officers for other duties, ideology should not stand in the way. If some forces can use modern systems to improve business processes, so can others, and if some forces can show that collaborating with each other or with other local agencies delivers savings, others can take the same path. We need to see new solutions, innovation and strong local leadership. The first resort must be to drive out cost and the last resort must be reductions in police numbers.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Has the right hon. Gentleman read the White Paper that we produced last December, which appears to be basically what he is reading out to the House today?

[Nick Herbert]

Yes, I have had the misfortune to read all the previous Government’s documents. The problem is that despite the suggestion that greater savings could be achieved, for instance through collaboration, it has not always happened. Today we find ourselves in a different environment in which forces and authorities face a new imperative to find those savings. The Government are willing to ensure that those savings will be made, in return for greater local accountability.

The quid pro quo for returning power and enabling far greater local decision making is that we will be tougher about driving savings through central procurement, and about collaboration between forces where it is clear that there is a policing need—for instance in relation to serious crime that crosses force borders—or that by working together, forces can achieve better value for money. We do not support the compulsory merger of forces, as I reaffirmed to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), but a great deal more can and must be done through enhanced collaboration.

The Government have also already announced a full review of remuneration and conditions of service for police officers and staff. We want to ensure that pay and conditions support the delivery of an excellent service and provide value for money, so that they are right for both those who work in the service and the public. Spending on the work force accounts for about 80% of police expenditure. It is therefore right to examine carefully arrangements such as the use of overtime. We will provide more information about the review, including its timing, shortly, but we will expect it to report by January next year.

[Mr Thomas]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Herbert]

No, I am going to draw to a conclusion now, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I know that many Members wish to speak.

This Government inherited a £155 million budget deficit, one of the worst in Europe and the largest in our peacetime history. This country cannot sustain a situation in which, without action, in five years’ time we will be spending over three times more on debt interest alone than on the entire criminal justice system. Achieving savings will mean driving value for money and delivering more for less. The criminal justice system, including policing, is no more immune from those imperatives than any other public service.

It is our responsibility to tackle the deficit, restore the health of the public finances and ensure that we are able to fund high-quality public services in the years ahead. We have not ducked that responsibility. It means taking tough decisions but the right decisions, and it means showing leadership. Chief constables and police authorities must show leadership, too, in demanding the savings that we can all make. For those reasons, I commend the proposal to the House.

13:15

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to his position. He will know that it is an excellent job to have, and it is one that I certainly enjoyed in government. He has great support in the Home Office from a fine team of officials and staff in doing that job.

Having got the niceties out of the way, I come to the crunch. I am disappointed and unhappy about the approach that the Minister has taken to the in-year funding cuts for allocations to police authorities in England and Wales for 2010-11. There are a number of new Members in their places, and I do not think that they will realise that this debate was held, done and dusted, in the House in February. We had a debate then on the 2010-11 police grant. I stood at the Government Dispatch Box when we debated the third year of a settlement for the police in England and Wales. We had already announced the three-year settlement two years before, and the House was to confirm the third year on 3 February.

At that time, I challenged the Liberal Democrat spokesman, who sat where my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) is sitting today, and the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley), who was sitting where I am now. I asked whether, if they were in government in any way, shape or form—much to my surprise, the Liberals have found themselves in that position—they would reduce or change this year’s grant. The answer was that they would not. In fact, the Liberal Democrats called for more spending on the police—a point that I shall return to later. Our proposals for the third year of the agreed settlement were supported by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in opposition but are now opposed and torn up by them in government.

One of the most distressing aspects of the debate is the fact that the third-year settlement has been agreed, is known and has been put to police authorities across England and Wales. Police authorities went into their precept-setting meetings in February, March and April based on that grant and on what they expected their income from Government to be for 2010-11.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

The right hon. Gentleman is moving to the crux of the issue, despite his engaging and emollient beginning. We would take his protestations slightly more seriously if his own Government had brought forward a comprehensive spending review last autumn, and specifically if the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) had ruled out cuts in police numbers during the election campaign. Neither happened, so we have to take the right hon. Gentleman’s protestations with a pinch of salt.

[Mr Hanson]

I look forward to the hon. Gentleman voting today to reduce Cambridgeshire’s policing grant by £1.2 million. That is what he will be doing. He needs to go back to Cambridgeshire and explain to the residents of Peterborough why he is voting to reduce the budget by £1.2 million this year. I and my 257 colleagues on the Labour Benches stood on a manifesto commitment to ensure that policing resources were maintained after the general election. We won our seats on that basis, and we are being consistent in putting forward our arguments today. The hon. Gentleman is voting to remove money from his police force.

[Henry Smith]

Is it not the case that only after the election, when we opened the books, did we realise just how bad the deficit was and that the former Chief Secretary had helpfully left his note on the desk for the incoming Chief Secretary?

[Mr Hanson]

I look forward to the hon. Gentleman going back to Crawley and telling the people how he voted today to remove £2.4 million from West Sussex police’s budget. I look forward to him explaining that, and I am sure that he is looking forward to that discussion.

[Claire Perry]

I have already started to explain to many of my constituents, who have of course been writing and e-mailing, why we have to reduce the police support grant. Most people understand that there is no money, thanks to the Labour party’s disastrous economic policy. Labour Members have been unspecific about where they would cut. This is the sort of ideology that led to the former Cabinet’s conclusion that the Labour Government were “finished”, “futile” and—finally in opposition. People are looking for an engaged and informed discussion about what we can do to get the deficit under control.

[Mr Hanson]

I look forward to the people of Devizes learning that the hon. Lady has voted for £1 million to be cut from their police grant—unless my speech convinces her to vote with Labour Members to oppose those cuts. She asked an important question about what the Labour party would do to reduce the deficit. We went into the election campaign with clear commitments. Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour Members did not oppose the settlement that we debated on 3 February; we agreed the grants for this year in February. For future years, we agreed that we would spend money above the rate of inflation on policing, health and education, and make the savings that we needed through a deficit reduction plan for other matters.

[Mr Thomas]

Does my right hon. Friend remember his visit to Harrow police station in January to hear from yet another borough commander about the need for a new police station to help Harrow police do the job that they need to do? Does he share my disappointment that the cuts will reduce the capital available to the Metropolitan police, and are probably yet another excuse for the Mayor of London to continue to refuse to help Harrow police get the equipment and facilities that they need to do their job?

[Mr Hanson]

Today’s cuts not only reduce the capital budget but take some £28 million from London’s budget. I believe that the Mayor is still one Boris Johnson, who has already agreed not to raise the precept this year. That means a real cut not only, through inflation, on the precept, but in the grant.

[Mark Tami]

rose—

[Mr Hanson]

I will happily give way to my constituency neighbour before trying to make progress.

[Mark Tami]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that suggesting that today’s cuts and the huge cuts to come can be achieved by getting rid of backroom staff who apparently do nothing is a cruel deception of the British people? There will be more pressure on front-line police to do the jobs that civilian staff currently undertake.

[Mr Hanson]

My hon. Friend is right. Not only that, but he knows that some 80% to 85% of all policing costs are for police officers and staffing. Today’s reduction, and potential future reductions, will hit staff hard.

Police forces have set their precepts on the basis of the grant agreed in February, so they will now find it difficult to fulfil their strategic commitments this year. Cutting services and police numbers ultimately cuts the ability to reduce crime. I am particularly disappointed, given that Members called for support for the police during their election campaigns, that members of the coalition will go back on their commitments and vote through this unfair cut today.

I pay tribute to the police’s excellent work. They work under extreme pressures, risking their safety to keep us safe. Often, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck said, they have to deal with severe emergencies. We want to ensure that we give—as we did in government—the police the powers and resources to get on with their job. As a result of investment under the Labour Government, there were record numbers of police on our streets—17,000 more police officers than when we came to power in 1997—cutting crime and making our communities safer. We have some 16,000 police community support officers—positions that did not exist when the Labour Government came to power—engaged with communities and helping reduce crime. Consequently, crime fell by 36%. In the past year alone, car crime, robbery and burglary were down. Even in a recession, firearm offences decreased by 17%, robbery was down 5%, and overall crime reduced by 5% last year. The chances of being a victim were the lowest since records began. Confidence in policing was nearly 60% and rose over the year. Labour Members fought the election on a manifesto commitment to give the police the resources to maintain that record, to ensure that they had funding and to continue that investment for the next three years.

The Minister’s points about efficiencies did not escape the Labour Government. There were real concerns about how to get best value for the Government’s police funding. That is why I referred to the White Paper that we produced last December, which examined cutting police overtime by some £500 million; ensuring support for merging back-office functions properly and effectively, and supporting the voluntary merger of forces. We got burned by the forced merger but wanted to ensure that voluntary mergers went ahead. We accordingly supported voluntary mergers of forces. I allocated £500,000 to Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire to consider how to develop such a merger in due course. I note that the Minister for Housing, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), opposes such a merger. So much for concerted activity on backroom costs.

We considered national procurement, which the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) mentioned. I initiated national procurement proposals for the next few years for uniforms, vehicle support and air support. We considered removing resources and saving around £1 billion from that budget while maintaining the provision of more money to support forces’ crime-fighting activities.

[Caroline Flint]

On force mergers, does my right hon. Friend agree that it was a question not only of saving money, but of operational efficiency? We have too many police forces that do not have the capacity to deal with serious organised crime. We face that threat alongside what happens in our neighbourhoods and on our streets. The cut in grant will have an even greater impact on that work, but we must also consider structures that inhibit effective policing on such serious matters.

[Mr Hanson]

My right hon. Friend is right. She knows that serious organised crime often requires a cross-border, regional approach. Crime in my area of north Wales is, sadly, often generated from Manchester and Liverpool, and the forces need to co-operate—and they do—to tackle those problems. Regional co-operation is particularly important for tackling terrorism, and it will be hit not only by spending cuts this year, but by the potential for cuts in future years.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman said that in the 13 years for which his party was in government, it took waste seriously. Why, therefore, at the end of that time, did we still have separate procurement, the cost of which the Home Office estimates to be more than £400 million a year?

[Mr Hanson]

Again, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the White Paper. We considered a range of things in the 13 years. In the year that I was Police Minister, from last July, I initiated procurement proposals on uniforms, vehicles, air support and other matters. Procurement is one of the subjects about which we are very concerned. There are savings to be made on it; that is a matter of common agreement.

[George Freeman]

You had 13 years.

[Mr Hanson]

I am trying to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. I agree with him that there are savings to be made on, for example, uniforms, vehicles and air support. We were trying to do that, and I will fully support the Minister’s attempts to get those contracts. However, that does not detract from the fact that the core grant for this year, which we agreed in February—without a vote, with Conservative and Liberal Democrat support—is being cut today. And we face further cuts down the line because of cuts in the Home Office grant.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

The right hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. He was candid earlier when he said that the Labour Government were burned over the mergers. They were burned because there was no consultation and a top-down approach was forced on individual forces. Ten, eight or six years ago, the previous Government could have given police forces a fiscal incentive to share back-office functions, procurement, equipment and so on, but they failed to do that. That is a fair point to make to inform today’s debate on budget reductions.

[Mr Hanson]

Let us revert to the subject before us. I think that there is scope for mergers of police forces. As a Minister, I encouraged the provision of a grant of £500,000 to help move that process on. I agree with the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) that we were burned by forced mergers. I wish the Minister a fair wind if he can continue to encourage forces that, with local support, want to merge. Mergers should not be forced from the centre, but agreed locally. Let us not disagree about that.

Labour supported mergers and procurement measures when in government, and I support the Minister for Police on them in opposition. The key is that we still require resources to undertake policing. This year, resources are being cut in-year, despite an agreed settlement; the 25% that might be cut in future years will also be damaging. That will have a serious impact on crime generally. I do not very often agree with the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), as I am sure the Minister does not, but he knew what he was talking about on DNA, CCTV, appropriate prison sentences, reducing reoffending and investment in police. He is right on those issues, and the Conservative party will be proved wrong.

All MPs value the increases in police officers in their constituencies in the past 13 years. Today’s cut could result in the loss of about 4,100 officers from our streets this year alone, according, I should tell the Minister, to House of Commons Library figures.

[Claire Perry]

On that specific point, as I read the Labour party manifesto, the right hon. Gentleman was planning 20% cuts in non-ring-fenced Departments. Did the Home Office calculate what his cuts would mean in terms of a reduction in police numbers?

[Mr Hanson]

The hon. Lady should do her homework. The Home Office was one of the Departments that we ring-fenced in the manifesto, and we ring-fenced policing.

[Claire Perry]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Hanson]

With due respect to the hon. Lady, I think I know the Labour party manifesto better than she, so we can stick with that for the moment.

Today’s reduction means a £3.5 million cut for Northumbria police, which will interest my hon. Friends the Members for Wansbeck, for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott); a £28 million cut for London; a £3 million cut for Lancashire; and a £5 million cut for West Yorkshire, to name but four police areas. This year will be really difficult.

The Home Secretary, who is no longer in the Chamber, will today vote for a £4.3 million cut for Thames Valley police, and the Prime Minister will vote for a £3.4 million cut for his local force. When he visited west Yorkshire during the general election, he assured residents that the Conservatives were committed to PCSOs and police funding, but he will today vote to make a £4.8 million less available there this year. The Police Minister will today vote to reduce the amount for his force, Sussex police, by £2.4 million, after the previous Labour Government increased the number of officers by more than 100 in their 13 years in power. Those are real issues.

In January, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), now a Minister of State at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) to complain that the funding in the February settlement was not enough for Sussex forces, but today he will vote to cut £2.4 million from the budget. Let us get some facts straight. The Conservatives should support the grant that they agreed in February and should see it through for the police officers and police forces that knew it had been agreed in the third year of a three-year settlement. They should have seen it through before the precepts were set, so that people knew what their funding would be.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman said that it is important to get the facts straight. I have not seen the letter sent by the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden. Did he ask for a fair share of the funding provided to police forces for Sussex, or did he in fact make the point that Sussex’s needs were not properly recognised compared with other areas? If the latter is the case, will the former Minister apologise for suggesting that my hon. Friend merely called for extra money? Perhaps he did so, but will the right hon. Gentleman spell out precisely what was in that letter?

[Mr Hanson]

The Energy and Climate Change Minister wrote to complain about the level of cash that the grant had given to Sussex police authority, but he will today vote for a £2.4 million cut. Indeed, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) will today vote for a £1.8 million cut for Humberside police. I presume that the people of Humberside look forward to that.

I have thrown a lot at the Conservative part of the coalition, but I have saved my ire for the Liberal Democrats. In the debate in February, the Liberal Democrats did not vote against the order before the House, but called for more resources. I asked the then Member for Chesterfield how much more he thought we should give to police this year. Sadly—it is always sad when someone loses their seat, but I am always glad for people who win one—he was replaced by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) at the election. The hon. Gentleman answered by saying:

“The Liberal Democrats have clearly said that we would divert money by abandoning particular…programmes—identity cards have been a long-standing option.”—[Official Report, 3 February 2010; Vol. 505, c. 340.]

He said that the number of extra police resulting from abandoning identity cards would be “about 3,000”. As I recall, the process of abandoning ID cards is coming to an end, so those savings can now be made. I look forward to the Liberal Democrats therefore voting not to cut resources from forces in England in Wales, and to them using their influence so that the money saved from ID cards can be used to save the resources that will be cut today.

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

rose—

[Mr Hanson]

I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman. Will he say how, when he goes back to his constituency in London, he will explain the £28 million that he is to take off the Greater London authority this year, in-year, when his former hon. Friend argued for 3,000 extra police officers in the debate in February?

[Tom Brake]

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether during the February debate he drew to the House’s attention the fact that the Government were understating the structural deficit to the tune of £12 billion? I cannot recall him saying that.

[Mr Hanson]

The hon. Gentleman knows that Labour had a structural deficit reduction plan that involved looking at deficits and tax increases next year, which would have made a difference. We would also have looked at cuts in certain areas of expenditure, but police funding was not one of them.

In the light of the abandonment of ID cards, will the Liberal Democrats vote for the £28 million cut in London and the cuts in other forces this year, and against a measure that they supported earlier in the year? The Deputy Prime Minister campaigned for more funding and officers during the general election, but today he will vote to cut £2.8 million from South Yorkshire’s budget. During a televised election debate on crime on 20 April, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, who was the Liberal Democrats home affairs spokesman, said that there would be no reduction in police numbers under a Lib Dem Government. He probably never expected to find himself in a Lib Dem Government, but sadly he has got one, and he will go through the Lobby today to take that money off his own force in Hampshire.

On her website, the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), said:

“A Liberal Democrat Government would recruit 10,000 extra police.”

I look forward to her walking through the Lobby today to cut £28 million from London police. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) said that

“Withington Liberal Democrats are launching a petition to stop any further cuts in Police numbers”.

I look forward to signing that petition and to the hon. Gentleman walking through the Lobby today to cut money from Greater Manchester police.

[George Freeman]

While the right hon. Gentleman is on the subject of misleading election promises, does he agree that there has been a major change in the fiscal reality with which the Government must now deal, as indicated when, after the election, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, left a note in his Department to say that there is no money left? If he had said that before the election, we might have had a rather more honest election.

[Mr Hanson]

I cannot be any clearer than to tell the hon. Gentleman that we would have implemented our deficit reduction plan and that police funding was ring-fenced.

Before I leave the subject of the Liberal Democrats, may I tell the House what the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) said on ID cards? In March 2009, he said

“West Yorkshire Police Force could get an extra 362 officers if the government scrapped its plans for ID cards and use the money to recruit new front-line officers.”

I look forward to him walking through the Lobby to remove money from West Yorkshire police today.

Chief Constable Peter Fahy of Greater Manchester police was quoted saying recently:

“We’ve got the lowest crime in Manchester for ten years, the lowest gun crime for eight years. We are really determined as a force to make sure we maintain that record”.

However, he added:

“Eighty-six per cent of my budget is spent on people and if we want to make significant savings in policing there is only one way of doing it—which is to reduce the size of the workforce…. It is having a big impact on the morale in the force and the way it is affecting people.”

The chair of Durham police authority has said:

“If you are looking at cuts of this nature so quickly, clearly it will affect jobs”.

Devon and Cornwall police authority has said that these in-year cuts will result in the loss of at least 180 officers.

The cuts undermine the relationship between the Government and the 43 police forces that have already set their precepts. In my constituency in north Wales, we are set to lose £1.1 million this year, putting a real strain on the services provided. I met with the chief constable last week and I know that not only is his force worried about the £1.1 million cut, but it is bracing itself for far worse to come.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), who is no longer in his place, mentioned the cut to the capital grant of £10 million. The cut of £10 million from the counter-terrorism budget is also of concern.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that North Tyneside was fortunate to have its new police headquarters completed under the Labour Government? It is due to open in September. Does he agree that the 27% crime reduction that the people of North Tyneside enjoyed last year will not be improved on if these cuts are implemented?

[Mr Hanson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, because there is a link between the investment by the Labour Government and the fall in crime. Whatever assessment we make, that investment in police officers on the streets and in other areas, including capital build on new police stations, has had a direct impact in reducing levels of crime—[Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position to the effect that police buildings do not contribute to crime reduction. A brand new police centre in Newcastle will help to put together some essential savings and help the police to organise effectively to fight crime—[Interruption.] We could go on all day, but my contention is that the resources that the Labour Government put in—and had agreed to put in this year—made a real difference.

[Mark Tami]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, at a time when we face massive cuts and with more to come, it is bizarre that the Government intend to introduce these directly elected characters, who will end up costing a fortune but do nothing for front-line policing?

[Mr Hanson]

I concur with my hon. Friend. I have not met a single member of the police family who wants directly elected police commissioners. I look forward to having that argument with the Minister when the time comes.

The cuts to the police grant this year, coupled with the potential cuts of up to 25% to the police grant next year, will be really damaging to our crime-fighting capability. Coupled with the scrapping of the national policing pledge and the sustained attack on community policing that is coming, I do not believe that we will be able to sustain the fall in crime that we have seen to date. I hope that I am wrong about that, but I believe that these cuts will be damaging in the long term.

This year’s grant was approved by the House of Commons and should be reaffirmed—

[Nick Herbert]

The right hon. Gentleman mentions the policing pledge, which this Government have rightly scrapped. How many police officers could have been funded by the £6 million advertising spend by his Government on promoting that pledge?

[Mr Hanson]

Unlike the Minister, I believe that it is important that people know their rights, know what services they can receive, know that the police are on their side, know who to contact in the police, know where their local police officers are situated and know who their local police officer is. I have always believed that the police are a public service. That spending was about ensuring that the public knew those things, so that the public and the police could work in co-operation to reduce crime.

This settlement is wrong and will be damaging—

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Hanson]

I was going to finish speaking, but I cannot resist the hon. Lady.

[Heather Wheeler]

I am fascinated by the right hon. Gentleman’s latest statement. Surely to goodness we were meant to be seeing the police on the street and going to their police stations. Why on earth did we need £6 million of advertising when £5 million a year was taken from Derbyshire police? If we had had that £5 million, we would have seen the police.

[Mr Hanson]

I look forward to the hon. Lady voting to remove £1.6 million from her police force later. She argues that Derbyshire is underfunded by £5 million, but she is happy to vote through a £1.6 million in-year cut—[Interruption.] That is up to her, but I am sure that the Labour party in her constituency will make that fact known to the residents of the area.

This settlement is wrong and should be opposed. The original settlement was agreed in February, when it was supported by the Liberal Democrats. The House should agree it again today. I will vote against the motion and urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby.

13:45

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

I shall start with the one point of agreement I have with the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), and that is the excellent work that the police do. He is right that we last debated this matter five months ago, and there is a sense of déjà vu about this. However, what has changed—I regret that he and his colleagues have not recognised it—is that we now know, for example, about the £12 billion structural deficit underestimate by the previous Government. He may also have noticed what has happened in other countries such as Greece in recent months, which has given an added urgency to what the coalition Government have had to do.

I can certainly confirm that five months ago I did not expect to be standing here today defending the proposals we have before us. However, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said, it is the previous Government’s economic scorched-earth policy that leaves us with no alternative. My hon. Friends know that some challenging efficiency savings will have to be made, and we will need a degree of prioritisation that has perhaps not had to happen before. It is right to berate the Opposition for their failure to acknowledge even a modicum of responsibility for the current financial difficulties that we are trying to address. However, it would be wrong not to acknowledge the increase in police numbers in recent years. The safer neighbourhood teams were positive developments, and the trend has been towards a reduction in crime, although we can argue about the statistics and the measures used to calculate that.

Efficiency savings, especially as used as euphemism for withdrawing valuable services, are never popular, but we are in a stronger position to take those measures now with the downward trend in crime than we might have been if the trend had been upwards. I am sure that the Minister, when he was preparing for this debate, will have looked at the report of February’s debate. Several points were raised then that I hope can now be clarified. One is what is happening to recruitment across forces—an issue that Paul Holmes, who is no longer the Member of Parliament for Chesterfield, raised. In the autumn, we have the comprehensive spending review and I am sure that the Minister will argue the case for the police service strongly. Can he provide any more information about how he will push the case for police funding in those discussions?

In February, the issue of special grant funded allocations was also raised and the concern expressed that while the core budget might be maintained—although we now know that unfortunately that is not the case—their removal might have a greater effect on the number of police officers and of PCSOs. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that point.

On flexibility of funding, I am signed up to the agenda of greater localism and giving local authorities greater powers to deliver services. However, I am a little perplexed about why we are pushing that agenda in relation to a freeze in council tax, which goes against the proposition that local authorities should be able to take more decisions. I appreciate that at this particular time when everyone is struggling financially, we need to promote that, but I wonder whether in the future—particularly when MORI polls, which were mentioned in the February debate, have confirmed that in certain circumstances people are willing to pay a little more through their precept if they can see that additional police services are delivered—we will have the flexibility to allow that to happen.

Another important matter raised in the February debate was linking police funding to the census, and how responsive it was to it. It has been announced that the census will not happen, so I hope that the Minister will provide some clarity about what funding will be linked to. That would give us a greater degree of confidence that, under the coalition Government, we will in future be able to reflect an increase in population more promptly in the funding that flows through not just to the police, but to other services as well.

Finally, it is clear that in times of adversity there is more ingenuity around. I suspect that Members on both sides of the House might have received suggestions from people about how efficiency savings could be identified. Force mergers have been discussed. A constituent contacted me to suggest that we need a London police force and that there might be scope for incorporating the City of London police into the rest of the Metropolitan Police Service. Another constituent made suggestions about the way in which detectives are rotated. There are ways and means of ensuring that efficiency savings are achieved without having an impact on front-line services.

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

Before the hon. Gentleman concludes, can he help me to understand how it is in these straitened times that the Conservative manifesto commitment to increasing the cost of the elected commissioner experiment persists, while the Lib Dem manifesto commitments have been dropped? How did that come about, or is it that the hon. Gentleman did not have any influence? Is he at all worried that Lib Dem broken promises are going to create a broken Britain?

[Tom Brake]

I will leave it to the hon. Gentleman to promote the idea through his literature that the Liberal Democrats have broken their promises. If he looked at the coalition programme, he would find that, in practice—there is no secret about this—some proposals that we wanted to promote as a party before the general election are not included in it, while some proposals that the Conservative party wanted to promote when it was in opposition are equally not in it.

[Steve McCabe]

indicated dissent.

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman is obviously struggling to come to terms with the concept of a coalition and what it means in practice. I am afraid he will just have to get used to the fact that these things happen.

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

On that precise point, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Deputy Prime Minister came to my constituency to launch the Liberal Democrat plan for more police officers by getting rid of ID cards, and that although we now have no ID cards, we not only have no additional police officers in Durham, but face substantial cuts to them?

[Tom Brake]

All I can do is go over the same response that I gave earlier. First, I am very pleased that we have started the process of getting rid of ID cards so quickly. Secondly, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister would have said something different if the hon. Lady’s Front-Bench team had provided greater clarity on where we stood as a nation in terms of our finances. I am afraid that the only example of clarity we have had is the single-sentence letter on there being “no money”. That was a good example of a very honest Minister making it clear where the new Government stood and what problems they would have to tackle.

To return to detective rotation, about which a constituent contacted me, it may be a good example of how more money could be saved in the service. As I understand it, detectives are often rotated a matter of months before retirement. They then have to undergo a new raft of training for a new role before—literally, just a few months later—retiring. That does not seem a very sensible investment. Perhaps it could be looked at to ensure that detectives are allowed to continue in their present posts so that the police service does not incur those training costs for a role that they will not carry out beyond a couple of months after starting it.

No reduction in funding is ever going to be welcomed. I believe, however, that the scale of efficiency savings being proposed is manageable and that it is possible for our police forces to deliver both value for money and security on our streets at the same time.

13:56

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

I want to clarify something about the deficit from the outset. Labour Members clearly recognise that something had to be done about the deficit, which is why we set out plans to halve it over four years and looked at other areas to see where we could increase growth. What we have here is a Government—a Liberal Democrat-Conservative Government—deciding to cut the deficit harder and faster. That is a choice that the Government have made. In doing so, they are choosing dramatically to take out of the public finances investment that could contribute in some ways to our growth. By taking that money away—whether from local authorities, the police or other agencies—as they have chosen to do, they put us at a greater risk, as many people are now saying, of a double-dip recession. They are also relying on a 40% increase in exports to make up the difference as a contribution to growth. That is the dividing line here. Perhaps the reason why the Liberal Democrat-Tory coalition wants to cut so hard and so fast is that down the road in five years’ time there will be a general election and they want to be able to offer tax cuts to gain re-election. That is really what is going on here.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I am interested in the right hon. Lady’s case. What she is effectively saying is that a future Labour Government would have introduced cuts, but not quite yet. Then she criticises the way in which this Government have chosen to tackle the debt. What she is saying is not that her Government would never make cuts, but that they would not make them yet. As we got closer to a general election, her Government would have done the same thing. What she says is absolute nonsense.

[Caroline Flint]

I direct the hon. Gentleman to the £2.6 million of cuts that his area is going to face. There are choices to be made. We said that we would cut the deficit by half over four years, but your Government are suggesting that we go faster and harder, posing the risk of going back into recession, putting more people out of work and affecting employment in both the public and private sectors. We will watch very carefully to see whether the outcomes that you have chosen to pursue are really in the best interests of the country.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The right hon. Lady is a very experienced Member, who should not use “you”. I am sure that she did not mean it.

[Caroline Flint]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman will have to look at the outcomes of the decisions that his Government have made over the course of the last few weeks.

There is concern across the country about the announcement of cuts in police funding. I have listened to some of the comments made by Government Members. The hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) has left the Chamber. I believe that she asked why we were spending money on police buildings. One reason why we did that over the past 13 years is that some of the buildings were not fit for purpose. If we are to modernise our police force and have civilian staff carrying out jobs such as following up on crime reports by using the best technology we need buildings that are fit for purpose. It is about investing in a police force for the 21st century.

We should also look at the partnerships created over the past 13 years. It should be recognised that the police cannot do the job of ensuring the safety of our communities, neighbourhoods and streets on their own. They have to work with others in local government, and I worry about how the cuts in the police grant will affect partnerships that have been nurtured with local authorities and community organisations. As those partners will be affected by cuts as well, the pot that is available to them, enabling them to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour in a flexible, dynamic, innovative way, will be further diminished by the lack of flexibility that is being imposed on police forces and local authorities throughout the country.

My constituents will be keen to know how the £3 million cut in funds for South Yorkshire police will affect them, particularly given the Government’s refusal to provide the guarantee to protect overall police numbers which we included in our manifesto.

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

The right hon. Lady must appreciate—once she gets past the rhetoric—that there are difficult choices to be made about financial restraints. She mentioned her constituents. Would they be concerned about the choice to spend £6 million on advertising the policing pledge rather than on front-line services designed for their safety? If they were able to make that choice themselves, what would they decide?

[Caroline Flint]

I am interested in the coalition Government’s attitude to the way in which information is given to the public in order to ensure that there is transparency about the provision of public services. They seem to think that that is not an important part of the compact between the people and those who enforce the law. Regardless of the debating points that are made between the Front Benches, it is clear from the findings of all the surveys in various force areas about public attitudes to the police and crime statistics that crime has fallen. However, as a constituency Member I often find that the public do not know about those figures—or, indeed, about the monthly meetings held by the police, the activities of the safer neighbourhood teams, and who is working with whom. When I give them that information in my surgeries, when I am out on the doorstep or in my newsletters, they are very pleased to receive it. I am not saying that a blank cheque should be handed to those who deal with communications. The issuing of information must be thought through properly. It must be established why the information concerned is important, and sometimes we have to pay for that information to be issued.

I will say this to the hon. Gentleman. We currently have some 43 police forces. All of them have communications departments and press officers, and I believe that that is one of the functions that could be managed better across police force areas. The most important element of local policing for the residents of Don Valley is at borough command level, and the most important public face for people in Doncaster is our borough commander. Most of those people do not know the name of the chief constable; they are interested in what is happening in the Doncaster borough. Discussion about what is the most appropriate organisation and structure at force level, and about the elements beyond local crime that require particular attention, should be part of a debate about efficiency savings, value for money and outcomes that genuinely deal with organised crime better than we are able to at the moment.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

The right hon. Lady is making a passionate case, but I fear that she is demonstrating one of the worst aspects of the record of new Labour governance, namely an obsession with processes and the policing pledge. Is not the real issue, and the real driver for elected officials, the fact that there is currently a huge gap in accountability? At present accountability operates only between senior police officers and the Home Office, and elected officials and residents are squeezed out. That is why local people across the country support elected officials, and why our manifesto commitment has been such a success. The police family, as it is called, is hostile because vested interests are being challenged by ordinary people and elected officials.

[Caroline Flint]

One of the most dramatic changes in the nature of police accountability has been brought about by neighbourhood policing teams. In various parts of my constituency, local people can attend monthly meetings to engage in discussion and hold the police to account. Information from those meetings—along with other information about where antisocial behaviour is happening, which is collected and captured on computers—is tasking the police in a far more intelligent and accountable way than we have ever seen before. However, that did not just happen; it had to be driven by Government, and it was driven by a Labour Government.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

My right hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech, but does she agree that what is most important to our constituents is being able to see police officers on the beat, as well as police community support officers? Is it not absolutely disgraceful that the coalition parties have not guaranteed to protect front-line policing from cuts?

[Caroline Flint]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Fine words about law and order and sanctimonious speeches about how we support the police family and the reduction of crime in our neighbourhoods are all very well, but if we do not will the means, that is not going to happen. Up and down the country, as budgets are stretched and pressures are put on the police, the good work that has been done will take two steps back rather than forward, and that is a crying shame.

I have a long-standing interest in the handling of serious and organised crime, and the impact on that of reductions in police grant. We should view the cuts in police funding in the context of a number of other developments that undermine the ability of our police to do their job. For instance, police powers relating to CCTV and DNA have been reduced, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies); perhaps I should call him my hon. Friend these days. Last week there was an Adjournment debate on CCTV and DNA, and I must say that I welcomed the support from the coalition Government Benches for the views expressed by Opposition Members on that day. Clearly there is some common ground in this era of new politics.

We need a 21st-century police force that is equipped to tackle 21st-century crime and 21st-century criminals. There is no doubt that technology provides a major opportunity for the police to crack down on criminals, wherever they may be. Like many other Members, I am disturbed by some of the comments that have been made about CCTV and DNA. Obviously CCTV helps to the police to deal with antisocial behaviour, but we should not forget that both it and DNA make a major contribution to tackling far more serious and violent crimes which, I regret to say, are committed on streets throughout the country.

I do not think that the present proposals accord with the front cover, as it were, of the Liberal Democrat-Tory coalition Government. They do not suggest that the Government really have the safety of our subjects in mind when they take responsibility for governing our policing community.

I intervened on the Minister of State to ask whether any assessment had been made of the cost of elected police commissioners. I do not suggest that every aspect of the way in which police authorities are organised is the best thing since sliced bread. I think that some do better than others. Colleagues of mine have worked very well on police authorities and have done a good job, but that does not necessarily mean that some authorities do not need to be looked at. But what will the introduction of elected police commissioners mean for policing in our neighbourhoods? How much extra cost will it involve? Will someone who has been elected expect a higher premium on the services that he or she gives to the police? What will be the relationship between the commissioner and the chief constable?

This brings me back to the subject of serious and organised crime. I fear that elected commissioners could find themselves responding, understandably in some respects, to the demand for attention to be paid to local policing—which is, of course, important—to the detriment of the handling of much more serious crimes which require more cross-border co-operation. I worry greatly about the impact on that. I agree that we need to discuss savings, but why has there been no financial assessment of the cost of elected police commissioners and whether, in these times of austerity, that is a good route to go down? I would suggest that it is not. Taken together, therefore, I fear that these proposals could inhibit our ability to fight serious and organised crime, and also make it more difficult to protect the country from international terrorism.

None of us doubts the need for effective local policing. We need bobbies on the beat, and we need civilians to take on some of the jobs that then allow our fully qualified police officers to be out there fighting crime. We need to work with others, such as community support officers and community safety wardens, too. We also must not forget community organisations and groups; those that have good relationships with their local police are a vital source of information and intelligence, and also help to promote what is being done in the community to fight crime, as opposed to the lurid stuff that is often reported in the tabloid press.

We know that every single day people feel angry and frustrated—and often isolated—by the antisocial behaviour and low-level crime on their doorstep, and that must be attended to. However, although effective community policing is rightly a priority for the police, it cannot be their only priority. As I have said, for people in Doncaster it is our borough commander at Doncaster level who, day to day, is the public face of local policing. Above that, I do not think the public necessarily care very much whether it is a south Yorkshire or a Yorkshire and Humber force; what they care about is that other levels of crime that they do not see on their doorsteps should be dealt with effectively. As the Metropolitan Police Commissioner outlined in the annual lecture to the Police Foundation on Monday night, we still face a real and severe threat from terrorists and from serious and organised crime, which costs the British economy £40 billion a year and, in its own way, affects every person in the UK. The drug dealer at the end of somebody’s street, who usually is a drug addict as well, is just a small fish in a big pond. The sharks that feed that crime on the local street are living in big houses; they are not paying their taxes and they are living the life of Riley. They are the criminal entrepreneurs who put the despair on to our streets, and if we do not deal with the sharks we will not get a grip on organised crime in our country. I am very worried about the implications in respect of the police grant and the fact that the Minister said nothing—I will look at Hansard to check this—about the impact on serious and organised crime. I would be happy for the Minister to respond to that or to indicate anything, if he wishes to do so.

When the public are asked for their view they do not always rank serious and organised crime or even counter-terrorism as their top priority for the police. That is because people do not see that directly or immediately affecting their family and their street and community. However, many of the problems they do worry about—drugs, prostitution, illegal weapons—are intimately connected to serious and organised criminals. The real danger is that with cuts to be made and, I am afraid, with these potential commissioners falling over each over to protect the most popular police priorities, the axe will fall precisely on those areas that the public least understand but most need.

[Nick Herbert]

Is the right hon. Lady warning about the dangers of these directly elected individuals delivering what the public actually want in respect of local policing?

[Caroline Flint]

No, I am talking about the cost of these elected individuals over and above what we have at the moment, and priorities being skewed in ways that do not help.

We need to make a better case of explaining how serious organised crime impacts on our neighbourhoods and communities so that people can see the relationship between the drug dealer in their street, the prostitutes in their neighbourhood and the counterfeit goods at the car boot sales and how that leads all the way back up to the organised criminals. I think we should have made a better case of explaining that under my Government, and I certainly think we need to do that in future, so that the link between these policing priorities can be seen. The danger is that that will not be done because these elected individuals will not be interested in that; they will just be interested in getting easy votes, whereas sometimes we as politicians have to explain the big picture so that we get the policy right.

That is a credible and sincere thing to say. I fight every day to make sure that the communities I represent are protected from antisocial behaviour and the other problems they face, but I know, both as a former Home Office Minister and as a constituency MP, that many of the problems in our neighbourhoods develop as the young people and adults involved in antisocial behaviour become more hardened criminals, and that hardened criminals at the top end are often behind the low-level crime my constituents experience. We have to deal with both aspects. The Minister said nothing about that or about looking at better operational capacity—and in doing so saving some money along the way.

[Robert Halfon]

Why is it perfectly okay for people to elect councillors, MPs and all sorts of other representatives, yet the right hon. Lady does not trust people with the responsibility of electing someone who will provide an overview of the kind of policing they want for their neighbourhood?

[Caroline Flint]

We already have elected councillors as part of the police authorities, and I think that model could be improved. At the local level through the safer neighbourhood teams, we already have monthly accountable meetings which the public can attend and talk about their local policing priorities. This is not about being against accountability; it is about what is right and what is fit for purpose—and, to be honest, what is good value for money, which is part of the debate we are having this afternoon.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

rose—

[Caroline Flint]

I want to make some progress, as I have taken lots of interventions and I am very conscious that other Members want to contribute to the debate.

The reality is that as a result of improved communications, new technologies and international mobility, serious and organised crime is becoming more sophisticated and increasingly global in reach, making the police’s job more difficult. As I have said, we are dealing with 21st-century criminal entrepreneurs. They are involved in all sorts of rackets from counterfeit goods to human trafficking, prostitution and, of course, drugs, and what we need is a 21st-century police response.

The reality, however, is that many smaller forces—there are 19 in England and Wales with fewer than 2,000 officers—already struggle to meet the challenges of modern crime, and across the board, as Sir Paul Stephenson made clear in his speech on Monday evening, police resources for tackling serious and organised crime are “unco-ordinated” and “inadequate”. I am afraid to say that that is partly due to the police structures we have and a parochialism that does not address some of these serious crime issues. Many Members—probably on both sides of the House—will defend their force structure, even though it might not help or deliver the capacity to deal with some of the crimes I am talking about. That is why I believe there is a very strong case for borough level local policing, but I am certainly not convinced that at the force level some of the sizes of organisation we have are either manageable, good value for money or even delivering what we need.

The police believe that there are 68 criminal organisations with assets in excess of £10 million. These are organisations whose operations are complex and do not respect national borders, let alone police force borders. While inter-force collaboration is certainly improving—there are many good examples of it up and down the country—as the Bichard report clearly highlighted, the way our police service is structured means that all too often individual forces act separately and fail to share information with other forces. In an age in which criminals can escape quickly across police force boundaries, it is not sustainable for police forces to have to notify other forces in advance, or have protocols in place, before they can track and apprehend criminals. It slows everything down; it is not a good use of resources.

In the case of the London and Glasgow bombers in June 2007, when terrorists placed two car bombs outside a nightclub in London’s west end before driving to Scotland to ram their jeep into the entrance at Glasgow airport, detectives from London following the getaway car were concerned that if they had to make arrests en route they would have to ensure that local forces were notified and put on stand-by. Later there was also confusion about which force should lead on the case—whether it should be the Metropolitan police which had started the investigation, or the Strathclyde police in Glasgow where the case finished up.

It is also difficult for smaller police forces to invest in the assets that are needed to run complex, and often international, investigations effectively. There is a case for investigations into serious and organised crime being led by larger, more centralised crime-fighting units, and merging some functions or responsibilities, or even forces, could offer economies of scale and reduce bureaucracy and costs and lead to better outputs. Alternatively, as Sir Paul Stephenson suggested, we could have a nationally co-ordinated, federated structure for tackling organised crime, whether led by the police service or as part of an extended Serious Organised Crime Agency remit.

[Keith Vaz]

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has had an opportunity to look at the Select Committee’s detailed report on the Serious Organised Crime Agency that was concluded earlier this year, in which we raised the issue of targets as opposed to cost. If the Government are right, we are spending £500 million on SOCA, but it sees only £23 million. Does she not think that these targets need to be improved if we are to get value for money?

[Caroline Flint]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend, and the Select Committee did very good work on SOCA. I am very proud to be the former Home Office Minister who established SOCA. We brought together the National Crime Squad, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the drugs investigation arm of Customs and Excise. However, things have gone wrong on asset recovery, on which we needed to make more progress. Also, when we developed SOCA and since, we failed properly to consider its relationship to forces around the country. It is not just a question of having a national body, but of what is happening on the ground. The link between local policing and national police services such as SOCA is absolutely crucial, and I agree with my right hon. Friend that much more needs to be done to get that right.

The point is still well made that we can look for savings as well as better outcomes, but given that we are discussing the police grant, we must task the Minister with explaining how we are to protect the existing situation. Yes, there needs to be improvement, but we do not want to go backwards in our efforts to tackle organised crime through these reductions in the police grant.

Examining this issue has the potential not only to make the police more effective, but to help to deliver the savings that need to be found without necessarily reducing the number of police on our streets, and to become more effective in tackling serious and organised crime. The cost of such crime to the country is £40 billion, and there are 38,000 organised criminals and 6,000 criminal organisations. There will be no new resources for dealing with organised crime and even if there were, they would never be enough to tackle terrorism, for example.

This is a serious issue that needs to be looked at as these cuts are made, in order to ensure that we do not lose our capacity, which is already varied throughout the country, to tackle the most serious crimes that our neighbourhoods face.

14:19

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I am speaking for what I think is the third or fourth time in a police grant debate. As the legendary American baseball star “Yogi” Berra said, it is déjà vu all over again.

[Mark Tami]

Brilliant!

[Mr Jackson]

Thank you. Except that on this occasion, of course, I am on the opposite side of the Chamber. I remember the debate on 3 February with the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who delivered his lines in a typically amenable way.

It is appropriate at this point to welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) to his position. He is a seasoned reformer, and if anyone can get to grips with delivering more for less, it is he. I also wish his predecessor as the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley), all the best of luck in returning to good health; I am sure I speak for the rest of the House in that respect.

The key word in this debate is “legacy”: the legacy of the fiscal disaster we inherited from the previous Labour Government on 6 May. The shadow Minister made a good fist of synthetic outrage and faux anger at this “swingeing cut” by the coalition Government—the precursor to a plague of locusts and all things doom-laden in the state. However, it is actually a funding cut in-year of 1.46%.

The main point made by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), was that there is nothing mutually exclusive about driving forward shared services and back-office functions across different police forces on an administrative basis, while at the same time dealing with serious organised crime through such collaborations. The problem with the previous Labour Government was that their approach was all about compulsion and a lack of proper accountability and consultation. Fundamentally, Labour did not trust people to make the right decisions, which is why it still does not trust them now and is so hostile to police commissioners.

As I pointed out in an intervention on the right hon. Lady, there is no point in focusing moral outrage on a process-driven issue such as the policing pledge, which people in the Dog and Duck in Peterborough are not talking about at length. What people actually care about is real accountability and whether they have some say in local policing priorities. At the moment, they do not. At the moment, the accountability link is simply between the basic command unit and the chief constable, and upwards to the Home Office. Whether the right hon. Lady likes it or not, what actually drives local policing is what local police forces have been told to do by the Home Office.

I should have prefaced my comments by pointing out that I am biased, in that I made my maiden speech, in June 2005, on the issue of elected police commissioners, the headline in the Peterborough Evening Telegraph being, “We need city sheriff says city MP”. However, it was not as simple as that. It is a question of accountability, but also of understanding that the police authorities model is probably not fit for purpose and does not command the support and respect of the many people who pay taxes and are also afflicted by crime. These are not just people in middle-class neighbourhoods and gated communities who can afford to push crime away; they include people such as those in my constituency who are perhaps not on good incomes and do not live in the most salubrious of neighbourhoods. Such people are afflicted by drug dealing, antisocial behaviour, burglary and other serious crimes. There is absolutely nothing wrong in giving those people a real say by allowing them to influence not day-to-day operational issues, but the strategic overview of the priorities taken by the local police service—in my case, Cambridgeshire constabulary.

That was the problem of 2006, and the shadow Minister will know that it contributed, among other things, to the early departure of his erstwhile colleague the former Member for Norwich South, Charles Clarke, whose successor is in the Chamber today. The problem was one of not listening and forcing things on people, in the typical top-down regional model imposed by the Labour Government, which we have seen in fire control, and in the ill-fated campaign and referendum on the question of a regional assembly in the north-east.

There are a number of key strategic issues that this Government are tackling head on. They are focusing, for example, on the efficiency and efficacy of what is actually done on the ground. Only 14% of police time is spent on the beat; 22% is spent on paperwork. One of the issues we need to look at—hopefully, it will be examined during the Government’s review in the next few months—is the inspection regime that police services are subject to. Not only the police service but local authorities and others are subject to too much onerous, unnecessary and unnecessarily frequent inspection. Constabulary and police authority officers spend inordinate amounts of time preparing for, going through and reviewing inspection, when in fact they should be concentrating their efforts on tackling crime and putting criminals behind bars.

I must take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs, in that this is not a question of getting a key, opening the jail and letting everyone out. However, we do have a massive problem with recidivism and we must deal with it in an innovative way. I should declare an interest, in that Kalyx, which runs the 840-bed category B private prison in Peterborough, has been awarded a contract. It is a very interesting social experiment, and I believe that it will deliver the goods. Kalyx will receive 40% of the indicative cost of incarcerating a prisoner for one full year if it keeps that prisoner from recidivism and reoffending.

I am no tree-hugging lily-livered liberal on this issue—[Interruption.] Well, I guess I am compared with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, whose many contributions on penal policy I fondly remember, not least his comments on prisoners having access to ping-pong tables and Sky television, for instance. I believe it was Albert Einstein who said, “If you keep doing something over and over again and it doesn’t work, try something else.” He probably put it much more eloquently. Our approach has not worked; it costs a fortune to incarcerate people.

When I had lunch with the senior judges at Peterborough Crown court some months ago, they made the point, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) has, that there is no point incarcerating people for very short sentences—for instance, serial burglars—if we cannot teach them to read, write or add up, if we cannot give them meaningful work to earn money and if we cannot give them a position where they feel socially useful. Punishment is important, but rehabilitation is too. If we can give them a way forward to be decent members of civil society—Kalyx will do that with the scheme at Peterborough prison—that is good for society, because it will, in the end, save money for my constituents, and those of all hon. Members, in the form of taxpayer funding.

[Caroline Flint]

I agree with some of the points that the hon. Gentleman is making—illiteracy among prisoners is a big problem—but what I do not understand, and what I ask him to clarify, given that we have tried everything else with many of these burglars, is why they cannot learn to read and write during six months in prison.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

May I just remind the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) that we are dealing with the police grant? We have strayed into discussing prisons, and although I know there is a connection, we are stretching it.

[Mr Jackson]

I know that we could wander the byways and highways of penal policy for ever, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I graciously accept your admonition on that particular point and I shall return to the police grant, before you rule me out of order.

We have to be realistic about what we are being asked to accept today.

[Mr Hanson]

May I refer the hon. Gentleman to the last words of his speech in the grant settlement debate on 3 February? They were:

“I hope that we get a better settlement when we have a Conservative Government in the next few weeks.”—[Official Report, 3 February 2010; Vol. 505, c. 360.]

How does he square that with the cut that he is going to vote through today?

[Mr Jackson]

Having run up the largest deficit in peacetime history, and having got us into a position where we are spending more on the interest to service the Labour party’s debt legacy than we are on school buildings, policing and many other areas, it is a little cheeky of the right hon. Gentleman to pray in aid my own, no doubt eloquent, soaring oratory of 3 February. Funnily enough, I was doing what most Members of Parliament are elected to do, which is speak for their constituents.

The right hon. Gentleman tees me up nicely to return to discussing the situation in Cambridgeshire, which, again, relates to the legacy. The reason why I have spoken about the police grant on a number of occasions is that my local police authority was systematically underfunded during the whole period of the Labour Government. Our area has particular issues to address, although I must pay tribute to the outgoing chief constable, Julie Spence, who has done a superb job, at some cost to her reputation with the previous Government. They probably did not like the fact that she was socking them between the eyes and telling the truth about the actual pressures that she has been under in delivering a first-class police service. I pay particular tribute to the fact that she was willing to tell it how it is, although that may have made her slightly unpopular with Ministers, and I also pay tribute to chief superintendent Andy Hebb of the northern basic command unit.

Labour’s legacy of deliberate underfunding means that Cambridgeshire has 408 fewer officers than the national force average, and Cambridgeshire’s force has 185 fewer officers than similar forces. I make no apologies for saying this, because this Government have been in power for only eight weeks. If anyone has to take responsibility for underfunding the police service in Cambridgeshire it is the Labour party, which so egregiously underfunded my Cambridgeshire constabulary and my constituents’ police service. However, because we have excellent police officers in Cambridgeshire, work is already in train to make the necessary savings to accommodate the £1.2 million in-year budget cut, to which the right hon. Gentleman helpfully referred, while minimising the impact on front-line services.

My area has particular issues to address, which Ministers have known about because I have often articulated them to this House. Between 16,000 and 20,000 EU migrants have come to Peterborough since 2004, but under the previous Government precious little attempt was made by the Home Office to do anything about that, or to recognise the particular policing and crime issues that it brought. For instance, we have had to deal with people who are driving drunk, people who think it culturally acceptable to carry knives, and people who do not have insurance for their vehicles.

People trafficking has also been an issue in my constituency, and I shall give the shadow Minister one example of that. In 2004 Cambridgeshire constabulary noted that there were three sex establishment brothels in Peterborough, whereas by 2007 there were 47. This was one of the big growth areas in the economy under the Labour Government, before they plunged the economy into the disastrous mess that we inherited.

I was a voice crying in the wilderness, despite all the issues that I raised. Such issues included the fact that 10 of the wards most vulnerable to a breakdown in community cohesion are in Peterborough, according to the vulnerable localities index, which was developed by the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science, and which assists police forces such as Cambridgeshire’s in identifying the communities most at risk of breakdown, tension and fragmentation. Some 27% of Peterborough’s primary pupils have English as a second language, with more than 80 languages being spoken. That is a clear reflection of significant demographic changes, which feed through into the challenges on crime and policing: for instance, Cambridgeshire constabulary’s translation and interpretation bill is more than £1 million a year. However, we received no specific help from the previous Government to assist us in dealing with those problems. More than half of Cambridgeshire’s prolific and priority offenders in the catch and convict scheme in August 2009 were in Peterborough. The northern basic command unit has dealt with more grade A incidents in this financial year to date and has also arrested more suspects in June than the other Cambridgeshire command units. This is because Peterborough is the largest urban conurbation in the county. Those are the challenges. It would be remiss of me not to admit that I see the police grant report and the debate through the prism of being a constituency Member of Parliament. Had the right hon. Member for Delyn been on the other side of the Chamber I would be saying exactly the same thing, so I make no apologies.

New thinking is coming along the tracks. It is acceptable, and it is to be wished for, that the new Government should focus on what is being done in local government and with the Total Place concept. They should carefully examine shared functions, shared purchasing and procurement, training, human resources, payroll and other such issues, and bringing in civilians to do the jobs that front-line uniformed officers hitherto would have done, so that those officers can be put on to the front line. There are plenty of good ideas about.

We all regret the fact that the budget has to be reduced, and we know the reasons for that. My hon. Friends will doubtless rehearse those arguments in respect of their local police authorities before the end of this debate. I do not like to say it, but I will be accepting the argument of the Government that this has to be done and that we have no choice. But it is my belief that when we have got the fiscal deficit under control, and when we are in a position really to tackle these issues after four years of innovative thinking in terms of working together across police authorities and having new police commissioners who focus principally on local people’s priorities, we will be in a position to deliver a better police service at lower cost for our constituents. That is what they elected us to do.

14:39

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the thoughtful speeches of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson). We all thought that his ambition in life was to be the Member of Parliament for his city, but now we know that he really wants to be the sheriff of Peterborough. Whether he goes and hugs those trees is another matter, but the constituency angle that he has taken should be considered by the House when dealing with the police grant.

I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box for his first of what I hope will be many debates on the police grant. I hope that he will pass on our very best wishes to the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley), who as shadow Police Minister was a frequent attendee at these events and whose comments from the Dispatch Box were very incisive.

These are difficult times and of course we understand that a new Government are always keen to blame the previous Government for the decisions that they will make. I, too, was present at the debate earlier this year when the police grant was, in effect, agreed by both sides of the House. I do not know what those on my Front Bench have decided to do, but I assume that they will vote against the reduction in the police grant. I am not sure—I am sure that somebody will remind me—but I think that in February the House was unanimous in approving the grant, and rightly so. This is one of the priorities of the people of this country.

I am glad to hear that in the Labour party manifesto the Home Office budget was ring-fenced. I cannot absolutely remember the section, although I imagine that my right hon. Friend the shadow Police Minister wrote it, so he would know. I am sorry that the Government did not do the same thing as part of the coalition agreement. I understand that we have to preserve the budgets of the national health service and education, but as far as law and order is concerned we—or the coalition Government—will regret the fact that they did not work harder to keep the Home Office budget intact. Why? This is a key priority, as the hon. Member for Peterborough has said, for every single Member of this House through the prism of their local constituency.

We know that the demand from local people is for more doctors and nurses, better schools and more police officers. Every single local campaign—not just campaigns launched by the Liberal Democrat party, as some would say—local petition and local survey shows that local people say that they want more police officers. The visibility of a police officer on the beat is the absolute sign that the public are being protected. Anything that cuts into that budget and prevents the reality of the local police officer on the beat will cause each and every Member of this House some pain.

Clearly, Opposition Members will feel some pain because Ministers and Government Members will always say, “Well, this is because of the shadow Chief Secretary’s letter, so we have to do all this.” Looking around the Chamber, I think that I might have been here longer than anyone else who is present—although not longer than every Member put together—and one thing that I remember and that Members should remember as elected representatives is that, ultimately, memories are quite short. Over a certain period, one can use the mantra, “They left us with no money”—eight weeks is not long enough not to use it—but by the end of the year local people will be very frustrated when they pick up their phones and the police officers they want are not there.

That was why I was so pleased to hear the commitment made from the Dispatch Box this afternoon by the Police Minister: he anticipates that, notwithstanding the reduction in the police grant, the number of police officers in front-line services will remain intact. Of course, the actual analysis is out of his hands. At the end of the day, it will be for local chief constables and police authorities to say whether that is what happens, but I know that that is his ambition and it is a very good ambition for a Police Minister to have. It is a very good ambition for a Conservative—even though it is a coalition Government—Police Minister to stand up at the Dispatch Box in the House of Commons and to say in his first speech, “We do not want to reduce the number of police officers. We want to keep it the same and perhaps, if we get those structural changes, to increase it.” As he knows, one of the great achievements of the previous Government was a record number of police officers—147,000 police officers, 16,000 police community support officers and 79,000 new civilians working in the police force. These are figures to die for, in my view. Every Police Minister would love to get to the Dispatch Box and say that those figures will remain intact.

We must work with the Government to try to ensure that that happens. I know that it sounds odd, but I have always seen policing issues as above party politics. There is agreement that local people want to see crime reduced, they want to see their police officers out on the beat and they want to be able to see quick responses to their problems, so let us see whether there is a way in which we can help the Government to do that. Tomorrow, the Home Secretary is coming to give evidence to the Select Committee—it will be her first appearance. I am very pleased that the Police Minister is coming in two weeks’ time, and I thank him for the speed with which he responded to my request. That is the appropriate mechanism to analyse the Government’s claims and the concerns of local police committees and chief constables. We want to get to a position where we use the pot of money properly and adequately, so that there is not the reduction in numbers that I think will happen but the Minister hopes will not.

Those changes that we have heard about today have been present in every debate that we have had on policing, certainly during the three years for which I have been the Chair of the Select Committee. The first is structural change, by consent and not for structural change’s sake. The second is collaboration. As we have seen throughout the country, forces are working together, whether that involves borrowing a helicopter, as they did in Cumbria during the Whitehaven tragedy, or the way in which the police force in Northumberland reacted so quickly to the problems of the past two weeks. Such collaboration is ongoing. The third is better procurement, so that we have one set of contracts rather than 43.

The fourth change is ensuring that we do not just have initiatives. I accept what the Minister says when he asks what the point is of a brand-new police station—people do not really want their police officers in a police station; they want them outside. But sometimes we need brand-new police stations. We cannot expect all our police officers to operate from a Doctor Who-type TARDIS. There have to be police stations to hold people in detention, so that officers can deal with those requirements that legislators place on our local police forces.

The fifth change is a reduction in bureaucracy. Of course, we all agree that that should happen. Let us implement the Berry report and the Flanagan report in full. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) was a member of the Select Committee in the last Parliament and he co-authored the report “Policing in the 21st century”, which talked about all those things but also about investment in technology. In the long term, we can cut bureaucracy by giving police officers hand-held computers. The Minister will not win his battle with the Treasury for more money, because he is trying to cope with less money. However, that is what we have to do in the future.

We have an investment in this matter on both sides of the House as constituency MPs as well as a duty to the public to ensure that we work together to try to cut away waste. I do not think that there is a huge amount of waste in the police force. I know that we have heard about potted plants and iPods in certain Government Departments, but there is always a story like that. I assure the Minister that in a couple of years’ time, the Opposition will be coming out with such stories. The fact is that we need to ensure that when we give money it is monitored much more closely. Perhaps there ought to be more strings. The last Government were probably too generous in providing so much funding and not very firm in monitoring it.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a question not just of pot plants and mood music, but of the fact that police forces in England and Wales have to deal with some 6,500 pages of nationally given guidelines from the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers? Her Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary said only a few days ago that putting those documents end to end would reach as high as the Eiffel tower. That is waste and bureaucracy, is it not?

[Keith Vaz]

Yes, it is. I do not say that everything the last Government did was absolutely perfect. I have related one example to the House on many occasions. I once went up to Staffordshire and looked at the work of Staffordshire police to reduce from 24 sheets to one sheet the documentation that is required when someone is charged. After that, every time the Home Secretary got up, I asked, “Have you rolled out this brilliant idea across the country?” but the answer was no, because the system worked so slowly. We will expect better from this Police Minister, because he is so keen to deal with waste. We want to make sure that good practice is adopted as quickly as possible and is rolled out. We do not want excuses such as that it takes a long time to write a letter to chief constables.

The points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) are correct. I did not know that she actually invented the Serious Organised Crime Agency; had I done so, we would have called her to give evidence. There are examples of our providing huge amounts of money, such as half a billion pounds for SOCA, which seized only £23 million, and £400,000 for the National Policing Improvement Agency, and spending £79 million on consultants. Those are the kinds of issues that we should have dealt with in the past 13 years, but sometimes Ministers cannot, as the new Minister will find, know exactly what is going on.

[Caroline Flint]

They do not stay long enough.

[Keith Vaz]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In her case, she was promoted to become the Minister for Europe and the rest is history. We need Ministers to stay in place long enough to see what happens when their decisions are implemented.

The Select Committee will be constructive and will not just condemn. We are going to put good practice on our website, without waiting for it to go on the Home Office website, with lots of arrows pointing to good practices and asking, “Why isn’t this followed in Cambridgeshire, Essex, Leicestershire or elsewhere?” We will hold the Government to account on that.

The Minister has repeated the words that were used at the Association of Chief Police Officers conference of 1 July, saying that he wants the police to be crime fighters, not form fillers. We all agree with that—there is no problem with that statement—but a reduction in the police grant is proposed today, and if the comprehensive spending review cuts the police budget by 25%, ACPO has said that would mean 20,000 fewer police officers. There will be conflict between the Government and the police force, because it will not remain silent, just as it did not remain silent on police pay.

I had only one really robust conversation with the previous Prime Minister, which will not be in my memoirs, although I have thought of a name for them: I am going to call them “The 23rd Man” rather than “The Third Man”. That robust conversation occurred when I reminded him that we had a duty to respect the police. There is no point in Ministers and shadow Ministers, every time there is some great tragedy, coming to the Dispatch Box and praising the police but then not giving them the pay rise that was agreed in arbitration. When we are in the position of cutting perhaps 20,000 police officers, we will have a severe problem and the police force will be in conflict with the Government. I hope it does not come to that.

I hope also that Parliament will support the Minister in his battle with the Treasury. I know it is difficult for Ministers to do this in the current economic climate, but policing policy needs defending. The Minister should feel confident that he can go to the Chancellor, quote speeches such as that of the hon. Member for Peterborough and say, “At a local level, we cannot have fewer police officers. We must retain the level and we must invest in our police service.” I joined others on the streets of our capital to oppose what the Labour Government did on police pay, because I think that we need to defend the police not just at the Dispatch Box, but outside.

[Robert Halfon]

I am interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman’s eloquent speech. He talks about retaining numbers, but given that 80% of the police budget is spent on staffing costs, which is a huge amount, surely one way of retaining the numbers is by reducing that 80%.

[Keith Vaz]

That will, of course, happen with the reduction before us today, even though some chief constables have said that they will not make police officers redundant. Under the proposals that Treasury Ministers have put to the Home Office for a reduction of 25%, I am afraid that that will happen. What I am saying is that the hon. Gentleman will have to go back to Harlow, as I will have to go back to Leicester and other Members will have to go back to their constituencies, and explain why that has happened. The mantra, “They left us with no money,” is not going to be enough, so we need to work constructively. We need to help the Minister to do battle with the Treasury. We need to try to ring-fence this budget, because policing is just as important as the NHS and just as important as schools and education. It needs to be protected. I hope that the Minister understands that in the months ahead, with the CSR and other considerations, he should feel free to come to Parliament and listen to what colleagues are saying about the impact at local level. If he does that, he will understand that the global figures are one thing, but that the cuts at local level will be severe.

This is an important debate and I hope that we will have another opportunity in the near future to discuss all the other ideas that Members have put forward, because the package cannot stand on its own. It has to be done with all the other reforms and changes that are necessary. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) was a pretty good Police Minister, but if he were here doing what the present Minister is doing, I would vote against his Government, because I think it is wrong to reduce the police budget in this way. We need to realise how important this area of policy is and do our best to defend it.

14:57

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

I think we need to be clear about one thing: if the last Government had spent within their means, we would not now be having this debate and we would not be faced with having to reduce the police grant. As a nation, we simply cannot go on spending at the rate we are—borrowing £1 out of every £4 we spend. The reduction of the police grant must be seen in that context. It is a direct consequence of Labour’s economic mismanagement. I am confident that the police will have the managerial abilities to absorb the 1.46% reduction without front-line services being affected. Let us remember that even after the reduction, the police grant for this year will still be higher than it was last year. Compared with last year, this is not a cut, but simply a smaller increase.

In times of economic hardship, every area of expenditure has to be examined and we have to ask whether items of expenditure are really necessary. We have to ask whether what we are doing could be done more economically. The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) talked about neighbourhood policing teams holding monthly meetings; we have to ask whether they really have to be monthly. Has any analysis been done of what percentage of local residents attend those meetings every month? As the chief constable of Greater Manchester police Peter Fahy wrote earlier this month:

“The numbers of staff in front line policing is important, but more important is what these staff are doing, the degree to which they are freed up from bureaucracy and the overall impact they are achieving.”

The Government have already scrapped Labour’s targets for the police force and have made it clear that the police’s only job is to cut crime. The only real test of an effective police force is not what it spends or the number of staff it employs, but how it protects the public it serves. Under this Government, police paperwork is being cut so that the police can spend more time out on the beat. That is what the public want to see, and I urge the whole House to support the motion.

15:00

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

One of the Government’s first acts was to cut £7 million from the West Midlands police budget in this financial year. We are seeing cuts in police numbers, cuts in prison places and restrictions on closed circuit television and the use of DNA. I worry about the start that the Government have made, and I worry about the signal that they are sending on crime. Sir Hugh Orde, the president of Association of Chief Police Officers, has warned that it will be impossible to sustain the current number of police officers under the Government’s plans. Far from being fair and reasonable, as the Minister suggested, Sir Hugh says that it will be impossible to meet the demand for police on the streets.

The West Midlands police force is not an inefficient one. It is quite willing to recognise that it must make savings in these difficult financial times. Under Programme Paragon, it has ripped up its 21 command units and reduced them to 11 local policing units. That should save about £50 million, or about 8% of its budget, over three years. The force is not resistant to the economic circumstances that it faces. It is cutting overtime and bonus payments. It is cutting its training budget by about £500,000—not something I am sure is necessarily a good measure in the long run, but it is certainly not resisting the Government’s suggestion that it should make efficiencies. The reality is that, despite what it is doing, it is being punished by the Government for taking reasonable steps to recognise the economic circumstances that we live in.

The Minister failed to answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) when she asked about elected police commissioners, but the West Midlands police authority’s view is that those proposals are unnecessary and unwelcome. I have as yet had no contact from constituents to tell me that the biggest priority for policing is to elect police commissioners. I have had plenty of contact from constituents about crime and policing issues, but electing police commissioners is certainly not one of them. The West Midlands police authority makes it quite clear that it fears that the Government will politicise the police. That is what that proposal risks doing.

The reality is that not only is the West Midlands police force an efficient one, but crime is falling in the west midlands and public satisfaction surveys are good. The surveys show that the public are happy with the police response and welcome the greater visibility of the police. I can give the figures for attending the local tasking meetings in my constituency. If the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) does not have that information, I suggest that he contact his local commander, because it is available in most forces.

Bishop Derek Webley, who is the independent chairman of the police authority, has warned that the danger in a place such as the west midlands is that an elected police commissioner—a single person—cannot represent our diverse community. Far from such elections being an open step on accountability, they will be a backward step and do the opposite. The reality is that this is simply a Tory party experiment that survived; it is a Tory manifesto commitment that endured, while the Liberal Democrat promise on police numbers was dropped. It is an experiment that, in these straitened economic times, which we have been told about repeatedly today, will cost about £50 million—money that could be spent on policing, including protecting my constituents. If the Government are worried about austerity and the problems of the deficit, this is hardly the time to engage in political experiments with the police. It is an utterly unwelcome step. As Bishop Webley says, it is “a costly exercise” that will put the focus on short-term policing.

The things that we have heard suggested in the debate today, such as the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley that there should be a better connection between local problems and how organised crime develops, will be lost because we will elect someone every four years whose sole priority will be to get re-elected. The whole focus of policing will be skewed as a result of these measures. I have not heard a single constituent say that they are welcome. I have not heard a single rational defence of them today. We are told that the Government are worried about money, but they are prepared to waste money on an unnecessary experiment while they cut mainstream police budgets.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the tried and tested experiments that the last Government made in Northern Ireland was the Policing Board? It was made up of a majority of elected members, not elected directly but drawn from the Northern Ireland Assembly, and a minority of people chosen by the Government from the community. Although it was ridiculed at first, it became one of the most stable ways to hold the police to account, because it included exactly what he suggests: cross-community, cross-sectoral interest groups, holding the police to account on a regular monthly basis. That has resulted in crime being driven down because police performance was put under the microscope monthly.

[Steve McCabe]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Policing in Northern Ireland is particularly difficult, but the steps that have been taken there have helped to broaden community support for the police. I am not averse to any measure that will make the police more accountable or broaden community support, but I am averse to wasting £50 million, when we have financial difficulties, on an experiment that has no basis or validity and that no Minister has yet shown any willingness to try to defend. That is what I am against.

The Liberal Democrats told us that they would put more police on the streets by scrapping identity cards. Well, we have considered the Identity Documents Bill in Committee—the Bill to scrap ID cards is in train—but it will not save us money; the Government will spend an extra £500 million this year to scrap ID cards. That money could be spent on the police. If they spent more time thinking about the police and less time pursuing these fantasies and being obsessed with cuts that serve an ideological purpose, which is their real basis, the police would be better off.

The West Midlands police are very concerned that the Government have indicated that they are not likely to give them a special grant, as is the normal custom, to cover the security costs of the Pope’s visit. Perhaps the Minister will want to say something about that at some stage, but as well as having our budget cut, we will incur extra costs, which a Government would normally partly support with an additional grant. That is what happened when the Labour party was in power. I can remember occasions, including the G8 summit, when such funding was provided, but that has not been promised this time.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend caught what Lord Patten said on the radio the other day. As the organiser of the Pope’s visit, he said that there will be a clear separation in that the costs of the state visit will be borne by the state and, where the visit is for Church-related purposes, the costs will be borne by the Church. Clearly, I do not know which category specific events will fall into when the Pope is in my hon. Friend’s constituency, but I recommend that he has words with Lord Patten to ensure that the appropriate funding is received from the appropriate body and that there is no additional strain on the public of his constituency in the west midlands.

[Steve McCabe]

I take my hon. Friend’s point. I simply say that it is customary to provide a special grant for such events. That is not what the West Midlands police authority has been promised at the moment. If the Minister wants to correct that, I am quite happy to give way to him. Not only are the Government not giving a special grant, but they will make the West Midlands police authority meet 20% of the cost of Operation Pelkin—to the rest of us, that is the Tory party conference in Birmingham in October. Some £800,000, which could be spent on supporting my constituents in their fight against crime, will be spent on supporting the Tory party conference in Birmingham. I am afraid that it is nonsense to say that this is a fair and reasonable settlement, and that the Government are doing what they have to do because of an economic necessity. This is the Tory party doing what the Tory party always does. It has a pretext for attacking the public sector and the police. It will waste money on political experiments and make my constituents pay the cost. The things that it promised before the election are as worthless as the policies that it is implementing now.

15:10

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). I seem to have spent most of my short career as a Member listening to him in the Identity Documents Public Bill Committee and in the Chamber—his tones are deceptively Birmingham-sounding.

I shall confine my remarks to the amending report on the police budget and the reasons why I am prepared to support it, despite Derbyshire’s police funding problems. I campaigned on the need to tackle this country’s humungous budget deficit, and we cannot escape the fact that the Home Office will have to do its fair share of dealing with the problem. As much as we would like the savings to be found from admin costs in the Home Office—and perhaps by addressing the 6,500 pages of national guidance about which we have heard—we must accept that police forces will have to find their share of the cost.

My worry about the approach that has been adopted is that a straight-line saving is to be applied to each and every police force throughout the country, despite the different funding that those forces enjoyed—if I can use that word—under the previous Government. Following my discussions with the Minister about this point, I accept that if he was to bring about in-year funding, he had no alternative but to take such an approach. However, if we are to achieve value-for-money, efficient and effective police forces in the long term, we will need to ensure that each force receives fair funding and to implement the existing funding formula fully, instead of showing what each force needs and then giving it a vastly different amount, perhaps to help more preferred regions.

It is easy for a Back Bencher to accept the need for cuts in theory but then to demand that those cuts do not affect their own force and constituency. As a Derbyshire Member, I would find it particularly easy to cite facts to support that argument—I shall talk about them later—but I assure the Minister that I am not asking him to increase the police budget. I even accept that he cannot maintain the current budget for forces, but I hope that he will implement the funding formula properly so that forces such as Derbyshire get the funding that the formula says they need, rather than a significantly smaller amount.

The Derbyshire force is the 10th lowest spending force per head. The previous Government’s failure to implement the funding formula has cost Derbyshire £26 million over the past five years, and £4.5 million in this year alone. That money could give Derbyshire an extra 200 police officers, perhaps 20 of whom would be in my constituency, with seven for each town. Hon. Members can imagine the improvement that that would make to my constituents’ lives.

The cause of the lack of funding is not that Derbyshire is a low-crime area; I am comparing the funding given by the previous Government with the amount for which the funding formula should provide on the basis of Derbyshire’s crime needs. We have heard a lot about how forces could collaborate to save money, but the problem affects not just Derbyshire, because forces throughout the whole east midlands are significantly underfunded. East midlands police forces receive the lowest grant per crime in the country—£1,459—while the Met and north-east forces receive more than £2,400 per crime. That is not fair to the people of the east midlands, Derbyshire or Amber Valley.

I urge the Minister to address the problem. I am not saying that the east midlands and Derbyshire forces cannot make efficiency savings or do things better—the forces themselves would not say that—but surely it cannot be right that we expect the Derbyshire force to make efficiency savings on its grant of £1,459 per crime when other forces receive an extra £1,000 a crime. Such forces must find it easier to make efficiency savings than those that already receive less funding.

I am asking not for a wholesale, lengthy and expensive review of the funding formula, just that it is implemented properly. I am not asking the Minister to do that today, or even in full from next year. However, he needs to accelerate the progress towards removing the damping process so that, by the end of this Parliament, the police receive their fair share of the funding and can therefore do their fair share of tackling crime.

15:15

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

As part of the effort to reduce the £900 billion of public debt, Essex police authority’s budget is being cut in this financial year. Mr Barker-McCardle, the Essex chief inspector, has said that it is his

“absolute priority to sustain front-line operational…services”.

Essex police have made efficiencies of 25% in four years and spend just £153 per capita on policing each year, compared with £175 elsewhere. Given the force’s track record of shrinking back-office costs, the Essex chief constable has said that he is

“optimistic that we can tackle a £2.6 million cut without taking police officers off the street.”

Front-line policing is therefore safe in Harlow and in Essex, but there is a more substantial question: how can we deliver better policing, given our financial constraints? There are several strands to that thread, but I shall concentrate on just one.

If we transform special constables into a Territorial Army-type force, they could cover more policing duties and offer excellent value for money. That could be paid for by rebalancing our police forces over several years. For example, as natural churn and retirement thin the ranks of police community support officers, each PCSO could be replaced by two or three special constables, each on a TA-type stipend. That would increase a force’s overall capacity at times of crisis, as well as save money. It would also do a huge amount to boost retention among specials, who are very expensive to train, recruit and equip. Specials make up a genuinely local force, like neighbourhood watch, and offer an invaluable source of community intelligence.

For the past six years, Essex police authority has been working in harmony and partnership with the Conservative county council and Kent police authority. During that time, Essex’s specials force has doubled from 350 officers to nearly 700. That is a credit to Essex police authority and the brave volunteers who serve the public as specials, often in hazardous conditions. We need to build on that solid base by incentivising specials to work more hours and develop professionally.

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

I greatly value “two for the price of one” in my local supermarket, but does the hon. Gentleman really think that that is appropriate when dealing with crime, policing, and law and order?

[Robert Halfon]

I absolutely believe that a larger number of specials would help our front-line policing considerably.

I accept that I am setting out the embryo of an idea and that the proposal’s costs and benefits would need rigorous assessment, but I think that it is worth exploring. In the context of unavoidable cuts to police grants, a better retention rate among special constables would save money. Specials also give communities a tough local police force with full powers. More specials would, like the TA, give us defence in depth at a time of crisis.

I must stress, however—I am sure that this will please the Minister—that I am not calling for more money to be spent. My proposal is about refocusing the resources that we already have. Sadly, this year’s £2.6 million cut to Essex policing is Labour’s legacy, but I am glad that Mr Barker-McCardle has said that it is his

“absolute priority to sustain front-line operational police services”.

If we want to deliver better policing with less money, we must enhance the special constables, because every time that we lose a special, we incur the cost of recruiting, training and equipping another, as well as losing their experience. The cuts are unavoidable and, of course, to be regretted, but they give us an opportunity to transform our police service with a focus on value for money. As part of that process, I hope that we will consider enhancing special constables.

15:19

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

I am grateful to be called in the debate. I will support the Government today, but with the proviso that we look at the funding formula. I am not blessed with the deficit denial that some hon. Members seem to be blessed with. The fact that we find ourselves in such dire financial circumstances leads me to the conclusion that we clearly need to take action, but we need to create a balance amongst some of the police forces. There will always be strains between different regional authorities and regions, but only one region loses out across the board, and that is the east midlands. In particular, Nottinghamshire police has had enormous problems in terms of getting its fair share of the funding formula.

The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) referred to the strain on the Northumberland police created by the Moat case. I know he will have been grateful for the expertise of the Nottinghamshire firearms department, which assisted in that case despite the enormous disparity between those two police authorities. It may be worth pointing out that last year in Nottinghamshire there were 23,122 violent crimes, and in Northumberland there were 20,868. Clearly, Nottinghamshire has more violent crime. However, Nottinghamshire receives £141 per capita, whereas Northumberland receives £171 per capita, an enormous difference of £30. That manifests itself in the number of police officers that are available to each authority. In Nottinghamshire, we have 2,380 officers; Northumberland has 4,028. There is no doubt that such a disparity in the funding formula leads to the criticism of Nottinghamshire police, which many hon. Members will have seen in the press, and praise for Northumberland police. Will the Minister commit to implementing at a much greater speed the recommendations of the Flanagan report, and the Lyons report which preceded it, in balancing the amount of cash to our regions and authorities.

I welcome many of the policies that the Minister is bringing forward. I look forward to elected police commissioners. Many constituents tell me that the police do not recognise their priorities, and having an elected police commissioner will focus the minds of those police authorities on their genuine needs and priorities, and make sure that they are addressed. I welcome the examination of the procurement process nationally. I cannot help but notice that after 13 years, the previous Government started to talk about that in their last year, and within nine weeks of coming to the Dispatch Box, the Minister is driving that forward and moving us in the right direction. That really highlights the difference between talk and action, and I welcome the fact that the Government will take action and ensure that we get the right results.

15:23

[Nick Herbert]

We have had a good debate and a number of points have been made by right hon. and hon. Members, to which I will try to respond as quickly as I can. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) asked for an assessment of police numbers now, and it is true that some forces were freezing recruitment before the general election. He also asked about our stance in relation to the comprehensive spending review, a point that was also made by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who suggested that the police budget should have been protected. We will not know the amounts that will be available for policing until the outcome of that spending review, and those are precisely the discussions that we are having within Government at the moment. Again, decisions will be made about the special grants, including those for neighbourhood policing and so on, which we will announce in good time.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), who I am sorry to see is no longer in his place, was concerned about the Pope’s visit. I understand that a bid is expected from Warwickshire police, whose region the Pope will visit, and from other forces, such as the West Midlands, and they will be considered under the special grant. The hon. Gentleman complained about policing costs in relation to the Conservative party conference that is due to be held in Birmingham. Considerable economic benefits accrue to places where party conferences are held, in terms of the number of people attending and so on. I understand that West Midlands police have bid for £4.5 million of special grant for the costs incurred in policing the Conservative party conference this year. By comparison, Greater Manchester police have bid for £4.2 million for the cost of policing the Labour party conference in Manchester this year. That is more than the amount awarded to Greater Manchester police in special grant for the costs incurred in policing the Conservative party conference in October the previous year. Labour Members might like to reflect on why in opposition their conference should be more expensive to police than the Conservative party conference was when it was in opposition.

The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) made a forceful speech in which I understood her to propose that there should be compulsory amalgamations of police forces. I know that that is a policy that has long since been abandoned by the official Opposition, having failed to deliver it. I did talk about the importance of serious crime and ensuring collaboration to deal with it.

[Caroline Flint]

rose—

[Nick Herbert]

If the right hon. Lady will forgive me, I have no time.

[Caroline Flint]

rose—

[Nick Herbert]

I have very little time, if hon. Members will forgive me. I want to respond to the thoughtful contribution to the Select Committee Chair.

[Caroline Flint]

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is plenty of time, and as the hon. Gentleman has accused me of suggesting a policy that I did not suggest, I should have the right to intervene.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is not a point of order. The debate can continue until 3.47 pm, but it is up to the Minister to decide whether to accept an intervention.

[Nick Herbert]

I will allow the right hon. Lady to intervene.

[Caroline Flint]

I thank the Minister. I did not suggest that there should be compulsory amalgamation of police forces. I was pointing out the problems in the current force structure that must be attended to to ensure that we have the best possible capacity to deal with serious and organised crime. That is a debate that we should be having, both in terms of value for money and efficiency.

[Nick Herbert]

I think that many of us heard the right hon. Lady suggest that there should be forced amalgamations. We will be able to read the record and check. I am happy to have her assurance that she did not, in which case her position would appear not to differ from that of the Government. I remind her that I talked about being tougher and about achieving savings and collaboration where there was a policing need, for instance, in relation to serious crime. I do not believe she was making points that had not been understood by the Government in relation to the importance of ensuring that policing serious crime is protected.

I listened with interest to the contribution of the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. He drew attention to the importance of assessing the effectiveness and performance of the national policing bodies, including the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the National Policing Improvement Agency, which is under review. We do have concerns about value for money and ensuring that those organisations deliver the necessary outcomes, given the large sums of taxpayers’ money that are awarded to them. He was right to draw attention to that.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s warnings about relations with the police in the future, I should point out that we are asking police officers, in common with other public sector employees, to make sacrifices. We expect the police service to be subject to the same pay freeze—dependent on proper negotiations with the Police Negotiating Board—as other members of the public sector, and we want to ensure that the police are treated both fairly and equally.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) talked about the importance of special constables, and I could not agree more. In the 1950s, partly as a hangover from the war, there were 67,000 specials; now there are 14,000. Some progress has been made in recent years to recruit more, but there is a huge untapped potential to recruit more policing volunteers, and we should take that seriously, rather than dismissing it, as I thought one Opposition Member intended to do.

In an effective speech about the importance of local policing, my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) talked about the faux anger and synthetic outrage that we have seen from Opposition Members. We have seen not only that but exaggerated claims about the impact of the spending cuts that we are now asking the House to approve. I repeat that, for each police force, these cuts represents less than 1.5% of the amount of money that they will receive from central Government, and less than 1% of their total budget this year. I repeat also, whose fault is it? It is the fault of the Opposition, given the economic legacy that they have bequeathed to this country, and it is the responsibility of this Government and our Members to deal with it. We will face up to that responsibility, and I hope that hon. Members will support the motion.

Question put.

15:31

Division 23

Ayes: 324

---

Conservative: 272
Liberal Democrat: 51

Noes: 234

---

Labour: 221
Democratic Unionist Party: 8
Plaid Cymru: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1

Resolved,

That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) for 2010-11: Amending Report 2010-11 (House of Commons Paper No. 47), which was laid before this House on 10 June, be approved.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

15:44

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

I beg to move,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of Section 25) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 24 June, be approved.

Our country has many years’ experience of dealing with terrorism. Five years after the appalling events of 7/7, the threat from Islamist terrorists is well known. The threat from dissident Irish republican terrorists has not gone away, and new threats will undoubtedly emerge in future.

Terrorism is not just another crime. Its purpose is political, its methods are barbaric and its effects can be devastating. For those reasons, dealing with terrorism and terrorist suspects cannot be treated in the same way as dealing with other crimes and other criminal suspects. The potential loss of life from terrorism means that the priority of the police and security agencies is to stop attacks happening in the first place. That often means that they have to intervene at a very early stage to prevent the terrorists’ plans from becoming too far advanced, which often means that there has been insufficient time to gather enough admissible evidence to charge the suspects. So, uniquely in terrorism cases, it is often after arrest that most of the evidential investigation takes place.

Furthermore, once arrests have been made the police can be presented with an enormous volume of information, which is exacerbated by three things: first, modern communications, because of the increasing and more sophisticated use of encryption; secondly, globalisation, because of the complexity of international terrorist networks and the need for co-operation in often difficult diplomatic circumstances; and, thirdly, the ambitions of the terrorists, because of the need for forensic examination of the hazardous and volatile materials that many wish to use as their weapons.

Unlike Ministers in the previous Government, I say that not to make the case for 28 days’, 42 days’ or 90 days’ detention before charge, but because I believe that it is important to remember during the debate the gravity of the threat that we face, and the difficulty of the job done by the police and the intelligence and security services.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Obviously, one understands that there is an important and serious job of investigation to be done. However, this country has a uniquely long period of pre-trial detention—far longer than that of any comparable country. I know that the Home Secretary has undertaken a review of that, so would it not be sensible to give a signal that we intend to reduce the length of pre-charge detention, by decreasing it to 14 days today rather than reaffirming the 28-day order? We reaffirmed the prevention of terrorism Acts throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Every time we said that the matter would be re-examined. Maybe this time, we should do something.

[Mrs May]

If the hon. Gentleman has some patience and listens to what I am saying, he will hear the signal that I want to give about 28 days. However, he will recognise that, by definition, the fact that I have moved that the order for the 28-day measure be continued for six months means that I am not suggesting that the detention period should change to 14 days today.

I have set out the nature of the threat, and it is important that we recognise its gravity in the debate, but it must be met by taking proportionate action, and the job must be done with proportionate powers. That is why, yesterday, I announced the inclusion of pre-charge detention in my review of counter-terrorism powers, along with control orders, stop-and-search powers, the use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, deportations with assurances, and measures to deal with organisations promoting hatred or violence.

I want to make it absolutely clear to the House that I consider the 28-day limit to be a temporary measure, and I want it brought to an end once I have completed my review. Since the power to detain for 28 days was passed by Parliament and came into force in July 2006, 11 people have been held for more than 14 days, eight were charged with terrorist-related offences, and four were found guilty. Of those, six people have been held for between 27 and 28 days, three were charged with terrorist-related offences, and two were found guilty. No suspect has been held for more than 14 days since July 2007. When one considers that in the 12 months ending in December 2009 28 terrorism-related trials were completed, with 93% convictions, including six life sentences, it is clear to me that the power to detain for up to 28 days is not needed routinely for the police to investigate, interrogate and charge terrorist suspects.

The possibility remains that in some extreme circumstances it might be necessary to detain some suspects beyond 14 days, but those circumstances remain rare and extreme, and we need to be sure that the powers are never abused. That is why we need to take time to consider pre-charge detention as part of the review of counter-terrorism powers. Therefore, in moving today’s motion, I am asking hon. Members not to support 28 days indefinitely, nor to support 28 days for 12 months, as was envisaged in the Terrorism Act 2006, but to support a renewal for six months while the counter-terrorism review considers how we can reduce the limit.

The draft order that I have laid before the House will come into force on 25 July and will expire on 24 January 2011. After that, it will be up to me as Home Secretary to come back to the House to ask for a further extension, to let the limit fall to 14 days, or to present new proposals that reduce the limit but introduce contingency arrangements in extreme circumstances.

The review of counter-terrorism powers will, as I said yesterday, be informed by the principles of the coalition Government. Those principles—shared principles—are based on a respect for our ancient civil liberties and individual freedom. There is nothing we take more seriously than our duty to protect the public, but in doing so we will not, as the previous Government did, forget to defend our way of life.

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

In her reply to me yesterday, the Home Secretary said that her favoured time would be 14 days. We know that that is the view of the Liberals and the view that is coming out of the Home Office, so why waste time and expense if we already know the result? Why not get on with this today, and just go back to 14 days?

[Mrs May]

I made it clear to the hon. Gentleman in my answer yesterday that 14 days represents my personal view, but I also said in answer to him and a number of hon. Members that I do not think it right to pre-empt the result of the review. As I indicated, one option from the review might be to return to the House with a proposal for a reduced period of pre-charge detention, but with the possibility of contingency arrangements for extreme circumstances, when it may be necessary to take detention beyond 14 days. We should wait to hear the options that come from the review. That is why I am suggesting that hon. Members today support an extension, albeit just for those six months.

I referred to the principles of the coalition Government and said that we would not forget to defend our civil liberties, but that we take the duty to protect the public more seriously than anything else. The need to get that balance right is why we have already introduced legislation to get rid of identity cards and announced interim restrictions on the use of stop-and-search powers under terrorism legislation, and why I included the controversial use of automatic number plate recognition cameras in the review of CCTV regulations. We will introduce a freedom Bill, adopt the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database, restore rights to non-violent protest, end the storage of internet and e-mail records without good reason, and extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. Freedom runs through the DNA of this coalition Government, and it will apply to our work on pre-charge detention as it will to everything else we do.

The country has not only a new Government, but a new Parliament. Having spoken to many new hon. Members as well as old, I know that this Parliament takes very seriously its role in protecting our freedoms. I therefore hope that we can today rise above the sort of arguments put forward by Ministers in the previous Parliament, and work out together how we can reduce the limit, subject to adequate safeguards and contingency plans. I extend that invitation to Opposition Front Benchers.

Yesterday, when I announced the review of counter-terrorism legislation, the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), queried the need for further safeguards,

“given that 28-day detention has to be re-approved by Parliament each year”.—[Official Report, 13 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 799.]

However, what sort of safeguard was that, given that the previous Government used to whip Labour MPs to reinstate it every year, come what may? Similarly, one source was quoted in a national newspaper this morning as saying:

“You either have complete security or complete civil liberties—you cannot have both.”

I am afraid that that sort of zero-sum mentality damaged individual freedom under the previous Government. It is time we moved beyond that thinking, so that we have a more mature approach that balances the need for national security with important civil liberties.

I am aware that in asking many hon. Friends and hon. Members to vote for this temporary six-month measure today, I am asking them to take a deep breath and vote for a measure that they do not very much like. But I can assure them that if they support this order, I will work with hon. Members on both sides of the House to find a solution that reduces the limit for pre-charge detention, but gives the police the powers they need to keep us all safe from those who would bring devastation to our country. I commend the order to the House.

15:55

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

It seems that the Home Secretary and I are allies in the debate this afternoon—although, having read her written ministerial statement and listened to her speech, I think that she is adopting the position of St Augustine—“Lord, make us virtuous, but not yet”. The Home Secretary and I have many things in common, among them our charm, panache, looks and preference for flat shoes. And we both voted for 28 days in 2005. Neither of us has ever voted against 28 days, and we both belong to political parties that made no mention of reducing pre-charge detention of terrorist suspects in our manifestos.

This issue will, of course, form part of the review that the Home Secretary rather foolishly described yesterday as putting right the failures of the previous Government. If 28 days was a failure, it is strange that she should advocate the continuation of that failure today. She is right to do so: as so often with the Home Secretary, the problem is not so much what she does as the way in which she does it. She told us yesterday that personally she was always in favour of 14 days. We understand that it is impossible to tell what she believes from her voting record, but this fervour for 14 days has been a well-kept secret. She has always actually voted for 28 days.

Incidentally, the person whom the Home Secretary has appointed to provide independent oversight of the review—the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven—made clear in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee his support for 28 days, stating:

“We welcomed the increase to 28 days and we felt that a period of 14 days was not sufficient. It seems to us that 28 days has been effective and has provided us with powers, supervised by the courts, which have been useful to us as prosecutors in making appropriate charging decisions within that period.”

This review, like Brighton seafront, has two peers—both Lib Dems—and the views of Lord Macdonald are completely in line with the view of Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of the terrorist legislation, whose work the Home Secretary rightly described yesterday as “excellent”. Lord Carlile not only accepted the need to maintain 28 days but said:

“I expect in the course of time to see cases in which the current maximum of 28 days will be proved inadequate. This will be very rare but inevitably extremely serious.”

The 28 day pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects is a temporary measure which, thanks to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), who is in his place, has to be renewed each year. The task of the House in considering whether to support a further extension—in this case for six months—was succinctly expressed by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley) when he spoke for the Conservatives in last year’s debate. Perhaps I may just mention that we all look forward to seeing the hon. Gentleman restored to good health. He has many friends across the House who respect and admire him and want to see him back on the Government Benches very quickly. He said last year that the Government must first demonstrate convincingly to Parliament that the security situation is such that 28 days remains indispensable, and secondly, that the legal framework must meet the procedural protections afforded by our common law and by the Human Rights Act. He said, with his customary prescience:

“I hope that this will give an indication of the approach that we want to take, should there be a change of Government before the next renewal.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2009; Vol. 495, c.1165.]

I accept that a small minority of Members—it may or may not include the Home Secretary—are convinced that pre-charge detention should be 14 days or less, and I respect that view. It has been consistently argued by several—a minority, but several—Members. The majority of Members, however, will look at the evidence and decide on that basis whether in the year since we last renewed this legislation, the terrorist threat has faded and/or whether this legislation is being abused by the criminal justice system.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that no other country in Europe, or indeed North America, that suffers the same kind of concerns as we do has seen fit to go down the road that we have in this country—of having very long periods of detention before charge?

[Alan Johnson]

I am not aware of that. In fact, the usual argument is that the common-law countries such as Australia, Canada and even the US do not have this system. Europe is the worst place for my hon. Friend to find his examples. Let me cite Norway, for instance. Good old, solid, Scandinavian, liberal Norway has provisions that allow people to be kept in custody—renewed by a High Court judge, who is involved in any detention beyond 14 days—for far longer than 28 days, or even 42 days. That was a helpful intervention, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

I think that the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds succinctly summed up the two issues I mentioned, but there is one further aspect that we have to consider in deciding whether to renew this legislation. It was rightly raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). The issue is whether the very existence of 28-day detention leads to radicalisation in certain communities to the extent that it defeats the objective of reducing the terrorist threat. The Home Office community impact study published in March certainly found examples of UK Muslims having a strong negative perception of counter-terrorism legislation, but concluded that there was insufficient evidence on specific aspects, such as 28 days, to lead to any firm conclusions. I doubt whether anyone in this Chamber thinks that pre-charge detention of 28 rather than 14 days has of itself radicalised anyone to the extent that they would be prepared to engage in terrorist activity.

While I am dealing with this aspect, I hope the Home Secretary can refute the story in The Guardian this morning that she has decided to dismantle the Prevent strategy. She told my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) yesterday, as is recorded in column 802 of Hansard, that the strategy was being reviewed by the Home Department and the Department for Communities and Local Government. When I read the Home Office draft structural reform plan released yesterday, which is the source of the story in The Guardian, all I could find was the eminently sensible objective of keeping the “prevent” strand of counter-terrorism separate from the “integration” initiatives of DCLG. I would welcome clarification.

[Mrs May]

I am happy to give the right hon. Gentleman the clarification he seeks. As set out in the Home Office structural reform plan, we intend to look at the different strands of the Prevent strategy and to ensure that they are properly focused on the right aims. I believe that it is right and appropriate to separate out the part of the Prevent strategy that is about integration from the part about counter-terrorism. One problem with Prevent is that those two aspects have become intertwined in too many people’s thinking, which has, sadly, led to some of the Prevent work being rejected by those whom it was intended to help.

[Alan Johnson]

I am grateful for that clarification, and I completely agree with what the Home Secretary has said about Prevent.

As the Home Secretary said in her speech, the security threat is, if anything, greater today than it was a year ago. In the year since the last renewal, we have learned more, by means of Operation Overt, about the so-called liquid bomb plot, through the successful prosecution of those involved. We should remember that this involved the planned destruction of seven passenger planes all flying to North America, and is one case in which pre-charge detention beyond 14 days was necessary in respect of six people involved in that plot.

We also know now that Operation Pathway in Greater Manchester, which was a matter of speculation in the debate this time last year, is now understood to have been a serious and advanced terrorist plot. It was, thankfully, thwarted yet again by the security services. In the past year, two further organisations have been proscribed. The threat level, decided not by Ministers but by the experts in the security agencies, has been changed to “substantial” and then back to the second highest level, “severe”, which means that an attack is highly likely. As we meet today to make a decision based on the evidence over the coming year, that is the position in which we find ourselves.

On Christmas Day, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian citizen who studied in the United Kingdom and was radicalised in Yemen, flew from Lagos via Holland with 80 grams of PETN explosive—which successfully circumvented aviation security—sewn into his underpants, in an attempt to blow up a passenger plane over Detroit. That demonstrated first the continuing ingenuity of our enemies, and secondly the international nature of the threat.

There has been one other important development over the year: the report of the all-party group of Privy Counsellors, under the chairmanship of Sir John Chilcot, on the crucial issue of intercept evidence. When I was Home Secretary, I briefed the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister separately in their previous roles. They fully understand—as, I know, does the Home Secretary—that the Privy Counsellors found that two of the nine principles that they themselves had established in order to ensure a practical way in which to meet our shared desire to use intercept as evidence were breached during the simulations that they conducted in the course of their work. They are doing further work to see whether they can find a way around the difficulties, but the issue is obviously integral to the whole question of pre-charge detention.

I ask the Home Secretary to reconsider the response that she gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who asked why intercept evidence was not being considered as part of the review. She rightly said that it was better to consider the issue over time, but that, I believe, is an argument for spending longer on the review. I fail to see how such an important component of the argument about 28 days—rehearsed in every annual debate, and also integral to the consideration of control orders, which is also part of the review—can be separated from the overall review.

Finally, there is the important question of whether the power is being abused in the legal framework. Some Members argue that we should abandon this measure because it is not used very often, but I would be more concerned if it were used other than sparingly. As the Home Secretary rightly said, it is an exceptional measure, as Lord Carlile has pointed out, the need for it is rare, and the Crown Prosecution Service is well aware that no one should be detained for a moment longer than necessary. There is no evidence that the power has been abused, but Lord Carlile made an important recommendation in his review of Operation Pathway, proposing the granting of conditional bail by a judge for a period up to the 28th day following arrest, which would enable restrictions short of custody to be imposed while the inquiry continued. That strikes me as worthy of consideration, perhaps during the review.

In my view, the evidence is overwhelming. The statutory instrument should be approved today, and the Government should tread very carefully if the purpose of their review is to arrive at a conclusion consistent with the Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment to reduce the 28-day pre-charge detention period for terrorist suspects regardless of the dangers and the overwhelming evidence.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I remind Members that the debate is time-limited. They will have noted how many others wish to take part, and I ask them to exercise some restraint.

16:08

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

It is a pleasure to follow both my right hon. and charming Friends, the Home Secretary and the deputy—sorry, shadow—Home Secretary. I am sorry; that was a Freudian slip, but almost a deliberate one.

Let me begin by wishing you a happy Bastille day, Mr Deputy Speaker. It seems appropriate, given the subject that we are discussing. I shall not recommend that we storm the barricades, but I do intend to divide the House on the motion. I tell Members that now, so that it is clear where we are going. We may not trouble the scorers greatly in the Lobby against the Government, but, given the historic role of the House in defending the liberties of our monarch’s subjects, I think it important that a policy which, whatever its rights and wrongs, has so far led to the imprisonment of three innocent people for 28 days is one on which the House should decide explicitly and not on the nod.

I welcome the Home Secretary’s intention to have a six-month review of counter-terrorism policy, but I say to her that, in my view, there is plenty of very clear evidence to demonstrate that 28 days is too many. I will also go through some of the points the shadow Home Secretary raised in his speech. These are not just matters of principle; they are matters of high principle and hard fact.

The shadow Home Secretary said he recognised that there are concerns that an authoritarian approach to counter-terrorism policy might have the deleterious effect of creating more radicalised Islamists—more potential terrorists—than a more traditional liberal British approach would. That is clearly the case. The hard fact supporting that assertion was given by the head of MI5 in his last speech to the country, when he said that there are 2,000 persons of interest—those are his words—to MI5, which is a 25% increase on the previous year’s figure. If the increase continues at that rate, no amount of security will defend us from the consequences of our own actions.

Radicalisation is, of course, created by more than just authoritarian policies, but such policies do drive it. Anybody who talks to the leaders of Muslim communities up and down the country will know that—they will pick that message up time and again. At the forefront of that trend is the 28-day policy. In relation to home-grown terrorism, detention without charge is the biggest recruiting sergeant for our opponents.

[Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was interesting that the shadow Home Secretary did not choose to mention the threat we currently face from republican terrorism coming from the north of Ireland? In view of the fact that we are approaching the internment day anniversary of 8 August, would it not be an extremely powerful statement to reduce the detention period from 28 to 14 days now, rather than to wait until later?

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend makes a very good case, and he knows Northern Ireland terrorism better than most people in this House. He also knows that internment was one of the best recruiting sergeants for the Provisional IRA and others in that period. So yes, he is right.

The second hard fact I want to draw on relates to the reasons given to me for 42 and 90 days by John Reid, the predecessor as Home Secretary of both my right hon. Friend the current Secretary of State and my friend the shadow Secretary of State. When John Reid briefed me, as shadow Home Secretary, on his Government’s proposals for those periods of detention, the most telling argument he had—to be fair, it was telling—was the prospect of the British agencies being overwhelmed by multiple prospective attacks at the same time. The circumstances he listed were as follows: multiple plots against multiple targets at multiple locations, with not all the information involved being in our control—perhaps some of it was coming from foreign intelligence agencies such as the Pakistani service—and with the plot already starting to be carried out, so that it was necessary to move quickly.

That was the case the then Home Secretary made, and within a month or so of his briefing me on it we almost had a rehearsal in Operation Overt, the Heathrow plot, to which the shadow Home Secretary referred. It was thought at the time that 10 aircraft had been targeted, although it now turns out that the true number was seven, as well as multiple locations—there were many suspects at the beginning in at least three different locations. There were also concerns about gaining access to some of the houses and other places where evidence was thought to be located, and foreign evidence was involved, too. It was a facsimile of the case John Reid had described.

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although we accept that radicalisation may not be created by one action or one piece of legislation, having pre-charge detention of 28 days compromises civil liberties and that, for some at least, it is one step towards radicalisation—as is the Prevent agenda’s national indicator 35, which targeted the Muslim community specifically? We need to make sure that we do not compromise the democratic process and that we engage all communities.

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. This is the most symbolic of the restrictions of our civil rights, and the one seen by Muslim communities in this country as being targeted on them. It is not intended to be, but that is the way it is seen.

What actually happened as a result of Operation Overt and the Heathrow plot? As the shadow Home Secretary said, six people were held beyond 14 days; five people were held for 27 or 28 days, and at the end of that process it turned out that three were innocent. I used the word “innocent” when the previous Government were in power, and I was almost shouted down. I mean innocent: no control order, no surveillance, no open file—the police thought they were innocent. When I obtained that information I had with me as my witnesses my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and the Attorney-General. What was thought was therefore very plain.

[Alan Johnson]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a very effective case. Can he explain why, in last year’s debate on this issue, he voted for the continuation of 28 days? His party abstained but he made the point in that debate that he could not accept 14 days, which he is now advocating, precisely because he knew inside details of Operation Overt and what happened at Heathrow. What changed his mind during the ensuing year?

[Mr Davis]

It took us time to get to the bottom of the facts. When I asked the right hon. Gentleman’s predecessor as Home Secretary to give us the information I am talking about, we were not given it. I asked for it three times, and my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton was there on at least one or two of those occasions. This is one of the problems with the Home Office: it mouths the words “justice must be seen to be done”, but it does not live by them in terms of transparency.

Let me turn to the remaining two people who were detained, because some further facts have come to light. We were told at the time, “Here is a serious case and we have to go to 27 or 28 days—right to the edge—in order to bring a case against them.” However, we pressed the matter and asked when the evidence was obtained to charge those individuals. It was obtained not at 27 or 28 days, but before 14 days—if I remember correctly, on day three and day 12. It was perfectly possible to charge those people before the 14-day limit; now we find, however, that they were charged on day 28. They spent nine months in prison on remand, and even in that time not enough evidence was found to convict them. One of the cases was thrown out by the judge after hearing it—it did not even go to a jury. The other was rejected unanimously by the jury and the individual concerned was exonerated. It was not a soft jury: the same jury convicted three other terrorists in the same trial. So, we had five people, every single one of whom was innocent.

That is what our policy has done so far and why it is a recruiting sergeant for terrorism. It might not make somebody a terrorist, but it does make the communities concerned less likely to co-operate, less likely to provide information, and less likely to help us to prevent the next terrorist attack. That is why the policy is completely counter-productive.

Let me turn to hard fact No. 3: the simple list put out by the previous Government and the present Government showing why we need this provision for another six months. We are told how difficult terrorist cases are. What did we do when we were trying to be consensual with the previous Government? Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats agreed with—in fact, we thought up—the idea of acts preparatory to terrorism. We supported the idea of terrorist training being an offence, so we made matters easier in that regard.

The next argument was, “We have lots of evidence and it might be encrypted—it might be in code.” We had to remind the previous Government that when they passed the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, they made it an offence to withhold the encryption key, so if the evidence is in code, belongs to the suspect and he does not provide the key, we have got him for five years anyway. Therefore, that argument went out the window.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware that in cases involving encrypted data, 28 days, six months or even a year would not necessarily be long enough if there were no access to encryption codes, so such a detention period would not help anyway.

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend—I suppose he is my hon. Friend—is exactly right. When we heard those arguments, we thought that, with the prospect of the terrorism levels being, as the shadow Home Secretary says, very high, the then Government would have acted quickly. What was worrying was that that RIPA requirement, passed in 2000, was not brought into effect until 2007—two years after the 7/7 bombings. So we did not even give what was already on the statute book as a weapon for the police to use.

The other thing the then Government said to us was, “If you charge people, you cannot interview them after charge.” In 2005, we volunteered to amend that, but the Government did not make that change in the 2006 legislation. They put the provision in the 2008 legislation, which is not even in force yet. If we are serious about taking this on, we should deal with the things that actually attack the problems that we are trying to address. We should not create other problems for ourselves.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend taken note of the recent statements by the Lord Chief Justice on such matters? He has been very clear about the need to protect the common law, so the whole issue of habeas corpus, which is an integral part of this, needs to be reinforced. What we need is fair trials, due process and habeas corpus, irrespective of the Human Rights Act 1998.

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend goes, as usual, right to the core of the issue. This is about habeas corpus; it is about the most fundamental British freedom there is.

When we have got through all the things I have mentioned, we come to what happens on day 28. I want to be helpful to the police. They might say, “I have somebody in my control who I am sure is a terrorist. I know that from everything I know. I can’t quite prove it, but I think I will get the evidence if I have got him for another few days.” What do we do then? We actually have something that we do then—it is called the threshold test. The test for charging somebody is allowable—we are allowed to charge them if we are convinced that they are guilty and that we will find the information shortly.

I am not going to name the individual, but at one point in this process I asked to see the head of counter-terrorism and I talked to him about that. What shocked me was that he did not even understand the threshold test. Again, I cite my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton as a witness, because he was at that same meeting. It is terrifying that our own forces did not know the weapons that they had at their command.

Right across the board, every piece of evidence to support the case for the provision falls down. The most fundamental one, which has been mentioned, although it was rather mocked by the shadow Home Secretary, is the approach of other countries. None of the problems that I have described as the case in support of 28 days is faced by us alone; every other common law authority has the same problems. Yet America charges in two days and indicts in 10, Canada does that in one day, New Zealand does it in two days and South Africa does it in two days. The nearest arrangement to ours is indicative, because it is Australia, which does it in 12 days. Its 12-day provision was a mistake, but 12 days is what it was. However, as we stand here, its Senate is taking through a law to reduce that to eight days, and the only controversy in Australia is about whether it should be lower, not about whether it should be higher.

The simple fact is that our policy is built on political machismo, not on effectiveness. What we have to do is recognise what all the other civilised countries in the world are doing and go in the right direction, which is to cut 28 days.

16:23

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

It is unlikely that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and I agree on anything, except what we are now debating. We certainly see eye to eye on this question and have done for a considerable time.

The figure of 28 days was not picked out of the air in November 2005, when the maximum period was 14 days and 90 days was proposed. It should be remembered that, in July that year, there had been a massacre—there is no other way to describe it—of 52 innocent people, with others seriously injured. A fortnight later, on 21 July 2005, there was another attempted atrocity. That was the situation that faced the House of Commons when we were debating the issue in November that year. Given those circumstances and the fact that the Government—wrongly in my view—wanted to increase the 14 days to 90 days, it is understandable that the House agreed to 28 days.

As far as I know, no one actually suggested that the 14 days should stay. There was no vote on whether 14 days should remain the status quo. There was more or less agreement—apart from in the Government and among those who supported the Government at the time—that the number of days of pre-charge detention should be doubled from 14 to 28 days. Those were the circumstances in which we debated the issue at the time.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The facts of the situation were that the provision on the face of the Bill was for three months’ detention but at the key stage of the Bill, two amendments were listed. One changed the limit from three months to 90 days and the other changed it to 28 days. Those were the only two options on offer. When the Government’s 90 day amendment was defeated, the 28 day amendment was the only way that anybody had of preventing the limit from staying at three months.

[Mr Winnick]

I do not wish to disagree with my hon. Friend, but what I am saying is that there seemed to be general agreement, given the circumstances of the atrocities that occurred in July 2005, that the limit should be increased. However, I do not particularly want to pursue that further because I am now of the view—I agree with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden—that we should return to 14 days, because I do not really believe that there is any justification for extending the order for another six months. I know the views of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench but, again, I disagree with them.

We must always bear it in mind that for non-terrorist cases the maximum remains, rightly, only four days—96 hours. No Government, fortunately, has suggested that there should be any change to that whatsoever. Where terrorism is concerned, we are going beyond the four days allowed in non-terrorist cases—that is crucial. Until 2003, the maximum for terror suspects was just seven days. It has continued to increase—to seven days, 14 days and then 28 days. Fortunately, all attempts to increase it beyond 28 days—first to 90 days and then to 42 days—were defeated. The 42 days provision was passed by a majority of nine in the House of Commons but rightly rejected by the Lords.

As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden has said, there is of course the added provision now that did not exist in 2005—namely, post-charge questioning of terror suspects. That is an important element. The fact that the provision has not come into force is not a reason not to take it into consideration. Only the Home Secretary or the shadow Home Secretary can explain why it has not come into force. If there is a feeling that 14 days is not sufficient and that the terrorist threat remains acute—I could not agree more on the latter—one would have thought that the provision in the Act on post-charge questioning could be brought into force sooner rather than later.

I am the last person in any way to minimise the continued terrorist threat. I have always worked on the assumption that, as the police said at the time, it was a question of not if but when. The police were proved absolutely right, unfortunately and tragically, by the mass murder in July 2005. Surely no one would now say that the threat does not exist to the same level. I do not know if it is smaller or not, but I do know that if al-Qaeda could carry out the sort of atrocities that it carried out the other day in Uganda, it would do so without the slightest hesitation whatsoever. I mention that to make it absolutely clear that in no way do I argue that the terrorist threat does not exist or is minor—far from it. I am sure that the same applies to other hon. Members.

As far as the 28-day period is concerned, the Home Secretary has confirmed today that no one has been held for longer than 14 days since July 2007, so the provision is not in use. One argument for voting against it today is that we need not keep it if it is not absolutely essential. The Home Secretary is on record as saying that she would prefer a period of 14 days, so if that is the position, why not agree to a 14-day period today? Protecting the public from terror must be one of the highest priorities for all concerned, particularly the security services, the police and the Government of the day. The job of Parliament is to ensure that funding is provided to ensure that the police and security services can do their jobs. Obviously, that is essential, but we have another responsibility to protect, as far as possible, our traditional liberties. That is one of the most essential jobs of Parliament. It is relatively easy to defend civil liberties when there is no terrorist threat, but the real challenge is when there is such a threat, be it from the most obvious sources, or from dissident republicans or whoever.

When there is an acute threat, how do we protect the liberties that are so essential to the tradition of our country? The right of an individual not to be held by the police except for a very short time has become very much a part of the tradition of this country. The right of habeas corpus existed even when civil liberties as such did not, so a person could not be held indefinitely. That is why I feel so strongly about this issue and why I believe that it is not necessary, at this time, to extend the 28-day period. To repeat what I said nearly five years ago, every generation of parliamentarians has the responsibility to make sure that the freedoms and the civil liberties that we inherit from our predecessors should be passed on to our successors. That is important and it is why I have always been very wary of giving the police and the security authorities more power than is absolutely essential.

The Home Secretary said that there was a whipped vote for Labour Members on this issue at the time, and there was, not surprisingly—one would not expect otherwise. However, some of us broke the Whip because we decided that the matter was so important that we should vote against the Government, who were duly defeated. Without being patronising, let me ask Conservative and, perhaps, Liberal Democrat Members something: even if they are whipped today, do they really believe that it is absolutely essential to renew this order? If they do, they will vote with the Government, obviously but if they do not, I hope that they will do what so many Labour Members did in November 2005.

16:33

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

I welcome the forthcoming review of the 28-day limit, the measures that the Home Secretary has already taken on ID cards and stop-and-search powers and the wider review announced yesterday. We have an opportunity with the coalition and, as the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) made clear, we have support across the House to restore our freedoms, while strengthening our security. This is not the zero-sum game depicted by countless, hapless Labour Home Secretaries, but it is crucial that we have an open and honest debate on these matters, and for that we need clear and accurate information.

I ask the Home Secretary to clarify a slight discrepancy between the answer that I received from her Department on 28 June and the quarterly bulletin of last November. My understanding is that only one person, not two, held for the full 28-day period has ever been convicted of a terrorism offence. I also ask her to provide in table form basic information that her department has previously refused to give. First, I should like to know, year by year, the number of people subjected to control orders, with a breakdown indicating the number of UK citizens and foreign nationals. That is relevant to our ability to deport terrorist suspects whom we cannot prosecute. Secondly, I should like information setting out the number of foreign nationals who have not been deported, broken down by category of reason—whether administrative, legal or based on human rights—so that we better understand why we have been failing to deport so many of them. That information is not impossible to collate, and it is vital for this issue and the wider debate on counter-terrorism.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend asks for a number of figures, but it is only fair to the House that I should pick up the first point that he makes, which relates to a parliamentary question that was answered in the name of the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who has responsibility for crime and policing. Unfortunately, an inaccurate statistic was included in that answer, and he will correct that in the Hansard record very shortly. The figures on pre-charge detention are indeed as I indicated in my speech. Eleven individuals have been detained for 14 days or longer. Six individuals have been detained for 27 to 28 days, of whom three were subsequently charged and three released. Of the three who were charged, two were convicted and the case of one was not proceeded with. In the answer that my hon. Friend was given, reference was made to the number of individuals who had been arrested as a result of an operation by Greater Manchester police. It was indicated that two individuals were involved. In fact, only one of the 11 arrested as a result of that operation was involved.

[Mr Raab]

I thank the Home Secretary for that clarification. It is refreshing to get clarification from the Home Office so swiftly.

Twenty-eight days’ pre-charge detention was an emergency measure introduced on a temporary basis. We need a clear and convincing justification to retain it, because it undermines the ancient right of habeas corpus, which goes back to Magna Carta. We now know that, in relation to Operation Overt and the Heathrow plot of August 2006—the most challenging counter-terrorism investigation that we have ever faced as a nation—only five suspects were held for the maximum period of 28 days and only two were charged. Contrary to what Ministers said at the time, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) has said, all the evidence relied upon was available well within 14 days. That Operation Overt was used by the last Government to justify proposals for 42 days’ detention was deeply irresponsible.

Since Operation Overt, only one person has been held for longer than 14 days—an isolated case of 19 days’ pre-charge detention. Last year, in 2009, no suspects were held in pre-charge detention for longer than 14 days and 70% were dealt with within 48 hours. So the raw facts in the debate are that, in four years, we have not needed longer than 19 days’ pre-charge detention, let alone 28 days. If we are judging the necessity of the order on the pressures that the police face during the pre-charge period, the evidence no longer supports a limit beyond 21 days at the very most.

In truth, those data are not the only relevant information. Briefings by the heads of MI5 in 2006 and 2007 showed a rise in the number of terrorist suspects being monitored by the authorities from 1,600 to 2,000. In 2008, the head of MI5 stated publicly that the volume of late-stage terrorist planning had fallen that year. I am not aware of any more recent assessments from the head of MI5 or the agency more generally. The House will recall that MI5 refused to support the last Government’s proposals for 42 days’ detention. Ministers stated at the time that it would be inappropriate for MI5 to give a view, yet Tony Blair publicly relied on MI5’s support for the increase in the limit in 2005. It cannot be in the interests of the intelligence agencies or the public that MI5 assessments are relied on by Ministers only when it is politically expedient or they want to publicise blood-curdling assessments of the terrorist threat. I ask the Home Secretary to put these arrangements on a more clear and stable footing. Either we should not have such briefings and public statements by MI5, or we should have regular, objective assessments of the domestic terrorist threat based on hard data that avoid any risk or perception of politicisation.

Paragraph 7 of the explanatory memorandum to the order claims that all the specific grounds cited as reasons for increasing the maximum limit to 28 days in 2006 “remain relevant”. It is difficult to accept that sweeping assertion without further information. First, has the challenge of encrypted computers not been eased at all by the enactment in 2007 of a criminal offence of withholding encryption keys? Will the Home Secretary give us data on prosecution and conviction rates under that offence?

Secondly, will the Home Secretary inform the House of any case in the past two years in which the presence of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear material has been a direct factor that has prolonged the period of pre-charge detention? Thirdly, will she explain the extent to which the new powers of post-charge questioning that were enacted in 2008 have alleviated the problem of having to intervene early in some terrorist investigations because of the threat to public safely? Alternatively, is it correct, as Liberty and several hon. Members have stated, that the relevant power was not even brought into force by the previous Government, despite all the hubris on that specific point?

The truth is that gaps remain in the UK counter-terrorism strategy, despite the excellent work and unstinting commitment of our police and intelligence agencies. If it is correct that the terrorist threat has remained constant and at its highest level, it must be worrying that the number of arrests leading to charge under terrorism legislation dropped by more than a fifth last year. The number of guilty pleas in terrorism investigations also fell by a third, while the number of convictions under terrorism legislation halved. Counter-intuitively, there was a conviction rate of 93% in terrorism cases, compared with rates of 31% for conspiracy to murder, 30% for wounding and 38% for rape, and that raises the more basic question of whether, as a matter of policy, we are taking a sufficiently robust approach to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in terrorism cases—I am talking about not a case-by-case approach, but the overarching strategy on prosecution.

We need a review of prosecutorial strategy as part of a broader shift away from the previous Government’s ineffective authoritarianism and towards an approach that deploys rather than sidesteps the British justice system. That means the greater use, when necessary, of the threshold test to prosecute when evidence is not available but is in the pipeline. It also means lifting the ban on intercept evidence, coupled with a more proactive use of plea bargaining, to increase the number of convictions, as well as the conviction rate, especially in cases involving wider conspiracies or joint criminal enterprise, as it is commonly known. Above all, however, it requires a change in the professional culture of this country’s intelligence and law enforcement authorities. That would be in line with the approach in other common law jurisdictions, most notably the US, where pre-charge detention is limited to two days. That is the way in which we can fight terror while defending our historic freedoms in this country.

I will support the order. I recognise that the Home Secretary needs time to examine these difficult issues further, but in the absence of convincing new evidence, I will be inclined to oppose renewal in six months’ time.

16:43

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Existing counter-terrorism legislation allows the police, in specific circumstances, to arrest individuals who are reasonably suspected of being terrorists. Once arrested, those suspects may be detained without charge for up to 28 days, which allows the police to obtain, preserve, analyse and examine evidence for use in criminal proceedings.

I must confess that, having listened to the debate, it seems that several hon. Members think that we are still living in a cosy country and a peaceful world, and that they are oblivious to the serious threats that we face. The reality is very different. A significant threat from Islamic terrorism remains, while dissident republican organisations endeavour to increase their capacity for murder and mayhem. I believe that we need measures that reflect the threat against our people.

[Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr McCrea]

I have little time and I want to complete the few remarks that I believe need to be put on the record.

On 7 July 2005, the attack on London’s public transport system surely reminded us that there is a vicious and evil terrorist threat against the United Kingdom. In the House the other day, I said that the Government’s first responsibility is to protect the law-abiding community, and that every tool must be available to the security services to ensure that that priority is achieved. I believe that the House and the country must come to terms with reality. We must make up our minds what the primary objective really is. Terrorism—no one knows it better than the people of Northern Ireland—is an evil in society, and society must face the evil.

There is nothing beautiful about terrorism and there is no excuse for terrorism. The idea that somehow 28 days of detention gives terrorists an excuse to attack the people of the United Kingdom is despicable. Terrorism is ugly, unacceptable and despicable, and it must be faced. We in Northern Ireland endured the curse of terrorism for more than 30 years. To be frank with the House, many were happy to appease the terrorists as long as terrorism remained in Northern Ireland and did not come on to the mainland. Some thought that appeasement was a price worth paying. Terrorism destroys the liberty and the freedom of a people. It destroys the freedom and the liberty of the innocent, and I fear that some are about to make the mistake of the past. I do not wish for any person to be detained any longer than is necessary.

The statistics that the Home Secretary has brought to the House today prove that the legislation has not been abused, and therefore people have not been abused, because the figures tell us that the legislation that has been in place with the 28-day provision has been used both sensitively and responsibly. As I have said, I do not wish anyone to be detained for any longer than necessary, but I would leave it up to the security services to advise on the issue, rather than allow political expedience to meddle with things or to muddy the waters.

It is interesting to notice that the major party of the coalition Government, when it went to the electorate, did not mention 14 days in its manifesto. It did not mention changing the 28-day period. The only party that did mention it was the Liberal Democrat party, which is not surprising. However, on previous occasions, my right hon. and hon. colleagues received security briefings on this important issue and were guided thereby. Therefore, will the Home Secretary clarify what advice she has received on the current 28-day detention period?

Over the years, we in Northern Ireland have been inconvenienced. We were frustrated on many occasions and at times we were angry at the use of powers, but whenever our lives were preserved from the terrorists’ bombs, we were very thankful. We were very appreciative of what the security forces did to preserve innocent life and the freedom of law-abiding citizens.

When we talk about what we want to hand on to the next generation, I suggest that the fundamental responsibility of the House is to hand on freedom. We can have a peace at any price, but we cannot have freedom at any price. As I have said, at times we have been angry, but our lives were preserved. We fail to thank the security services for the numerous times they have saved us from disaster, but many times we are quick to condemn them and complain about them when they do not get it completely right. The measure before the House and the 28-day period is appropriate, bearing in mind the terrorist threat that the United Kingdom faces, and I trust that the House will approve the order accordingly.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Under the Standing Order, this debate closes at 14 minutes past 5. I shall call the Home Secretary at nine minutes past 5—[Interruption.] Even later than that? I thank the Home Secretary for that, but could Members please restrain themselves?

16:50

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall try to be brief.

Our coalition Government agreed to restore the ancient civil liberties that should be synonymous with our country, and it is to Labour’s eternal shame—with a few honourable exceptions, many of whom I am glad to see in their places—that it did so much damage to our country’s name and to our civil liberties. I congratulate the Home Secretary, as I did yesterday, on the review, which represents excellent progress, but my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and I pressed her on 28 days, because that is important. Labour’s 90-day efforts, which were resisted, have become one of the party’s totemic issues, and I welcome the Home Secretary’s aims to reduce the period to 14 days. However, I do not agree that we need to wait six months before we get on with it. We should allow the 28 days to lapse and default to 14 days while the review goes ahead.

Let us think about the 28-day period. It means 28 days without being told what someone is accused of. Is that proportionate? How does it interact with the concepts of being innocent until proven guilty and habeas corpus? Then there are the effects on people’s lives afterwards, if, as often happens, they turn out to be innocent.

What about elsewhere? We have talked about the US, where the constitution provides for 48 hours. In Spain, which has faced terrorism, the limit is five days, and in South Africa it is 48 hours, against which I am sure hon. Members campaigned during apartheid. The shadow Home Secretary, whom I am pleased to see in his place, talked about Norway, but I hope that he is aware of how that country, under its Criminal Procedure Act 1981, allows only three days’ detention, with an extension after the police have presented the charge. That is a critical difference, because after the charge has been presented we are into a very different space.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of us voted for 28 days only because we saw it as a means of blocking 90 days? There was no consensus on our Benches for 28 days.

[Dr Huppert]

Indeed I am. I have followed the matter, and the hon. Lady is absolutely correct: 28 days was not the aim, but it was better than 90.

We have heard about those other countries, so are we saying that our police are worse than theirs? Do we think that our prosecutors are less good and our legal system less effective? I do not think so. We have excellent police and prosecutors, and an excellent legal system, so what makes us so different? What message about our attitude to civil liberties does the measure send not only to our citizens, but to those of other countries, who used to look on us as a beacon of civil liberties but have been sadly let down?

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not read the monitors, when he walks into this building every morning, that remind him why we are different? The threat level is severe and remains severe, and, although he might wish to play cricket with terrorists and give them a sporting chance on this issue, he is playing Russian roulette with the lives of this nation’s citizens.

[Dr Huppert]

I find it disappointing that the hon. Gentleman takes that line. We are not alone in facing the threat of terrorism. Other countries have faced it and had issues to deal with, and they have done that in much better ways.

We have alternatives, and other countries clearly manage. We have the threshold test, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) referred. It states that, when there is not enough information, it is possible to proceed with a charge if there are reasonable grounds to think that we will get more evidence, the case is serious and there are grounds to object to bail.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Huppert]

I ought to save time.

If that is not the case, then we should not be holding people for 28 days anyway. How can we defend a month?

We also have the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which gives powers in extremis, and I know that the Home Secretary and other hon. Members are aware of that.

We do face a serious situation, and we do need to have the right tools to combat terrorism, but 28-day detention without trial is not the right one. It causes too much collateral damage in its effect on our civil liberties and the message that we send to others who might be considering such issues and those who look up to us from other countries. I urge hon. Members to reject 28 days.

16:54

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who is the newest member of the Home Affairs Committee. I can recall that of the Committee’s 38 reports, 37 were unanimous; the discussion and inquiry that we held on pre-charge detention was the only one on which the Committee divided.

We have had some very odd couplings, if I may put it like that, today. We had the Front Benchers—the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary—agreeing, and then we had the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) agreeing. I thought for a moment that the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) was going to vote against the order until the last few seconds, when he gave the Home Secretary the benefit of the doubt.

This is a very important debate. Of course, the mood is different from that of the last debate, although there is a huge amount of passion. I came into this Chamber with a determination to vote for the order, but I am going to vote against it because I do not think the case has been made. I have been swayed—I know that this is very unusual for a Member of this House—by the speeches that I have heard. I am impressed by the integrity of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North, who has campaigned long and hard on this issue, and by the fact that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden resigned and fought a by-election on it. I also remember the speech made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) during the last debate, which was pretty passionate. That is not to dismiss anything that we have heard from others who obviously make very important points.

[Jim Shannon]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need 28 days for two reasons: for the ongoing verbal investigations and for the forensic part of the evidence? It is not like the “CSI” programmes on TV. A person is not convicted in 60 minutes—28 days are needed to do that. It helps to remove the more volatile members of the community and to ensure that innocent people are protected.

[Keith Vaz]

I understand that; it is exactly the point that Ian Blair, now Lord Blair, made to the Select Committee. However, as we have heard today from the Home Secretary, this power has not been used very often. I am sure that she was in the Chamber when the Attorney-General spoke on the issue—it was one of the best speeches that I have ever heard here—and opposed what the last Government were going to do. To be perfectly frank, if one has a power that one does not use, why have it?

It is important to consider who supported the longer detention period. Only the police came before the Committee and said that they supported it. Ken Macdonald—now Lord Macdonald—who is conducting the review had no reservations when he was Director of Public Prosecutions, but had reservations after he ceased to be DPP. He brought those reservations—

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Keith Vaz]

I will not, because time is very short and I know that lots of people want to speak. I have great admiration for my right hon. Friend—oh, all right, then.

[Mr Howarth]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for reluctantly giving way. Does he recall that when those debates were going on, the claim was never that these powers would be used frequently, but that they might be necessary in very exceptional circumstances?

[Keith Vaz]

My right hon. Friend is right, but we now have the facts and some evidence that we did not have before. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton mentioned the security services. The security services have never said, on or off the record, that they wanted an increase in the detention period. When they met the Select Committee, they were very clear that they were not taking a position on this, and that was echoed in the statements made by the head of MI5. In their view, it was a decision to be made by politicians.

My next point concerns the impact on the community. I listened to what my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary said, and I have great admiration for him. However, I do not believe that the so-called independent research conducted by officials at the Home Office—or consultants, or whoever did it—truly reflects the views of the community. This matter impacts on the community, and that includes the ethnic minority communities of this country, specifically the Muslim community. There was huge disquiet about these powers being sought by the last Government. I have 10,000 people of the Muslim faith in my constituency; others have more. It was not only the Muslim community but the entire ethnic minority community that was concerned, although they may not have wanted to relate their views to consultants for a research document.

The Home Secretary is coming before the Select Committee tomorrow morning—I hope she has not forgotten, because we are all turning up and it would be terrible if she were not there—and we will of course probe her about her review. I am sure that she will deal with all the points that we raise in the competent way she has done since becoming Home Secretary. However, in answer to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) she said that she was personally in favour of 14 days. She had me until that point. If she believes that 14 days is the right limit, how can she come before the House and ask for 28? On that point alone, and having been convinced by right hon. and hon. Members, I will vote against the motion.

17:00

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

In the light of the time left, you will be delighted to know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that rather like the last Government in their dying days, I have adopted a policy of slash and burn to the speech that I was going to make.

If the counter-terrorism review states that the limit should be reduced, I and this Government would support that. I would personally welcome a move towards liberty and away from the Big Brother state that grew up under the last Government. Having listened to the debate today, I am afraid the matter is not as simple as saying that the limit should be 90 days, 40 days, 28 days, 14 days or 2 days, as in Australia. Maybe 14 days is the correct amount of time, but what about extreme, complicated or international cases? For me, any decision taken before the review would by definition be arrogant, hasty and uncalled-for.

Consultations and reviews are not simply box-ticking exercises, although they often had a habit of becoming so under the last Government. They are there for a reason. There are big decisions that need grown-up, thought through answers, and they need decisions in this House that result in laws that do not need to come back to the House constantly to be amended, fixed and adjusted. Earlier, the question was asked, “Why do we not just say 14 days?” For me, that is precisely the point. The Government are trying to search for the best results, not just the best headlines. That is why we do not just say 14 days.

Sometimes, like good tea, good whisky and good coffee, good laws take a little bit of time to produce. An extra six months is not perfect, but nor is it permanent, and it is purposeful. Within that time, the counter-terrorism review will have published its opinion, taking into account the issues that have been debated this afternoon such as encryption, the complexity of some extreme cases and how to avoid the abuse of powers. I, for one, look forward to voting then for a good, well thought through and well worked out law that is based on what is best for the country and for the people of Britain.

17:02

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Before I came to the House I practised as a criminal practitioner for about 20 years, both prosecuting and defending. I know that some Members, and some other people in the country, are perhaps not convinced by the civil liberties argument on 28-day detention. They ask why we should provide protection to people who want to commit criminal offences. Instead of the civil liberties perspective, I wish to give a practical one—do we, the police or the law enforcement agencies actually need a 28-day limit?

Members should be aware of the type of evidence that the police gather, especially when monitoring terrorists or people they believe are going to be terrorists. There is intrusive surveillance, with probes in people’s homes and cameras outside them. Every single text or e-mail they send is recorded by the intelligence services, who also keep every phone call they make. Are Members really telling me that with all that evidence before them, they still need 28 days to interrogate people in a police station?

As someone who has dealt with anti-terror cases and seen the evidence that comes in, and even taking away the civil liberties argument, I know as a practitioner that law enforcement agents do not need 28 days to interrogate people. They have all the information and evidence before them. As we know, guidance on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 allows for various surveillance methods and intrusions to take place.

17:04

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

I am a rather rare bird in politics—a Conservative defender of the Human Rights Act 1998, which I regard as the codification of 800 years of British common law.

Let me briefly draw attention to the previous Government’s appalling record, which is perpetuated in the suggestion that there is an intrinsic tension between liberty and security. Security often relies on a clear understanding of the commitment of a Government and a nation to liberty. I massively welcome the emphasis of the new Government and the new Home Secretary on freedom, and the suggestion that the order is a temporary measure is most welcome. My right hon. Friend’s personal commitment to 14 days is noted, and the freedom Bill, the crackdown on CCTV and the collection of DNA, and the extension of the Freedom of Information Act are all welcome.

Today is Bastille day. We should never forget that Edmund Burke rightly predicted that it would be followed by disorder, chaos and terror. It made him deeply unpopular at the time. However, on reflection, we now celebrate the day for recorded rights—not abstract, but recorded rights. They were developed in British common law, and the greatest of them is now in section 5 of the Human Rights Act. It is habeas corpus, as prefigured in article 39 of Magna Carta.

We must never forget that we are considering suspects—they have not been convicted of any crime. The Home Office has tools at its disposal that it did not have in 2006. It has the ability to question people post-charge, and to draw on new offences, especially training, preparation and dissemination in the context of terrorism.

I conclude with two questions. First, has thought been given to 21 days as an intermediate period between 14 and 28 days? Are there merits in that? Secondly, has adequate consideration been given to the use of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 as an alternative to 28 days’ detention? If we answer those questions, I am sure that we can make progress overall.

17:06

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) treated us to a medley of his greatest hits from previous debates, and the shadow Home Secretary performed his cover version of some of his arguments. However, let us remember that the main issues in previous debates were the threshold test, post-charge questioning and intercept evidence. It is important, in the context of the review and any decisions taken in six months if the order is passed today, that the House fully and properly understands those issues.

We were told earlier that a senior person who dealt with counter-terrorism was not aware of the threshold test. Although it was not mentioned in the Home Secretary’s announcement yesterday, I imagine that she is taking six months to conduct a review because she wants to roll the pitch on several issues so that, when the debate takes place, Opposition Front Benchers cannot accuse her of a knee-jerk reaction to the Lib Dem manifesto and she can show that any change has been on the basis of thorough review. I understand the tactic. However, I will vote against the order because I never believed on principle in 28-day detention. Like others, I found myself taken hostage and having to vote for 28 days because it was the only way to stop three months’ detention.

Let us also remember that counter-terrorism measures can be—some have proved to be—counter-productive. Not only internment, but a host of counter-terrorism measures were counter-productive in Northern Ireland. The Democratic Unionist party advocated and cheerled many of them, which ended up assisting the terrorists, partly by alienating the community from the police and making the job of community policing hard and even impossible.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Durkan]

No, because the Home Secretary needs time to wind up the debate.

In the previous debate, we were told about the comments of chief constables. I do not know the collective noun for chief constables, but they were all lined up in support of 28 days. I assume that it will take six months to sort out their line and get them on a different course. However, I recall among the good contributions in previous debates about 28-day detention those of the now Attorney-General. He clearly signalled before the election his opposition to 28 days and said that the policy would be reviewed. It is therefore not true that only the Liberals made such a proposal.

As Opposition Front Benchers discover that they need to change their position on immigration, I appeal to them to wake up to civil liberties.

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I suspect that my distaste for 28 days is shared by many, on both sides of the House. The question is how best to get rid of it and how best to ensure that in doing so, we have covered the contingencies so that we are seen to have acted responsibly. In that way, the line taken by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary deserves support.

[Mark Durkan]

We hear what the Attorney-General says. He indicates that the motion is about positioning and lining things up.

Again, whoever is elected Leader of the Opposition to present a new, improved and restored Labour party next year must say that the party has gone back to its better instincts on civil liberties.

17:11

[Mrs May]

In the time available to me, it will not be possible to mention all the speeches made in the debate. However, the debate has in many ways shown the House at its best. People have made thoughtful and serious contributions on the matter in hand. They spoke from the heart and passionately on issues about which they feel deeply.

I shall simply reiterate what I said in my opening speech. The proposal in the pre-charge detention order is for a temporary measure that will enable us to look again at the 28-day period of pre-charge detention, and at how to reduce it, during the review on counter-terrorism measures.

The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) challenged me on why I was not going straight away to 14 days, having said that that is my personal preference. The former is correct in thinking that we want to look at the matter in the round alongside other counter-terrorism legislation, and not simply pick it off and deal with it as one issue. I can tell the latter that it is my duty to this House and to the country as a Minister to look at such issues responsibly and to consider all the arguments, and not merely to say that my view should necessarily hold supreme. My views will inform my final decision, but it is right and proper for me to consider all the arguments before I take that decision.

[Ian Paisley]

Will the Home Secretary give way on that point?

[Mrs May]

I am sorry, but I have very little time left—about one minute—so I will not give way. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to find me afterwards if he wants to make a speech to me—[Interruption.] I can assure him that that was not a comment on the name of Paisley.

The order is a temporary measure to continue 28 days pre-charge detention for just six months. That enables us to look at pre-charge detention in the counter-terrorism review, and to find a solution that reduces the limit from 28 days while ensuring that the police have the powers they need to keep us safe from those out there who would wish us ill.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes 354, Noes 47.Division No. 24][5.13 pmAYESAdams, NigelAfriyie, AdamAldous, PeterAlexander, rh DannyAllen, Mr GrahamAmess, Mr DavidAndrew, StuartArbuthnot, rh Mr JamesBacon, Mr RichardBagshawe, Ms LouiseBaker, NormanBaker, SteveBaldry, TonyBaldwin, HarriettBarclay, StephenBarker, GregoryBaron, Mr JohnBarron, rh Mr KevinBarwell, GavinBayley, HughBebb, GutoBeith, rh Sir AlanBellingham, Mr HenryBeresford, Sir PaulBerry, JakeBetts, Mr CliveBingham, AndrewBinley, Mr BrianBirtwistle, GordonBlackman, BobBlackwood, NicolaBlunkett, rh Mr DavidBlunt, Mr CrispinBoles, NickBone, Mr PeterBottomley, PeterBradley, KarenBrady, Mr GrahamBrake, TomBray, AngieBrazier, Mr JulianBridgen, AndrewBrine, Mr SteveBrokenshire, JamesBrooke, AnnetteBrowne, Mr JeremyBruce, FionaBruce, rh MalcolmBuckland, Mr RobertBurley, Mr AidanBurns, ConorBurns, Mr SimonBurrowes, Mr DavidBurstow, Mr PaulBurt, LorelyByles, DanCable, rh VinceCairns, AlunCameron, rh Mr DavidCampbell, Mr AlanCampbell, rh Sir MenziesCarmichael, Mr AlistairCarmichael, NeilCarswell, Mr DouglasCash, Mr WilliamChishti, RehmanChope, Mr ChristopherClappison, Mr JamesClark, rh GregClarke, rh Mr KennethClifton-Brown, GeoffreyCollins, DamianColvile, OliverCox, Mr GeoffreyCrabb, StephenCrockart, MikeCrouch, TraceyDavidson, Mr IanDavies, David T. C. (Monmouth)Davies, GeraintDavies, GlynDavies, PhilipDinenage, CarolineDjanogly, Mr JonathanDodds, rh Mr NigelDonaldson, rh Mr Jeffrey M.Donohoe, Mr Brian H.Dorries, NadineDoyle-Price, JackieDrax, RichardDuddridge, JamesDuncan Smith, rh Mr IainDunne, Mr PhilipEllis, MichaelEllison, JaneEllman, Mrs LouiseEllwood, Mr TobiasElphicke, CharlieEustice, GeorgeEvans, GrahamEvans, JonathanEvennett, Mr DavidFabricant, MichaelFallon, MichaelFarron, TimFeatherstone, LynneField, rh Mr Frank Field, Mr Mark Foster, Mr DonFox, rh Dr LiamFrancois, rh Mr MarkFreeman, GeorgeFreer, MikeFullbrook, LorraineFuller, RichardGarnier, MarkGauke, Mr DavidGeorge, AndrewGibb, Mr NickGilbert, StephenGillan, rh Mrs CherylGlen, JohnGlindon, Mrs MaryGoggins, rh PaulGoldsmith, ZacGoodwill, Mr RobertGove, rh MichaelGraham, RichardGrant, Mrs HelenGray, Mr JamesGreen, DamianGreening, JustineGrieve, rh Mr DominicGriffiths, AndrewGummer, BenGyimah, Mr SamHalfon, RobertHames, DuncanHammond, rh Mr PhilipHammond, StephenHancock, MatthewHancock, Mr MikeHands, GregHanson, rh Mr DavidHarper, Mr MarkHarrington, RichardHarris, RebeccaHart, SimonHarvey, NickHaselhurst, rh Sir AlanHayes, Mr JohnHeald, Mr OliverHeath, Mr DavidHeaton-Harris, ChrisHemming, JohnHenderson, GordonHendrick, MarkHendry, CharlesHerbert, rh NickHillier, MegHinds, DamianHoban, Mr MarkHollingbery, GeorgeHollobone, Mr PhilipHolloway, Mr AdamHopkins, KrisHorwood, MartinHowarth, rh Mr GeorgeHowarth, Mr GeraldHowell, JohnHughes, SimonHunter, MarkHurd, Mr NickIllsley, Mr EricJackson, Mr StewartJames, MargotJavid, SajidJenkin, Mr BernardJohnson, rh AlanJohnson, GarethJohnson, JosephJones, AndrewJones, Mr DavidJones, GrahamJones, Mr KevanJones, Mr MarcusKawczynski, DanielKirby, SimonKnight, rh Mr GregKwarteng, KwasiLaing, Mrs EleanorLamb, NormanLancaster, MarkLansley, rh Mr AndrewLatham, PaulineLeadsom, AndreaLee, JessicaLee, Dr PhillipLefroy, JeremyLeslie, CharlotteLetwin, rh Mr OliverLewis, BrandonLewis, Dr JulianLiddell-Grainger, Mr IanLidington, Mr DavidLilley, rh Mr PeterLloyd, StephenLopresti, JackLord, JonathanLoughton, TimLuff, PeterLumley, KarenMacleod, MaryMann, JohnMaude, rh Mr FrancisMay, rh Mrs TheresaMcCartney, JasonMcCartney, KarlMcCrea, Dr WilliamMcLoughlin, rh Mr PatrickMcPartland, StephenMcVey, EstherMenzies, MarkMetcalfe, StephenMichael, rh AlunMiller, MariaMills, NigelMilton, AnneMoore, rh MichaelMordaunt, PennyMorgan, NickyMorris, Anne MarieMorris, DavidMorris, JamesMosley, StephenMowat, DavidMunt, TessaMurphy, rh PaulMurray, SheryllMurrison, Dr AndrewNash, PamelaNewmark, Mr BrooksNewton, SarahNokes, CarolineNuttall, Mr DavidOfford, Mr MatthewOllerenshaw, EricOpperman, GuyOttaway, RichardPaice, Mr JamesPaisley, Ian Parish, Neil Patel, PritiPaterson, rh Mr OwenPawsey, MarkPenning, MikePenrose, JohnPercy, AndrewPerry, ClairePhillips, StephenPickles, rh Mr EricPincher, ChristopherPoulter, Dr DanielPound, StephenPrisk, Mr MarkPritchard, MarkRaab, Mr DominicRandall, rh Mr JohnReckless, MarkRedwood, rh Mr JohnRees-Mogg, JacobReid, Mr AlanRifkind, rh Sir MalcolmRobathan, Mr AndrewRobertson, HughRobertson, Mr LaurenceRobinson, Mr GeoffreyRogerson, DanRosindell, AndrewRudd, AmberRussell, BobRutley, DavidSandys, LauraScott, Mr LeeSelous, AndrewShannon, JimShapps, rh GrantSharma, AlokSheerman, Mr BarryShelbrooke, AlecSimmonds, MarkSimpson, DavidSimpson, Mr KeithSkidmore, ChrisSmith, Miss ChloeSmith, HenrySmith, JulianSmith, Sir RobertSoames, NicholasSoubry, AnnaSpelman, rh Mrs CarolineSpencer, Mr MarkStanley, rh Sir JohnStephenson, AndrewStevenson, JohnStewart, BobStewart, IainStewart, RoryStraw, rh Mr JackStreeter, Mr GaryStride, MelStuart, Mr GrahamStunell, AndrewSturdy, JulianSwales, IanSwayne, Mr DesmondSwinson, JoSwire, Mr HugoSyms, Mr RobertTapsell, Sir PeterThurso, JohnTimms, rh StephenTimpson, Mr EdwardTomlinson, JustinTredinnick, DavidTruss, ElizabethTurner, Mr AndrewTyrie, Mr AndrewUppal, PaulVaizey, Mr EdwardVickers, MartinWalker, Mr CharlesWalker, Mr RobinWallace, Mr BenWard, Mr DavidWeatherley, MikeWebb, SteveWharton, JamesWheeler, HeatherWhite, ChrisWhittaker, CraigWhittingdale, Mr JohnWiggin, BillWilletts, rh Mr DavidWilliams, RogerWilliams, StephenWilliamson, GavinWilson, Mr RobWilson, SammyWinterton, rh Ms RosieWollaston, Dr SarahWright, SimonYeo, Mr TimYoung, rh Sir GeorgeZahawi, NadhimTellers for the Ayes:Mr Shailesh Vara andJeremy WrightNOESAbbott, Ms DianeAli, RushanaraClark, KatyCorbyn, JeremyCrausby, Mr DavidDanczuk, SimonDavis, rh Mr DavidDobson, rh FrankDurkan, MarkEdwards, JonathanEngel, NataschaFlynn, PaulGardiner, BarryGilmore, SheilaGlindon, Mrs MaryGodsiff, Mr RogerHilling, JulieHoey, KateHood, Mr JimHopkins, KelvinHosie, StewartHuppert, Dr JulianJackson, GlendaKeen, AlanLavery, IanLlwyd, Mr ElfynLucas, CarolineMacNeil, Mr Angus BrendanMcDonnell, JohnMercer, Patrick Qureshi, YasminRobertson, AngusRotheram, SteveSanders, Mr AdrianSarwar, AnasShepherd, Mr RichardShuker, GavinSkinner, Mr DennisSoulsby, Sir PeterUmunna, Mr ChukaVaz, rh KeithWeir, Mr MikeWhiteford, Dr EilidhWilliams, HywelWilliams, Mr MarkWinnick, Mr DavidWood, MikeTellers for the Noes:Pete Wishart andMr John LeechQuestion accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of Section 25) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 24 June, be approved.

European External Action Service

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Relevant document: The Eighteenth Report of the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2009-10, HC 5-xvii.]

17:27

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of European Document Nos. 8029/10 and 11507/10, draft Council Decisions establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service; European Document No. 8134/10, draft Regulation on the Financial Regulations for the European External Action Service; and an unnumbered draft Regulation amending Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the conditions of employment of other servants of those Communities; and supports the Government’s policy to agree to the Decision establishing the External Action Service at the Foreign Affairs Council in July 2010.

It was the European Scrutiny Committee which, during the last Parliament, called for a debate on the measures to establish the European External Action Service. I am pleased to have the opportunity to update the House on recent developments, and to give Members on both sides of the House a chance to debate this important issue.

The EEAS was established by the Lisbon treaty, which came into effect last year. As the House will know, my party did not support either the treaty or the creation of the EEAS, but, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told the House in June this year, the EEAS is now a fact. The challenge for the Government has been, and remains, to help to shape the service so that it both respects the competence of member states over foreign policy, and at the same time provides for a more cohesive and effective diplomatic voice for the European Union collectively on issues on which the EU, speaking as a whole in support of an agreed common position, carries more clout than member states acting on their own.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

What will happen on the many occasions when the United Kingdom is on a completely different page from the European Union, which seems to be the case more and more frequently? Will the EEAS be making proposals with which this country vehemently disagrees?

[Mr Lidington]

If the High Representative, Lady Ashton, and the EEAS are to represent a common EU position on an aspect of foreign policy, they can do so only on the basis of a foreign policy mandate that has been approved unanimously by all 27 member states. We have the safeguard that if the United Kingdom wishes to exercise a right of veto and prevent a common position from being reached on a particular aspect of foreign policy, that power remains with us.

[Philip Davies]

I do not wish to delay the Minister unduly, but I do not understand for the life of me why he has so little faith in British ambassadors’ ability to represent this country’s opinions, given that presumably the diplomatic services of other countries are perfectly capable of representing those countries’ views.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend misunderstands me if he thinks I have any lack of confidence in the capabilities of our network of ambassadors and high commissioners around the world, but it is the Government’s judgment that there are areas where it makes sense for the 27 member states of the European Union to speak with one voice if they can. Later in my speech I will give some examples of where I believe United Kingdom national interests have been well served by such a common approach.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

That seems to be a change of policy from when the current Foreign Secretary was on the Opposition Benches, when he said exactly the opposite.

[Mr Lidington]

I know that my hon. Friend has adopted a position that is profoundly sceptical not only of the EEAS but of Britain’s membership of the European Union and of the EU as a whole, but I must tell him that the key difference between then and now is that the treaty of Lisbon has been ratified by all 27 member states of the EU, and it is therefore now in force as a matter of both European and domestic law. As our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear at the time when ratification was completed, that alters the terms of trade, and we as a party agreed while still in opposition that if we formed a Government we would work within that new basis established by the Lisbon treaty.

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

I too am a huge respecter of British ambassadors, but the last thing I would want them to do is design development programmes, which was at one stage the suggestion for the role of the EEAS. Negotiations shifted that position, but can the Minister give the House any further information now as to whether there is clarity yet about who will have responsibility for the programming of development spending?

[Mr Lidington]

Yes. In the division of duties set out in the decision we are debating this evening, the EEAS and the High Representative will have responsibility for strategic decisions about the priorities of the EU’s development programme, but the Development Commissioner and his team within the Commission will remain responsible for the design and implementation of particular development programmes.

For this to work effectively, there clearly needs to be a meeting of minds between the High Representative and the Development Commissioner. Certainly when I have discussed this matter both with Baroness Ashton and with the Development Commissioner—whom I met in Brussels last week—they were both very confident that the package that has been agreed provided for a sensible division of responsibility, and also that the transfer to the EEAS of a number of staff working in the Commission on development would give the EEAS the expertise in development policy to enable it to take those strategic decisions.

I have to say to the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), however, that this is one area where the British Government continue to have reservations about the final package. We would have preferred a slightly larger shift of people with development expertise into the EEAS to make certain that it had the required expertise, but the two people most directly responsible for implementing this policy seem to be satisfied with the measure in its current form.

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

My hon. Friend mentioned Baroness Ashton, which reminds me that there was a big fanfare when the positions of EU President and Foreign Minister were announced, to the point where the Labour Government at that time said that when these characters visited London they would stop the traffic. On the numerous occasions when either of them has visited London, have there been any congestion issues?

[Mr Lidington]

I can assure my hon. Friend that, based on the various conversations I have had with Baroness Ashton in the past few weeks, she has no wish whatever to interfere with the free flow of London traffic. It is a good sign that the High Representative, who is now assuming her office, is someone who is focused on practical action rather than on glitz, glamour, motorcades and red carpets. That is an important difference between her approach and the approach that a possible alternative candidate might have adopted. [Hon. Members: “Name him!”]

I believe that the political agreement reached between the High Representative and the European Parliament about the structure and accountability of the EEAS provides the safeguards the British Government were seeking, particularly those we sought on the competence of member states over foreign policy. That was no mean achievement, for we need to be clear about one thing. Those who argued that the ratification of Lisbon would somehow automatically bring an end to turf wars between different European institutions, or that it would satisfy the ambitions of those seeking to replace national with supra-national control over foreign policy, were plain wrong in those assumptions.

The European Parliament demanded to be given a much greater say over the running of the EEAS. In particular, it wanted the right to hold hearings on the appointment of heads of EU delegations; it wanted the appointment of political deputies to the High Representative; and it even sought to make the entire EEAS part of the Commission. The Commission sought for itself an extensive representational role. Others wanted to extend the remit of the EEAS to include the provision of consular services.

Had these proposals been accepted, they would have added up to a major encroachment by both the European Parliament and the Commission into areas of policy that are, as set out in the treaties, clearly the responsibility of member states. We, working with France and other countries that shared our view that the EEAS should be led by the member states and should not be under the thumb of the European Parliament, successfully resisted those proposals. As a result, the draft decision we are debating this evening is a framework that respects British foreign policy objectives and allows us to establish an external action service that does not replace national diplomatic action, but can complement and add value to it. As article 3.1 of the draft decision says, in terms:

“The EEAS shall support and work in cooperation with the diplomatic services of the Member States”.

The EEAS does not mean a big new role for the EU in international affairs or shifts in competence; indeed, we will very carefully police any claims or action to the contrary.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a very good case, and I speak as somebody who is not in favour of British withdrawal from the European Union and who recognises, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, that we are where we are. However, I hope that my hon. Friend is not advancing the case that because we have obtained one or two safeguards in relation to the construction of the EEAS, that invalidates the principled objection that we maintained throughout the treaty of Lisbon proceedings to both the creation of the EEAS and the position of the High Representative. We are just mitigating the damaging consequences, are we not?

[Mr Lidington]

I am certainly not resiling from anything that I or my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said when we were speaking from the Opposition Benches. But as my hon. Friend has acknowledged, we are in the legal and constitutional position in which we find ourselves, and in those circumstances I believe it to be the duty of the Government of the United Kingdom to fashion the best way forward we can, in alliance with like-minded member states, to provide the maximum possible safeguards for the freedom of individual European nations to act in pursuit of national interests when it comes to foreign policy.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Iraq war, would it not have been an interesting situation if the High Representative had been in place and had been trying to represent the whole of the European Union at that time, because different countries were taking very different positions? I would like the Minister to spell something out. When the High Representative is going around the world putting a particular slant on a European policy that we oppose completely, how are we going to make sure that we can tell the world, and a particular country, that we have a position different from that of the European Union?

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, because he brings me to the next passage in my speech. The important point is that the EEAS will have two key functions, the first of which is to speak on behalf of a common position on foreign policy agreed unanimously by the Council and embodied in a mandate given by the Council to the High Representative. So in the case of Iraq, or any comparable foreign policy issue where member states were divided, that unanimity—and hence that mandate—would not exist. Therefore, the High Representative and the EEAS would not be entitled either to speak or to act in the way that my hon. Friend fears.

The second responsibility of the EEAS is to support the Commission in implementing the external aspects of policies over which the Commission already, under the treaties, has competence, such as international trade. The fact that the High Representative is now, in effect, wearing two hats, whereby she is accountable to the Council for common foreign and security policy decisions but also works as a Commissioner on those matters that are properly the responsibility of the Commission, means that we have the potential for a rather more cohesive international engagement by the EU than has previously been the case. The Government would like this new institutional arrangement to complement our own commitment to an active British foreign policy and help to deliver the diplomatic objectives of the United Kingdom.

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

I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box for the first time when I have been in the Chamber. I believe that Labour went through eight Ministers for Europe, so he may have a longer tenure than some of ours; I am sure that he will do his best. Just for the record, when we sent this document for debate before the election there was, as he mentioned, a bid from the European Parliament for three deputies—I believe it calls them secretaries-general—and hearings. Could he explain to the House exactly what the final agreement was on the accountability of the EEAS to the European Parliament? I note that this has all gone through and been rubber-stamped by this Government, without this Parliament having a European Scrutiny Committee to ask them to make themselves accountable to their Parliament. So nobody knows what the Minister agreed when he went to Europe.

[Mr Lidington]

I regret the fact that the European Scrutiny Committee in the Commons has not yet been re-established, so there has not been the opportunity for a debate within that Committee before the House as a whole was invited to take a decision. I took responsibility for deciding that the best way forward in the circumstances was to make provision, through the usual channels, for a debate on the Floor of the House, so that all Members had the opportunity to debate this matter before the recess. Had we delayed bringing this forward for debate until the autumn, there would have been at least equal cause for complaint on the part of right hon. and hon. Members.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about the accountability of the EEAS to the European Parliament. It will be accountable in financial terms to the European Parliament, in the same way as other organisations within the EU are accountable for the way in which they spend European Union money. The High Representative is going to make verbal reports to the European Parliament at regular intervals, but she is not accountable to it in policy terms, nor will it have the right to vet, or hold the equivalent of confirmation hearings on, the appointment of heads of EU delegations to various capitals around the world.

[Mr Ellwood]

I am pleased to see my hon. Friend in his place and starting to scrutinise EU legislation in a way that we have not seen before, rather than taking the tick-box approach that we saw from the Labour party. Concerns are expressed on both sides of the House about the duplication in the EU. It still has two Parliament buildings, it has a European Defence Agency that tries to mimic what NATO does, and it is still trying to build a satellite system, Galileo, which duplicates the free global positioning system operated by the United States. Will my hon. Friend ensure that he keeps the EU’s ambitions in check, that there is a threshold for how far European countries can come together and work together, and that there is clarity about where that stops and sovereign power takes over?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend invites me to trespass on some policy areas that are properly the responsibility of other Government Departments, but I will not be tempted too far in that direction. The Government are collectively committed to seeking the greatest possible value for money from every part of the European Union organisation and to ensuring that pressure from within European Union institutions to extend competence is resisted. I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured, too, if I repeat to him now that it is the Government’s intention later this year to introduce legislation, as promised in the coalition’s programme for government, to require a referendum and a vote by the people of the United Kingdom before any future treaty change that transfers further powers from this House to European institutions.

[Michael Connarty]

In keeping with what has been called the “tick-box approach”—an approach that won the European Scrutiny Committee the inquisitor of the year award, which has never been won when a Conservative has held the position of Chair—I want to point out that the Minister has not answered the question. The bid from the European Parliament was to have three deputy secretaries-general from each of the political parties in the European Parliament who would substitute for the High Representative. What happened to that bid?

[Mr Lidington]

That proposal did not succeed. The position on deputising when the High Representative is absent will depend very much on the area of competence involved in that meeting. The High Representative will have three options. She will be able to appoint a senior member of her official team, once that team is in place, to speak in her place. She will be able to ask a fellow commissioner to represent her when the item being discussed is something that properly under the treaty falls to the competence of the Commission. When it comes to a matter to do with foreign or security policy, she is also free to invite the Foreign Minister of a member state to act on her behalf. I hope that I am not breaking some confidences if I say that she is already making good use of that last option. She has asked the Foreign Minister of Hungary to stand in for her at a forthcoming meeting between the EU and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. We have an example there of member states being seen to be clearly in the driving seat and of powers not simply being ceded automatically to the supranational institutions.

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

I am concerned about value for money. I am surprised that the European Union will be able to achieve the development of the EAS on the basis of budget neutrality, unless it has already put in a massive budget. I am also concerned about the duplication that has already been mentioned. Will my hon. Friend assure me that we might even try to get a rebate if we do not need the EAS to do certain things on our behalf, including military planning, military missions and so on?

[Mr Lidington]

I was going to say more about the budget a little later in my speech. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me if I try to make some progress. I shall respond later to the points that she was making about the budget, and if she wants to intervene again I shall try to make time for her to do so.

In response to what my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said, I want to give a couple of examples to illustrate that it is possible for the new institutional arrangements to complement an active British foreign policy. The first example concerns political stability in the western Balkans, which is incomplete and fragile. The Government strongly believe that it is in the United Kingdom’s interests to have political stability, human rights and the rule of law entrenched in that part of our continent, but that is not a goal that the UK can secure on its own. It is not an exaggeration to say that the situation in the western Balkans is a litmus test of any EU aspiration to take on an effective diplomatic role. We hope that the EAS will make the Balkans one of its highest priorities and that the new institutional arrangements will make it possible to pursue our common objectives with greater cohesion and consistency than was possible before.

My second example is the threat to maritime trade and the safety of voyagers posed by pirates operating off the coast of Somalia. Already, the different arms of the EU are beginning to work more effectively together: security is a member state and Council responsibility, but development falls to the Commission. The new arrangements maintain the focus on poverty alleviation, but better co-ordination within the single framework of the EAS makes it possible to get development money spent on building new prisons in Kenya to incarcerate pirates, which helps us to achieve our shared security objectives. If the EAS works effectively, the bringing together of the Commission and Council arms of EU external policy under the aegis of the High Representative, instead of their remaining in separate institutions as now, ought to make it possible to achieve a more joined-up policy in tackling other challenges, such as Afghanistan and Kosovo.

The EAS is not going to be some kind of elixir to cure all diplomatic ills and we have to be realistic about what it can achieve. It will be able to act only where there is a common position, as the High Representative can advocate a foreign policy position only on the basis of a unanimous mandate from the Foreign Ministers of member states. As the example of Iraq, which my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) cited, illustrates, there are no institutional solutions to problems that, at root, require both political will and consistent, shared views.

The High Representative has made a very good start to her challenging role. She has an impossible job—almost three jobs, in fact: High Representative, British Commissioner in Brussels and chair of the Foreign Affairs Council. She has been criticised for not being at two different ministerial meetings that were held in two different countries at the same time, but that seems more than a little unfair. I am told that she has 400 days of appointments in the year, and she does not yet really have a proper department to help her. The Conservatives wished her well when she embarked on her task and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I are already working closely with her.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has touched on a number of the difficulties for the High Representative in terms of timing and her programme. Does she not have another problem in that some of her functions are based on democratic decision making, such as those in the Council, while others are based on her role in the Commission, which is an undemocratic function, and others still involve a kind of quasi-democracy? Does he acknowledge that that is likely to create a great deal of confusion and uncertainty and that it could cause considerable damage to the clarity that is needed in the very complicated and extremely dangerous world that we now inherit?

[Mr Lidington]

Those differences in competence exist already in the structure of European external policy that is being replaced by the EAS. I have been impressed by the High Representative’s determination to address seriously the problems that my hon. Friend identifies. He is correct to warn of the risk that the creation of the EAS will be taken by some as an opportunity for competence creep and to establish a more active and ambitious role for supranational European institutions than was envisaged when the EAS was set up or than is provided for in the treaties. The assurance I give him is that the British Government are absolutely determined to ensure that the rights and competences of member states are fully respected, not just by the High Representative, but by every other institution that forms part of the European Union.

[Mr Bone]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Lidington]

If my hon. Friend will allow me, I want to make some progress, although I will try to give way again a little later.

We are content for EU delegations to take on some representational roles, when we want them to do so and have mandated them to do so. Supporting the EU in having enhanced rights in the UN General Assembly is a good example. We want the High Representative to be able to do what the rotating presidency used to do: to speak and act in support of an agreed common position. The Foreign Secretary explained that policy in more detail in a written ministerial statement earlier today. If the General Assembly agrees, the High Representative will have the rights necessary, and no more than the rights necessary, to fulfil the representational role previously carried out by the rotating presidency. That includes the right to speak after the member states have spoken, but not the right to a seat among individual UN members and certainly not the right to vote in the General Assembly. These arrangements will not give EU delegations enhanced rights in United Nations agencies or in other international organisations.

The Government will judge any further proposal for the EU to act in a representative capacity case by case and on its merits. Critically, we will take a view on whether such a move would help to achieve British interests and whether any proposal would compromise the lead role for member states over foreign policy that is explicitly provided for in the treaty.

Some bodies, including the Commission and some of the smaller member states, want EU delegations to take a greater role in representing EU positions around the world than we think is either desirable or legally consistent with the treaty. Those ambitions are not secret. For example, the Commission has made it clear that it wants EU delegations to take over responsibility to act not only on policy areas where there is clear EU competence, but on those areas where competence is shared by the EU and member states, even if competence has not been exercised at EU level previously. In our view, such a move would not be acceptable. I have written to the Chairs of the two Scrutiny Committees today to highlight that risk and to make it clear that the Government will be vigilant to defend the interests and treaty rights of not only the United Kingdom but all member states.

The initial EAS decision was taken by the Council on 26 April, after negotiations between Lady Ashton, the European Parliament and the Council. The European Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour of the draft decision very recently. Subject to the views of the House and other national Governments, the General Affairs Council of 26 July should be in a position to adopt the decision. Agreement on the accompanying changes to the staff and financial regulations will follow in the autumn, and Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise those later measures.

I should add a word on the staff. In his speech on 1 July, the Foreign Secretary emphasised the need to increase the number of UK nationals in European institutions. The establishment of a new service gives us an opportunity to promote British officials right from the start, and we have a large number of British diplomats with an interest in moving across to the EAS for part of their career. Staff in the institutions are independent, but we all know that different nationalities bring different perspectives, and we need more people with a British outlook to help to secure the UK interest for the long term. Our starting point in the EAS is good: already, about 8% of the staff of Relex—the Commission directorate that will initially form the bulk of the new service—are British; they are concentrated at the more senior levels and include about a quarter of the directors.

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

On value for money, will my hon. Friend indicate the cost and resource implications of the further staffing of British diplomats in the European Union as a result of setting up the new institution?

[Mr Lidington]

Before I respond directly to my hon. Friend, I should add that there will be intense competition for appointments, which will quite rightly be made on merit. However, we are determined to fight for a good share of the senior positions in the EAS because we think that we have first-rate British candidates to put forward.

We are clear that we do not plan to put aside extra money for the EAS in the long term. We accept that getting the service started and bringing in national secondees to serve alongside those who will transfer to the EAS from existing posts in the external service of the Commission or the Council will involve some additional start-up costs, for which we are planning. The additional cost for the United Kingdom is about £1.1 million, but that is before any calculation of the abatement is taken into account.

[Mr Clappison]

I think that the Minister is citing a written answer that he gave me. May I take him away from the EU accounting procedures with which some of us are familiar? The External Action Service will have 136 embassies. It already employs 700 staff—he looks puzzled, but that comes from a written answer that he gave me—and might have thousands more. Without talking about accounting manoeuvres or additional amounts, will he tell us the cost of those 136 embassies and the hundreds, if not thousands, of staff employed by the EAS?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend overlooks the fact that the EAS, as he describes it, will simply be the sum of existing EU missions and activities that already form part of the external work of the Commission and the Council, which are funded from within the existing EU budget. The British Government’s objective is to ensure, despite the acknowledged additional start-up costs, that we use the bringing together of disparate external functions to seek savings by eliminating duplication. The EAS budget is due for review in 2013; our objective is to ensure that by that stage we have got rid of what we intend will be a temporary spike due to start-up costs, and managed to achieve savings and better value for money. The EAS should be about the effective delivery of foreign policy, not new and expensive bureaucracy.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

The Minister did not answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) about overall cost. Will he give the House a guarantee that if there is to be any breach of budget neutrality, he and his Government will resist that by vetoing any increase above current expenditure?

[Mr Lidington]

We will certainly resist any further increase in current expenditure because we want maximum value for money from the EAS, as we do from every other arm of the European Union. I welcomed Baroness Ashton’s pledge on 8 July that she would do everything possible

“to maximise cost efficiencies, avoid duplication and strengthen financial discipline.”

She said:

“I want a lean and efficient Service that assures best value for money, staffed by the best and the brightest from across the European Union.”

The Government worked hard to defend the national interest and did all that we could to ensure that the service continued to respect national competences and recognised the central importance of intergovernmentalism in framing the European Union’s common foreign policy. Through a robust and pragmatic approach, we have secured a framework for the EAS that respects UK interests, that can strengthen and support national diplomacy, and that will not lead to additional costs in the long term. This is only the start, however, and we now need to work intensively with our European partners to make it a reality. I commend the motion to the House.

18:05

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a great delight to follow the Minister for Europe and to be able to welcome the conversion of Aylesbury. I had not realised that Brussels was on the road from Aylesbury to Damascus, but clearly it is. There is more rejoicing in heaven when one sinner repenteth and joineth the pro-European cause than when the 99 stay over there. It is a delight to know that he has hidden his pro-European light under such a nasty bushel for such a long time. I was obviously tempted to think of ways of uniting with his Eurosceptic Back Benchers and finding a way of voting against the motion, but as half the papers have my name all over them and were negotiated by me, it would be a bit opportunistic, even for me, so the Opposition decided against that.

The Minister has a very fine Europe team in the Foreign Office to support him, and I would like briefly to pay tribute in particular to Kim Darroch, the UK’s permanent representative in Brussels, who does an extremely fine job. The Minister also has fine support in his private office among those who work with him on European matters, so I am sure that he will do a very fine job. I think he suggested that Cathy Ashton had abandoned glamour, but I would gently say to him that that is a foul calumny on a very fine woman. However, I am glad that he is very supportive of the work that she is doing.

[Mr Ellwood]

Glitz.

[Chris Bryant]

I think that the Minister said glitz and glamour. Perhaps Cathy will defend herself.

The important point is that we have before us a slightly difficult process. I fully understand why it has been difficult for the Government to bring things before a European Scrutiny Committee, though I gently say that it would have been better to have had a European Scrutiny Committee in place by now. I gather that we will have a splendid cream-suited Chair, in the shape of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), but it would be good if we had a full Committee and if that were able to get on with its work as fast as possible. As the Minister will know, I was taking this business through the House at a difficult time in the run-up to the general election, and I tried as far as possible to keep the two Committees in the Lords and in the Commons informed about the process of the discussions that were going on at every stage. But the fact that we have now had several months without a European Scrutiny Committee does not enable this House to do the business of scrutinising these and many other decisions better.

I would just ask the Minister briefly, on the matter of the intergovernmental conference, which was not announced to the House and which was held in the margins of another meeting and agreed to by the Prime Minister without any announcement to the House, if he could at some point provide us with the minutes of that conference. They have not yet been available anywhere, either on EUROPA or in the Library of the House.

[Mr Bone]

I am interested that the Opposition will not seek to divide the House on this. Has not the shadow Minister just made a very good case of the fact that the House has not scrutinised the business properly? Would not that be a good reason to seek to divide the House?

[Chris Bryant]

I shall be voting on the substance of the matter, which I wholeheartedly support and, I have to say—this will come as a great disappointment to the hon. Gentleman—in words almost identical to those used by the Minister. No, I do not think it is a good reason to seek to divide the House, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to, obviously he is free so to do.

The reason we support the European External Action Service, and have for some time now, is that we believe that we are moving, as the Foreign Secretary himself said earlier this year in a speech, into a much more multilateral world, where we cannot just accept that there will be two great powers—the United States of America and China. We have to make sure that our power, both exercised independently ourselves and through the European Union, is used to its best effect. We know that in relation to the emerging economies of China, Russia, India, Mexico and Brazil, it is all the more important that Europe takes a united stance if we are to achieve effective outcomes.

We also know that the EU’s previous foreign relations structure has been grossly inefficient, thus an individual country has a desk officer for the European Council and a desk officer for the European Commission, and, on top of that, two different departments within the Commission might have desk officers. That is clearly a duplication—not the one to which hon. Members referred earlier, but one that we want to see done away with; and that is why we support the EAS.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Of course I give way to the honourable former Member of the European Parliament.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Should the EAS come into effect, how hopeful is the hon. Gentleman that, given the duplication that he just outlined, and not the duplication to which others referred, the Commission will actually shed staff?

[Chris Bryant]

The Commission does not have any choice, because the staff will be automatically moved into the EAS. The same applies to the Council. If each country approves the measure, through their parliamentary processes, the move will happen automatically, so I have confidence in the Commission. There are many areas where I do not have confidence in the Commission shedding staff, and where the hon. Gentleman is right to say that sometimes we have to ensure that it does not encroach on the powers of member states, but this is not one of them.

When I was Europe Minister, I tried to fight for some important principles. First, it was important to make it absolutely clear that the head of each delegation had full power over the whole delegation, because otherwise, in any individual deputation in any country throughout the world, different elements might compete against each other. Although Europe might have spoken with one voice, because it had established a single mandate, the individual delegation in that country might not. I am glad that we won that argument.

I am glad, too, that we won the argument to bring the politico-military structures, the civilian planning conduct and capability element, the crisis management and planning directorate and the EU military staff inside the EAS, because it would simply have been to duplicate and make the system more complex if we had left them outside.

I shall not take up much time, because I want to ensure that there is more opportunity for other Members to participate, but I must note two areas where, to be honest, I felt that I had to handbag the High Representative. Indeed, there were sharp words at April’s General Affairs and External Relations Council. First, I do not believe that the EAS should set up consular services for every country in the European Union, and I was determined to ensure that the text that came out of April’s Council made that absolutely and abundantly clear. I confess that the text that we ended up with—I am sure that all hon. Members will have read it—is slightly complex. Indeed, article 5(10) states that the Union delegation shall, acting in accordance with article 35 third sub-paragraph of the TEU, and upon request of member states, support the member states in their diplomatic relations and in their role of providing consular protection to union citizens in third countries on a resource-neutral basis.

Two elements of that are vital, but they sound misguided. First, “on a resource-neutral basis”, means that no additional money should go into the EAS to provide consular services on behalf of other countries. Secondly, the reference to article 35 of the Maastricht Treaty on European Union, as I am sure the Minister knows, means that the circumstances in which the EAS can provide consular services are very closely constrained. The Maastricht treaty—under the provisions that John Major introduced, incidentally—makes it clear that where an individual citizen of any EU member state is in a third country and their member state has no representation, other member states can provide support. That happens fairly regularly. In countries where Britain has no representation, sometimes a British citizen will be supported by other EU members. It is also true that the services of other countries are provided to us. For instance, in Laos, where we have no representation, the Australians provide consular protection.

In our discussions leading up to April’s Council meeting, I thought it very important to ensure that countries such as Estonia and Latvia, which would dearly love the EU to provide consular services and remove the power of member states to provide them throughout the world, should not see the measure as a great cash cow. While many in the room argued forcefully that we should be moving towards European consular services, I said that we would use the British veto if that proposal came forward. That is why we have the document that is now before us.

The next issue is budget neutrality. As I said, there has been considerable duplication in the system in the years thus far, whereby there are desk officers for the same country from different elements of the structure of the European Union, and that has been counter-productive. I am confident, with Cathy at the helm, that there will be a strong insistence on ensuring that those duplications do not survive, and that there is therefore no reason why the EAS should cost us more in the long term.

I note the Minister’s optimism when he says that in the short term this will cost us only £1.1 million more.

[Mr Lidington]

I am sorry—the hon. Gentleman misheard me. I said that there would be about £1.1 million, not £1.1 billion, of additional costs for the United Kingdom.

[Chris Bryant]

I am sorry, but the Minister misheard me, because I said “million” as well. It is great to be able to be entirely of one mind.

However, my anxiety is more about the Minister’s optimism than his numeracy. Pressures will inevitably come from other member states, many of which are going through the same process of retrenchment in their budgets and will find that that directly affects their foreign offices. When I was in the post that he now holds, I spoke to three of my counterparts, who talked about 50% or 60% cuts in their foreign offices. In many of those countries, there may well be a political pressure towards the European Union carrying out more of their foreign services, and he will rightly want to be very cautious about that. Throughout the whole process of the treaty going through and the setting up of the EAS, it was our clear intention that we, Britain, should be able to fight our corner, but we also wanted the whole European Union in our corner. I very much hope that that is what this measure will achieve.

My final point relates to British staff in the EAS. Like the Minister, I hope that many diplomats in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will want to work there. He said that many more suddenly want to go and work there; I do not know whether that is because they do not like working with him or because they are fearful of what is going to happen in the FCO. On a serious note, one of the complexities in trying to get British staff to work in any of the institutions of the European Union is that they often cannot see a path back. It is not only a question of whether British people speak foreign languages, but of whether they can see a career that takes them to Brussels and brings them back thereafter. I hope that at some point the Minister will be able to enlighten the House further on those matters.

I wholeheartedly support the motion in the name of the Minister and congratulate on him on his volte-face.

18:18

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

Like other Conservative Members, I am sceptical about the Lisbon treaty, but we are where are. We have the European External Action Service, and it is in Britain’s interest that it at least works.

The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has taken a close interest in the EAS, and I welcome this debate. It hardly helps that the negotiations have been taking place in Brussels when we have not had a European Scrutiny Committee. However, the Foreign Affairs Committee is grateful that the Government and their predecessors have co-operated with it in providing the information that it needed and, in that spirit, I hope that they continue to do so.

We are able to consider today’s documents in advance of the Council formally giving its approval only because High Representative Ashton has spent the past three months negotiating with the European Parliament. I have to confess that having had a look at the documents, I am sceptical about whether the changes secured by the European Parliament amount to any major alteration to the likely functioning of the EAS. The Parliament largely won confirmation on a number of points that were either implied or explicitly set out in the Lisbon treaty or in the Swedish presidency report on the EAS adopted by the European Council last October. I note that the explanatory memorandum to the revised draft Council decision states that it “respects the essentials” of the proposals on which the Council reached political agreement in April. Under the circumstances, I congratulate the Government on resisting a number of demands regarding the EAS that would have been very unhelpful from a British point of view.

[Chris Bryant]

Actually, some of the most significant changes happened some time before. In particular, the battle relating to consular services was held between October and April.

[Richard Ottaway]

That is my point, and I do not believe that the subsequent demands have changed things at all.

The negotiations of the past few months have highlighted the continued existence of widely diverging views about how the EU should make external policy, and the scale of the change of mindset that will be required in some quarters to focus on the generation of a more seamless external policy for the Union. Whether or not one believes that the EAS is workable or necessary in the first place, the manner in which it has been achieved hardly gives rise to optimism that there can be effective implementation of EU policy.

My hon. Friends have set out emotive views about the EU, and on behalf of the FAC I shall simply concentrate on the nuts and bolts of the system and pose a few questions to the Minister. The assessment of the deal between the Council and the European Parliament, which is now before us, may depend very much on the legal status of the additional declarations and statements that Baroness Ashton has now agreed to make. The explanatory memorandum refers to those as “accompanying” the decision and as

“forming part of the overall political agreement”.

I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the legal status of those documents and the degree to which they are relied on.

I would welcome reassurance from the Minister that the deal now before us does not give the Commission or the European Parliament any greater power over the budget for the common foreign and security policy. With the abandonment of the Western European Union by the previous Government, there is now a bit of a lacuna in that area of oversight.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) raised the way in which the High Representative delegates her responsibilities. The Lisbon treaty did not create a wholly new, specially fashioned position but was intended to encourage greater coherence in the EU’s external policies simply by giving three different jobs to the same person. That raises the question of who is to deputise for the High Representative when she cannot be in several places at once. The Minister responded to that point, but some further clarification would be welcome. How is that done? Where is the procedure set out and what is the authority for it? Who is the Foreign Minister of Hungary speaking for? I know that he is speaking for the High Representative, but where does he get his brief and to whom does he report?

The new EU delegations to third countries and international organisations are to be upgraded from the existing European Commission delegations. The increased role of those delegations seems to me potentially one of the most significant changes resulting from the Lisbon treaty, both for the EU and for national foreign ministries. Does the Foreign Office see any need to issue specific guidance to UK posts about how they should work with the new EU delegations, particularly as regards the sharing of information and intelligence?

[Mr Ellwood]

Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity to meet Ambassador Ušackas, the new EU representative in Afghanistan? He passed through London and is now in Kabul, but his remit and how it sits with United Nations directives and those of the international security assistance force is unclear. We have signed up to the ISAF mission, but we are also part of the EU and are therefore expected to form part of the ambassador’s mission. There is a dichotomy in interests.

[Richard Ottaway]

I met the ambassador. For the past month, I have formed a Committee of one on foreign affairs, and I ended up inviting Members to meet him. He was fairly clear about his brief, but my hon. Friend makes a strong point.

It has been suggested in some quarters that the Foreign Office may close some embassies where the EU has a stronger presence post-Lisbon. The previous permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, Sir Peter Ricketts, suggested to the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Public Accounts Committee in the previous Parliament that, if anything, the arrival of the EU delegations might help the FCO’s efforts to sustain and perhaps even expand its overseas network. Sir Peter also said that the Foreign Office might be able to sustain or open small overseas posts by locating them in EU delegation buildings when suitable office space might otherwise be difficult to find. I should be grateful if the Minister clarified that.

On staffing, the previous Government told the FAC that there would be 25 secondees to the EAS when it was up and running. However, in a reply to a recent parliamentary question, the figure was abandoned, and the response was slightly ambiguous. I should be grateful to the Minister for guidance on that. Have we retained the secondments that we have? Are vacancies that arise open to national civil servants? Does the UK have any potential secondees in those competitions?

In short, we are where are and we hope that the EAS contributes significantly to making the EU a more effective vehicle in the world today. The documents before us suggest that the Government have succeeded in securing some key points, but many questions remain to be answered.

18:27

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I welcome the Minister to his position. It is the first time that I have spoken in a debate that he has led as Minister for Europe. Of course, I remember him fondly from his days as shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The experience gained there will doubtless stand him in good stead for the intricacies and delicacies of European diplomacy. We wish him well.

However, the debate is about something that the British people neither want nor need. If the broad mass of the public looked in on the debate, they would ask, “What on earth is this all about?” At a time of massive constraint in the public expenditure system, with public services under threat, Departments told that they might face cuts of between 25% and 40%, and our diplomatic corps told that it, too, might face huge cutbacks, we are holding a debate that is based on a treaty that nobody wanted and on which we were denied a referendum.

The hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) and the Minister used the expression, “We are where we are.” That is true, but we do not need to be where we are. I have great sympathy for the Minister because, while the shadow Minister teased him about a volte-face, the road to Damascus and so on, he was clearly uncomfortable about some of the things that he had to say. He said that the motion was about mitigating the damage, and I was worried when he seemed to get carried away with some enthusiasm for the new service. However, if he and his party had stuck to their pledge to offer the people of the United Kingdom a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, it would not have come into force and we would not be discussing this motion.

I do not want to rehearse the argument over the referendum on the Lisbon treaty except to say that the excellent private Member’s Bill on it unfortunately did not make progress. The fact is that it would have been possible for the House to grant the British people a referendum even after ratification. At the end of the day, the House is sovereign, and the British people ultimately ought to have the right to decide whether we should have all those institutions created out of Lisbon.

[Mr Ellwood]

The right hon. Gentleman has been a Member of this House for a number of years, and he is aware that the Lisbon treaty has been signed. Having a referendum now would be a bit like asking patients in a new hospital what colour they want the foundation stone to be. It is too late, hence the phrase, “We are where we are.” We must mend what has been put together.

[Mr Dodds]

I have heard that theory, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman heard some of his hon. Friends debunk it at the time. Of course it is possible for the United Kingdom to decide that it no longer wishes to be part of the consequences of the ratification of the Lisbon treaty—that option is open to the House, Parliament and the British people. If what he says means that for ever and a day we have given up the right to decide matters such as membership of the European Union, what treaties we are signed up to and what institutions we belong to, it is a sad day for democracy in the House. The British people who supported the Conservative leader when he offered a cast-iron guarantee on a referendum did not expect that that promise and pledge would be ditched so quickly and so comprehensively.

I venture to say that that is one reason why there is a disconnect between the British public at large and their Parliament. The people do not trust politicians—such trust is essential—because the promises that they hear politicians make are cast aside when it suits the politicians, not when it suits them. People expect promises to be honoured. They overwhelmingly believe that we should not have signed up to the Lisbon treaty and that a European diplomatic corps should not be created, and they expect their views to be heard. Unfortunately, there is a cosy consensus between the Front Benchers of both major parties, and indeed the Liberal Democrats, so people will be denied their say and a referendum.

[Chris Bryant]

I hate to leap to the defence of the Conservative Government, but it would surely not affect the rest of the European Union if Britain voted against the Lisbon treaty in a referendum, because the EU would continue to operate under the treaty. In all honesty, the only referendum one could now have is on whether to leave or stay in the EU.

[Mr Dodds]

No doubt some hon. Members think that that is a pretty good idea. The hon. Gentleman speaks of referendums, but he knows full well that he and the previous Government pledged a referendum on the European constitution to the British people. There is talk of the Minister making a volte-face, but the decision not to grant that referendum was the biggest volte-face in recent history. Of course, a distinction between the Lisbon treaty and the original proposal for a European constitution was made, but much of it was spurious.

The fact that we are today debating the creation of the European diplomatic service, with all that that entails, proves the point that many of us made about the Lisbon treaty, which is that the treaty is yet another significant development in the creation of a European superstate—the Minister alluded to that and to the reasons why he and his colleagues opposed the measure at the time. He may argue that the High Representative is unable to advance a position in the absence of a common position adopted by the Council of Ministers, but that means that on many critical issues around the world the High Representative and that vast diplomatic superstructure will be sitting on their hands.

[Philip Davies]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the irony of today’s proceedings? Earlier we were invited to support reductions in the police grant because there is supposedly not enough public money to go around, but we are now invited to indulge the largesse of the European Union. Does he agree that if we are all in this together and if we are living in the age of austerity, we should make that abundantly clear to the EU?

[Mr Dodds]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am just coming on to the budget, which is critically important. He is right to ask how people in the Community will feel about this debate and the amount of expenditure attached to it, at a time when we are debating the police grant and other matters.

We heard the Minister talk about the extra expenditure amounting to some £1.1 million in start-up costs, which he confirmed in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), but the cost of the EEAS is expected to reach some €900 million when fully operational. Some reports in the European Parliament suggest that it will cost up to £5 billion a year to run when fully up and running. A leading German MEP, a member of Chancellor Merkel’s party and who sits on the budget committee, was quoted in The Sunday Times on 25 April as saying:

“You can only believe the claims that the service will be budget neutral if you believe in Santa Claus.”

A senior official in Baroness Ashton’s service said that nobody took seriously the claim that the service would remain budget neutral and went on:

“That’s simply not realistic, not even in the mid-term, but the notion has to be maintained for reasons of political acceptability.”

The irony will not be lost on UK taxpayers that this Government, who are asking Departments to demonstrate where cuts of up to 40% can be made, now endorse a service that will cost millions of pounds and that we neither want nor need. Those of us who opposed Lisbon and the creation of the EEAS back in 2008 still oppose it, and I hope that we will be given the opportunity to do so in the Lobby tonight.

18:37

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe on his appointment. I am sure that we will be having many useful discussions, dialogues and even cross-examinations as time goes on.

I regard this whole decision as a triumph of European aspirations and European parliamentary ambitions over reality. I am deeply worried about the manner in which this game of multidimensional chess will play out, and I have already indicated to my hon. Friend the Minister my concern about the overlapping functions and the contradictions that will emerge between the necessity of maintaining our bilateral relations with other countries and the extremely ambitious proposals in this decision on global reach. It is phenomenal to imagine an external action service on this scale that would in any way be regarded as not interfering with our domestic diplomatic service.

I sense that my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary know this. We debated the Lisbon treaty together, we were united and we had a remarkable rapprochement during those debates—contrary to the debates over the Maastricht treaty, when I stood in this very spot and had much to say about what I thought would happen. Many people might think that some of the things I suggested would happen have done so, and this is one of them.

I treat the whole issue of the external action service with great concern for the reasons that I have given. It will induce a recipe for confusion—

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Like IPSA.

[Mr Cash]

It is not as confusing as that, but it is getting there.

[Mr Skinner]

Speaking as someone who voted against Nice, Maastricht, Lisbon and God knows what else, I may have made a slight error on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. On reflection, I think IPSA should run the EEAS; that will cock it up.

[Mr Cash]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman replies to that witty intervention, I will remind him of what I am sure he already knows—that the Minister has a right of reply and will need to be called at 6.52 pm. It is conceivable that other Members might also wish to contribute.

[Mr Cash]

Having spoken for only two minutes, I can guarantee that I will not speak for more than five at most. As for intervention of a few moments ago, I think the Court of Auditors might have something to say about the matters that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) raised. After all, it has not signed off its accounts for the last 15 years.

I am deeply concerned about this whole operation. I add that in the report mentioned in the documents before us, the European Scrutiny Committee said that this important proposal is

“likely to be the most significant change in the conduct of British foreign policy for many years”,

which is why a debate on the Floor of the House was, exceptionally, recommended. That is the truth and the reality. I am deeply concerned that in being asked to consider the functions of the Foreign Office under this decision, there is a huge issue to do with the impact this new global diplomatic service will have on Britain’s ability to promote her own bilateral interests.

This is not a small matter. The question is how we are going to be able to maintain our own bilateral interests if we are suffocated by the decisions that are taken. Anybody who reads these documents in detail—I do not have time to go into that detail today—will appreciate that there is a very severe danger to the continuation of our bilateral interests, however hard my hon. Friend the Minister and the Foreign Secretary will work, as I know they will. Given the depth, the range and the landscape of this monumental creation of a new foreign service on a European scale, it is difficult to see how our bilateral interests can be preserved.

In conclusion, there is also the declaration on political accountability. I would be grateful if the Minister told us some of his thoughts on that. He said in evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee last week that he hoped the decision would

“end up providing a more coherent and effective platform for the delivery of the EU’s engagement with the outside world.”

For my part, I hope that our own foreign policy will be conducted in a manner that will properly reflect the interests of this country. I am happy to co-operate with other countries throughout Europe—and, indeed, anywhere else in the world—because we have a responsibility to do so, but I am deeply worried at the way this entire legal framework is liable to subsume our own ability to ensure our own national interests.

I regard this as a mosaic, as it were, within a labyrinth, and I fear that there will be a confusion of control and command in military matters, in relation to Kosovo and our relations with Iran, for example. We need to be extremely cautious about giving this more than a very tepid welcome.

18:44

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

I am sensitive about intruding on private grief, but I am witnessing the acting out of a scenario in which a Minister who takes a very positive approach to issues relating to the European Union is surrounded by a large number of Eurosceptic Members of Parliament who had previously imagined that they were serving under a Eurosceptic Government. The words “a cosy consensus” have been used, but I am not sure that that is what it is. I see it more as the sweet breeze of EU realism blowing through the Conservative Government.

The fact is that the Lisbon treaty is in force, and will not be overturned. In a speech that I made on the issue, I described the treaty as a “tipping point” in the balance of power between Brussels and the national Parliaments. I hope that there will be a rearrangement of power, and that a triangulation of forces will eventually return to us more power than the Commission, and indeed the European Parliament, want us to have.

For me, the key issue is the scope of the European External Action Service. Paragraph 36 of the European Scrutiny Committee’s 18th report of 2009-10, published before the election, stated:

“Given the importance of this proposal, which—the Minister’s assurances on consular protection notwithstanding”—

the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), is sitting in front of me now—

“is nonetheless likely to be the most significant change in the conduct of British foreign policy for many years, we consider that this debate should be on the Floor of the House.”

I still believe that that is the case.

We have encountered the question of accountability. While an election was taking place in this country, the European Parliament was using its powers under the Lisbon treaty to advance a case relating to the question of the three deputy secretaries who would substitute for the High Representative. That case was rejected, but in fact the European Parliament achieved a great deal more. There was a second Council decision following the one on the matter that was eventually referred to the Council on 9 July.

The European Parliament saw an opportunity to make a bold opening gambit in relation to those who would be substitutes and guardians, or protectors, of the High Representative. It used the fact that staffing regulations, finance regulations and the EEAS budget would be subject to the European Parliament’s powers of co-decision to advance a strong argument that it should be consulted on matters such as the common foreign and security policy. That, of course, will be subject to unanimous agreement in the Council, but the Parliament has inserted itself into the process to great effect. The Lisbon treaty gave it the opportunity to enhance its ability to influence the politics and policy of a major institution.

The second decision, as the Minister said, was that the High Representative would

“seek the views of the European Parliament on the main aspects and basic choices of policy”.

The Council decided that the European Parliament would have to be consulted on policies such as the common security and defence policy, and on questions relating to the basic organisation of the EEAS central administration and political accountability. It is clear that we have not only had an election, but failed to establish any scrutiny arrangements in this Parliament.

The European Parliament clearly views that agreement as meaning that it will have a significantly greater influence on EU foreign policy in the future. That is where we have arrived after the stages through which we have gone. The Parliament has gained considerable ground. It may not have made all the gains that it demanded, but I do not think that it wanted them anyway. It wanted to make the service accountable to it.

We now need assurances from the Government that they will defend not just the common foreign and security policy and the common security and defence policy, but the right of this Parliament to scrutinise what they do and hold them to account when they go to the Council. That might serve as some small protection against a European Parliament that might otherwise take complete control of this policy and this service in the future.

18:49

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

It is a pleasure to contribute to this important debate. It is important to understand what we are creating. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)—who I see has gained some new recruits to support him on the Back Benches—obviously takes a different view from others on how we should approach the Lisbon treaty.

The phrase “We are where we are” has been used a number of times in the debate. If we had a blank sheet of paper, I am sure that we would not create the Lisbon treaty in its current form, but I was not in favour of the dome, either— I thought it was unpopular and a wrong concept—but it was built, and then we decided to change it and make it actually work. If we choose to opt out of the EU, as some colleagues on both the Government and Opposition Benches might wish, we will certainly change our relationship with the EU and Europe from one perspective, but we will also alienate many countries, and we will then be unable to influence their approach to the EU.

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

The issue, however, is that many of us have a problem with the creation of this external service. We have not got into a discussion about whether we should be a member state of the EU. The fact is that many of us have grave concerns about this measure, and that is what we have been talking about today.

[Mr Ellwood]

I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. The point I am stressing, however, is that, as has been said, we could be in a stronger position if we were to move British personnel into the organisation and change it into something actually worth having—and that is what I would like.

I do, however, have some grave concerns about EU spending at present. A great example of that is the Galileo satellite system. It has cost about £4 billion so far, and the Foreign Office budget is, I understand, about £2 billion, so there would be some huge savings straight away if we were to get rid of that system. I also mentioned in an intervention the concerns we have in respect of NATO and the European Defence Agency. They have not been answered today, and I would be grateful for the opportunity to speak to my hon. Friend the Minister about the clear overlap that there is in respect of those two organisations. When I was serving in the armed forces in Bosnia, the EU was trying to create something of a European army, and that is wrong. The cornerstone of our defence in Europe is NATO, and we should not try to duplicate it.

I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, about Ambassador Ušackas who has now been sent to Afghanistan to represent the European Union. I have a question: if the EU starts sending diktats or directives on how Afghanistan should be approached, that might overlap with the direction we are receiving as a member of the international security assistance force, and—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House is grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, which can now be left dangling in the air—although the Minister might seek to respond to it.

18:52

[Mr Lidington]

I thank all Members who have taken part in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) pressed me about the overall cost of the European External Action Service. The problem with putting a precise figure on that is that we are talking about an organisation to be created by bringing together activities that are funded by a number of budget heads within the existing EU set-up, and in some cases parts of expenditure under one budget head are transferring to the EEAS and others are not. The best estimate that we have at present is that about £400 million of expenditure will be required to fund the activities transferred from the Council and the Commission into the new EEAS. The much higher figure cited by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) can come about only if we assume that the whole of development expenditure is transferred, and that is not going to happen. I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere once we have more detailed estimates as the budgetary process continues in Brussels.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) asked a number of specific questions. Declarations are not legally binding. They are statements that provide a political context for a Council decision and how it will operate as it is taken forward. In response to his question about deputies, where a deputy—a Foreign Minister or anybody else—speaks on a matter covered by common foreign and security policy, that deputy must speak in support of a common position which has been agreed unanimously by all member states.

My hon. Friend also asked about the role of the EU special representative in Afghanistan. He is twin-hatted already, as both the special representative and the head of the European Commission offices in Afghanistan. He will, of course, work closely with other international organisations and representatives and will seek to complement, not duplicate, the work of, for example, ISAF. My hon. Friend further asked whether we were committed to sending 25 British secondees to the EEAS. That was an initial figure and we are keeping it under review. However, we have a number of British candidates for the first wave of EEAS posts, and many more are interested in future vacancies.

My hon. Friend asked about the instructions and advice that the FCO might send to our own British posts abroad. We will be sending them instructions and advice, and those instructions will be that they should co-operate with European Union missions to secure British foreign policy objectives and to influence the work of those EU delegations, in order to give priority to matters on which there is a common position—for example, the need for sanctions against the Iranian nuclear programme—that will secure both European and United Kingdom interests at the same time. We are also asking our posts to be extremely vigilant about any evidence of competence creep at the behest of the Commission or of other institutions or member states, and to report back swiftly to the Foreign Office if there is evidence of that happening. I can tell my hon. Friend that I have already come across examples of such reports to us, and we do take appropriate action and make representations to protect the interest of member states.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) that we are not in the business of trying to supplant or in any way to weaken the ability of British diplomats and Ministers to stand up strongly for the national interests of the United Kingdom. However, we are also acknowledging that there are on occasion opportunities to promote and enhance British interests in a way that also suits the common interests of the 27 member states—

18:57

One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the Speaker put the Question (Standing Order No. 16(1)).

18:57

Division 25

Ayes: 321

---

Conservative: 255
Liberal Democrat: 49
Labour: 15
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Independent: 1

Noes: 12

---

Conservative: 5
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Labour: 2
Green Party: 1

Resolved,

That this House takes note of European Document Nos. 8029/10 and 11507/10, draft Council Decisions establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service; European Document No. 8134/10, draft Regulation on the Financial Regulations for the European External Action Service; and an unnumbered draft Regulation amending Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the conditions of employment of other servants of those Communities; and supports the Government’s policy to agree to the Decision establishing the External Action Service at the Foreign Affairs Council in July 2010.

Business without Debate

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

dELEGATED lEGISLATION

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With the permission of the House, we shall take motions 5 and 6 together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Pensions

That the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Levies) (Amendment) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 2 March 2010, in the previous Parliament, be approved.

That the draft Pensions Regulator (Contribution Notices) (Sum Specified following Transfer) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 1 March 2010, in the previous Parliament, be approved.—(Mr Newmark.)

Question agreed to.

Delegated Legislation (Committees)

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

Motion made,

That the Motion in the name of Sir George Young relating to the Electoral Commission shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice of a motion has been given that the instrument be approved.—(Mr Newmark.)

[Hon. Members]

Object.

Business of the House

Motion made,

That, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of Bills brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions, more than one stage of the Finance Bill may be taken at any sitting of the House.—(Mr Newmark.)

[Hon. Members]

Object.

Retained Firefighters

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Newmark.)

19:11

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about this important subject and I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to give up some of my time at the end of my speech to three of my hon. Friends who care deeply about this subject and how it impacts on their constituents. I would like to make it clear that, as the debate is about retained firefighters, I will limit my comments to that part of the fire and rescue services, but that should not be seen as a snub to our brave and dedicated whole-time firefighters. I believe that the retained system complements the whole-time system and that each needs the other, but a debate on whole-time firefighters is for another occasion. Retained firefighters are sometimes known as on-call firefighters or the retained duty system, which I may refer to as the RDS.

In many ways, this debate is about much more than the role of retained firefighters. It is about communities, volunteering and service to family, neighbourhoods and country. Retained firefighters are paid volunteers who spend up to 120 hours a week on call from home or work. The majority fulfil that impressive commitment in addition to a paid day job; it is not the sort of thing that anyone does for money. These are local people who care about their neighbourhoods and who want to play a role in keeping them safe.

The concept of volunteer service is a noble one that extends across many areas of national life and it should be cherished. It predates the big society, but I dare say that it complements it nicely in the spirit of Edmund Burke’s little platoons. It is about the Territorial Army soldier giving up his weekends and summer holidays to train alongside the Regular Army, taking time out from his job to deploy on operations to serve his country and all too often giving his life in the process. It is about the police special finishing her day job on a Friday evening and instead of going out with friends, putting on a police uniform and going out on patrol with her local police, helping to keep her neighbourhood safe. And it is about the retained firefighter dedicating his life to the bleeper and standing ready to respond within five minutes of a call-out, day or night. Once that bleeper goes off and the RDS crew mobilises at the fire station, they are firefighters. They wear the same uniform, use the same equipment and vehicles and attend the same incidents as their whole-time colleagues. The fire service could not function in its current form without them.

Looking at the origins of the fire service in the UK, it could be said that the entire fire and rescue service developed from an early version of the retained service. Prior to the great fire of London in 1666, firefighting was done in a haphazard way at local parish level. It was principally carried out by townsfolk working together to extinguish fires within their communities. After 1666, local fire services started to become more organised, but it was not until the 1800s that more formal fire brigades began to evolve. Even then, some remained volunteer brigades, while others were private organisations formed by property insurers.

The first national legislation was not seen until 1938, when first the auxiliary fire service and then the national fire service were formed. After world war two, the national fire service was taken over by local county authorities, so that in 1948 there were 148 county council and county borough-run fire brigades. Today across the UK we have 63 brigades, and with the exception of London almost all of them include RDS personnel.

The RDS system is not perfect and much can be done to improve it. Issues surrounding training, concerns over the EU working time directive and difficulties with recruitment and retention remain. Following the 2003 White Paper “Our Fire and Rescue Service”, a review of the retained system was commissioned. The report of that review, which was published in 2005, made 51 specific recommendations aimed at improving the effectiveness of the RDS, but it is worth noting that it opened with the words:

“The retained duty system is a valued, vital element of the modern fire and rescue service”.

Although the previous Government were perhaps a little slow in starting to implement the recommendations, the picture has clearly improved in recent years with, for example, a reduction in vacancies in RDS posts from 20% in 2003-04 to 13% in 2008-09. There is more work to do, however, and those recommendations from the 2005 review that remain outstanding should be looked at in detail by the coalition Government.

This debate is about the retained fire service in general, but it is well known in the House that I and my fellow Warwickshire MPs have a number of concerns that relate to changes in the provision of fire and rescue services in Warwickshire in particular. In my own constituency, the fire station in the town of Bedworth has faced the uncertainty of potential closure for many months. We have only recently learned the details of options that the county council will consider next week. Many people in Bedworth will be relieved and delighted that it appears that Bedworth fire station will now remain open, but other fire stations in Warwickshire have not been so fortunate.

From what we know, it appears that Bedworth fire station will be manned in future exclusively by RDS personnel, so the decision is timely and relevant to this debate. I recognise that many people in Bedworth will remain concerned about what could be seen as a reduction in the station’s capacity. I confess to holding mixed views. I would have preferred the station to have remained as it was, but I also recognise that the hard work, the campaigning and the clear message that local people in Bedworth sent to the chief fire officer have resulted in probably the best compromise that we could have hoped for.

The worst possible outcome for us—one that looked like a very real possibility for a long time—would have been for Bedworth to lose our fire station all together. It looks as though we will end up with a compromise: Bedworth fire station staying open, but as a retained station. In doing so, it will join the 54% of all fire stations in the UK that are manned solely by RDS firefighters. It is therefore with mixed feelings that I declare my delight that people power seems to have won the day and Bedworth will continue to have our own fire station. That is a testament to the hard work and campaigning of so many local people, including those in the Fire Brigades Union and the Retained Firefighters Union, the friends and family of local firefighters and many others. I am proud to have played a role in helping to save Bedworth station.

I am making quicker progress than I expected—perhaps one or two other hon. Members may wish to speak for a little longer than two minutes—but before I conclude, I will say that I am not a big fan of lists of statistics; but sometimes, even in this place, a few facts can be helpful to a debate, so I hope the House will indulge me. About one third of the 42,000 firefighters in England are retained firefighters, but even that statistic masks just how much we rely on these volunteers. Retained firefighters are responsible for operating 60% of all fire engines in England. Because they are more prevalent in rural areas, RDS firefighters provide emergency cover for a staggering 90% of the UK’s land mass. Some 54% of fire stations in the UK are manned solely by RDS firefighters, and at any one time in England, there are more retained firefighters on call and providing emergency cover than full-time firefighters. It is clear that we rely on our retained firefighters in a way that few casual observers of our emergency services would realise, but they can continue to support us only if we continue to support them.

19:20

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

We have heard a most eloquent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) about retained firefighters and their importance to their communities and to the fire service itself. He is fortunate in having some certainty about Bedworth fire station; unfortunately, I cannot report the same to the House from Stratford-on-Avon.

Our chief fire officer has had the difficult task of drawing up proposals for improving Warwickshire’s fire and rescue service. He took on the role from his predecessor after a difficult period involving a consultation process that I think Warwickshire Members would agree was flawed. That process did a lot of damage to the community’s confidence in the fire service and in a decision-making process that could lead to such unfortunate events.

The county council will discuss and evaluate three options for Warwickshire on Friday, two of which are extremely negative for us in Stratford-on-Avon. I will not dwell too long on those, but I shall speak about the third option, which is positive in the sense that we would retain Bidford and Studley fire stations.

Let me say a few words about the response of retained firefighters and the local community to the consultation on improving Warwickshire’s fire services. The way in which they have reacted has been exemplary. They have not been a barrier to change and improvement; indeed, their approach has been proactive, and when they were asked to step up to the mark, they did so by putting forward a credible set of proposals. Those proposals have made their way into option C, which involves retaining Bidford and Studley fire stations, and perhaps into option B, which would retain Bidford although, unfortunately, we would lose Studley.

I am worried that the chief fire officer has heavily skewed the process by his announcement in his report that he prefers the option under which we would lose those retained fire stations and their good fire personnel. He has stated:

“All three models will improve the level of resources available in Warwickshire for community fire safety, dealing with small fires, road traffic incidents and incidents of flooding”,

so I am slightly concerned and puzzled about why he would choose option A, given that option C would certainly be a credible approach.

I am aware that other Members wish to speak, but before I conclude, I wish to make a point about the idea that we need to improve fire safety. Many members of the public erroneously believe that their safety depends primarily on the proximity of a fire station.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s comment about fire safety. Norfolk county council’s fire review is examining saving money as well as improving the service, but consideration is being given to spending more on management in Great Yarmouth yet losing 14 retained firemen. At this time, does he agree that we should all do our best in our communities to put pressure on local authorities so that they do not spend money on management and instead do the logical thing of keeping in place front-line services such as retained firemen?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, which I hope will be taken on board not only in Great Yarmouth, but in Warwickshire when the deliberations take place on Friday.

The chief fire officer says that there will be

“a significant increase in community fire safety”

if option A is chosen, implying that having a single fire station and closing the retained fire station would mean that we would get more fire safety education in the community. I believe the opposite is true: that the closer that human beings are to their community, the more trusted their opinion will be and the more trust the community will have in improving fire safety, which is the drive for the fire service to get fire alarms into homes and prevent fires rather than react to them.

I hope that on Friday the county council will evaluate the proposals before them. I have made telephone calls today to all the cabinet, as well as writing to them personally, to say that they should look at all the options very carefully. They have promised me that they will do so and that they will look in great detail at option C and B. I implore them to do the right thing and make sure that we retain our stations in Stratford-on-Avon, whose staff are crucial to the community. That would send a positive message that we have listened to the wishes of the community and it would build a strong bridge with the local communities of Bidford and Studley.

18:09

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I will try to be brief as we are short on time. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) on securing this important debate. The House should honour and value the role of retained firefighters, and I want to cite a specific and local example of the superb work that they do, which occurred in the Delamere road area in Bedworth in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

To set the scene, on a Saturday lunchtime in December 2008, a local community was engulfed in a severe flood within minutes. To their credit, the retained firefighters from Bedworth fire station, which I am glad is still very much in the thoughts of Warwickshire country council and Warwickshire fire service, reacted superbly. They attended within several minutes and carried out a diligent professional operation, which helped the residents of that area who were under pressure at that time, some of whose lives were at risk, not to mention the risk to property. They were helped through the first few hours of that crisis by Warwickshire fire service and the retained firefighters from Bedworth.

I mainly wanted to mention the dedication and service that our retained firefighters provide to our communities, in which the Government should support them, particularly with regard to training and ensuring that they have the right equipment, not only to keep the retained firefighters motivated, but to maintain public confidence in the excellent service that they provide.

19:28

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

My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) is correct to highlight the key role of retained firefighters throughout the country. I am fortunate to have in my constituency a station staffed by retained firefighters. Sadly it is under threat, as are many other stations throughout Warwickshire.

At a time when we anticipate large-scale cuts to the public sector, something that the fire service is preparing for, it would be short-sighted to reduce the number of retained firefighters, yet that is exactly what has been proposed in my constituency. Retained firefighters combine high-quality service with flexibility, and as we seek to keep a lean and effective fire service, they are essential. How can it be right, at a time when we have an admitted skills shortage and ever-growing demands on our fire service, to get rid of these vital individuals who not only help to protect the public but do so with considerable savings to the taxpayer?

Having had the pleasure, as I am sure many hon. Members have, of meeting and talking to retained firefighters, I am proud of the work that they do. We often bandy around the words “civic duty”, but retained firefighters embody the very essence of that term. Being community-minded, they potentially risk their lives to protect ours.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I very much appreciate my hon. Friend giving way and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) on securing the debate. If it were not for retained fire officers in Cornwall, we would not have an effective fire service. If the citizens of Cornwall are to have a fire service, retained officers are essential. I hope that the Minister will address the points that my hon. Friends have made about the impact of the EU working time directive. It is a constant threat to retained firefighters, because it will impede them in delivering the vital service that they provide for Cornwall and throughout the country.

[Chris White]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. To add to that, what sort of example are we setting if we so easily ignore the contribution of our retained firefighters? I hope that this debate will encourage fire services and local authorities throughout the country to recognise the value of retained firefighters and ensure that they continue to have a long-term future.

19:31

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

It is a pleasure to respond to this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) on securing it, on the elegant way in which he put his case and on his generosity in allowing several other hon. Members to participate. His recital of the history of the fire service reminded me of my own rather lengthy association with the organisation, although I do not go back quite as far as some of the reforms that my hon. Friend mentioned—despite rumours to the contrary.

I am delighted to agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the fire service. I fully appreciate just how vital the retained duty system is to the effectiveness of emergency cover in many parts of the country, particularly in protecting our small towns and rural communities and providing a crucial element of the national resilience arrangements. Retained duty system firefighters, as my hon. Friends have said, make up more than 30% of the fire and rescue service’s operational personnel and provide crews to something like 54% of all fire stations in England.

As I said in my speech to the UK fire and rescue conference in Harrogate at the end of last month, the vital and significant contribution of the retained duty system provides an excellent example of how localism and the big society are already embedded within parts of the fire service, and I welcome that recognition from my hon. Friends.

I can confirm that the Government greatly value the contribution of firefighters employed on the retained duty system. They are the backbone of many services, and in some cases they form more than 70% of the operational work force. I had the pleasure of making that point directly to the national officers of the Retained Firefighters Union when I met them as an early priority after my appointment.

Throughout the country, retained firefighters undertake a range of roles, responding to emergencies of all kinds, such as heathland fires, floods, ship fires and chemical spills. Many are also involved in the delivery of community fire safety advice, and others take part in the co-responding programme as first responders to medical emergencies, such as heart attacks. They bring great flexibility and value for money to our system. As active members of their community, retained duty crews provide an excellent demonstration of the effectiveness of the localist approach to service delivery, and I agree that they are dedicated and highly motivated men and women who do an excellent job for their communities.

In some parts of the country, the system has been affected by long-standing recruitment and retention difficulties, but I hope that a number of measures that are now available will help to support the fire and rescue service in overcoming those challenges. We have to recognise that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to what can be quite complex local issues, particularly given the changes to the organisation of rural life, the social change in areas served by the retained duty system and the competing pressures on busy people’s time. However, that has led to the development of initiatives such as an employers’ information toolkit for fire and rescue services to use in establishing and building links with businesses in their community, and an employers’ recognition scheme designed to be run locally by fire and rescue services to acknowledge the contribution by employers in their area who release staff for retained duties.

We are undertaking an extensive survey of the retained duty system, looking at how the nature of the retained role may have changed in recent years; how demographic changes may be impacting on that, as with the economic situation; how the service is addressing recruitment and retention, and managing those pressures; and how the RDS work force are trained, developed and utilised. That survey will deliver vital evidence that will inform discussions by fire and rescue authorities on issues affecting this valued sector of the work force; so, too, will the proposed strategic review of the fire service that I announced at the Harrogate conference. I hope that we will use the opportunity of the survey and the review to encourage fire and rescue authorities to make more imaginative use of the resource of retained duty fire fighter.

It is necessary to say a few words about the economic background with which the service has to deal. The Budget of 22 June set out the Government’s five-year plan to rebuild the British economy based on our values of responsibility, freedom and fairness. It shows how we will carry out Britain’s unavoidable deficit reduction plan in a way that strengthens and unites the country. In these challenging times, the fire and rescue service, alongside other public services providers, will have an important role to play in helping to deliver those spending reductions. We will look to the sector to be innovative in making savings and in improving efficiencies, while at the same time recognising that its core business is a front-line role, which must of course be given appropriate priority. It is therefore right that many of the proposals contained in integrated risk management plans—across the country, not only in Warwickshire—are aimed at increasing efficiency because, by doing so, fire and rescue authorities can maximise the amount of risk-reducing activity that they can deliver from the resources available to them.

That is the key point. The aim should still be to ensure excellent service delivery. Efficiency is about working more effectively, using less public money to deliver as good, or better, public services. That means that despite reductions in spending, there should not be a visible reduction in service, nor a reduction in performance. There will be difficult decisions to make, but the fire and rescue service has a track record of delivery, and I am sure that it will step up to the mark to deal with this.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire, and my other hon. Friends, referred to the position in Warwickshire, and I understand why they did so. I note in passing that present in his place, and keeping me company on the Treasury Bench, is my hon. Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), whose position does not permit him to take part in the debate but who takes an active interest in this matter as a Warwickshire Member of Parliament.

I have spoken at length about the overall position of the retained duty system. Of course, my hon. Friends have referred to the proposals in Warwickshire and the possible closure of some fire stations that forms part of those proposals. As they will recall, the implications of the changes set out in Warwickshire fire and rescue authority’s improvement plan were debated in Westminster Hall on 30 June. I am sure that in making its decision, Warwickshire county council will take into account all the views expressed during the consultation exercise, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friends who have spoken powerfully tonight will ensure that the authority takes their views into account. I am sure that as a responsible fire authority it will do so.

However, as I explained in the earlier debate, it would be inappropriate for Ministers to comment on the specific proposals that have been put forward and consulted on by Warwickshire fire and rescue authority. The principle of local determination of local solutions for local circumstances means that it would not be appropriate for me to seek to influence the decisions that the authority will be faced with on 20 July in light of the representations to it. The whole point of the locally determined risk approach is that it is for local authorities to take such decisions, and I am confident that they will do so responsibly. I am sure my hon. Friends will understand why it is not appropriate for me to say more on the specifics, but they have ventilated their case with vigour.

I close by saying that earlier today I was at Winchester cathedral, representing Her Majesty’s Government at a memorial service for two brave firefighters who died on duty in Southampton. They were full-time firefighters, but the risks run by firefighters draw no distinction between those who are full time and those who are retained, and there have been tragic deaths among retained firefighters in recent times as well. All of them—every one—are brave and courageous men and women doing their best for this country, and they deserve our support.

19:41

House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).

Petition

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Petitions

Wednesday 14 July 2010

Equitable Life (Portsmouth North)

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Petitions

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

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

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

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Penny Mordaunt, Official Report, 9 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 434.]

[P000833]

Observations from the Chancellor of the Exchequer:

The Government have pledged to implement the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman’s recommendation to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policyholders, through an independent payment scheme, for their relative loss as a consequence of regulatory failure. The Government will, as the Ombudsman noted it was appropriate to do, consider the potential impact on the public purse of any scheme.

As a sign of the commitment to that pledge, the Government will introduce a Bill in the first session of Parliament that will enable HM Treasury to make payments.

One of the Government’s main aims is to ensure that the approach to resolving this issue is thorough, transparent and fair while keeping in mind the need to act quickly. In the light of this, the Government feel that the best approach is to allow Sir John Chadwick to continue under his current Terms of Reference.

Sir John has been working for a considerable amount of time under his current Terms of Reference and is close to the completion of his work. He is due to submit his final report by mid-July. Allowing him to complete his work in its current form will allow the Government to focus on the next steps in the process; in particular delivering on the Government’s pledge of an independently designed payment scheme. Reopening Sir John’s work at this stage would lead to severe delays in making payments to policyholders. That scenario would not be beneficial for anybody.

One of the key elements of the Ombudsman’s recommendations was that any scheme should be independent of Government. In the light of this, the Government plan to establish an Independent Commission to decide on the allocation of payments and scheme design issues.

Sir John’s work, which is based on the findings of the Ombudsman, is one of the building blocks, not the foundation of the Government’s approach.

For almost a decade, policyholders have fought for a just resolution in relation to losses suffered as a result of regulatory failure. The Government are confident that a resolution can be reached using the approach that we have outlined.

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 14 July 2010

[Mr Jim Hood in the Chair]

People with Learning Disabilities (NHS Treatment)

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Mr Vara.)

09:30

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

As always, it is an enormous pleasure to debate under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I welcome you this morning. I also have great pleasure in welcoming the Minister. He knows that he has a very exciting portfolio, and if our extremely crowded meeting of the all-party group on learning disability yesterday is an indication—we understood that the Minister could not attend, for very good reasons—there is great public interest even in this debate. I welcome the Minister to his post.

It is a great privilege to open this debate on the hugely important issue of the treatment of people with learning disabilities in the national health service. I am well aware that the NHS in Scotland is devolved, following decisions of this House, but I declare two interests. I am a co-chair, with Lord Rix, of the all-party group, and I represent taxpayers in my constituency, who want to see best practice throughout the UK, particularly because many of the problems that will be discussed today are replicated in Scotland.

It is four years since the Disability Rights Commission published its report, “Equal Treatment: Closing the Gap”, on physical health inequalities experienced by people with learning disabilities and mental health problems. It is three years since Mencap published its “Death by indifference” report, highlighting six different cases in which people with learning disabilities died unnecessarily in the NHS. Those reports helped to bring the treatment of people with learning disabilities to the fore and led to an independent inquiry chaired by Sir Jonathan Michael in 2008. In March 2009, the health service ombudsman published a report on the six deaths highlighted in “Death by indifference” and found failures of process at the heart of service provision in the NHS.

I hope that today’s debate gives hon. Members the opportunity to question the Minister on progress made in the past two to three years and gives the new Government the opportunity to show their commitment to equality of health care provision for people with learning disabilities.

It is important to emphasise that the debate is not an excuse to attack the NHS. The national health service is an institution that is treasured and cherished throughout the country and of which hon. Members in all parts of the House are rightly proud. I have seen in my constituency and in constituencies throughout Britain the hard work and dedication of health care professionals—nurses, doctors, cleaners, ancillary workers and others—who are willing and able to go the extra mile for patients and are determined to help and improve the lives of people who need the support of the NHS.

A true friend of the NHS does not simply praise it unquestioningly, however. I believe that Aneurin Bevan, who died 50 years ago last week, would be delighted to see Government, politicians and voluntary organisations coming together to work with the NHS to ensure that it constantly improves its health care provision for the most vulnerable people and delivers its services with ever greater understanding and consideration. We should not forget that although the right of people with learning disabilities to experience equality in health care provision is a profoundly moral one, it is also a legal requirement under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

It is important for us to highlight the many problems identified in some of the excellent work carried out in recent years. Sir Bert Massie, then chairman of the Disability Rights Commission, wrote in the foreword to the commission’s “Closing the Gap” report that

“people with learning disabilities…are more likely to experience major illnesses, to develop them younger and die of them sooner than other citizens. They are less likely to get some of the evidence-based treatments and checks they need, and they face real barriers in accessing services…we sometimes encountered a complacent attitude that these excluded groups ‘just do’ die younger or ‘just won’t’ look after their health or attend appointments.”

That was a damning indictment of what many people with learning disabilities experienced when they accessed health care services. Not only were people with learning disabilities more likely to experience health problems—that inequality is due to a wide range of physical, social and cultural factors—but the treatment that they received was of a lower standard.

The same report also found that people with learning disabilities were less likely to receive checks, such as crucial screening for breast cancer. There were problems with what is called diagnostic overshadowing, whereby physical illness is viewed as part of a learning disability and therefore ignored or sidelined. Many services were found not to be making reasonable adjustments to ensure that health care information was accessible to people with a learning disability.

If the report by the Disability Rights Commission was eye-opening, Mencap’s “Death by indifference” report the following year was simply shocking. It highlighted the institutional discrimination that can exist at the heart of the NHS. One family reported that when they took their daughter into hospital for treatment, they were told, “If she had been a normal young woman, we would not hesitate to treat her.”

Due to time constraints, I shall highlight just one of the tragic cases included in the report. Martin was 43 years old when he died in December 2005. He had a severe learning disability and no speech. After suffering a stroke, he entered hospital, where he contracted pneumonia. He could not swallow, so was put on a drip, which he was unable to tolerate and sometimes pulled out. A speech and language specialist visited Martin and recorded that alternative feeding methods should be found, but Martin was now entering his third week in hospital, his veins had collapsed and the doctors could no longer get the glucose liquid from his drip into his body. By the time it was decided that a feeding tube needed to be inserted into his stomach, Martin had been without nutrition for 21 days. He could not undergo the operation to insert the feeding tube, and five days later he died.

The hospital’s internal investigation concluded that there had been a complete breakdown of communication between the doctor and the nurses. The ombudsman went further, finding that Martin’s death was avoidable and that he had been treated unfavourably because of his disability. Martin starved to death in an NHS ward because he did not receive the quality of care that he deserved and because he was failed as a result of his disability. That was certainly a shocking case, but Martin’s death was more than a mere statistic. It was a human life—a life that could have been saved if he had been treated properly.

As a judicial review has been granted into an aspect of the ombudsman’s findings, I will not comment in detail on the wider aspects. However, the “Death by indifference” report was possible only because of the bravery of the families who came forward to highlight the tragic and preventable loss of life that had occurred. Their bravery allowed people to see the human aspect of disability discrimination in health care and led to the creation of an independent inquiry into access to health care for people with learning disabilities, which published its conclusions in July 2008.

Sir Jonathan Michael’s findings supported what people with learning disabilities and their families and carers have long said, and the points that I am about to make were overwhelmingly endorsed again and again at the all-party group’s annual general meeting yesterday. People with learning disabilities find it harder to access health care services not directly related to their disability, and adjustments are not always made to allow for communication problems. Parents and carers often struggle to be heard, and there is limited knowledge among health service staff about learning disabilities.

I was pleased by the response of the previous Government, who set up the independent inquiry and unreservedly accepted its findings and recommendations. A public health observatory and a confidential inquiry into the premature deaths of people with learning disabilities have been established, and progress has been made on annual health checks, particularly in certain areas. However, more needs to be done to ensure more uniform roll-out, and questions remain about funding.

Real progress was made under the previous Government’s 2009 “Valuing People Now” strategy, and I would like to hear from the Minister how the new coalition Government propose to maintain that momentum, how they will ensure that reasonable adjustments are made and how they will continue to raise awareness among health care professionals. I would also like to hear how they will move towards providing greater training in the health service—an issue that was raised again and again at yesterday afternoon’s meeting—and ensure that data collection, information sharing and service co-ordination are enhanced.

As we know, the problems in the NHS are not self-contained. Discrimination, lack of awareness and a failure to understand the needs of people with learning disabilities do not exist simply in the NHS or the public sector; such attitudes percolate through all aspects of society, from education to employment to health care. If the Government are seriously committed to removing health care inequalities for people with learning disabilities, they need to do so in a wider social framework, as the “Valuing People Now” strategy clearly recognised.

I would therefore be interested to hear the Minister respond to the recent report by Professor Jim Mansell, who, incidentally, made an excellent contribution to yesterday’s meeting. His report, “Raising our sights”, deals with people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities. It details the challenges, prejudice, discrimination and low expectations that many people with such profound disabilities face. It also deals with, and makes recommendations on, health care for people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities, encouraging NHS bodies and NHS trusts to think about how adequate health provision is and to reflect again and again on how they deliver such vital services. How do the Government plan to respond to this important report? Will its extremely relevant and poignant recommendations be used as a framework for future policy making? It would be useful if the Minister could make the report available in paper form for those who do not access the internet and if the excellent accompanying DVD, which we saw yesterday, could be added to the website.

Although progress has been made, there is still plenty to do. That was highlighted recently in a poll of more than 1,000 health professionals carried out by ICM and commissioned by Mencap. The survey found that almost half of all doctors and a third of nurses said that people with a learning disability receive a poorer standard of health care than the rest of the population. Four out of 10 doctors and a third of nurses said that people with a learning disability are discriminated against in the NHS. The survey also found that a third of health care professionals have not been trained in how to make reasonable adjustments for a patient with a learning disability.

The Government need to make sure that there are accessible and open communication channels between professionals and those with learning disabilities, who rightly demand a higher standard of treatment. More than 80% of people with a learning disability have a severe communication disability, and that, alongside the prejudices and stereotypes that I have discussed, can often be at the heart of identified failures in the NHS. How will the Government continue to expand opportunities for specialist support so that two-way communication between people with learning disabilities and NHS workers can improve? I ask the Government to ensure that people with learning disabilities are guaranteed access to special communication provision and that NHS staff have appropriate communication skills.

It is vital to recognise and adapt to the challenges specific to people with a learning disability. I have recently had the pleasure of working alongside the charities SeeAbility and the Royal National Institute of Blind People, which have highlighted the prevalence of sight problems among people with a learning disability. In fact, more than a third of people with a learning disability have such a problem, and many do not realise it. Such problems can lead to behavioural change, to the undermining of quality of life and often to increased dependency. It cannot be acceptable that people with a learning disability are also least likely to get the right help and support with eye care.

In January, the all-party group co-hosted a listening event at which people with learning disabilities spoke to MPs, Members of the other House and other stakeholders about the sight problems that they had had and the lack of support available to them. As we listened to those articulate people, it became clear that more information needs to be available and that eye care professionals need to be supported so that they can provide accessible and effective services. Eye care is one small but important part of health care provision, but it became clear, as we listened, that all people with learning disabilities want is accessible and understandable services that are adaptable to their particular needs. That is not too much to ask, I suggest, in the modern world.

The commitment to eradicating health care inequality in the NHS is shared among Members on both sides of the House, our partners in the voluntary sector and health care professionals. There are problems of discrimination, lack of understanding, communication failure, assumptions about quality of life, and inflexible service provision, which have begun to be tackled. That process needs to be continued by the new Government. I hope that they support Mencap’s new initiative, the “Getting it right” campaign, which calls on health trusts to commit themselves to a charter setting out the steps necessary to ensure equality of health care in the NHS for people with a learning disability.

The charter makes reference to many of the points that are being debated this morning, including annual health checks, training, awareness, support for families and open channels of communication. Equality in treatment will be fully realised only once genuine equality for people with disabilities is achieved across society. However, the steps that have been taken to make tangible gains must continue, and must not fall by the wayside because of spending cuts or NHS reform, or for any other reason. Health care professionals need to be fully trained; specialist communications must be accessible; and services must be flexible in relation to the needs of all people with a learning disability.

The NHS succeeds because it is there for the most vulnerable. Let us hope that, with the legislative programme that has already been started, which hopefully is to continue under the current Government, we can prevent ill-treatment, discrimination and even avoidable death in that great national institution—we owe it to people with disabilities and to the vast majority of NHS staff, whose sterling commitment I again acknowledge.

09:52

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

As the secretary of the all-party group on disability and a member of the Select Committee on Health, I have a dual interest in this debate. I am also a member of the all-party group on learning disability. I am sorry that I could not attend yesterday’s AGM; it sounds as if it was a fascinating event.

I thank the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) for calling the debate, which is clearly necessary. If I repeat any of the points that he made so eloquently, it will be only because they need to be driven home. The debate highlights some current failings in the NHS with respect to people with learning difficulties. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there have been several reports on the issue in recent years. The Disability Rights Commission’s report, “Equal Treatment: Closing the Gap”, published in 2006, showed that although people with learning difficulties were more likely to develop conditions such as obesity and respiratory diseases, they were less likely to receive adequate care, treatment and health checks.

In the following year, as the right hon. Gentleman also mentioned, came Mencap’s report “Death by indifference”. That seminal study highlighted some of the failings of the past several years and showed that six people with learning difficulties had died prematurely owing to discriminatory care. Yet after those reports were published, and despite moves towards dealing with the situation, the most recent survey by Mencap, which was released in June—again, the right hon. Gentleman referred to it—showed that half of doctors and a third of nurses had witnessed a patient with learning disabilities being treated with neglect or a lack of dignity, or receiving poor quality care. Those statistics are clearly unacceptable.

What can be done? The right hon. Gentleman has already referred to the issues that we need to address. I shall probably repeat some of what he said, and I hope that he does not mind. To my mind, the first issue is training for professionals in the NHS. There is clearly an institutional failure to make adequate provision for people with learning difficulties in the NHS, despite the fact that they receive £1.7 billion of NHS money. The Mencap survey highlighted the training issue; it found that 53% of doctors and 68% of nurses felt that they needed specific guidelines on how to care for people with learning difficulties, and how treatment should be addressed to them, to meet their needs. There is clearly a gap that we need to examine in closer detail.

I welcome the plans in the White Paper that has just been published to end the top-down managerial approach and the current centralised funding of education and training, because previously the multi-professional education and training levy was not accountable in relation to the amount of training and continuing professional development that it provided. The White Paper sets out welcome plans to give employers greater autonomy and, above all, accountability. Accountability is what we need, because training has been available but there is no way of showing that it works. We need to get back to a local level, which is what the White Paper sets out to achieve, so that there will be greater professional ownership of the quality of training. I welcome that accountability and recognise that accountability at local NHS organisational level must also ensure that people with learning difficulties are treated adequately.

The second issue that I want to mention is the broader one of communication. That is at the heart of treatment for people with learning difficulties. The question is how to cross the communication barrier between professionals—doctors and nurses—and people with learning difficulties, who often cannot express their needs, which may be very individual. One of my constituents was recently rushed to the Bristol Royal infirmary on a weekend. He had a procedure on his heart and a doctor explained his condition to him as if he were communicating with a normal member of the public. That approach was clearly inadequate for someone with learning difficulties. The nurse then presented him with some complicated leaflets, which he could not understand. There was no co-ordination with his carer at NHS level—or certainly not at the acute hospital level—and that led to a man who was already very sick being further distressed and scared.

It is in that context, to which the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill referred, that the role of learning disability liaison nurses is crucial, for the support of patients, families and those who support people with learning difficulties. It is not yet clear how many such posts exist. In my area of Bristol, which has the Frenchay and Southmead hospitals, there are only two. However, I was surprised to discover that that is pretty good by national standards.

I understand that interesting new moves are under way towards developing the role of liaison nurses, and in particular that St. George’s healthcare trust in south London has gone further, by appointing a nurse consultant in learning difficulties. The success of that probably says something about the need to examine the NHS staffing structure in relation to people with learning difficulties. The holder of that nurse consultant post remarked:

“This job would not have had the impact it has had if it was not at consultant level.”

That shows an interesting divide, by which those with learning disabilities are often dealt with at a nursing level, when to get the impact that is needed it is necessary to go higher up the chain. Clearly, there is a need to explore the greater use of liaison nurses, the employment of a number of such nurses, and what happens at local level.

The White Paper gives us much encouragement about the personalisation of services, and, above all, the determination to put patients at the heart of the NHS. I note with interest that one of its principal aims is to ensure that shared decision making will become the norm. To use the familiar maxim that we use in the all-party group on disability, “No decision about me without me.” Sadly, we know that for some with learning difficulties that will be impossible.

We already know about the difficult ethical issues, which have been reported in the national media, in respect of those with learning difficulties having treatment forced on them. For instance, a lady with cancer was forced to undergo an operation. I do not want to touch on the ethical issues today, but such cases clearly raise questions about the relationship between patients and professionals. Given the White Paper, the greater personalisation of services and putting patients at the heart of the NHS, we must ensure that patients with learning difficulties are not left behind.

Personalised care that reflects individual health care needs is just as relevant for those with learning difficulties, if not more so. If we want to realise the promise of the White Paper—I note that it is also committed to promoting equality—we must understand the importance of health outcomes for those with learning difficulties. Moving from targets towards outcomes will benefit those with learning difficulties, as some of their problems need to be considered over a greater period, and hospitals cannot always deal with them in a single session. However, those outcomes are not being met, and that reflects on society.

Above all, it is important to ensure that the most vulnerable, particularly those with learning disabilities, receive the greatest care. In that regard, the introduction last year of incentive payments for GPs to carry out annual health care checks for those with learning difficulties was welcome. However, there is clearly a problem. Take-up has risen by about 60% between 2008-09 and 2009-10, yet still only half the money allocated for such checks by doctors is being used.

The White Paper and Government statements show that giving GPs greater control over their budgets will circumvent some of the centralised mechanisms. GPs will thus know exactly what tailored care is necessary for their patients, including those with learning difficulties. I hope that GPs will take the opportunity to expand the use of health checks within their allocated budgets. That will ensure that prevention is at the heart of treatment.

Above all, the issue is about prevention. As the right hon. Gentleman said, those with learning difficulties and disabilities are often at greater risk of illnesses that could have been prevented; they could avoid reaching the acute hospital stage, which can often be confusing and stressful, early in their treatment. Personalised care will ensure that GPs monitor patients more carefully. I hope that having annual health care checks in place will ultimately prevent people with learning difficulties from reaching the stage in the NHS that they find so disturbing—the stress of late diagnosis.

Finally, I echo the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about the national health service. We are not here to criticise the institution. We share a common cause; we wish to make it better and more effective for those with learning difficulties.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He touched on the excellence of the national health service. Does he agree that we must try to ensure best practice throughout the United Kingdom, particularly in devolved regions, and that we should not have patients in one part of the UK demanding of the health service a level of service that they see elsewhere? We should aim for equality and best practice across the UK.

[Chris Skidmore]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are learning that health inequalities throughout our nation are extremely profound. Only by dealing with health inequalities can we raise the standard of public health in the nation as a whole—something that applies to many of our public services. Having a greater drive towards the localisation of services and the personalisation of care will get us to the stage where prevention is at the heart of NHS treatment. Through prevention, we will achieve greater equality; it will iron out some of the inequalities that we see in our most deprived communities.

The principles on which the NHS was founded are still relevant today, and we agree that that must remain so. However, although free health care at the point of access should be available to all, based on need, we must look harder at how to ensure that the needs of the most vulnerable are met. That includes those with learning difficulties. More clearly needs to be done, but I hope that we will be able to achieve it.

10:05

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Hood, to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) on securing this debate, which is on a most important subject.

As we know, my right hon. Friend is chair of the all-party group on learning disability, and I pay tribute to his work on the matter in Parliament and with Mencap, which supports the all-party group. My right hon. Friend has highlighted a series of reports that make a compelling case for improving the treatment of people with learning disabilities, making it equal to the treatment received by others.

At the extreme, inequality of treatment in the NHS can lead to unnecessary death, as in the six cases highlighted by Mencap’s report “Death by indifference”. Those six cases of unnecessary death led to the health ombudsman’s findings of failure in NHS service provision. Since then, Mencap has received more accounts of tragic cases from families and carers whose loved ones died because health professionals did not know how to treat, assess or care for people with learning disabilities; they did not listen to what the families and carers said about the patients’ needs, and they made no effort to communicate with the patients using methods such as photo symbols.

Some time has elapsed since the “Death by indifference” report and the ombudsman’s findings of failures in service provision. Will the Minister tell us what progress the Department of Health has made in achieving equality of provision in health services for people with learning disabilities? As my right hon. Friend said, there is a moral case for equal treatment but it is also a legal requirement under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Mental Capacity Acts. The cases that have been highlighted show that people with learning disabilities do not always get the right health care; failures in provision can have fatal consequences.

Given that people with learning disabilities are more likely to have major illnesses, and at a younger age, failures in provision or barriers to accessing treatments or services are more likely to lead to fatal consequences. Members may know of such things from their casework. I spent time battling for appropriate care for a young constituent with physical and learning disabilities. Her parents wanted her medical needs to be assessed alongside her physical needs, but we had a battle with the primary care trust on that. We finally won, but it was too late; my young constituent died before the improved services could be put in place.

My right hon. Friend spoke of the problem of diagnostic overshadowing, whereby physical illness is seen as part of a learning disability and is therefore ignored or sidelined. In our debate last week on mental health and autism, we said that similar difficulties resulting from mental health symptoms are being treated as if the symptoms were part of the autistic spectrum disorder and are also ignored. We need health professionals to be trained to treat, assess and care for people with disabilities or learning difficulties.

We heard earlier that a poll of more than 1,000 health professionals commissioned by Mencap found that a third of health care professionals are not trained in how to make reasonable adjustments for patients with learning disabilities. As has been said, that is no longer acceptable. The fact that more than 80% of people with a learning disability also have a severe communication disability points to the need for training and specialist support. I make no apology for repeating points made by others; we need to underline their importance.

Good communication is vital between patients with learning disabilities and health care professionals and, as we heard, that is at the heart of NHS provision. I therefore look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on access to special provision for communication within the NHS, and on appropriate communications skills training for NHS staff. The NHS White Paper says that the Department of Health will reduce its role in the education and training of staff. How will the Government ensure that professionals have proper training in providing health care for those with learning disabilities?

I turn from training to health checks for people with learning disabilities. The Labour Government’s “Valuing People Now” strategy accepted a recommendation to introduce a directed enhanced service of annual health checks for people with learning disabilities who are known to local authorities. That has meant that all primary care trusts in England are under direction to commission annual health checks from GP practices in their area and to arrange appropriate training for GPs and their practice staff. Such arrangements were initially set to run until 31 March 2010, but there has been an extension until 2011.

In addition, the Department of Health planned to work with groups representing patients, families, carers and professional groups to review the effectiveness of those arrangements and consider improvements for the future. Will the Minister update us on that work and say what commitments he can make to continue annual health checks for people with learning disabilities? Will he also update us on the development of practitioners with a special interest in learning disability, as that, too, was part of the strategy? It was envisaged that such practitioners could serve as a resource to other health practitioners in their area.

Given the announcements made by the Secretary of State on Monday, will the Minister further update us on what the commissioning process will be for the directed enhanced service? Will the new NHS commissioning board require GP consortiums to provide annual health checks for people with a learning disability? What expertise in commissioning care for people with a learning disability will the Government expect GP consortiums to have? That is an important question. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government plan a wider roll-out of annual health checks for people with a learning disability, as my right hon. Friend has already asked him, and what systems will be put in place to monitor the quality of such health checks?

People with a learning disability will receive health checks only if they are known to the local authority. A further recommendation accepted in “Valuing People Now” was that the Department should ensure that it collects the data and information necessary to allow people with a learning disability to be identified by the health service and have their care pathways checked.

Will the Minister update us on the work of the NHS information centre and the public health observatory for people with learning disabilities to identify practical changes that are needed to ensure more systematic recording of learning disability within general practice? “Valuing People Now” said that the directed enhanced service for annual health checks would help GP practices ensure that the registers they maintain under the quality and outcomes framework reflect information from local authority registers of people with learning disabilities known to those services. Will the Minister tell us whether that has been a successful way of collecting the data and information needed? Has good practice emerged on comparing data from GP practice systems with data from other NHS sources to allow better analysis of the uptake of health care interventions and health outcomes for people with learning disabilities?

Finally, “Valuing People Now” recognises the important role that carers play and the importance of working in partnership with them in the provision of treatment and care. Carers should always be included as partners in care, but the “Death by indifference” report showed that health care professionals did not listen to families and carers about patients’ needs.

The hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) told us of a case in which the carer was not involved in any communication about the person for whom they cared. The national carers’ strategy included a commitment to issue information prescriptions to carers and to enable carers to receive other appropriate information, especially in cases when mental capacity is an issue.

The national carers’ strategy also recognised that the additional stress of caring may affect the carer’s own health, so there is a need for annual health checks for family carers, too. We must ensure that carers get regular access to short-break services and to support.

In this time of cutbacks and austerity budgets, will the Minister assure us that he understands and prioritises work to ensure that carers are treated by the NHS as partners in care? Will he also tell us whether work on a refresh of the national carers’ strategy will continue to prioritise annual health checks for carers, access to respite care and breaks for all carers, especially those who care for people with a learning disability?

The Government White Paper uses the slogan “Nothing about me, without me”, which clearly owes a debt to the slogan “Nothing about us, without us”, which was used for many years by disability activists. “Nothing about us, without us” was also the title of a strategy paper for learning disability produced in 2001 by the Department of Health and the service users’ advisory group, which included representatives from a number of learning disability organisations.

I trust that the Minister will value the contributions and questions that have come from this debate, as Ministers have valued reports from, and the themes and slogans used by, organisations for people with disabilities and learning disabilities over the last decade.

10:09

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Paul Burstow)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) for securing this debate, because it is a timely opportunity for the new coalition Government to set out their intentions and approach to the issue. I also pay tribute to him because I know from my time in the House, over the past 13 years, that he has been a true and consistent campaigner on behalf of people with learning disabilities and their families. He has brought many issues to the attention of the House and regularly challenged Ministers of the previous Government—I am sure that he will continue to do so with this Government—to strive to achieve better outcomes for people with learning disabilities.

I made it my business to attend the first meeting of the all-party group on learning disability after the general election to signal my intention and commitment as a new Minister. Despite the fact that I could not make yesterday’s meeting, I hope that my good faith and my desire to collaborate with the all-party group will be recognised. I also pay my respect to Lord Brian Rix who, along with the right hon. Gentleman, provides exceptional leadership in that area.

I also thank the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) and the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), who speaks for the Opposition, for their contributions to this debate. I will clearly have ample time to respond to their many points and questions. If I miss anything out, I will write to right hon. and hon. Members later. It is right that such issues should arouse strong feelings and that they should be kept at the top of the agenda. The right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill drew attention to the Disability Rights Commission report “Closing the gap” and the impact that it had when it came out. No one should be in any doubt of the extent to which the Mencap report “Death by indifference” provided a wake-up call to the NHS and the Government of the day. The health ombudsman’s report has also been very important in alerting us to the failings in the system.

Four years on, a great deal has been written and said about this subject. None the less, despite the “Valuing People Now” strategy and the many worthy efforts to improve services, there are still some parts of the NHS that are not delivering well enough for people with learning disabilities. We have inherited that legacy and we are determined to take action on it. I welcome and support the principles set out in Mencap’s “Getting it right” charter, and we will try to collaborate with the charity to ensure that we address and take forward the additional challenges. I want to work very closely with Mencap to ensure that we translate the words on the page into real change in hearts, minds and practice across the country.

The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Kingswood were right to pay tribute to the work of many dedicated NHS staff around the country. Constructive feedback also needs to be part of any good process of continuous improvement, and is certainly essential when it comes to the NHS. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood put his finger on the pulse when he said that one of the key things that the Government White Paper on the NHS will do is provide a far better focus on early intervention, early diagnosis and prevention. Prevention will be an important part of this Government’s agenda in the delivery and improvement of health care.

I want to make it clear that this Government support “Valuing People Now” as a strategy. Our approach to it is one of continuity and change. I will not be reinventing the wheel, but I will be doing everything I can to make the wheel spin faster—if I can put it that way—because we need continuity but we also need to accelerate the pace of change on the ground.

I have listened very carefully to the points that have been made by right hon. and hon. Members during this debate and I will try to respond to those points. I will start with the point about evidence and information. Gathering evidence and information must be a key part of informing the development of practice on the ground. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South, the shadow Minister, were right to say that this is an area where we must do more. Gathering better information and evidence is vital. We need better information and evidence to subject the NHS to proper scrutiny and so that the NHS can conduct proper self-appraisal; consequently, any shortcomings in care can be identified and acted on quickly, both at a local and a national level.

I can confirm that we are pressing ahead with the confidential inquiry and the public health observatory that were recommended by Sir Jonathan Michael’s inquiry. The confidential inquiry will ensure that premature and avoidable deaths of people with learning disabilities are investigated and that lessons are properly learned and applied at a national level. The public health observatory will give us a much stronger evidence base about the needs of people with learning disabilities and the difficulties that they face, which in turn will inform better practice. I am particularly pleased that we will have representatives from Mencap, the National Forum for People with Learning Difficulties and the National Valuing Families Forum on the group that will scrutinise the progress of both the confidential inquiry and the public health observatory.

In addition, all areas of the country have completed, or are in the process of completing, the new health self-assessment framework. That framework brings together strategic health authorities, primary care trusts, hospital trusts and people with learning disabilities and their families. Those organisations and individuals are coming together to assess local NHS progress and to ensure that health services continue to improve for people with learning disabilities. Their work will be shared with the public health observatory to inform its work. The framework offers a strong means of ensuring accountability and it can help us to ensure that NHS services are making the right adjustments in line with their duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and other legislation, which is a point that has quite rightly been made by all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this debate.

[Barbara Keeley]

As I think all of us who have been involved in today’s debate understand, there will be a great deal of churn in the organisations that the Minister has referred to, such as the SHAs, the PCTs and the hospital trusts. Greater accountability for, and greater scrutiny of their work is clearly important, but those organisations are now threatened with closure. People will be leaving their jobs, so I want to ask the Minister if there is a follow-on plan for when those organisations expire, as it were?

[Mr Burstow]

The hon. Lady must have a copy of my speech in front of her, because the answer to that question is in the next paragraph. She is absolutely right. In executing the change that the White Paper sets out, which means removing the sense of central dictation and direction that we have seen in the NHS for the last 13 years, ending that sense of command and control and making the system one that is about delivering outcomes and one that is facing the patient and working alongside them to deliver those outcomes is an important transformation. Therefore we need to ensure that, in the transition planning that is now well under way for the change that will take place during the next two to three years, the institutional knowledge and learning in the existing system properly migrate to the new system, and that best practice is firmly embedded in the front-line services. Those services will remain as they are now, but they will receive more support and investment to do even better.

[Mr Tom Clarke]

I welcome both the Minister’s tone and his approach to the all-party group. When he considers a number of these issues, I wonder if he feels, as I do, that the importance of advocacy is underlined? Furthermore, does he believe that advocacy will become a central part of the Government’s approach to these matters?

[Mr Burstow]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and his question. He raises a point that I will move on to shortly, but I certainly see advocacy as being very important in this area. Looking forward, we will need to ensure that we reflect what we are learning from the work that is going on at the moment in the new commissioning landscape and in the new frameworks for accountability at a local level.

Both the right hon. Gentleman and the shadow Minister have referred to annual health checks, so let us look at that issue. It is quite encouraging that many more people with learning disabilities are now receiving an annual health check from their GP. Last year, just over one in five people with learning disabilities received an annual health check and the latest figures show that two in five people with learning disabilities have received their annual health check within the last 12 months. However, that is clearly not good enough, as it means that three in five people with learning disabilities still do not receive an annual check. As a Government, we are determined to push that process forward to ensure that the training and development that has taken place delivers in that regard.

I have heard many stories about how those health checks have identified, for example, cataracts or cases of diabetes. Furthermore, as has already been said in this debate, if we put ourselves in the position of a person having such a health condition but being unable to communicate the symptoms, we can begin to understand the difference that these health checks can make. I am therefore certainly keen to see annual health checks continue for people with learning disabilities, and we are looking at the most cost-effective way of ensuring that.

Reference was also made to the training of staff in relation to carrying out health checks. Undertaking training is certainly part of the requirement for all the GP practices that are delivering the annual health checks for people with learning disabilities. That training is about raising awareness of people with learning disabilities and their families, and particularly about ensuring that communication issues are understood, that advocacy is provided and that there is also liaison with staff in the acute sector. So there are a number of aspects about training and I will say more about that shortly.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the training, as did the hon. Member for Kingswood. Reference was made to the recent Mencap poll, which makes disturbing reading as it shows the number of staff who have not had training to help people to make reasonable adjustments to different situations.

The shadow Minister talked about the need to look at people in the round, so that we do not only look at either their learning disability or their physical needs but at both elements. In that way, we will not allow diagnostic overshadowing to take place. That issue must be properly addressed in training. Therefore I wanted to ensure that right hon. and hon. Members were aware that the Council for Health Regulatory Excellence is working with professional bodies to support better training and to improve professional standards. That relates to a point that the hon. Member for Kingswood made about the need for professional ownership of that training, so that it is not just something that is imposed from the top but is seen by professionals as an essential way of learning to do their job better.

As a Government, we are working with the council to reach not only doctors and nurses but the full range of health care professionals. That is clearly important when it comes to meeting the often complex needs of people with learning disabilities. For example, speech and language therapists have a key role in tackling feeding issues of the type that the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill talked about. However, he referred to a case that I fear I cannot talk about any further, because it is before the courts. Occupational therapists are also important in helping people to develop the skills that they need to live independently, so I am pleased that all the regulatory bodies are reporting progress on that work and I will certainly keep in touch with them to ensure that that progress is maintained. I also want to ensure that that learning is embedded as we move towards delivering the vision that is set out in the Government’s health White Paper published on Monday.

Meanwhile, at a primary care level staff in all GP practices that are delivering annual health checks now have the appropriate training. The Royal College of General Practitioners is due to publish additional training materials for all GPs this summer, which are about getting health checks right for people with learning disabilities. I hope that that reassures right hon. and hon. Members that the Government are not about to shelve the issue of training but are determined to see training programmes develop.

[Barbara Keeley]

I think that the point about annual health checks has been emphasised. Does the Minister see those checks continuing? Will there be funding for them to continue? He has helpfully quoted some figures that show that we have moved from a situation in which one in five people with learning disabilities receive an annual health check to a situation in which two in five receive such a check. Does he know whether that gap—a gap that means that three in five people with learning disabilities do not receive an annual health check—exists because those people are not known to services or because GPs are just not carrying out those checks? In other words, is there an information gap or is there a practice or provision gap? If he does not know now, perhaps he can tell me in writing later.

[Mr Burstow]

Regarding the hon. Lady’s point about funding, given the tone and the substantive nature of what I have said about annual health checks it would be surprising if the Government were not determined to see those checks being continued. However, we are obviously in the middle of a spending review and therefore we must ensure that we achieve value for money in those checks. I think that this debate underscores that point only too well. I will write to the hon. Lady on the other point, because I want to get the answer absolutely right, and I will ensure that other hon. Members involved in this debate are copied in.

The hon. Lady also mentioned the value that we all rightly attach to the contribution made by family carers. I hope that she and others, while perusing the White Paper during the past two days, will have seen that one thread running through it from principles to practicalities is the value that this Government attach to the role of carers. For the first time in a Government White Paper, we have stated clearly that we see carers as partners in recovery and the provision of good care, which we want to ensure is provided appropriately in different circumstances. It is an important signal that we hope will be taken on board.

On annual health checks, the hon. Lady will know that the Government are in the midst of a series of pilots to evaluate the best way to implement health checks for carers. We will await the outcomes of the pilots before making further decisions about their wider roll-out.

On engagement, which all hon. Members have mentioned, it is crucial that patients and families are at the heart of all health care services at all levels. The White Paper makes that clear by borrowing from an important past report. We want the aspiration “No decision about me, without me” to inform how the health service develops. We need people with learning disabilities to be fully involved in the planning and design of services at a local level. If we can create an NHS that genuinely listens and responds to patients, in line with the White Paper, we will ensure that people with learning disabilities get the support and advocacy that they need to make their voices heard. That is clearly important, just as it is important to ensure that the values and principles behind the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which I supported during its passage through the House, are understood and translated into practice.

Some parts of the country are already doing great work in that area by, for example, bringing in user-led organisations to advise staff and help them offer patients the right advocacy. We want to see more of that. We will also work through the new body proposed by the White Paper, HealthWatch, which will not only handle patient complaints but be responsible for providing advocacy and support in pursuing them. HealthWatch will have a key role in ensuring that the voices of those whom we are discussing are heard fully across the NHS. It will be a powerful champion for people who are not always heard.

Hospital passports have not been mentioned, but they none the less address some issues raised in this debate. The hon. Member for Kingswood discussed, among other things, the role of liaison nurses. Hospital passports are another helpful development and were one of the top suggestions in Mencap’s charter. The passports are short, accessible booklets that can be carried by people with learning disabilities to give NHS staff information about their medical history, any drugs that they are taking and their likes and dislikes. They are a low-cost but effective idea and are offered by many hospitals throughout the country. I want to see them spread to every hospital. I suspect that the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman involving poor communications in hospitals might have been avoided if such a passport had been available.

Clearly, acute liaison nurses also have a role to play. All strategic health authorities recently reported on the issue to the Department of Health, and all referred to the value of acute liaison nurses. The number of posts is increasing as such nurses demonstrate their value. They play a part in building capacity, training colleagues, raising awareness across the work force, improving the patient experience and, importantly, reducing length of stay and getting people back into the community appropriately.

I have mentioned commissioning structures. As we migrate from the old system to the new, we must ensure that the learning is carried over. That creates opportunities and possibilities for organisations such as Mencap and others to play their part in ensuring that they work alongside commissioners at a local level to deliver it.

[Barbara Keeley]

While the Minister is on that point, will he enlarge on how the commissioning of the services that we have been discussing will take place? Will they be locally commissioned, or will the NHS independent board commission them from GPs?

[Mr Burstow]

The NHS commissioning board will commission the family practice services that GPs provide, but the GP commissioning consortiums will be responsible for a wide range of commissioning services, some of which they may do collectively at a sub-regional or regional level, while others will be discharged by the NHS commissioning board. The important thing is the expertise available, and we say in the White Paper that GP consortiums will have access to that expertise in a number of ways. They might choose to bring it in-house, use their local authority’s commissioning expertise—some local authorities have exceptional expertise—or work with third sector organisations. There are already examples of that happening, such as with Turning Point. I suggest that opportunities exist for organisations to offer commissioning expertise in order to develop services that are much more in tune with the needs of particular patient groups.

The right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill was absolutely right to flag up the wider societal challenges of discrimination, particularly the discrimination faced by people with learning disabilities. He was therefore right to identify, as the Government do, that we must not approach the issue in a narrow, health-focused way. We need a wider social perspective in taking forward strategies on the matter, and that will be part of our thinking throughout.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked me about the Mansell report, which I know was the subject of discussion last night at the meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on learning disability. I thank Professor Mansell for his important work, not least because I understand that the work reported yesterday was commissioned by the Department of Health. It demonstrates the vital importance of improving services and outcomes for people with learning disabilities and provides important examples of good service and good practice that we must ensure sit firmly in the strategy going forward. My officials will work further to ensure that we see how the findings fold into the ongoing work on the strategy.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the DVD. We are happy to ensure that it can be accessed on the website and to discuss other ways we can collaborate to maximise awareness of it and the Mansell report. We are keen to ensure that people have access to it and will do what we can to achieve that.

I am told that financial matters, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, were discussed last night at the all-party group meeting. How can we maintain and accelerate progress in the straitened financial circumstances that the Government have inherited? Part of the answer is that the NHS has benefited from this Government’s commitment to real-terms growth. However, we have inherited a debt legacy that must be tackled, and we have made it clear that the sick should not have to pay the price for that, nor should people with learning disabilities. The NHS will have to be even more creative and willing to work in new ways with the third sector and other organisations to maintain and quicken the pace of reform. I am confident that we can do things differently and achieve with less, and that we can do more for people with learning disabilities.

Ultimately, we need to achieve real change to make an impact on the ground. Yes, we need better training, evidence and engagement but, ultimately, we need better services driving better outcomes for patients. We need services that are integrated—the White Paper provides a way forward on that—as well as more responsive. They must be built around the individual needs of patients and families, meet their expectations and give them a say in their treatment and ongoing care.

In conclusion, the NHS White Paper can be the catalyst that we need to drive change. The message is simple. We want an NHS that is focused on outcomes and judged by what really matters to people: the extent to which it helps them live longer and healthier lives. We will need to consider how we measure those outcomes in the right way for people with learning disabilities, and I look forward to working with the all-party group, Mencap and many other organisations on that. Reducing preventable mortality might, for example, be a helpful starting point, and we want to consult on that.

The shift away from process-led measures towards outcomes will bring a cultural shift in care and help the NHS to shake itself free of any of the lingering discrimination that has been talked about in this debate—any sense of looking at the disability rather than the individual as a whole in terms of how treatments are decided. That is the opportunity the Government’s White Paper presents and I am determined to work with the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, the all-party group, Mencap, families and others to ensure that we grasp that opportunity and deliver the best outcomes possible.

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

The sitting is suspended until 11 am.

10:40

Sitting suspended.

Rail Services (South London Line)

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Westminster Hall

10:57

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this debate on the future of the south London line, which serves my constituency, and specifically the services that run through Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road stations, which are absolutely essential in allowing many of my constituents to travel directly into central London. Although the Minister is, of course, aware of the situation and has had many briefings on it, I will set out the background, because it is by nature quite complex and his Department, ultimately, will make the final decision.

The south London line currently runs twice an hour in a loop between London Bridge and Victoria stations, stopping at South Bermondsey, Queens Road Peckham, Peckham Rye, Denmark Hill, Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road. It serves the wide south London community by providing access to two key interchange stations, London Bridge and Victoria, which are the centres of much employment. In February 2009, Transport for London announced the funding and go-ahead for phase 2 of the East London line extension, which will supersede much of our service to the east, running to Canada Water, Shoreditch High Street and up to Dalston.

However, it is the proposals to the west that concern my constituents and me and that have worried so many of the local amenity groups, councillors and societies, such as the Clapham Society. The link to London Bridge was to be preserved by the proposed new line from Victoria to Bellingham, but Network Rail decided to axe that, on the understanding that the direct route to Victoria would be retained. We were also promised longer platforms at those stations and told that the money was available for that, so I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me about that or find out where the money that had been earmarked has gone.

Transport for London proposes that, rather than continuing to take residents into Victoria, where so many of them work, including many civil servants, those services will instead be diverted to Clapham Junction from May 2012. For those who hear the words “Clapham Junction” and immediately think, “Well, that’s Clapham, so what’s the difference?”, I want to say that it may have the name “Clapham” but it is not Clapham. None of my constituents would consider Clapham Junction to be in Clapham. It is not convenient for them; it is not a route that they currently use to get into central London.

Clapham Junction lies further out, so passengers would have to travel further away from central London to change on to trains at Clapham Junction, which is already, as I am sure some Members know, an incredibly overcrowded station. The journey would be longer, and would mean inconvenient platform changes and even more crowded trains. It would, literally, be a backward step. As the Minister knows, Clapham Junction has been cited as the worst interchange station in London, with crowded corridors and congestion. Clapham Junction is therefore not in any way a solution, and I understand that the funding to improve the station will probably not now be available.

What is being offered, therefore, is an increased orbital service for an area that depends on its radial service to where people want to go, and for which there is increased demand. That is demonstrated by the alternative route that people who are near enough will use: the Northern line. If the proposals go through, they will force many more people who currently use the train at Clapham High Street on to the Northern line at Clapham North and Clapham Common stations, which are dangerously overcrowded in the morning and are commonly recognised as needing reconstruction. The severe Northern line congestion suggests that there is a desperate need for alternative radial routes. If anyone ever wants to see what real crowding on a tube is, I suggest that they go to one of those Northern line stations at morning rush hour, when people sometimes have to wait for the second or third train before boarding. Cutting the alternatives into Victoria will, far from relieving congestion, have the opposite effect. People who live near Wandsworth Road are not even near a Northern line station, so they do not even have access to such an option.

What adds to the irony of the situation that has been proposed is that two trains an hour will still go to Victoria, but only at off-peak times, when commuter demand will not exist and take-up will be lowest. The outcome is that far more useful services are to be removed, and scarce money spent putting on a four-trains-per-hour service to Clapham Junction in the morning when there is no demand. I appreciate that the Minister might not yet know his London intimately, although I am sure that if he stays in his position longer he will, but this proposal is like arguing that because Richmond has orbital services it should lose all trains to Waterloo or Victoria, or that because Croydon has the East London line extension it should not have trains to London Bridge. That is really what Transport for London is proposing for Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road.

Beyond that issue, which affects my constituents so much—although the decision has not finally been made—I have deep concerns about the process that has been followed and about how we have reached this point. The Department for Transport instructed Transport for London to work with London TravelWatch to consider the options for the future of the service, including the development of modelling to consider the future use of each option to serve my area, and many concerns have been raised about the modelling that was done to predict demand. Rather than considering consumer views data, the decisions relied on abstract projections over a 60-year period. I am not an expert, but I and many experts other than those who ordered that kind of modelling, are not convinced that it accurately reflects the desire for orbital travel, the unwillingness to interchange at Clapham Junction or the costs of the relative options.

London TravelWatch rubber-stamped the TfL proposal to end the London Bridge service, and since then there has been an ongoing discussion about the Victoria end of the service. What has emerged from the discussions is the so-called option 7, which did not exist in the previous shortlist but was brought in right at the end, although there were a number of other options. It seems to have been agreed as the way forward. This option ends peak-time access into central London and diverts people instead to Clapham Junction, forcing them on to the very overcrowded Northern line. It diverts long-distance Kent coastal services that come through to Victoria, allowing them to stop at various places—but not in my constituency—and increasing the journey time for those commuters, without doing anything to help anyone living in the Clapham area.

London TravelWatch seems to have considered that an achievement, even though its chair, Sharon Grant, originally referred to the impact on my constituents as a “major disbenefit” with “a substantial disadvantage,” and went on to talk about how terrible and overcrowded the Northern line was. Suddenly, Sharon Grant and TravelWatch seem to have decided, for whatever reason, that the Northern line is no longer overcrowded, or a problem, and that this proposal is the best option.

Option 7 brings the worst of both worlds, inconveniencing longer-distance passengers and leaving the worst-affected stations without their vital links to Victoria, forcing passengers on to the most congested part of the London underground. It is an option that, from a common-sense point of view, does not bring value for money. Even if it is cheaper at the moment, the longer-term cost makes it a clear example of false economy. London TravelWatch’s remit seems strange to me. Is it not to be an advocate for the people of London? Does it actually also work for people in the wider south-east, such as Kent? It has abandoned the interests of my constituents in London. When Network Rail approved the axing of the south London line to London Bridge, TravelWatch agreed, on the condition that the Victoria link was kept.

Now TravelWatch has endorsed the axing of the Victoria link for Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road, in a double betrayal of south London. Particularly contemptible is that TravelWatch, and everybody until early June, was reassuring all the campaigners in our area of what it called a “positive outcome.” London TravelWatch is meant to be the voice of users, but it has, I believe, used its position to compromise the compromises and undermine stakeholder concerns, acting well outside its job as an advocate for users in London. It is almost like a defence barrister going into court and beginning to collaborate with the prosecution.

London TravelWatch’s excuses about unaffordability and balancing the interests of Londoners do not wash. Successfully endorsing the removal of central London links is not acceptable for a watchdog whose remit is to represent commuters. There is no balance, particularly as it has reneged on categorical assurances and views about keeping Victoria links for Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road. TravelWatch does not, in my view, interact with stakeholders, and is far too close to the rail industry to be an effective advocate, still less one that gets £1.6 million in funding from the London assembly.

I know that the London assembly is rightly considering TravelWatch’s funding position. Perhaps I should not say this so bluntly, but I am fairly blunt: I slightly worry that perhaps TravelWatch’s involvement with and support for TfL was something to do with its wanting to get TfL to be very much supportive of the continuation of the large amount of funding. In effect, my commuters pay to subsidise a watchdog to remove their services and make their journeys longer, more costly and more crowded. It is an irony that what we pay per year to keep TravelWatch going could give Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road the four trains per hour service to Victoria.

This all seems to be very much a botched compromise; none of the proposed changes will benefit any of my constituents in the slightest. I believe that they would agree with me and that they would rather keep things as they are than lose an important commuter service for the sake of four trains an hour going to Clapham Junction, which is not a station that they want to, or will, go to. We would rather hold out for future funding to lengthen the platforms, thereby allowing the introduction of the Victoria to Bellingham service, which would properly serve my constituents with four trains an hour to central London.

I am sure that the Minister will be interested to know that TfL spent £18 million on bonuses last year, up from £10 million in 2008. That suggests that it has sufficient money to keep the orbital links. As I said earlier, we should challenge why, as part of a compromise or of making it feel that it is doing something, it will put on four East London line trains to Clapham Junction when two would be enough and would release the capital and capacity for the Victoria services to carry on during the rush hour.

I do not expect the Minister to give me a detailed response on the nitty-gritty of what I have just said. He will probably give me some of the lines that have been put out by TfL, but the final decision on the matter rests with him. I am pleased that I have been granted a meeting to which I will be able to bring some of the local people who are experts on the subject. They may not work for TfL or TravelWatch and they may not earn millions a year, but they actually know what they are talking about. Frankly, they are the kind of people who I hope the Minister and the new coalition Government will start to listen to, rather than the so-called experts who are paid huge amounts of money, but, as I am sure the Minister knows, sometimes forget who they work for and who pays their salaries.

I thank Mr Speaker for giving me an opportunity to raise this matter. I am concerned that we will lose a service and that that will not be in the interests of London as a whole. It will not give value for money, and it certainly will not do anything to solve the congestion problems in south London.

11:12

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on securing this debate. I was interested in her comments about the Victoria to Bellingham service, which would have four trains per hour into Victoria, and her preference for waiting for it to come in. A number of my constituents in Lewisham East rely on train services from Bellingham, which is, in effect, a public transport desert. I would very much welcome a service that ran more frequently from Bellingham into Victoria. I wonder whether the Minister, when he responds to my hon. Friend, could give me some guarantee that that option will be fully explored and investigated.

11:09

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on securing this debate and on providing an opportunity for hon. Members to discuss rail services in her constituency and further afield. I have always admired the hon. Lady, who is an independent person. Independence of mind is an attribute that we could do with more of in the House of Commons.

The planned changes to south London line services are a matter of concern to several Members, and officials have informed me that the Department for Transport has received significant correspondence on the matter over the past few months. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Transport, will meet the hon. Lady in the coming days to discuss the issue in greater detail. Obviously, I will ensure that my right hon. Friend has access to the exchanges in this Adjournment debate.

It is probably worth starting my response by setting out the background to the proposed changes to the south London line, with some details about the existing service. The current service, provided by rail operator Southern, operates every 30 minutes in each direction between London Bridge and Victoria via Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye, including stops at Wandsworth Road and Clapham High Street. Two-car trains run for most of the day, with four-car trains provided for the morning peak. That is the only service for Wandsworth Road and Clapham High Street stations, all other stations on the route being served by other train services. I take the hon. Lady’s point about the withdrawal of services to London Bridge and Victoria, and note her dramatic phrase, “a double betrayal”.

It should be noted that Clapham North underground station is located some 300 yards from Clapham High Street station, and provides services to the west end, the City and Morden as well as connections to the rest of the underground network. However, I am not ignoring the points the hon. Lady rightly made about overcrowding. As an occasional commuter on the Northern line, I am well aware of the problems. It is also worth noting—I shall come back to this later—that the Northern line will benefit from enhanced capacity over the next couple of years as a result of the planned upgrade that forms part of Transport for London’s investment programme.

The latest information on demand levels at these stages, which is provided by Southern, indicates that Clapham High Street is the start or end point of some 850 journeys per weekday, around a quarter of which have Victoria as their origin or destination. By comparison, Wandsworth Road is used for some 630 journeys per day, with two thirds starting or ending at Victoria.

As the hon. Lady knows, several of the planned service changes in her area of south London are required because of the start of the main works at London Bridge associated with the Thameslink upgrade programme. She will be aware that work on the Thameslink programme has already commenced across London: Blackfriars and Farringdon stations are already being rebuilt, platforms outside London are being lengthened and preparatory works at Borough market have begun. When completed, the Thameslink programme will enhance the frequency and capacity of train services throughout the centre of London, improving connectivity north to south and creating new journey opportunities while helping to relieve the Northern line north of London Bridge.

However, while works are carried out at London Bridge, the capacity of the station—the number of trains it can accommodate—will be reduced. We all recognise that any reduction in the number of services that can go into London Bridge is not ideal, but rebuilding and enhancing a busy operational railway is not possible without some disruption.

The original plan, as consulted on by Network Rail as part of the south London route utilisation strategy document, was to divert the south London line service away from London Bridge and to create a new stopping service from Victoria to Bellingham, as the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) recognise. Bellingham is south of Catford and is a convenient location where trains can terminate. The new service would have reduced the number of train movements into London Bridge while maintaining key connections to and from London Victoria from Wandsworth Road and Clapham High Street as well as from Peckham Rye and Denmark Hill. I note Members’ support for that option. It was the Department’s intention to implement a Victoria to Bellingham service in place of the existing Victoria to London Bridge service while works at London Bridge were carried out, but the service changes made by TfL—I shall come to those in a second—mean that the alternative service strategy will not now be implemented.

I turn to the East London line extension phase 2 to Clapham Junction and why the proposed Victoria to Bellingham service will not now go ahead. The south London route utilisation strategy developed by Network Rail highlighted the potential benefits that the extension of the East London line would bring to the area of south London represented by the hon. Member for Vauxhall. However, in 2008, TfL and the Mayor concluded that the £75 million scheme was not affordable within the constraints of the TfL budget. Recognising the value of the extension project, the Department offered to provide an additional £15 million as grant to TfL and to support a £19 million funding application to the Office of Rail Regulation for Network Rail works to implement the project, so I think that the Department has been helpful.

As part of the funding proposal, TfL requested the withdrawal of the planned replacement south London line service to Bellingham. The money raised from that was to be diverted to the capital costs of the East London line extension—the saving is the equivalent of £24 million over 10 years. Under the devolved arrangements for London, the Mayor and TfL were, and are, fully at liberty to request such changes, given the powers granted to them over DFT-specified train services. Under the arrangements, TfL can propose, and pay for, services additional to the Department’s base franchise specification. Alternatively, it is entitled to propose reductions in service levels and keep any savings made. The latter approach is what TfL proposed in respect of the Victoria to Bellingham service.

It would have been apparent that the proposed service changes would have meant that Wandsworth Road and Clapham High Street would lose all direct services to London Victoria, with passengers instead being required to travel via a change of train at Clapham Junction. However, train frequency at both locations would double from two to four trains per hour in each direction, with a far wider range of services available from Clapham Junction, including to Waterloo, stations on the west London line and the wider Southern and South West Trains networks, although I appreciate they may not be destinations that all the hon. Lady’s constituents want to reach.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

I apologise in case I have to leave before the end of the Minister’s remarks, because I have to ask a question in the main Chamber at 11.30 am.

Slightly fewer of my constituents are affected than those of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), but I want to pick up on the point about Clapham Junction, because one problem is that it is not an effective interchange, despite being pretty much the busiest one in the country. I should like the Minister to recognise that the strategic long-term upgrade of Clapham Junction—I do not just mean the £20 million announced in March 2010 before the election—to reflect its status as the busiest interchange in the country is essential to making a lot more services attractive to a great many more people, irrespective of the direction from which they are coming into that station.

[Norman Baker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments.

I stress that we, as a Government, are committed to devolution. We are talking about an earlier example of devolution to TfL and the Mayor, so whatever the Department for Transport thinks we live within the existing legal framework. Therefore, the Department may have fewer powers in this regard than in respect of other rail matters elsewhere in the country.

TfL made a judgment that the East London line service to Clapham Junction provided better overall benefits than the south London line to Bellingham. Clearly, Members present do not share that judgment. It is entirely appropriate that TFL, which is London’s transport planning body, should make this judgment and assess the trade-offs between the different service proposals. Ministers in the previous Administration accepted the guidance provided by the Mayor on that being the best use of the limited available resources. If the Mayor and TfL make such decisions—the coalition agreement states that the Government believe that decisions should be taken at a more local level—it is important that they stand behind the consequences of such decisions when they are made, including the impacts on passengers at stations such as Wandsworth Road and Clapham High Street.

The decision not to implement the proposed London Victoria to Bellingham service was requested by TfL and the Mayor to help fund the East London line service. Implementing both the Bellingham service and the East London line would have been ideal, but both services were not affordable and TfL and the Mayor judged that the East London line extension provided more benefits than the diverted south London line. A judgment call was made by TfL in light of the financial constraints it faced. As is the case with such funding agreements, a number of conditions were attached to the funding given by the Department. TfL was fully aware of those conditions before it signed the funding offer.

Importantly, the Department was conscious of the need to keep stakeholders informed of any changes and included a requirement for TfL to inform key stakeholders about the route of the proposed changes. The Department also included a clause stopping East London line services operating into London Victoria. If TfL decided to operate into Victoria we would need to renegotiate, and perhaps reduce, the £24 million funding offer. This may seem an odd condition, but it was put in place because other train operators would have had a claim on the Department for loss of revenue if TfL operated services into London Victoria.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall mentioned her concerns about London TravelWatch. She is aware that following the proposed changes, and significant negative public reaction, TfL and London TravelWatch undertook a further exercise to investigate what mitigation measures could be implemented to resolve some of the problems that stakeholders identified. That study recently reported and the Mayor of London wrote to the Secretary of State regarding its conclusions.

The study suggested stopping some peak-time mainline services at Peckham Rye and Denmark Hill and implementing a new off-peak Victoria to Bromley South stopping service, which would call at Wandsworth Road and Clapham High Street. However, in all its study work, TfL has not addressed the hon. Lady’s key concern regarding peak period train services from Wandsworth Road and Clapham High Street to London Victoria. The study was, of course, led by TfL with London TravelWatch and they will need to answer the question about why such services cannot be accommodated, but I understand that a key constraint is the length of platforms at stations, and the costs of extending them, which limits the services that they believe can call at those stations at peak times.

Of course, we in the Department will study the conclusions of the study carefully, but I should make it clear that the Department is unlikely to be willing to fund the mitigation measures that the Mayor is proposing, given that the issues arose because the Mayor sought the withdrawal of the proposed Bellingham service.

[Kate Hoey]

I really appreciate what the Minister has said so far. Will he clarify something? I appreciate that how we got here is to do with TfL and the Mayor, and TravelWatch, and that it is probably more for Londoners to take up, rather than for the Minister to do so. Could he or the Department say, “No, we want you to look at this matter again”, particularly the peak services between the two stations that I have mentioned and Victoria? Or is the Minister told about these things by TfL and the Mayor, with the idea being, in theory, that he is meant to say yes or no—although actually the answer is always yes?

[Norman Baker]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. I want my response to be exactly right because I do not want to mislead hon. Members, so I will reflect and give the hon. Lady an answer in a moment.

I understand that implementation of the proposed service is likely to cost about £1 million a year, which the Mayor is seeking from the Department. Given our current funding constraints and the likely reductions in available resources in future, an exceptional case would need to be made for any such funding to be implemented.

I note the hon. Lady’s concerns about London TravelWatch, which is not the responsibility of the Department for Transport, as she is aware. London TravelWatch is an independent watchdog sponsored and funded by the London assembly, which is part of the Greater London authority. Any comments regarding London TravelWatch, concerns about its involvement in the study, or how it functions should therefore be directed to the GLA and the Mayor as well as to its chair, Sharon Grant, whom the hon. Lady mentioned. The hon. Lady might also want to contact Passenger Focus, because although London TravelWatch is the predominant body in London—Passenger Focus tends to let it have its say and take the lead there—Passenger Focus has responsibility for rail issues nationally so it may be interested in some of her comments.

In response to the hon. Lady’s earlier point, TfL made its proposals to the DFT, as I mentioned. We can ask it to look at the matter again, but doing so risks the DFT being forced to fund such a proposal. As I understand it, we have to be careful not to enter into a discussion with TfL that in any way makes us liable for the decisions of the Mayor, but I will ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to give the hon. Lady further clarification about that important point when they meet.

[Kate Hoey]

I thank the Minister for that helpful comment. It seems silly to put the matter through departmental bureaucracy if the Department can never say, “No, we don’t like this.” Could the Department say, “Look, actually, in the end it’s probably better for this not to be changed at all,” and not put in the money? Who is benefiting from the extra money that is going in?

[Norman Baker]

A number of factors must be taken into account, including, first, the devolved powers for the Mayor and TfL, which most Londoners would probably support—we are trying to devolve powers away from central Government; secondly, the legal restraints and legislation made in respect of the Mayor and TfL; and thirdly, the consequences for other rail operators. There is a complicated matrix to consider and I do not want to give a misleading answer today, so I will draw the hon. Lady’s concerns and comments directly to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to ensure that she gets a proper, full answer when they meet.

The East London line will bring significant benefits to the part of south London that we are talking about, providing four trains an hour regularly between Clapham Junction and Dalston seven days a week and providing connections to key interchanges to other parts of the London transport network, such as at Canada Water, for example.

On the Northern line, and crowding issues at Clapham North station, the hon. Lady will know that London Underground is planning an upgrade of the Northern line to be implemented in 2012, which will increase frequency on the southern end of the route from the current 28 trains per hour to 32. The additional capacity will help to relieve crowding issues on that section of the network. There are concerns about the spending review and funding arrangements, but we hope that the Mayor will be able to deliver the upgrade on the Northern line, as previously announced.

Members have mentioned Clapham Junction station and its use as an interchange station for London Overground services. It must be remembered that in Network Rail’s plans to 2014, suburban trains through Clapham Junction to both Waterloo and Victoria will be lengthened to 10-car services. Works are also already under way to improve the interchange facilities at Clapham Junction by providing new lifts, and plans are in place to improve access to the station, for example, by providing a new entrance.

Although the changes to train services in south London are largely driven by the need to accommodate train service changes at London Bridge, the proposed Victoria to Bellingham service would have mitigated a number of the impacts of those changes. The changes to train services at Wandsworth Road and Clapham High Street and the severing of the link to London Victoria were made at the request of the Mayor of London, under the arrangements that cover rail services in London.

We will, of course, reflect on the comments made by hon. Members during this debate and consider the issues that have been raised.

11:30

Sitting suspended.

Courts Service

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jim Hood in the Chair]

14:30

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood, and I am grateful to have secured this debate. Reorganisation of the Courts Service will have a significant effect on the way in which justice is provided throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that this debate will provide an opportunity for hon. Members throughout the House—there is a healthy bias from Wales in the Chamber—to reflect on facilities that may be changing in their constituencies. Notwithstanding consultations, I am sure that the Minister will take note of the points raised this afternoon. In the spirit of constituency interests, I shall concentrate on the future of the magistrates court in Cardigan, and access to justice in Ceredigion and more generally in the rural communities that many of us serve.

The consultation document usefully sets out the distances involved in closing various courts, and the public transport implications for constituents. The alternatives to the magistrates court in Cardigan are Aberystwyth in the north of Ceredigion and Haverfordwest in Pembrokeshire. The consultation document states that Cardigan is 38 miles from Aberystwyth and 29 miles from Haverfordwest. They are further away than any of the alternative courts that are proposed for closure anywhere in Wales. The distances that people will be expected to travel are longer than any others on a long list in Wales.

However, there is optimism about the public transport alternatives, although my confidence in the public transport system is not shared by many of my constituents. Someone going to court in Aberystwyth in the morning would have to catch a bus from Cardigan at 7.20 am, and then face a significant walk from the bus stop. When referring to points on a map, we are talking not about A to B or B to A, but about vast geographic areas. We are talking not just about the people of Cardigan going to Aberystwyth, but about large communities—Aberporth, Llanarth, Llandysul—and huge swathes of west Wales. We are talking not about bus services and other transport links from Cardigan, but about those from outside. Rurality and public transport has largely been ignored in the consultation document to date. Many residents of the villages in south Ceredigion are simply unable to get to Aberystwyth or Haverfordwest in the morning by public transport.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that problems with public transport bear down particularly on those who are most vulnerable and who lead the most chaotic lives in society? The previous Government were happy to close down magistrates courts, including that at Trowbridge in my constituency. That argument may apply more to magistrates courts than to county courts, but it worries many of us that those who will be most disadvantaged by the closure programme are the most vulnerable in society.

[Mr Williams]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. There is an underlying assumption that public transport is an add-on and that people can access court facilities in a private vehicle, but that does not apply to many of the people to whom he referred. They are completely reliant on public transport, and all too often it does not exist.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He is talking about people on the periphery, and there is a double whammy because many facilities in Wales are drifting eastwards from areas such as those that he and I serve. Does he agree that the proposed local government cuts will impact on the transport system, which is already fragile in such areas, so there is a double whammy with the closure of justice centres and contraction of the transport system?

[Mr Williams]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concern. I have tried to raise the same point over the past five years. For example, the bus subsidy grant from which many of my constituents have benefited has contracted over the past five years. Given the challenges to the public purse, that contraction looks set to continue. That is a worry, and I shall not deviate from that.

Access to justice is a key right for us all, and we will not be able to run the most economically efficient service without failing to provide the level of service required. That does not mean that we should never seek savings from the service or explore other ways of delivering a better service, but we must fully consider the impact of the loss of that service on the community.

[Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I agree that reducing the number of courts is all about savings, but all the research that I have looked at shows that the real waste in magistrates arises from an appreciable amount of non-attendance and people not being chased up for their fines. I do not understand how reducing the number of magistrates courts will improve non-attendance.

[Mr Williams]

My hon. Friend draws our attention to a practical problem. Some of us are looking further ahead to ensuring that the magistrates court system serves people. We are discussing not short-term decisions, but a longer term view of the network that we want. The issue is valid.

I note that the consultation objectives include the commendable pledge to

“ensure the estate supports the challenges of rural access”.

Having looked at the documentation, I contend—I suspect that others will share my view—that that is not the case. The problem of access is not unique to rural areas, but it is a huge problem, and will be detrimental to Cardigan and the surrounding area.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made the point about rural and non-rural areas. The Rhondda is not rural in one sense, because there is a conglomerated community and people live close to one another. However, if Llwynypia magistrates court disappears, the number of people who are unable or fail to attend court is likely to increase dramatically because they will have to travel all the way to Pontypridd. It is likely that many people, including the victims of crime, will not receive justice, and defendants may get off scot-free.

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Order. We have had five interventions, each of which has been a wee bit longer than I expect interventions to be. If other hon. Members are tempted to intervene, perhaps they will be brief.

[Mr Williams]

Thank you, Mr Hood. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on his early-day motion 312, and prompted by the excellent research note, I have just signed it. He is right to make the point, but he will forgive me if I focus on the rural challenges. I am sure that he will make the point about urban communities. The problem involves the practicalities of living in rural communities and accessing services, but access to justice as a right is a much bigger picture. He mentions in his early-day motion victim support and the implications for that.

A constituent of mine, who is a justice of the peace, acknowledges that usage of Cardigan court is low, and that that is largely due to the facilities not being good enough to accommodate many cases because of under-investment over the years rather than lack of need. Custody cases cannot be heard because of a lack of suitable cells; special measures trials are difficult because of a lack of facilities; and the court is not compliant with disability discrimination legislation. If the villages south of Ceredigion and north of Pembrokeshire are included, he estimates a catchment area of nearly 40,000 people, which should surely be enough to justify a modern court building with the necessary facilities to hold a wide range of cases.

It is also crucial to remember that the closure will not only affect those individuals who will be denied convenient access to justice. Legal providers and witnesses will be forced to travel extra distances, which might be an added deterrent. If police officers are required to give evidence, those based in Cardigan will have an additional distance to travel. There is pressure on neighbourhood policing in rural areas. The areas are vast and, as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) will agree, there is a problem of resources. The pressures on police forces in rural areas look set to continue.

A concentration of court services away from rural areas could lead to the same trend in the availability of legal advice. People will have to travel to Aberystwyth to attend court, and they may have to travel to access legal advice. Even if that doomsday scenario is not reached, the closure will certainly have an impact on local providers of legal services.

I welcome the fact that the documentation contains a section on rural-proofing, but I fear that Cardigan is a long way from being rural-proofed. The standard of public transport is not adequate for the purposes suggested in the proposals. During a debate on court closures in Yorkshire that took place in Westminster Hall last week, the Minister stated:

“Recent improvements in transport and communication links mean that people can travel further in less time if they need to.”—[Official Report, 7 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 131WH.]

I am sure that that is true in many parts of the country, but it is not the case in west Wales where public transport has suffered over the past few years and, if anything, we have a less comprehensive service than that of several years ago.

I accept that there will always be local opposition to any change in the service, but I have been struck by how strongly people in Cardigan feel about this proposal, and the impact that it will have on the community both because of difficulties with public transport, and because of straightforward concern about lack of access to justice.

[Albert Owen]

There is also an economic argument. Many of the court areas have solicitors’ offices built around them. That is certainly the case in Llangefni in Anglesey. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that and does he agree that measures have already been put in place for legal providers to move to other courts, as has been highlighted?

[Mr Williams]

I agree with the first point, which was the concern I raised earlier. Legal providers will move to the destination of the court, and that will leave a vacuum elsewhere. Many people will be concerned about the impact on areas that have high levels of deprivation. Cardigan contains the two most deprived wards in Ceredigion, Teifi and Rhydyfuwch, which are in the top 20% most deprived wards in Wales. In the community safety domain of the Wales index of multiple deprivation, which covers recorded crime, youth offenders, adult offenders and fire incidence, Cardigan’s Teifi ward is in the top 5% of the most deprived wards in Wales. Consequently, Cardigan town council has written to me and to the Secretary of State expressing its concern at the proposals and raising many of the points that I have mentioned. The council was grateful and pleased that Cardigan has acquired a new police station with eight cells, but it feels that there should be a new court building adjacent to that police station.

There has been some suggestion that we should move towards a model that has group facilities and can achieve swift, community-based justice and make operational savings. The combination of facilities on a single site has many advantages, but I fear that sometimes the understandable drive for efficiency has clouded the vision of the best way to provide justice. Although we are not in a position to build many new facilities across the country, if we lose locations that provide a greater function to the justice system, there is a danger that we will never be able to implement that vision.

It has been suggested that Aberystwyth—38 miles north of Cardigan—is capable of taking on the extra work that would be necessitated by the closure of the court at Cardigan. The consultation points to the construction of a new justice centre in Aberystwyth, which I welcome, but the Minister will be well aware of the delays in that project after the collapse of the developers involved. Originally, the project was to have included a Crown court, with Aberystwyth serving as a mid-Wales hub for justice. Currently, the nearest Crown courts are in Carmarthen, Swansea and Welshpool.

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

And Dolgellau.

[Mr Williams]

And Dolgellau—I thank the hon. Gentleman for adding that to my list. There remains a case for a Crown court in Aberystwyth, even if the money is not currently available.

I have written to the Minister and his predecessor, Bridget Prentice, who I met. However, there is as yet little concrete information to report. As such, the closure of a magistrates court in Cardigan is predicated on a project that we hope will happen, but for which we have no time scale. I hope that that concern will be noted in the consultation.

The Cardigan and Tivyside Advertiser, which serves Cardigan and the surrounding area, has launched a campaign to save the court. One of its concerns is about the continuation of court reporting which, as I am sure the Minister will agree, is vital to our democracy. The newspaper does not have the resources to send reporters to Haverfordwest or Aberystwyth, and if the court closes, it will have to end its reports on Cardigan cases. That is not a justification for keeping the court, but it is an important point none the less.

Concerns have been raised about the decline of court reporting and the impact that that has on transparency. By and large that decline has been the result of newspapers deciding that it was not in their economic interest to cover court cases, but if the Government take decisions that will impact on public access to information about court proceedings, that factor should be considered.

Under the proposals, Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire local justice areas are to be merged. I do not oppose that, as it seems to be a sensible extension of the collaborative work that is already taking place. However, I seek clarification from the Minister that justices of the peace would not be required to be on the bench for all courts within that larger area, as that could become unmanageable. The principle of the merger, however, has been accepted, and I hope that any issues of practicality can be resolved.

One of the justifications for the proposals is the cost. The reorganisation is expected to save about £15.3 million a year, and make a one-off saving of £21 million from backlog maintenance. Closing the court at Cardigan means a saving of £88,000 a year, as well as a saving of £85,000 from backlog maintenance. Although all savings are to be welcomed, those figures are relatively small—perhaps they will multiply as we hear from other hon. Members about their own areas. We must consider whether the savings provide value, and Ministers will have to decide whether the loss of the service is worth the savings that will be made. In Cardigan, I do not think that that is the case.

The Magistrates Association has noted that while the consultations are carried out, an advertisement has been placed for 30 district judges. That has caused understandable concern to lay magistrates. I would be grateful if the Minister would address that point and provide some reassurance to lay magistrates that their role in the justice system remains valued.

I appreciate that money can be saved from the Courts Service, and I appreciate the need to find savings across the Government. However, this decision is not about cutting budgets for a few years, but about depriving communities of a service for a generation if not longer. The Minister has rightly stated that the Government will be judged not on the amount of money spent but on the quality of justice provided. That is a fundamental principle. On that basis, has he considered the suggestion by the Magistrates Association to allow magistrates courts to do more, thereby ensuring that our courts are properly used and provide local access to justice?

The Government must make their decision based on the need for the service. There is good reason to reorganise the Courts Service, and consider which courts we want and need and which ones we do not. However, that must not be obscured by the search for savings in which all Ministers participate. These are crucial decisions that will shape the nature of justice in Ceredigion and the rest of the UK for many years. This service should not be decided on the basis of the bottom line.

14:48

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood, and may I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on securing this vitally important debate? As many hon. Members will testify, the issue will have a major impact on a great number of our constituents. In my constituency, the proposed closures will be a hammer blow to the local area, eroding the connection between the local community and justice provided through the magistrates system. I have spoken to local residents and solicitors, and there is great concern. If the proposals go ahead, and the notion of justice being directly linked to the communities in which the crimes took place is lost, the entire ideal of fairness in our society is put at risk.

Looking at the detail of the proposals, I can only assume that the courts facing closure have been chosen completely at random. Any examination of the impact of the closures makes it clear that the suggestions are not practical, especially in my part of the world. One of the courts down for closure in my constituency is Llandovery. That certainly highlights the off-the-cuff approach that the UK Government have taken. Anyone with knowledge of the provision would have pointed out that the Llandovery service has been closed for some time. I can only hope that it was not the Ministry of Justice’s intention to shut the town’s library, which has been operating from the site for the past few years. [Interruption.] Well, I hope not.

However, what is deeply concerning is the lack of attention given to the impact of closing the main service in my constituency: Ammanford magistrates court. One justification given for shutting the court services in Llandovery, in the north of Carmarthenshire, was that people there could make the long journey to Ammanford. As someone who makes that journey by private means as part of my job as a Member of Parliament, I can attest to the fact that it can take close to an hour, even though the route is serviced by the main Swansea to Manchester trunk road.

The most recent round of closures will require people from the Llandovery, Cilycwm and Rhandirmwyn areas—some of the most isolated parts of Wales—to make an extended trip out of the constituency to Llanelli. For people who can call on private transport, that is difficult at the best of times, but for those who cannot, and with such poor public transport services in the county, it will be almost impossible for many people. We must also remember that the Government will be asking people to take on the additional expense of public transport or added petrol costs at a time when families are already making very difficult choices as a result of tightening family budgets.

The north of Carmarthenshire to Llanelli is not a natural public transport route, with only the Heart of Wales rail line providing a direct service. Those who have travelled on that beautiful rail track will know that the services are not regular enough to allow convenient travel to Llanelli. Trains run on the line at four-hour intervals, if my memory serves me correctly. In my constituency, that has an impact not only on those travelling great distances to Ammanford, but even on people in the surrounding Amman valley area. Closing Ammanford court will result in people in areas such as Brynamman, Garnant and Glanamman in the upper Amman valley having to catch several different buses, often with long waiting times between connections. The first direct bus from Ammanford to Llanelli does not arrive until 10.30 in the morning. My constituency would also be left without a single court.

I recently spoke to someone who plays an active role in the Courts Service in Carmarthenshire, who explained how one defendant had asked to be sent to jail as they did not consider it financially or physically possible to undertake community service in another part of the county due to the limited availability of public transport. There is certainly a strong case to be made that by closing those sites and expecting defendants, witnesses and court employees to travel further at great personal cost, we will inevitably end up with a situation in which the amount of time and effort spent on chasing individuals who do not turn up to court will rocket. That point echoes one made earlier. It could be counter-productive with regard to saving the public money. There is also the cost of the police having to go further to obtain warrants, leaving their beat, which would be a big blow for the town of Ammanford.

It is evident when considering Ammanford court in my constituency that the decision was made without evaluating the individual merits of the court. Over the past few years, £59,000 has been spent refurbishing the facility. It seems extraordinary that such a large amount of public money could be spent improving the court to make it—as I am told—a good-quality building and a state-of-the-art magistrates court, only for it to be closed without a second thought. That totally contradicts the mantra of value for money that is supposed to be at the heart of the proposals and the consultation.

This is not the first time that Ammanford court has faced the threat of closure. In the last round of closures, Ammanford was also on the hit list. Local magistrates and the local legal community believed that the recent investment in the court would safeguard its future and were very disappointed to see Ammanford in the consultation document. They are clearly very concerned about the Government’s proposals. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) made an excellent point in that respect. The legal community in the town has set itself up around the court and there would be an effect on the economy if the court were to move.

The proposals would also create just one Carmarthenshire bench. The Dinefwr bench, which currently serves my constituency, covers one of the most concentrated areas of Welsh speakers in Wales and provides a fully bilingual service. Justice is therefore delivered in the language of choice of defendants. People are especially proud of the bilingual scheme; it is one of the foremost schemes in Wales. There are concerns that the loss of the Dinefwr bench could dilute that service. I seek assurances from the Minister today that if there is to be a unified Carmarthenshire bench, he will do his utmost to ensure that the bilingual service is fully maintained.

I strongly oppose the proposals, as they will have a hugely detrimental impact on community-based justice delivered by local magistrates. I urge the Minister to reconsider his proposals, especially in Carmarthenshire, where the negative impact of the closures will be felt throughout the county, especially among the most vulnerable in society. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

14:55

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

I do not intend to take too long today, because I introduced a debate last week on the proposed closure of Goole and other courts, but there are one or two issues that I was not able to bring out in that debate that I would like to cover now.

I agree with the point repeated by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) and originally made by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen). The legal community is often set up around the courts. The situation is exactly the same in Goole, where solicitors firms and the police station are attached to the court, to the point that there is a connecting tunnel and the services available in the police station are also available to the magistrates court. We have a legal quarter in Goole that is obviously threatened by the proposals.

Like some hon. Members who have spoken, I represent a largely rural constituency. The East Riding of Yorkshire council is the largest unitary authority in England, covering 1,000 square miles. The point I made last week was that we went through a reorganisation 10 years ago in the East Riding, which left us with four courts, including the one in the city of Hull: two in the centre of the East Riding and two at either extreme of the area, one in Goole and one in Bridlington. We are now in the strange situation that the court furthest away, in Goole, is the one under threat.

There has been an attempt to achieve efficiencies because the back-office functions are already centralised with Beverley. The biggest concern for me is that a large proportion of defendants who are dealt with in Goole are from the local area. We now have the strange situation—I repeat this point because it is important—in which defendants from the Goole area will have to travel to Beverley to access justice.

Research shows that it will take most people who want to travel by bus up to two hours to get to Beverley, involving a change of bus in Hull. Depending on the route that people follow, the least time that they can take is one hour and 25 minutes, but the more likely time, given how the timetables work, is one hour and 56 minutes to travel by public transport from Goole to Beverley. It is important to point out that there is no direct bus service. Services from other parts of the East Riding are unaffected by the proposals, but people in Goole who want to get to Beverley will have to travel via Hull, where there is already a magistrates court. I referred to that last week. We will have the strange situation of people who want to take the bus to Beverley magistrates court sitting on the bus, travelling past another magistrates court, in Hull, getting off the bus, waiting for a connection and then getting on a bus to Beverley. They will have to travel some 39 miles to access local justice.

That is a huge concern for the magistrates and for people in the Goole area. The risk, of course, is that people simply will not turn up. I would like to see some assessment from my hon. Friend the Minister and from the Ministry of Justice of how many cases or how many defendants or witnesses they expect to be affected by this move. In particular, how many are likely to choose not to attend?

I touched on the issue of the utilisation rate in my debate, but was not able to go into great detail. I followed it up with a written question to the Minister, which on the face of it may not have been particularly useful to my argument. That is perhaps a lesson learned for the future. I went back to the magistrates and asked for more clarification of the issue. There is quite a low utilisation rate for the courts in Goole, but that is because we have two courts—court 1 and court 2, which are taken together. Actually, the utilisation rate for court 1 is exceptionally high. The magistrates inform me that it is upwards of 70%—probably nearer 80%. We have a low utilisation rate for court 2 because not taken into account in that figure is the fact that the room is used for other meetings. It is a resource that supports the work in court 1. However, that does not come across in the utilisation rate. In the past, court 2 has been used by the commissioner for taxes, the Department for Transport and others.

I did not go into politics just to be against things; I also want to suggest possible solutions. One solution that I would like considered is bringing other services to Goole, possibly tribunals, so that we can make the system sustainable as we move forward.

I mentioned briefly last week the matter of deprivation. On some measures Goole is among the 10% most deprived areas of the country. We have the strange situation of people in the most deprived parts of the East Riding, which includes Goole, facing the longest trek to access justice and the most expense.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that two courts in my constituency will be closed? The one in Rhyll covers the first, fourth and fifth most deprived wards of the 1,900 wards in Wales. Does that make sense?

[Andrew Percy]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point; that is where the biggest impact would be felt. I am sure he will make that clear during the consultation process, because it is a huge concern that the most deprived should feel the greatest impact.

I was about to say that despite the best efforts of the dynamic Conservative-run East Riding of Yorkshire council, Beverley still has some of the highest parking charges in the region. Even if people are fortunate enough to be able to get there by their own means, they will be faced with the prospect of having to pay significant parking charges.

I did not get the chance last week to talk about the county court that operates outside Goole. That, too, is proposed for closure, and its services are to be transferred to Doncaster. Yes, we have reasonable transport links with Doncaster, with direct bus or train services. However, no figures are given in the document on how much will be saved by closing Goole court. Although it operates as a courthouse for only one day a month, it provides a vital service. Once we lose it, people will be forced to travel to Doncaster. We will have people heading to Doncaster in south Yorkshire, and others having to travel 40 miles by public transport to Beverley.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Another aspect of the transport difficulties is the cost. It is proposed that a magistrates court in Guisborough in my constituency should be closed. The transport links go through the same villages, and it is highly likely that witnesses, defendants and plaintiffs will all be getting on the same bus when going to court, once it is moved to Middlesbrough or Darlington. Without a local court service, which they already have, that will happen more often.

[Andrew Percy]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The situation could be the same in many of our constituencies, and it is a matter for concern. Sadly, it is not dealt with in the consultation document.

I said that my area could be left with a justice black hole, as we will also be losing Selby magistrates court under the proposals. We should be genuine about wanting to see justice being delivered, but to some concern among Conservative Members the Justice Secretary has spoken of the need for more community sentencing. If we are trying to bring justice to the community, we will need local courts so that people can access it.

I do not wish to say much more, but one point that I made last week is worth making again. It falls outside the consultation criteria, but I make it with as much passion as I can. Despite Goole’s history of being knocked for many things, over the past few years we have been trying to do something with our heritage. The courthouse at Goole, which is part of the police station next door, is a Victorian building. It is a fantastic building, and it forms a huge part of our local heritage. We are trying to preserve that heritage to draw people into Goole. We have more than the docks; we have some interesting heritage and history, but one of our oldest and best-maintained buildings faces an uncertain future. I know that will not be factored into the decision-making process, but it is important. We are keen to preserve our heritage, on which note I shall resume my seat.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Order. The Members who wrote to Mr Speaker requesting to speak in this debate have all spoken. Other Members have indicated to me that, if possible, they would like to speak. We have some time, but I intend to start the Front-Bench speeches at 3.30 pm. If the Members I call use their time wisely, we may be able to accommodate everyone who is interested in making a contribution.

15:04

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on securing this important debate. It is pleasing to see so many Members here, and many of them—I think six—are from Wales.

Two of the 156 courts to be closed are in my constituency—a county court in Rhyll and a magistrates court in Denby. I have been to a briefing with the Public and Commercial Services Union, which has given me an excellent note. I want to tease out some of the points it mentions as they relate to my constituency, and I have some specific questions for the Minister. However, my questions about the courts in my constituency apply to all the courts under threat of closure.

I said in an intervention that the court in Rhyll is located in the heart of the poorest ward of the 1,900 wards in Wales. Two other wards there are fourth and fifth in the league table of deprivation in Wales. The pre-consultation and consultation period for the closures is not sufficient; it finishes in September and most of it will take place over the holiday period. Will the Minister extend it so that full consultation can take place in those communities? I hope he will write to me, giving answers to my specific questions. I intend putting that information out in the community, giving people a reasonable time to give me feedback and for me to pass it on to the Minister. Will he review the time scale?

I have other specific questions. How many cases have been moved from the Rhyll and Denby courts to other courts over the past two or three years, and to which courts were they moved? The equality impact assessment in the public consultation document provides no assessment of the potential impact on users broken down by disability, gender, ethnicity, impact on families and—dare I say it?—social class. Who will be affected, and who will be adversely affected?

Will the Minister provide me with the number of cases heard annually in the last three financial years and how it compares to the national average? Will he provide me with the projections made by Her Majesty’s Courts Service for the future caseload of those courts, and the utilisation figures for each court affected and each of the courtrooms in them? How many courtrooms are there in each of those courts, and how many courtrooms are currently in use?

Will the Minister tell me the number of cases disposed of in chambers over the last three years, and the breakdown of the number of staff in each of the courts affected by grade, by full and part-time working, and by disability, gender and race? Is it possible to have the court user surveys for the two courts affected in my constituency?

Has the maintenance backlog been included in the savings? If so, has finance been set aside, or is it merely sleight of hand? What were the maintenance costs for the buildings in Rhyll and Denby over the last three years, and has there been any refurbishment in the past 15 years? If work is to be transferred, what are the estimated refurbishment costs at the receiving courts? Which will be the receiving courts in my constituency? If the reason for closure is the state of the accommodation, has alternative accommodation been sought in Rhyll or Denby? If not, why not?

Those are the questions that I would like the Minister to answer, and I would appreciate him doing so as soon as possible. I can then pass the answers on to my constituents so that we can have full, proper and meaningful consultation about the proposed closures.

15:09

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

May I declare an interest as a former solicitor and a member of the Bar? I have practised in every one of the courts that are under threat in mid and north Wales and I can speak about the quality of those buildings and of the service available in them. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on securing the debate, and I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) and others who have spoken.

My theme is access to local justice. I am concerned about the proposed closure of Pwllheli magistrates court. I have the honour to represent one of the two largest constituencies in Wales in terms of geography; indeed, it is probably among the top five or 10 in the whole UK, stretching 100 miles from north to south and 90 miles from east to west. It currently has two magistrates courts, one of which is under threat, and that is an abysmal prospect for those with any notion of local justice.

I heard what the hon. Member for Ceredigion said about amalgamating magistrates court areas. I can assure him that people from Pembrokeshire will be required to travel all the way up to north Ceredigion; indeed, people are already doing that in the area that I represent. Consequently, justices of the peace are not putting their names forward for appointment, and good people who could do a decent, good job for their communities are not doing so. It is not a coincidence that we have an advert for 30 district judges. It is disturbing but true that the proposals will be one of the nails in the coffin of the lay magistracy, and we should not run away from that fact.

One thing about being in the House for a while is that one sometimes has a feeling of déjà vu. In the 1992 Parliament, the Blaenau Ffestiniog court in my constituency was threatened. We appealed, but, fortunately, a general election intervened, and there was then a new Minister. What came out of that process, however, was that closing the court offered a marginal saving of £11,000, but that did not take into account the added travelling time for solicitors, barristers, police, JPs, probation officers and, in youth cases, social service workers. When that was taken into account, there was no saving. What makes all this worse is that about £10,000 or £15,000 was spent on the building a few months ago to make it DDA-compliant, but it is now being shut down.

I hope that we have a proper consultation, and I echo all the questions that the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) has just asked. I also ask the Minister to tell me how many cases have been moved from Pwllheli magistrates in the past three years, where they ended up and how many hearings were involved. Why is it considered appropriate for one of the largest constituencies in Wales to have one magistrates court? For heaven’s sake, it is ridiculous.

When I qualified back in the mists of time—in the mid-70s—there were six magistrates courts in Meirionnydd. Arguably, that might have been too many, but we now face the prospect of having just one magistrates court in a far larger area than the whole of Meirionnydd. I am deeply concerned.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Like me, the hon. Gentleman represents a large rural constituency. Does he find it paradoxical that new housing developments take place in rural constituencies such as ours, but that services are centralised in the cities and moved away from rural areas, with a total disregard for long-term population growth? That is the same long-term plan on which the consultation is premised.

[Mr Llwyd]

That is absolutely right. That is contributing to rural poverty and to difficulties in obtaining services in rural areas, and we are talking in this debate about a service.

I am also concerned about the notion that somebody from Aberdaron in the west of my constituency can get to the proposed centre in Caernarfon by bus by 10 o’clock in the morning. I doubt whether that is possible, but if it were, there is the likely and plausible scenario that they will meet witnesses on that same bus. What happens next? Interference with justice, and perhaps even violence—I do not know. I am concerned about that. I hope that this is meant to be a proper consultation, but I have my doubts.

The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) made a few points. It is proposed to close Llangefni magistrates court and Llangefni county court and to move things to Holyhead. The consultation document says that Holyhead is 20 miles away by bus. Curiously, although the magistrates court in Llangefni is opposite the county court—they are within yards of each other—the document tells us that it is 20.6 miles from the magistrates in Llangefni to the magistrates in Holyhead and that that costs £2.60 on the bus, but that it is 20 miles to Holyhead from across the road and costs 60p less on the same bus. I do not think that the documents are at all robust. We want proper, robust figures; we want the justification for these damaging closures. However, I end by saying that in my nearly 20 years in this place, I have not yet seen a serious consultation take place in August.

15:15

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on securing this important debate. Unlike the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), I believe that the consultation will be conducted in the right spirit. I am also sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will be open to reasonable persuasion, and I make my remarks in that context. Equally, I understand that he, like all Ministers, needs to effect savings in the extremely difficult financial circumstances that we have inherited. Nevertheless, it is an important principle of law in this country that there should be equality before the law and that people should have equal access to justice, and it is access that chiefly concerns me.

In Trowbridge, the county town of Wiltshire, which is a very rural area, we have experience of court closures. Under the previous Administration, we had the closure of Trowbridge magistrates court, and I have to tell the Minister that that has not improved access to justice one bit. Although I fully accept that vulnerable groups are perhaps likely to be more disadvantaged in magistrates courts than in the county court system, because of the kinds of case that are heard in them, the same argument nevertheless applies to county courts. Some hon. Members will be surprised to learn that there are a large number of vulnerable and disadvantaged people in my constituency, and they will be disadvantaged by the closure of Trowbridge county court. I am concerned about them above all because they will be relatively disadvantaged in accessing justice, while others will have an advantage over them, which cannot be right.

The consultation document describes Trowbridge county court as underused, but that is not so. It is open five days a week, which is not necessarily the case for many of the courts under consideration. For example, it is used more than Bath, which is 12 miles away, and Salisbury, which is 30 miles away.

The proposals seem to rely on assumptions about the utility of video links, telephones and online services. I would counsel a bit of caution, however, because I have great experience of the health service, where plans have historically been put in place that rely on assumptions about developments and innovations that are, in fact, several years down the line. If the current proposals take effect, and we close court houses on the assumption that innovation would take up the slack in some way, we might be a little premature.

The proposals are driven by a need to update premises and to ensure that we comply with domestic and European legislation. That is all very well, but there is a dynamic between the need to upgrade and the need to maintain equal access to justice. We note that Lord Young is reviewing the impact of health and safety legislation, and many of his findings may be relevant to the debate. We have some experience in Wiltshire of the need to upgrade court houses. In Salisbury, a great palace of justice has been created, and its case was based on the need to upgrade premises. As a result, we lost Trowbridge magistrates court, disadvantaging my most disadvantaged constituents.

I genuinely hope that the consultation will be conducted with an open mind. Indeed, under the stewardship of my hon. Friend the Minister, I am confident that it will be. I am equally confident that he will see good sense and make sure that Trowbridge county court is removed from the list of the vulnerable.

15:19

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on securing the debate, and on signing my early-day motion. Many hon. Members have specific concerns and have rightly advanced arguments about equality of access to justice in rural areas. As I was pointing out, my constituency in the Rhondda is not, properly speaking, rural, although we still have sheep parading down the streets most days of the week—mostly in an inconvenient way—and nearly every house is within half a mile of a farm. Those are very different farms from the ones in Surrey and other parts of the country, but nevertheless it feels to many people as if they need only lift their eyes to see the hills. The Rhondda feels like a rural community. More importantly, the communities there are valley communities, and the further one goes up the valley the less access there tends to be to larger shops or, for that matter, the services provided by national Government, the Welsh Assembly Government or local government. That is one of the problems driving depopulation at the top ends of some valleys, which may be very beautiful but none the less have economic problems. People rightly ask themselves, “Is someone just choosing to close us down?”

One of the very few national Government presences in the Rhondda now, other than the police, is the Llwynypia magistrates court. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has moved out many of its staff who worked in the Rhondda. In fact it has been moving them out of Pontypridd as well. My argument to the Government is that I of course fully understand that savings must be made—the Ministry of Justice must ensure that it operates justice in the most financially efficient way available, especially in these straitened financial circumstances—but there are two functions involved. The first is that of providing justice efficiently and effectively; however, the other is how to create links with every other aspect of government. If it feels as though whenever a choice must be made, the Government constantly choose to close offices in more peripheral communities, longer-term economic problems are effectively created in the areas concerned, and they will have to be rectified by another part of Government.

The classic instance is crime in the Rhondda. If we have a greater sense of deprivation and of the Rhondda being a place where people lived in the past, but where they should not bother to live in the future, because even the Government cannot be bothered to keep a magistrates court there, we will have greater problems with economic revival in the constituency, and that will lead to greater crime problems. In addition, the Rhondda is not an easy place to get around without a car, and many of my constituents cannot afford one—in particular the 13,000 pensioners. Because of that geography, with two valleys—some say a passport is needed to go from one to the other—it is already all too easy for defendants never to turn up at court. For that matter, it is pretty easy for witnesses to crimes not to bother to turn up. Consequently, magistrates court officials and the police spend vast amounts of time pursuing defendants who should have been at court on a certain day, to get them to make an appearance the following week. That is one of the most significant elements of the inefficiency in the present service. I am concerned that the problems will multiply if Llwynypia magistrates court, which has managed to improve its statistics dramatically in the past 10 years, is lost and the services are moved to Pontypridd a few miles down the road, which has some bus services and a train service from one half of the constituency but not the other. The police will again spend more time trying to force defendants and witnesses to go to the first court date, rather than a second or third. That will mean that fewer people will get justice.

The Rhondda is not a high-crime area. Sometimes, because of the way the valleys are often presented by the BBC and national newspapers—we are of interest only when there is a drugs death—people think that the level of criminality is high. That is not true. For the most part it is a safe area, and many people still leave their front doors open perfectly contentedly, because they know that. None the less, there are significant areas of crime, including domestic violence in particular. The local senior police officer recently told me that if he added together the domestic violence cases from the three constituencies around mine he would not get to the number of cases from my constituency. An important aspect of the work done in our magistrates court is getting justice in domestic violence cases, particularly in light of the steady growth in such violence that may go on in a household. My anxiety is that if people feel that such justice will be more distant and that it will not be as easy to get access to it, we shall be likely to bear down less on the domestic violence problems in the Rhondda.

I have one other concern. I remember the last attempt to close the Llwynypia magistrates court, which was under a Labour Government. I was then Parliamentary Private Secretary to Lord Falconer, who was trying to close it, and I managed to see that closure off—with the help of the present interim leader of the Labour party, who was ferocious in my support. A key argument, besides equality of access, in particular for some of the poorest communities in south Wales, was the investment that had already been made in the building. The question arose of how to ensure that witnesses could have secure access and a separate entrance, to prevent intimidation, which can happen all too easily in small, tight-knit communities; how to provide secure accommodation for complainants; and how to make the whole process of involvement with the court safe and secure. That is possible in part because the court is in a beautiful rural area, immediately next to the Glyncornel park, which has, as I am sure the Minister will know, the largest colony of Deptford pinks in the country. I am concerned that if the magistrates court closes there will be yet another building in the Rhondda to symbolise the retreat of the Government from areas in the valleys. The sense of that, especially given that the building is not far from the old powerhouse where the Tonypandy riots happened a hundred years ago this year, will feel emotionally to the people in the Rhondda as if something important has closed.

As a final point, I hope that the Minister will consider this as he proceeds: “More haste, less speed.” We have seen in the past few weeks that trying to make cuts too fast, and therefore producing inaccurate lists that lead to further problems, not only causes more anxiety in communities than necessary, but makes people feel that the judgments being made are somewhat arbitrary. I hope that the Minister will extend the consultation period by a month so that more people can take part, not least because some of the professionals involved want to be able to arrive at a coherent policy. None of us wants to oppose for the sake of opposing—we understand the financial situation—but I hope that the Minister will postpone the cut-off date so that it does not feel quite so arbitrary as it may do now.

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

The hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) has assured me that he will take only two minutes.

15:28

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Hexham constituency used to have three magistrates courts and now we have only one. We are the second biggest constituency in England and, if Tynedale magistrates court goes, an area well in excess of 1,150 square miles will have no magistrates court whatsoever. I have great sympathy with the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), whose position is similar to mine. As a former practising member of the Bar I find the idea that that would work on a regular basis astonishing.

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Order. For his two minutes the hon. Gentleman should face the Chair.

[Guy Opperman]

I am sorry, Mr Hood.

From many parts of the constituency there is no bus that would get me to Newcastle or Bedlington in the morning. The Government will clearly have to examine the way in which they look after rural services. Rural services and the rural economy must be reappraised. Many things have happened in the past, but I should not like the first step of this Government to be the immediate institution of a situation in which there is no magistrates court for 1,200 square miles.

15:29

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on securing this debate, which has been widely welcomed by Members from across the House. In particular, we have an extremely healthy representation of MPs from Wales, who are obviously concerned about this issue. The context of the debate is the truly massive programme of court closures that the Government announced by written ministerial statement on 23 June. The proposal to close 157 courts—almost 40% of all magistrates courts and nearly 25% of all county courts—is exceptional in its size and scale. It is not just me who thinks that. Frances Gibb from The Times called it

“a draconian plan for the widespread closure of courts across England and Wales.”

Andrew Porter from The Daily Telegraph said:

“Magistrates courts in England and Wales are to be severely reduced as part of the Government’s cuts programme.”

It is for the Minister to answer the points that have been raised during this debate, but I noted with interest the MPs who had things to say. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) spoke, as did the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who has come back for a second go. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) made a contribution. The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), whose constituency name has changed, the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who is one of our English participants, and the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) also spoke.

15:31

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

15:46

On resuming—

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Order. Divisions are a bit like the World cup—we get extra time, but no penalty kicks.

I call Maria Eagle again.

[Maria Eagle]

Thank you, Mr Hood. I was about to start setting out the position of Her Majesty’s Opposition as we were called away for the Division.

We believe that there are legitimate questions to be asked about the scale and the purpose of these proposals for court closures. They are unprecedented in size and scale, which in itself means that there are questions that must be asked. The previous court closure announcement, which was made while I was a Minister at the Ministry of Justice, concerned 20 courts rather than 157. Given the scale of the proposals, the Minister must offer an explanation and make a concerted effort to reassure people.

Let me be clear that we do not oppose, by any stretch of the imagination, all court closures regardless of the circumstances; that is not our position. As we all know, courts have their ancient origins in much smaller administrative areas than those that exist today and they originated at a time when travel costs, travel patterns and the practicalities of getting across long distances within a reasonable amount of time were all very different from what they are today. Although individual Members have raised particular local issues as they know them in their own areas, that is just a case of Members being good local representatives; it is for the Minister to deal with the issues in his consultation.

Courts were run locally in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and they continued to be organised locally until the formation of Her Majesty’s Courts Service in 2005. Things now are very different from how they were in the past and that can mean that we need different ways of organising things.

As a party we are still committed, as we were in government, to providing local justice and access to local justice. However, it is equally important that there should be a modern court estate that is properly aligned to local needs and that court services should be provided not on an historical basis, but on the basis of what we need today. It is important for there to be efficiency in the court facilities and in the utilisation of the court estate. Therefore, it is appropriate that there should be reviews and that Ministers, as they come and go, examine the issue of how the estate should be utilised. There is no problem with that.

It is also important that our more modern ways of doing things in the courts should be reflected in how the courts are organised. These days, that must include the separation and protection of witnesses, to ensure that special measures, which are increasingly used in our courts, can be dealt with properly. There must also be proper access for disabled court users. All those matters must be examined. In my experience, value for money is and always has been an important consideration. I believe that the formation of Her Majesty’s Courts Service in 2005 has allowed a better overall strategic grasp of the entire court estate.

As an Opposition, we do not oppose all court closures per se as a matter of principle. Some court closures are clearly justified. Indeed, courts have closed in numbers over the years to deal with both the historical legacies and the practical requirements of a modernising system. Some of those closures were locally determined by magistrates courts committees and some were nationally determined.

Research indicates that there were about 650 magistrates courts in the late 1970s. There are now about 335; the Minister will have the precise figure, although given the performance of the Secretary of State for Education in respect of marshalling lists, I hope that the Minister has had a close look at his. I am sure that he will have double-checked it.

I accept fully that in certain circumstances and for appropriate reasons, courts might have to close. That might also mean that new ones should open—indeed, we opened 23 new magistrates courts during the last Administration. Given the size and scale of the proposals, I also think that the closures should proceed, if the Minister decides that they should, only after extensive and genuine consultation. The proposals are a major acceleration of any previous court closure proposals introduced in the past few decades. It is incumbent on the Government to be clear that they are getting it right according to all the correct criteria.

Many Members who have contributed to this debate have called for a proper extension to the consultation so that most of it will not take place in August, when people might reasonably be expected to be on holiday. I hope that the Minister will respond to that request. I cannot see why there should be any objection, so he should consider it. The Department has issued an extensive consultation document. We have heard from some Members that it has apparent inaccuracies; obviously, they will take up that matter with the Department. I hope that the Minister will listen to the consultation. Otherwise, on today’s showing, he is likely to incur the wrath of his own colleagues.

I notice that if one looks at local newspapers, the Government appear divided on the programme. Senior members of both parties in the governing coalition appear to oppose it when it applies to their own constituencies. Has the Parliamentary Under-Secretary spoken to the Solicitor-General lately? It appears that the Solicitor-General opposes the programme of closures, at least in so far as it affects Harborough in his constituency. There are proposals to close courts in Harborough, Coalville and Melton to save £300,000 a year. The local bench opposes it, and the Liberal Democrat group has launched a petition against it, which the Solicitor-General supports, in opposition to the Under-Secretary’s proposals.

The Solicitor-General said to his local newspaper, the Harborough Mail:

“We need to gather a good evidence-based case to put in through the Ministry of Justice consultation process with a view to their realising what a mistake it would be to close Harborough’s court…we need to organise and get the campaign rolling.”

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

The hon. Lady, like me and other Ministers, has had to sit in this Chamber on many occasions and listen to the genuine representations of Labour Members critical of the local aspects of her proposals.

[Maria Eagle]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct. However, I did not expect to read promises in local newspapers that members of my Government, bound by collective responsibility, would campaign against my proposals.

[Dr Murrison]

In a similar vein, does the hon. Lady recall the conduct of Jacqui Smith, the former Member for Redditch, in relation to the closure of facilities in her constituency when those facilities were the responsibility of the Department in which she was a Minister?

[Maria Eagle]

My view of ministerial and collective responsibility is that Ministers talk to each other behind the collective view of the Government if they want to make representations. They do not send press releases to their local newspapers.

[Chris Bryant]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Maria Eagle]

Briefly, but I need to make my speech.

[Chris Bryant]

Does my hon. Friend remember all the excoriation poured on Jacqui Smith for doing precisely what she did?

[Maria Eagle]

I remember that also. The point is that collective responsibility is still a constitutional principle in this country, yet a senior Law Officer appears to be opposing an element of the Under-Secretary’s proposals.

It is not only the Solicitor-General. The Deputy Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), opposes his Government’s proposal to close Frome magistrates court and has made that opposition clear to his local newspaper, the Frome and Somerset Standard. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell)—a Cabinet Minister, no less—has also

“vowed to lead the fight to save a city magistrates’ court”,

according to the Birmingham Mail. A swathe of newly elected Conservative Members also opposed the announced closures—we have heard from one or two of them today; more power to them—and the hon. Member for Ceredigion, who secured this debate, is also a member of a governing party. The Minister might have difficulty on his hands. He is in danger of starting a revolt among his Government supporters rivalling that created by the Secretary of State for Education. It will take some going, but he might get there.

How genuine is the consultation? A number of hon. Members have asked that question during this debate, partly because of the scale of the proposals, the speed with which they have been produced and the speed with which the Minister intends to proceed with them. How much is the announcement of a huge court closure programme driven by money alone, and by this Government’s increasing dogma of slashing the size of the state—some might say for ideological reasons—at all costs?

The Justice Secretary made a speech on 30 June that was reported mostly for his comment that he wanted to reduce the use of prison as a way of tackling crime. However, he also said about the courts:

“Obviously it would be nice, for historic reasons, if we could keep all of the old court buildings that we are used to across the country. But in these difficult times, an under-used and under-repaired courts estate is an extravagance we simply cannot afford. So we have identified the potential to make a one-off saving of £21 million and annual savings of £15.5 million in running and maintenance costs. These are savings we must make”.

That smacks of a decision already taken and suggests that the consultations might be no more than window dressing. I am certainly not the only person who has raised that issue in this debate. The Justice Secretary has already determined the outcome:

“These are savings we must make”.

Those savings depend on the closure of 40% of all remaining magistrates courts and 25% of our county courts.

We will be watching closely to see whether any of the Minister’s proposals that we are discussing are not implemented. In the past, proposals to close courts have not all gone ahead. Some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have explained today that they saved courts from closure proposals, which showed a listening Government who were willing to change their mind. Will this Government be willing to change their mind, or will the Minister go ahead with all the proposed court closures? We will be watching to find out.

It is perhaps not surprising that the Justice Secretary should be suggesting that the fall in crime by one third during Labour’s tenure in office—at least he accepts that it happened; the Home Secretary does not—had nothing to do with serious and dangerous offenders being locked up. Both the MOJ and Home Office budgets will be cut by between 25% and 40%, inevitably leading to a justice system that is less able to cope with the number of people involved in it.

We have concerns about whether the closure programme is merely a part of the overall attempt to reduce the size of the justice system generally. We fear so. The Under-Secretary will no doubt protest that it is no such thing, but let us see how many of the proposed closures do not proceed. That will be one litmus test by which we can determine whether my fears or the reassurances that he will no doubt give are accurate.

As well as those assurances, I seek a couple of other answers from the Minister about whether he is taking important matters into account. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) raised the issue of domestic violence. How many of the courts that the Minister proposes to close are problem-solving courts, domestic violence courts, community courts, mental health courts or drug courts? Has he considered that?

The previous Government planned to select and establish 128 domestic violence courts by 2011, and had reached 122 by the time of the general election. Domestic violence is a devastating and hidden crime. The courts that we set up brought together a range of aspects of the criminal justice system to ensure that that crime was tackled properly. It worked. Prosecutions have doubled in the past four years, with 72.5% of cases resulting in a successful prosecution. That is a great success.

What steps is the Under-Secretary taking to preserve the Courts Service’s capacity to deliver such a difficult, problem-solving approach in the remaining court estate—however big that ends up being? What account is he taking of the need to preserve the excellent work that has been done, which has led to a joined-up and co-ordinated approach from all criminal justice agencies?

Finally, will the Minister give us some reassurances about the length of the consultation and say whether he will extend it? There is clearly a concern across all parties and among a wide range of Members that his swift announcement has provided too short a time to allow proper reassurance and proper consultation to take place.

16:00

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

This has been a full debate, with many hon. Members speaking with passion for their constituencies and, indeed, for the courts in their constituencies. I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) for not only initiating the debate, but broadening the scope of the discussion to the whole Courts Service, rather than just focusing on the courts in his constituency. That is helpful in allowing me to set out the wider position, although I recognise that the number of hon. Members from Welsh constituencies who have attended the debate is significant.

I will set out the Government’s position on the court reform proposals and discuss the reasoning behind the proposed reorganisation of court provision in England and Wales. In my new role, I have taken the opportunity to visit courts and I have been very impressed by all I have seen so far. It is evident that courts are run by a dedicated partnership of Her Majesty’s Courts Service staff and judiciary. I am personally committed to continuing to support their contribution to justice.

What has also been clear in my first few weeks in office is the country’s economic position and the immediate need to take action to address the structural deficit. The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) compared the previous Government’s 20 closures in five years with our consultation on a much larger proposed closure programme. She will appreciate that the deficit is somewhat larger now, which, as she recognised, requires that we get better value for the money we spend.

Following the emergency Budget, my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor outlined our plans to consult on the closure of a number of courts, and to seek wider views on how court services could be modernised. That is one strand of the Ministry of Justice’s plans to look critically and holistically at how we deliver justice and to think about how we continue to deliver those critical services in the future. We have also announced plans to look at sentencing and legal aid. I am committed to consulting on the proposals, and to considering broader ways to improve and reform the Courts Service, which is why I welcome this debate. However, I say to the hon. Lady that we consider the consultation period to be adequate in the circumstances.

The decision to consult on the closure of courts was not taken lightly or in isolation. I wish I could say to the hon. Lady that the savings would be adequate to meet Treasury requirements, which I think was a point she made. However, that is sadly not the case. It would be wrong to tie the number of courts that finally close after consultation to overall savings requirements. We know we cannot deliver the quality of facilities that the public rightly expect and deserve, because we are working out of too many courts.

A low utilisation rate of only 65% across England and Wales in the magistrates courts and an average of only 130 sitting days per year—compared with a target of 200 sitting days—in the county courts shows that we do not need the number of courts we have. Recent improvements in transport and communication links mean that people can travel further in less time if they need to and more can be done to access justice online and via the telephone. That reduces the circumstances in which a visit to court would be necessary.

[Maria Eagle]

Does the Minister accept that such under-utilisation is because of a fall in crime of more than a third during the last period of the Labour Government?

[Mr Djanogly]

There are a large number of issues. I will come to some of them, but if I give way frequently, there is no way I will get through the points made today. We need to focus on delivering more with less, and on ensuring that we are delivering value for taxpayers’ money. When HMCS owns, manages and pays for a court building, it is my responsibility to show that it is cost-effective. It is right to set a minimum utilisation rate of 80% across each local justice area so that local courts and magistrates can make local decisions about where work should go.

The court reform consultation seeks views on proposals to close 103 magistrates courts and 54 county courts that are underused and/or have inadequate facilities. The consultation lasts until 15 September and all responses will be fully considered before a decision is made. The consultation sets out a sustainable arrangement of court services across England and Wales to meet the needs of local communities, and allows us to deliver services in the most efficient way. The proposals will achieve running-cost savings of some £15.3 million per year, as well as enabling us to avoid a backlog of some £21.5 million of maintenance costs. A further assessment will be necessary of the level of savings that could be achieved and the potential value that could be released from the disposal of properties.

Local justice is important. We need to think about what that means for today’s society, and I welcome responses to the consultation. People should not have to make unreasonably long journeys to reach a court. The vast majority of the public should be able to access a court within an hour’s travel, but proximity to a court should not be the only consideration. We also need to consider utilisation, the maintenance situation, the speed cases are dealt with and the quality of the facilities for court users within a courthouse.

I confirm to the hon. Member for Ceredigion that we are considering how we can enable magistrates to work more effectively. HMCS will work with justices of the peace to rota them to the courts that are most convenient for them. The structure and organisation of our courts has evolved over years. We need to take a step back and think about how we would ideally organise this important public service. We need to make courts available in the areas that need them, but I contend that we simply do not need 530 courts across the country. Instead, we must focus on ensuring that our courts are multi-functional and able to deal with all the work quickly and effectively.

In recent years, we have seen a dramatic reduction in cases that need to go before magistrates and county courts. In answer to the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, in magistrates courts that has happened in part thanks to the increased speed and efficiency at which the magistracy process works, allowing a reduction in the time taken between charge and disposal, and a dramatic reduction in the number of unnecessary intermediate hearings. However, we also know that more defendants are pleading guilty at the first hearing, and that certain types of case no longer need a judicial hearing, such as low-level nuisance offending and licensing cases.

It may help the hon. Lady if I mention some figures that illustrate that trend. Cases commenced in the magistrates courts fell by 33% between 2004 and 2009. In 2009-10, 33 magistrates courts sat for less than 33% of their total available hours, and 55 courts sat for less than 50% of their total available hours. Since 2007, the number of hearings per case has fallen by more than 20% to 2.26 hearings per case in 2009-10. So in five years, there has been an overall reduction in the magistrates work load of around a third. In turn, that has resulted in the magistrates court estate being utilised at an average of only around 65%. In county courts, reductions in work load stem from the wider availability of alternatives to court, such as the range of alternative ways of resolving disputes. If people can be spared the inconvenience and, for some, the stress of attending court for routine matters that do not need to go before a judge, we should do all we can to open up alternatives for them.

I turn to the matters relating to the constituency of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and the proposal to close Cardigan magistrates court. He will have a fuller answer than other hon. Members, because he initiated the debate. However, if other Members wish to know more, they can write to me later.

If Cardigan magistrates court were to close, the work would mainly transfer to Aberystwyth magistrates court. Merging the Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire local justice areas, as is also proposed, would allow cases to be heard at Haverfordwest magistrates court. I am aware that the utilisation rate of Cardigan magistrates court is extremely low—just 22%—which is in part because of the lack of custody facilities at the court. That has resulted in a much reduced variety of work being heard there.

Let me make the situation clear. The utilisation rate across the whole Dyfed Powys criminal justice board area is just 47%, which means that there is a general over-supply of courtrooms and little justification to spend additional money on new facilities and courts in the area. If Cardigan magistrates court were to close, the hon. Gentleman is understandably concerned about the difficulty his residents and people who live in the surrounding area would face in travelling to court elsewhere.

The hon. Gentleman made the case generally for west Wales. He should advise the consultation of his concerns, which will be listened to and considered in the consultation’s impact assessment. I welcome responses on that and any other concerns about potential impacts.

[Mr Mark Williams]

I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said so far, but I would like to hear a little more about rural-proofing. I was concerned enough about Ceredigion and west Wales, but having heard some of the earlier contributions, I am now even more concerned about the situation in Hexham and in north Wales generally. People will have to travel vast distances, and the public transport system simply does not comply with those needs.

[Mr Djanogly]

Let us consider that travel problem as it relates to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, which I am sure he wants to hear about. The distance between Cardigan and Aberystwyth is 38 miles, which is about an hour’s drive, or approximately two hours by bus. The distance between Cardigan and Haverfordwest is 29 miles, which is a drive of around 48 minutes or a bus journey of approximately one hour and 15 minutes. I accept the point that those distances are measured from the current court and that some of his constituents will have longer journeys.

However, by merging the Pembrokeshire and Ceredigion local justice areas, it should be possible to be more flexible and effective and to have fewer cases, with the location of victims, witnesses and defendants in mind. For example, HMCS could work with the police to ensure that cases originating south of Cardigan are heard at Haverfordwest and that those originating north of Cardigan are heard in Aberystwyth. However, when discussing travelling distances and times we must bear in mind that people in the surrounding area often have their own transport arrangements for other purposes. In any case—I say this in reply also to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison)—most members of the public will need magistrates court services pretty infrequently in the course of their lives.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion referred to the redevelopment of the court at Aberystwyth, which I realise is of as great interest to him as the potential closure of the court at Cardigan. Although work from Cardigan could now easily be absorbed at Aberystwyth, he will be aware that HMCS plans to build a new court at Aberystwyth. Nothing would please me more than to give him greater certainty about the future of that project, but he will appreciate that I am unable to do so at the moment. It is within the HMCS portfolio of major building projects and is at the final business case stage, but as the proposed construction will run into 2011-12, the project will need to be assessed by the Treasury in the spending review process.

The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) referred in his speech to the magistrates court at Ammanford, and I assure him that we have given thought to its inclusion in the proposals. There are two courts in his constituency on whose closure we are consulting—Ammanford and Llandovery magistrates courts. If closed, it is envisaged that work from those courts would be transferred to Llanelli and Carmarthen magistrates courts, but no decisions will be made on work load transfer until the consultation responses have been considered and the Secretary of State has decided which courts will close.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) today made his second passionate speech in defence of his local courts, and I agree with him. He will wish to make his further findings known to the consultation.

I will write to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) to respond to his numerous questions, but I can assure him now that in our view the consultation period is adequate. The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) has much court experience, and he spoke strongly about the courts in his constituency being consulted about closure. I assure him that access to justice is relevant to the consultation, but good, efficient and timely justice is not necessarily a question of bricks and mortar.

We need fresh thinking on the wider question of access to justice. We need to consider whether the ideas of the past about needing a court in every town are relevant today, or whether, as with almost every other aspect of modern life, things can be done differently. We need to embrace innovation and technology to ensure better access to justice and meet the needs of modern society. We are already doing much to improve the service experienced by witnesses, defendants and other users of the courts. We have increased access to online and telephone services; currently, 70% of money claims and the vast majority of possession actions in the county courts are issued centrally via electronic channels. People can pay fines online for driving infringements or for not paying their TV licence fee on time. They can also pay off debts or court fees online using a wide variety of methods.

I am not sure how much time I have remaining, given the suspension.

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Less than one minute.

[Mr Djanogly]

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire spoke up for his court in Trowbridge, which I understand is—

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Order. We must move on to the next debate.

Frenchay Hospital

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Westminster Hall

16:15

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Hood, for allowing me to initiate this important debate on the future of Frenchay hospital. My constituency is currently served by Frenchay hospital’s acute hospital facilities, so its downgrading is one of my constituents’ most important concerns. The decision to downgrade the hospital and establish a new super-hospital at Southmead in Bristol was taken as part of the Bristol health services plan in March 2005. Meanwhile, Frenchay is to become a community hospital, the development of which will take place in 2014.

Five years might seem a long time ago, but over those years the future of the hospital has remained an ongoing point of concern and debate. The decision to downgrade is deeply unpopular and has been challenged by South Gloucestershire council and tens of thousands of local residents, nearly 50,000 of whom petitioned the then Secretary of State for Health, Patricia Hewitt, to allow for the decision to be referred to an independent reconfiguration panel. In my view, those are 50,000 reasons why the hospital should be saved, but the petition was rejected, as was a request by South Gloucestershire council’s health scrutiny sub-committee that the matter be referred to the same panel. Instead, the then Health Minister, Lord Warner, said that he saw

“no reason to ask the Bristol health services plan to reconsider…There is no need to refer the decision to the independent reconfiguration panel.”

The current Health Secretary also supported at the time the move for a referral to the independent reconfiguration panel. In a letter dated 27 July 2005, he wrote to Ms Hewitt, stating:

“Plans to change radically hospital provision on the scale proposed in Bristol and South Gloucestershire clearly need to have the confidence and support of the community served by these hospitals. It seems clear that currently the proposal to downgrade Frenchay does not have the support of tens of thousands of local people…my reason for supporting referral is that I believe the people of South Gloucestershire have the right to expect the decision to deprive them of Frenchay Hospital, as they know it, to be independently scrutinised”.

I agree with that letter; he was right that the decision to downgrade the hospital should have been independently scrutinised, as clearly the decision did not, and still does not, have the support of the local community across south Gloucestershire.

In October 2007, there was further hope that the then Secretary of State for Heath, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), might reconsider the case for the decision to downgrade the hospital to be referred to the independent reconfiguration panel. However, he replied to the request by the council’s health select committee simply by stating:

“The previous Secretary of State, Patricia Hewitt, dealt with the referral on this issue ... it is not intended to revisit that decision”.

The leader of the council, John Calway, commented at the time:

“This decision will come as a body blow to everyone who is continuing to desperately search for a lifeline for Frenchay…I believe the anger at this decision has been compounded by the fact that the Government has consistently refused local people’s wish for an independent inquiry into the decision.”

Councillor Calway then stated:

“While we are denied an independent inquiry we will never know whether the decision to downgrade Frenchay was made in the best interests of our residents...Sadly for us in South Gloucestershire, the Government has made it very clear that it is supporting the downgrading of Frenchay a has no intention of intervening to even allow this to be questioned or scrutinised.”

That is a view I continue to share.

Ultimately, the previous Government’s decision not to refer the decision to downgrade Frenchay hospital to an independent reconfiguration panel has resulted in the current situation. Five years after the original proposals for the Bristol health services plan were formulated, the contracts for the new super-hospital at Southmead were finally signed in February 2010. The result, I am informed, is that that has ultimately dealt a death blow to any chance of the hospital retaining its acute hospital facilities. I am also informed that, the contracts having already been signed under the previous Government, reversing that decision seems impossible as it would come at massive cost to the NHS and the Government because of the legal implications.

I would be grateful to the Minister for any comments he might have on that matter. Has the previous Government’s refusal to allow local people to have their say on where their local hospital and acute facilities should be located meant that it is too late to intervene?

I understand that on 20 May 2010 the Secretary of State wrote to all NHS chief executives, advising them that their current and proposed reconfigurations must meet four criteria: they must have the support of GP commissioners; they must have strengthened arrangements to ensure that local people’s views are not ignored; they must be supported by clear clinical evidence; and they must support and develop patient choice.

I am very interested to hear from the Minister whether there has been any response to that letter from North Bristol NHS Trust, as many local people would not agree that those four criteria have been met. I hope that that is not the case but, if it is, does the Minister agree with me that the downgrading of Frenchay hospital was Labour’s downgrading? If Frenchay must lose its acute facilities in 2014, that was not the decision of the current Government, but of the previous one. The downgrading of Frenchay hospital, if it is to take place, is a testament to Labour’s NHS record in Kingswood and south Gloucestershire. That is, in my mind, both a tragedy and a national disgrace.

For my Kingswood constituents, the decision, taken under the previous Government, to downgrade Frenchay hospital will be nothing short of disastrous. In this, the second decade of the 21st century, local services should be becoming more, not less, convenient and local. Many constituents are extremely worried about the consequences of the move to Southmead. They are concerned about how, in times of greatest need and when their lives might depend on it, they will be able to reach a hospital over the other side of Bristol. If Frenchay is to become a community hospital under the previous Government’s downgrading, we need to look forward, to ensure that the maximum possible numbers of facilities remain there.

I do not propose to go into detail about the hospital’s reconfiguration, as I understand that the Frenchay project board has yet to finalise details of its scheme. There is, however, concern over exactly what will remain at Frenchay when it becomes a community hospital. Concern has been voiced over the future of its world-class facilities—for instance, the head injury therapy unit, which deals with brain injury rehabilitation services for the community. There is also the Headway organisation, which is based in the hospital grounds and offers vital support to those who have suffered a brain injury and would like to remain at Frenchay. The organisation stated last year:

“we have been unable to get any answers yet as to our future location.”

Then there are the excellent paediatric burns and neurological units, which will possibly move from Frenchay ahead of its becoming a community hospital, though decisions have yet to be finalised.

As the local MP for an area that depends heavily on Frenchay, I do not want to see the hospital, if it has indeed lost its accident and emergency facilities, to be run down to the ground and stripped of its world-class facilities. I raise these issues today because I would like to see the maximum possible number of facilities remain at Frenchay hospital. It is still an excellent world-class treatment centre, and I would like to pay tribute to all the fantastic staff, who have worked so hard to make it what it is today. Frenchay is, quite simply, too valuable to lose.

16:22

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate. Frenchay hospital is in my constituency, and as the local MP I would like to pay tribute to the doctors, nurses and other staff there. My constituents and I are proud to have it as our local hospital. Indeed, many of my constituents have contacted me about the future of Frenchay—about its downgrading and the loss of its accident and emergency facilities. What they want is simple: to continue to have a great local hospital.

In government, we must work towards and achieve good local health care facilities, so that local communities are able to feel safe and reassured that they, and their loved ones, will be looked after in their time of need. Many of my constituents are rightly concerned about the future of Frenchay and, while I accept that we need investment across the NHS, many of them feel that in south Gloucestershire we seem to be missing out to our neighbour Bristol when it comes to health care investment.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) has already explained, the contracts for Frenchay’s downgrading were signed in February this year. It is unlikely that that decision can be reversed without significant legal cost. Yet let us not ignore the fact that access to health care is a huge problem for my constituents. If left unchecked, it will continue to worsen in the years to come as a direct result of Frenchay’s downgrading.

Recent growth predictions by South Gloucestershire council have stated that there will be a requirement for 21,500 extra houses in the local area by 2026. My constituency has already seen significant growth, particularly in the vibrant and thriving community of Bradley Stoke. Given the expanding population and the growth predicted, I have to question the logic of allowing Frenchay to lose its accident and emergency facilities.

Many of the local communities in Filton and Bradley Stoke are in rural areas. In an emergency situation, when they are in urgent need of treatment, people in those locations will have no choice but to travel the longer distance to Southmead hospital. The extra travel time in the most severe situations could be the difference between life and death, and that prospect horrifies and alarms me. It is important that we understand the situation in which we find ourselves. The decision to downgrade Frenchay might seem to be signed and sealed, but I know that I, with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood, will continue to fight for what the people of south Gloucestershire deserve.

If—or when, as is more likely—Frenchay is downgraded in 2014, we must remind ourselves that this was not the decision or desire of this coalition Government. It was, as my hon. Friend mentioned, the decision solely of the previous Labour Administration. For my constituents, the people of Filton and Bradley Stoke, the word “Frenchay” will come to represent the failure of that Labour Government in our local area. The word will come to represent how Labour let down every single one of my constituents, by denying them the chance of a good local hospital to treat their growing needs.

My hon. Friend has outlined the continuing fight, and we are tackling it together to ensure that Frenchay secures as many facilities as possible. We need to protect the future of its world-class facilities—the head injuries unit, the burns unit and the staff—and we will also ensure that the promise made about the number of beds is honoured. I will continue, as the local MP, to do all I can to fight for the future of Frenchay. Its future is of vital importance, and I look forward to the Minister’s response and the Government’s view.

Finally, I pay tribute to the Save Frenchay Hospital Group. Many of its leading members are constituents and friends of mine, and it has been my pleasure to work with them on this issue over the past few years. They have done a terrific job of bringing focus and attention to the issue, and their work will not be in vain. We will fight, and together we will win the battle to keep the best services possible at Frenchay for years to come.

16:26

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) on securing this debate. I know that local health services are a top priority for him, and I am sure that his constituents will appreciate all he has done in fighting for better health care provision for them. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) on his contribution, given the constituency interest that he has in the future provision of health care in this area. I pay tribute to the NHS staff, both in Kingswood and across the whole of Bristol and south Gloucestershire, who provide such excellent care for my hon. Friends’ constituents and those of other hon. Members.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood has outlined the strength of feeling in his constituency for the retention of as many services as possible at Frenchay hospital, following the expected completion of the new hospital at Southmead in 2014. I understand that he would like clarification on the Bristol private finance initiative scheme. The Government recently conducted a review of all major public spending commitments made between 1 January 2010 and the general election on 6 May, to ensure that they are affordable and consistent with this Government’s priorities, given the horrendous economic situation that we have inherited and the staggering level of debt, which, we rightly believe, we should bring down as a priority because of its implications for the economy as a whole.

The north Bristol PFI scheme was considered as part of that review, and it was allowed to proceed. After final approval was given by the Treasury in February 2010, the scheme contracts were signed and construction is now under way. As my hon. Friend mentioned, the NHS would incur significant costs were it to cancel the contract, and I am afraid, therefore, that I have to tell him that cancellation is not a feasible option. The new Southmead hospital is going ahead, and is due for completion in 2014.

Both my hon. Friends are absolutely right that the decisions flowing from the reconfiguration in this part of Bristol and south Gloucestershire are the direct result of the actions of the outgoing Labour Government. They are not Conservative decisions. They were taken by the previous Labour Government and, as my hon. Friends will appreciate, it is too late to reverse them, and to prevent the implications for their constituents.

The business case projects that, due to a range of diagnostic tests being performed in the community and a greater number of out-patient appointments, there will be some 45,000 fewer acute hospital visits per year in the area. That will mean a far more convenient service for my hon. Friend’s constituents.

I shall set the issue in context. My hon. Friend will be aware that, following a public consultation in late 2004 on the proposals to develop health services in Bristol, north Somerset and south Gloucestershire, the NHS agreed to centralise acute hospital services for north Bristol and south Gloucestershire at Southmead.

In June 2008, as part of the Bristol health services plan, work began to plan community health services that would provide more care closer to home in general practitioner surgeries, community health centres and community hospitals. The Frenchay project board developed recommendations for commissioning community services at Frenchay, which were presented to the boards of the NHS South Gloucestershire and NHS Bristol primary care trusts at the start of 2010.

At the beginning of this year, the project board shared its recommendations on how services could be developed with local GPs, the then Members of Parliament and a range of community groups. The board has now shared its draft options with the overview and scrutiny committees of South Gloucestershire and Bristol councils. As my hon. Friend will know, local authorities will have a key new role in helping to join up services across the NHS, social care and public health. Overview and scrutiny committees will consider the project board’s final recommendations before they are presented to the boards of NHS South Gloucestershire and NHS Bristol in December 2010 and January 2011 respectively.

Let me explain to my hon. Friends the principles of reconfiguration. I recognise that, in the past, local people have felt that changes to local services have been handled badly. However, given the changes that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has made to the criteria for judging reconfigurations, that is a thing of the past, although it is of little consolation to my hon. Friends. If the final recommendations differ significantly from what was agreed as part of the Bristol health services plan, NHS South Gloucestershire will proceed with a formal public consultation that will follow the four crucial tests on service changes set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

I understand that, to date, the process meets the new criteria for the involvement of the public and clinicians, because the overview and scrutiny committee has accepted that the correct procedures have been followed by the project board. Indeed, only last week, it commended the PCT on the process that it had undergone.

Although the new Southmead hospital is going ahead, I have been assured that any future consultation on community health services at Frenchay hospital will closely involve GPs, local authorities, local people and local MPs to ensure that any new developments meet the needs and requirements of the local population and satisfy the new criteria laid down by my right hon. Friend. I have also been assured that the project board has completed a needs assessment, taking into account travel requirements, transport routes and population growth.

I can inform my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood that no decision has yet been made on the location of the brain injury rehabilitation unit that is currently at Frenchay. Recommendations on the service will be put forward for consideration by the end of the year. However, detailed negotiation will be required, as the unit is subject to a private lease.

I am sorry that I have to tell my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood and for Filton and Bradley Stoke that the burns unit will move to the Southmead acute hospital, as set out in the outline and full business cases in February. In-patient paediatric burns and in-patient paediatric neurological services will be centralised, along with all children’s in-patient services, at the Bristol Royal Hospital for Children. In-patient neurological services for adults will be based at the new Southmead hospital.

On other local services, the NHS treatment centre in Emersons Green opened in late 2009. It provides procedures for ear, nose and throat services, general surgery, gynaecology, minor orthopaedics surgery, ophthalmology and urology. It increases the choice of provider for my hon. Friends’ constituents and reduces their need to travel to larger acute sites in Bristol. The PCT has assured me of its commitment to working with local GPs and patient groups to ensure that services are accessible to my hon. Friends’ constituents. Minor injury services are already provided by a GP-led health centre in Kingswood and at a minor injuries unit in nearby Yate. Another minor injuries unit is due to open at Cossham hospital in 2012.

I applaud the determination that my hon. Friends have shown in championing their local health services. Their constituents, like those of all hon. Members, deserve local health services that have the full support of local GP commissioners and of local people themselves. By empowering local clinicians to decide how best to achieve the right outcomes for local people, this Government will ensure that the residents of Kingswood are provided with the very best NHS services now and in the future.

It is a pity that that attitude—the regard for local people and the bottom-up approach, rather than a top-down one—was not adopted by the previous Government. If more attention had been paid to the interests and concerns of my hon. Friends’ constituents, we might not be in the position that we are in today. As both of them rightly said, this is not—I repeat, not—a decision that has been taken by the current Administration. The coalition Government were not party to the proposals, which are a leftover from the Labour Administration.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood said, despite all the work that was done by a range of people, including him, to try to save services at his local hospital at Frenchay, their views were disregarded by the previous Administration and in the procedures for considering such things. He finds himself in a straitjacket because of past decisions. However, the new criteria set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will apply to future such decisions, and far greater attention will be paid to the wishes and needs of local people.

My hon. Friend has an important part to play in continuing to engage with the local NHS on the community health services planned for Frenchay hospital, and I am sure that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke will do all they can to continue to fight for the interests of their constituents, to ensure that they get good, high-quality NHS provision in their local community.

Renewable Energy Projects

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Westminster Hall

16:38

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this important issue, and for the support of colleagues who are in attendance. My basic case is that if we in this country are serious about tackling climate change, we have to get serious about increasing the amount of energy and electricity that we consume from renewable sources.

We face a familiar problem, which has been too familiar over recent years: too often, renewable energy projects have failed to get off the ground and to receive planning consent. Local people and local communities have felt disengaged from projects that they thought were being imposed on them and, as a result, far too often we have ended up with inappropriate sites or with projects not getting through the morass of the planning process. We have to find an acceptable way to change the balance, so that we can increase the number of renewables projects that gain consent in an area and get genuine local community buy-in to renewable energy.

I welcome some elements of the new Government’s programme, including the wholesale theft, if I may call it that, of my party’s manifesto pledge to empower local authorities—councils—to generate electricity from renewable sources. The Minister will know better than I do, from his brief experience of coalition Government, that it involves a little bit of give and take, but I had not realised that it would involve taking wholesale from Labour’s programme. But let us face it, after we lost the election we were not in a position to implement that pledge any time soon, so it was good that the Government took it up.

I hope that the Minister will tell us more about the Government’s interesting plans on business rates, with the potential for giving a reward, in effect, to local people who agree to renewable energy projects. We look forward to hearing more about whether the green investment bank will make a real difference and whether it is to be more than just a Budget item included to give the appearance of doing something.

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

It is also important for the Minister to set out how the Government envisage resolving any tension that might arise locally between local communities, which have been empowered to advance proposals for renewable energy, particularly through co-operatives, and local authorities that are allowed to bring forward proposals for local energy generation as a source of revenue production.

[John Woodcock]

My hon. Friend has hit on a key point. There has to be a way to manage that tension. I will say more about co-operative energy solutions. A local authority’s laudable objective must not crowd out the only way that we can get to the root of the problem. There can be a huge gulf between our objective to obtain more energy from renewable sources and the inability or unwillingness to agree locally.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I agree with all the points that my hon. Friend has made. Does he agree that planning is at the centre of some of the problems relating to the tensions between local authorities and co-operative groups in respect of renewable energy projects? One way to redress the balance is to encourage more local authorities to regard community ownership positively in terms of giving planning consent, allowing them to support such a co-operative movement without crowding it out.

[John Woodcock]

My hon. Friend is right. We need to explore that key area. I will say a little bit more about that later.

I am proud to be the first Labour/Co-operative Member of Parliament for Barrow and Furness; although by no means its first Labour Member, I am the first Co-op-sponsored MP. It is appropriate to mention that during this debate, because community ownership is the most effective way for us to enable local communities to have a genuine stake in vital projects, the number of which we need to increase.

If the Government’s commitment to the big society becomes more than an idea that is yet to be defined—I will not say “ill-defined” because that would be uncharitable—I hope that they will wholeheartedly embrace this area and do more than just give words of support.

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

My hon. Friend has made some good points. When I was lucky enough to be a Minister, some excellent civil servants worked for me, but only a small handful of them really had an understanding of and a grip on the co-operative and mutual movement. Could not the Minister usefully direct some of the staff of energy regulators, and more staff in his Department—other than those who have probably faced a steep learning curve helping him prepare for this debate—to visit community energy mutuals, such as the Baywind co-operative in the Lake district?

[John Woodcock]

My hon. Friend is right. I need no encouragement to agree with anyone who suggests a visit to my constituency of Barrow and Furness, which is always a fantastic idea, and particularly the Baywind energy project, which prompted me to call for this debate. I am sure the Minister is aware that Baywind has blazed a trail since the mid-1990s. The Baywind wind turbines in my constituency, which are part of a co-operatively owned energy project, have changed people’s understanding of renewable energy and of the capacity of a local area to have a genuine stake in that form of energy.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend talks about the benefit that communities realise from community renewable projects. I am sure that he is aware that there are good examples of that in Scotland, for example, in Fintry and on the island of Gigha. It has become clear that the lack of available funding is a stumbling block for community renewable developments. Is he aware of the studies being carried out by the Scottish agricultural college on a loan scheme for renewable energy projects, including community ones, which may help get over that initial problem, to develop more community renewable energy projects throughout the country?

[John Woodcock]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point.

My hon. Friends have mentioned practical ideas as to how Government can help support such vital projects, potentially facilitating loans, and so on. Baywind is an example of a local community-owned project succeeding, which happens all too infrequently at the moment. I hope that the Government will consider seriously their lack of co-ordination in a difficult and complicated field.

[Stella Creasy]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we could learn some interesting lessons from Denmark, and how it has used the tax system to encourage community ownership of renewable energy projects and incentives, and to encourage people to participate in and support them at local level?

[John Woodcock]

Absolutely. We all recognise that money is tight throughout the country. The Government do not hesitate to paint a far more drastic picture than is the case, but we must find a way of breaking the deadlock. The importance of doing so is not simply to tackle climate change, fundamental though that is, but to ensure a greater level of energy security. Renewable energy projects can contribute not only to moving away from fossil fuels and the rising cost that will be tagged to such fuels in coming years, but to increasing energy security for the UK.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Stroud, which the Minister has already visited, is awash with good ideas for renewable energy. I want to focus on micro-hydro schemes, because some obstacles must be removed, including possible objections by the Environment Agency. We must discuss that, and I have mentioned it in the House.

Social enterprises are important to provide traction for ideas, and plenty of information exists about them. Many people in Stroud know about them, and many people throughout the country should know about them. The previous Labour Government set out some interesting ideas about that and various mechanisms. A key point—

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is too long.

[John Woodcock]

The hon. Gentleman is right to make that point, and to indicate the variety of renewable energy schemes that we must embrace. The issue is not just about onshore wind or offshore wind. The potential for hydropower is enormous in the UK at both micro level and a wider level. I was an adviser in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills under the previous Government, which kicked off the study into the Severn barrage, but that is a subject for another debate. I will not take interventions on that, but it is crucial.

Community-owned schemes may make a difference because they engender a level of buy-in from the community. Baywind has paid a dividend to local residents who have bought into the scheme since its inception in 1996. As an educational establishment, it accepts regular visits from local schoolchildren and adults, and promotes the cause of renewable energy. The key point for onshore wind is that community ownership of the turbines has allowed the co-operative to avoid the controversy that has often surrounded turbines in other areas of the Cumbrian hills in my patch.

[Neil Carmichael]

I will be brief, Mr Hood. This Government are paving the way for communities to become involved in all sorts of renewables by returning business rates back to the community, and that is something to embrace. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[John Woodcock]

I made the point at the beginning that the scheme is interesting and welcome, and it is a contribution, but it does not go to the heart of the matter and that incentive will not tackle the problem. I will come on to the barriers facing co-operatives such as Baywind and local communities that want to establish their own energy supply.

I turn to the planning system. Energy4All is a not-for-profit organisation to facilitate community-owned renewable energy schemes such as Baywind. It may cost communities £150,000 simply to be part of the planning process, and at the moment they cannot be confident of success in navigating through that process. The coalition programme for government states explicitly that the Government

“will encourage community-owned renewable energy schemes where local people benefit from the power produced.”

That is in addition to the pledge on business rates.

As my hon. Friends said, local authorities should encourage community ownership, but at the moment we just ask them nicely to do so. Will the Minister consider ways of giving genuine preference in the planning system to community-owned projects? There must be safeguards, but community-owned schemes already show local buy-in, and we could greatly slim down the cost of the planning process by streamlining it to recognise that the ownership model has already achieved a level of community buy-in.

The Co-operative party has called for creation of a community energy and climate change unit, based on the successful Supporters Direct model, which promotes mutual ownership of football clubs. The core functions of the unit would be to bring together silo working in government. We are all guilty of that when in government; it is not a new phenomenon of the new Government. The unit would be able to give advice on legal structures, financial assistance, business planning and the regulatory framework, but it would not be prescriptive. There are many ways to skin a cat, and I hope that the Minister will recognise that there is a cat to be skinned, and will come up with some suggestions for his preferred method of doing so.

One way of making start-up costs easier for community projects—the model has been identified by Energy4All—is to encourage residents not necessarily to go for full ownership of a project, but to take a part-stake in commercial developers’ wind farms. In that system, the developer identifies the project and takes the risk, and the community simply buys a stake. The developer gains from improved community relations, and the community gains a direct stake in a project in its locality. However, there is currently little or no take-up of that opportunity, so we should all consider ways—I am interested in the Minister’s views on this—of giving developers a push and changing the culture of communities and commercial developers. Planning incentives may help, as long as there are proper safeguards.

Even under the current timetable, National Energy Action estimates that there are close to 5.4 million people in Britain—one in every five households—who are classed as fuel poor. Currently, we cannot say that renewables are a cheap form of energy. However, the previous Government’s proposals for micro-delivery and for local areas to come together in co-operatives could drive down the cost and make renewables more cost-effective. That was a key part of my party’s manifesto, and I hope the Minister will say that he will take up that proposal.

In the context of rising fuel poverty and the need for urgent action to reduce carbon emissions, the UK needs a major improvement in domestic energy policy and the way renewables are delivered. I recognise that that would require a culture change and that it is not simply about the Government, but I hope that in his response, the Minister will recognise the role of the Government in empowering communities. At their best, communities can do better than any Government or state organisation by taking direct control of the means through which they power their homes and making a direct contribution to lowering carbon emissions. In their own way—and this is what we all individually want to do—communities can tackle one of the greatest challenges that we will face over the coming years and decades, both for our country and for the world.

17:01

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

I shall start by congratulating the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) on an excellent speech. Although he is a new Member, I know that he is not new to Westminster and the processes of government. He brought the experiences that he gained working behind the scenes to the fore with great aplomb, and I found his contribution helpful and useful.

It is encouraging to see that several new Members are present, even if they have participated only by way of interventions. I hope that the positive dialogue engendered in Westminster Hall debates can continue. We do not claim to have the monopoly on wisdom; this is a new agenda. I am a new Minister and I am sure only that we need to be ambitious and radical, and that pottering along under the status quo is not an option. Together with my officials, I am looking at a range of options. If other hon. Members, regardless of whether they are part of the coalition Government or in opposition, come forward with positive contributions—particularly examples of successes in their own constituencies, such as Baywind—we should look at those contributions.

I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that my officials will shortly be meeting Energy4All to discuss some ideas. Those ideas will incorporate five different ownership models: the community co-operative model, which enables 100% ownership of an entire project; the shared ownership model, where a co-operative owns one or more of the turbines on a wind farm, with the remainder being owned by a landowner, private developer or a community trust; the royalty instrument model, which is where a developer builds a wind farm in a region and the community purchases a stake in the future revenue of the project through a co-operative; the regional co-operative model, where finance is raised through a national or regional energy co-operative covering a wide geographic area and a range of different projects; and the loan model, where the community project may approach an existing energy co-operative and obtain a simple loan to get a new project off the ground. Those are some of the innovative ideas that are springing up, and we need more of them.

I have taken a personal interest in the decentralised energy agenda since 2005 when I first started shadowing the environment brief. It became clear that there were many advantages to decentralised energy, not only in the way that it can contribute to the decarbonising of our energy supply, but also in the security of our domestic energy supply and the sense of ownership and empowerment that it can bring to local communities and consumers. Politically, there is a huge power in the broadest sense of the word—pardon the pun—in that agenda. It is one of the few things on the energy agenda that engages local people in a way that they can understand and in which they can participate.

When the hon. Gentleman introduced this debate, he was right to say that there were problems and that, historically, there has been resistance to renewable energy projects in all of our constituencies. Some of that resistance was well based, but often it was based on misconceptions. It is difficult to blame local communities for resisting renewable energy because often they are asked to have something imposed on them that spoils their view or the amenity of the local land, and brings them no benefit whatsoever. If we are to see an increase in the number of such installations, we need a more equitable settlement. We need a greater sense of community participation both in decisions about where the installations are to be sited, and in the returns that flow from them. There are potentially remunerative streams of profit to be gained under those arrangements, and it is right for the communities that host renewable energy sources to benefit in that way.

Our coalition programme is clear. We plan to help communities become more self-sufficient in the way that they use heat and power. The programme also makes clear our plans to encourage more community ownership of renewable energy. Vision, localism and decentralised energy all empower communities.

We have a range of technologies. We have spoken about wind, particularly onshore wind, but a host of other exciting technologies such as micro-hydro power are available, and we should do more to advance them. There is also biomass, solar power and combined heat and power. Ultimately, I would like to see the notion of local energy economies widely accepted. People have got used to the notion of a local food economy. We have seen local farmers markets spring up, and links between local schools and community projects, and local food producers, farmers and retailers. We must do more to encourage the notion of local energy economies, where people see a closer link between the energy that local communities consume, and the way it is produced.

In my constituency, I have encouraged a greater link between farmers who have woodland that is not in productive use, and a local school that is putting in a woodchip CHP boiler. A local farmer will bring woodland back into productive use so as to supply that boiler on a long-term contract. Coppicing is better for biodiversity and flora and fauna.

[Stella Creasy]

I appreciate what the Minister is saying. Does he share my sadness at the decision to cancel the wind turbine as part of the Olympics park in the borough of Waltham Forest? That could have been the legacy of a local renewable energy co-operative in Waltham Forest. Will he commit to working with me to look at alternatives such as biomass and photovoltaic cells, and see whether they could be the start of such a co-operative project in Waltham Forest?

[Gregory Barker]

I am not familiar with that project or with the reasons behind the cancellation of the wind turbine. However, I would be happy to work with the hon. Lady to try and encourage the uptake of other renewable energy sources. That is absolutely key, and we want the Olympics to be the greenest Olympics ever, just as we want the Government to be the greenest Government ever.

Community ownership is a key part of our localism agenda. In the common themes and principles that bind the coalition together, localism, concern for the environment and action on climate change are three of the most powerful issues that drive our agenda. We are determined to create the right framework for building a low-carbon economy. We realise that we need to make game-changing interventions to increase energy efficiency in local communities. That is why at the heart of the energy Bill that I hope to introduce in the autumn sits the green deal, which will transform homes in all our constituencies. If we are to save consumers money on their energy bills but also make their homes more efficient and reach our carbon reduction goals, we will need game-changing policies such as the green deal, but we also need a game change in our culture and our approach to community ownership.

We are already working on measures to ensure that communities can benefit from renewable energy, taking advantage of incentives provided by feed-in tariffs, but we will go further and encourage more community ownership of renewable energy. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness made excellent points about the fact that where there is community ownership of energy installations, many of the objections in the planning system will simply fall away. I cannot comment directly, but I do hear the points that he makes about the need for that to be recognised in the planning system itself. There is a virtuous circle here. Part of the reason why there are so many delays to many local projects is that there are so many local objections. If there are fewer local objections, there will be fewer delays. In an ideal world, we would not have to tinker greatly with the planning system, because it would be self-fulfilling, but we are examining ways in which we can work with the planning system to give communities more power to shape the places that they inhabit.

The coalition agreement made clear our intention to publish and present to Parliament a simple and consolidated national planning framework covering all forms of development. That should include local community-owned installations. My Department is working with the Department for Communities and Local Government on extending permitted development rights for both domestic and non-domestic microgeneration technologies.

We are also developing a website, called community energy online, to develop best practice and to support local authorities and community groups in developing their own renewable energy. Often, the greatest spur to that is not just what we can do at Westminster, but clear examples of action being taken in the community, out there in the real world. The more that we can spread that best practice and knowledge, the better.

I have a few more points, which I shall run through quickly in the time remaining. First, I shall say a few words about overturning the ban on local authorities selling electricity. It was nonsense that the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, introduced by a Labour Government, prevented councils from selling electricity from local wind turbines—not that there were many in those days—or from any form of local generation or, indeed, from anaerobic digestion, which we are also keen to promote in the coalition agreement. I hope that by the end of the year, local authorities will be able to sell electricity from renewables, generating revenue to help local services and keep council tax down. That will see local communities truly benefiting from the low-carbon transition. It will allow local authorities to take full advantage of the incentives available through feed-in tariffs to invest in renewable energy in their own buildings. We are also keen for local authorities to work with other partners on community-scale renewable electricity schemes that can be supported by FITs.

At this stage of renewable development, I am not as worried as the hon. Gentleman about crowding out different initiatives, because we are at such an early stage. One of the mechanisms that we see as key to encouraging local community schemes is the retention of business rates. As the coalition programme for government made clear, we will allow communities that host renewable energy projects to keep the additional business rates that they generate. We are working up plans to make that a reality.

Overall, the hon. Gentleman has made a very good start with this debate. We welcome his input and I look forward to continuing the discussion with him.

Question put and agreed to.

17:14

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Written Statements

Wednesday 14 July 2010

UK Inward Investment

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

With my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, I am pleased to announce that UK Trade & Investment today launched the UK Inward Investment 2009-10 Report, giving the national figures for inward investment over the last financial year.

The UK’s ability to attract and retain inward investment is at the heart of the Government’s economic recovery plans. These figures demonstrate how important investment is in stimulating growth and creating jobs.

Competition for this investment is intense, which is why the Government are committed to being open for business, and providing the best environment for investors, whether businesses are established here, expanding here, or locating here for the first time.

We are committed to cutting the deficit, reducing corporation tax, delivering flexible employment and workplace legislation and building the strongest R and D base in Europe.

We must make sure that the world’s best companies thrive here, linking up with the UK’s talent, creativity, innovation and know-how.

In a year when inward investment fell across Europe, the UK recorded a strong performance, attracting foreign investment from a record 54 countries, between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2010.

The estimated number of jobs created or safeguarded by inward investment rose to more than 94,000, a 20% increase on the previous year. There were 1,619 direct investments in the UK by foreign-owned companies during the year.

Inward investment is a long-term decision for any company wanting to grow internationally. More investors are seeking to locate in the UK than anywhere else in Europe, helping to underpin the UK’s long-term economic prospects.

In line with reduced global market liquidity, the number of acquisitions, joint ventures and mergers taking place fell 51% from 457 in 2008-09 to 225 in 2009-10. But the number of new projects and the number of expansions have both increased, by 3% and 18% respectively.

Companies investing in the UK will do so with confidence. The UK’s economy is stable and resilient and this Government are taking action to secure the recovery and future growth. The UK has positioned itself as a springboard for companies seeking to grow internationally, both in and from a UK base.

UK Trade & Investment is the Government Department leading support for such companies in the international business environment. With my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, I congratulate UK Trade & Investment on the role it has played in significantly assisting a record number of FDI projects, nearly half of the total locating in the UK in the year to 31 March 2010.

I am arranging for a copy of the UK Inward Investment 2009-10 Report by UK Trade & Investment to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Park Homes Reforms

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister for Housing (Grant Shapps)]

The Government value the role the park home sector plays in the housing market offering an affordable alternative to mainstream housing for many people, often over the age of 50, in mainly rural, semi-rural and seaside locations. Although many residents appreciate and value the sense of community that park home living engenders, I am aware that many also experience difficulties in exercising their rights and achieving their aspirations. Furthermore, a minority of site owners continue to cause significant problems to residents and the local community in which they operate.

I am, therefore, today announcing that the Government intend, subject to parliamentary consent, to transfer most of the functions of county courts under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 to residential property tribunals. The aim of the transfer of the jurisdiction is to provide residents of park homes and their site owners with a level playing field in the resolution of disputes, by providing access to a dedicated, low-cost specialist (housing) tribunal, which can deal with cases quickly and effectively, without the parties needing to be legally represented. This will mean that park home residents will be able to take action to resolve disputes with site owners, without being restricted by the prospect of facing large legal costs.

I propose to lay before Parliament the necessary secondary legislation to effect the transfer as soon as possible after summer recess, with a view to transferring jurisdiction to the residential property tribunals by the end of the year.

I am also announcing my intention to work closely with interested resident and industry partners in developing potential measures for empowering residents to exercise more control over the management of sites, where there are management failings by site owners which significantly impact upon the well-being of the local communities.

Afghanistan Troop Levels

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)]

The next roulement of UK forces in Afghanistan is due to take place in October 2010. Headquarters, 6 (UK) Division will remain as Headquarters, Regional Command (South) until November 2010 but the UK’s current lead formation in Helmand, 4th Mechanized Brigade, will be replaced by 16 Air Assault Brigade. The forces deploying include:

EU Observer Rights (UN General Assembly)

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

The Lisbon treaty established new structures for the management of the EU’s external relations. These are the High Representative, the European External Action Service and the rebranding and amalgamation of Commission and Council Secretariat offices overseas as EU delegations. It is in the UK’s interest that, where we have agreed a position with our EU partners, the EU makes its voice heard—complementing and supplementing our role.

A further element of the external representation question is the ability of the EU to participate in international organisations. In some cases, such as the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), the EU has the status of an observer with limited rights of participation. This means that the EU is not able to represent the EU and the member states, where we have an agreed position, to the same extent as was possible for the rotating presidency, which, of course, was a full member of the UNGA.

Following the entry into force of the treaty of Lisbon the role previously played by the rotating presidency in representing the EU externally has passed to the High Representative and the EU delegations who act under her authority. So, in order for the EU to fill effectively the role previously played by the rotating presidency in the UN General Assembly, the Foreign Secretary has agreed that, together with our EU partners, we should table an UNGA resolution which, if approved by the wider UN membership, would grant the EU certain additional rights as an observer delegation. These rights are, as the proposal stands, the right to speak in a timely manner, the right of reply, the right to circulate documents, the right to make proposals and submit amendments, the right to raise points of order, and more seats for the High Representative and her officials. As is currently the case, the EU will not have the right to vote, it will not be a full member of the UNGA, nor will it be seated among the UN member states.

The granting of such rights to the EU will not affect the UK’s position as a member of the UNGA or the UN Security Council. Furthermore, this does not change the existing balance of competence between the EU and member states.

The Foreign Secretary has also made clear through the UK Permanent Representative in New York that the UK’s support for the proposed UNGA resolution is (i) strictly limited and does not imply agreement to seek additional rights in any other fora; and (ii) does not prejudge whether the EU should actually exercise those rights on any particular issue.

Discussions are ongoing with the wider membership of the UNGA about granting the EU additional rights of participation. The intention is to table a resolution in the UN General Assembly in the coming weeks.

Health Select Committee Report on Social Care

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Written Statements

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

I have today laid before Parliament the Government’s response to the Health Select Committee’s report on social care (Cm7884).

We know that urgent reform of the social care system is needed and we are grateful to the Health Select Committee for its report on social care. This is an important contribution to the debate on how to deliver a care and support system which provides much more control to individuals and their carers, reduces the insecurity they and their families face and ensures that people are treated with dignity and respect.

We have made clear our commitment and determination to move on from more than a decade of indecision on how to fund social care, and to reach a fair and enduring settlement for the system for generations to come. We want a sustainable adult social care system that gives people the support and freedom to lead the life they chose, with dignity.

The coalition agreement sets out our commitment to:

“establish a commission on long-term care, to report within a year. The commission will consider a range of ideas, including both a voluntary insurance scheme to protect the assets of those who go into residential care, and a partnership scheme as proposed by Derek Wanless”.

We recognise that how we should fund care and support is a key question for society to face—and one that will inevitably involve difficult choices and difficult trade-offs. But it is a question we can no longer avoid. We are grateful to the Health Select Committee for its interest in this area and will be recommending that the soon to be established Commission on the Funding of Care and Support consider its report, alongside other contributions to the debate.

We will also take decisive steps to accelerate the pace of reform so that older people and disabled people get the care they need and have more choice and control over how their needs are met. Transformation of services should be a key part of how local authorities continue to deliver services effectively and efficiently during a period of fiscal consolidation. As we take critical steps to reduce the deficit, the right response is for the pace of transformation to increase—maximising the performance and penetration of services such as re-ablement, intermediate care and telecare.

Later this year, we will publish a vision for adult social care, including the key next steps on personalisation.

In addition, as a key component of a lasting settlement for the social care system, we will reform the law underpinning adult social care by creating a single modern statute, helping disabled people, older people and carers to understand whether services can or should be provided. We will be working with the Law Commission as they consider their proposals on this work.

We will bring together the conclusions of the Law Commission and the Commission on the Funding of Care and Support, with our vision, into a White Paper in 2011, with legislation following to establish a sustainable legal and financial framework for adult social care in this Parliament.

As a coalition Government, established with the aim of working together in the national interest, we have an unprecedented political opportunity to deliver reform. Care and support is a good example of where we need pragmatic, sustainable proposals to build a new and lasting settlement.

House of Lords

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Lords Chamber

Wednesday, 14 July 2010.

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

Introduction: Baroness Wheeler

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Lords Chamber

15:08

Margaret Eileen Joyce Wheeler MBE, having been created Baroness Wheeler, of Blackfriars in the City of London, was introduced and made the solemn affirmation, supported by Lord Evans of Watford and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Baroness Lockwood made the solemn affirmation.

Lord Blyth of Rowington took the oath.

Tourism

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

15:14

Asked By

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the contribution of tourism to the United Kingdom economy.

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as the chairman of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, tourism is a key priority for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. In 2008, direct tourism spend was worth £88 billion and a Deloitte study estimates a direct and indirect value to the UK economy of £115 billion in 2009. Tourism is one of our biggest employers, with over 200,000 businesses and providing some 1.5 million jobs. It has significant potential for growth and is an important engine of recovery for the economy as a whole.

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Tourism is now the largest single industry in all parliamentary constituencies and is greater than any other industry. Is he aware that the tourism industry calculates that moving the clocks forward an hour would generate an extra £3 billion of revenue and between 60,000 and 80,000 new jobs? Given that the Lighter Later campaign is also supported by RoSPA, Age Concern and the Local Government Association, is it not time that the Government moved substantially on this issue and brought in a three-year trial? Is it not really a no-brainer?

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I have a note about £3 billion being the estimate that the paid attractions sector maintains that adding an hour would bring in terms of extra money from tourism. There is no doubt that from time to time there are occasions when people raise the idea of this extra hour. This is one of those occasions when the time is right once again. We have been here before, in the period 1968 to 1971; but perhaps there have been changes in views in the 39 years that have passed since then.

[Lord Tanlaw]

My Lords—

[Lord Bilimoria]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Tanlaw!

[Lord Tanlaw]

Is the Minister aware that the status quo of dark winter evenings cannot possibly be beneficial to the tourist and leisure industries in this country, especially for those located in the more northern latitudes? Therefore, will the coalition now consider implementing a lighter winter evenings policy to assist these important industries while allowing the Scottish Parliament to decide its own winter timescale, even if it is different from the English?

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I have been trying to find out whether time is devolved: I am told that it is not. Nevertheless, it is important, and one can see the situation of transport and changing the clock at Berwick and Carlisle, with all that that would mean. It is my view—and there have been interesting noises coming from coalition Ministers, including the Minister for Tourism, John Penrose, in the other place—that this is very much on the agenda as far as this department is concerned. However, the lead department is the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and this will be something for government as a whole to consider. It may well be that a campaign is a useful thing that could occur.

[Lord Harrison]

In the interests of the tourism industry, is it not time that tourism was added to the title of the department? Secondly, has the Minister made any calculation of the adverse effect of increasing VAT to 20 per cent on all the entrepreneurs in the tourism industry?

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

That is a bit wide of the Question. What it means is that if bed and breakfast is £58.75, it will become £60 after 3 January: that is what the rise in VAT means. As to whether tourism should be in the title of the department, of course we can have lengthy titles—perhaps “Olympics” is half way in the title as well, so there could be a “T” and an “O” in the title as well. I will take it back to the department. It is clearly a very important part of what DCMS is about.

[Lord Bilimoria]

My Lords—

[Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many years ago when tourism was one of the things in my ministerial portfolio, we were greatly helped by tourist boards such as the English Tourist Board and the London Tourist Board? I hope that these are still flourishing. If not, will he make sure that they are reborn if they have gone? Also, would he be interested to know that in those days our second-biggest invisible export for tourism was carriage by sea?

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, if the noble Baroness is referring to carriage by sea, then that was some time ago. However, she raised the interesting matter of tourist boards, of which there are several: VisitBritain, VisitEngland, the Scottish Tourist Board, the Wales Tourist Board, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and the regional tourist boards. There is also everything that the various local authorities do for tourism—as a whole they are spending £123 million. From the figures that I have been given, I calculate that current promotion-of-tourism spend, whether it is promoting people staying here or promoting Britain overseas, is £285 million.

[Lord Bilimoria]

My Lords—

[Baroness Billingham]

My Lords, the Minister has been most encouraging and we welcome what he has said today. However, I should like him to comment on two small points. First, is he aware that implementing a daylight-saving scheme would be relatively inexpensive? That is an important factor. Secondly, given the bleak outlook for jobs, surely it is exquisitely attractive to have an industry that offers 80,000 new jobs. I should have thought that any Government would find that hard to resist at this time.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that. She is right that such a scheme could do a great deal. However, it is a question of the will of people, including the will of people in this House. I have done a bit of research on this. Back in 1967, 49 Members of this House decided to go for something called British standard time but 13 Members opposed it. The legislation also went through the Commons. However, on 2 December 1970, just under 40 years ago, by 81 votes to 366 the Commons decided to put an end to the experiment. The interesting point is that, of those 366, 32 are now in this place, so it would be very interesting to see whether minds have moved. The campaigners could start with those 32.

Health: NICE

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

15:22

Asked By

[Lord Naseby]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to review the management and procedures of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to ensure that patients suffering from the most prevalent conditions of cancer and Alzheimer’s disease are properly treated.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, our White Paper, Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS, published on 12 July 2010, sets out our commitment to renew the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and, through primary legislation, to re-establish it as an executive non-departmental public body. Legislation on NICE will be included in a health Bill in the autumn.

[Lord Naseby]

The Minister’s Answer is extraordinarily welcome. So far as concerns those suffering from cancer and similar problems, is he aware that according to a report called Exceptional Progress?, published in March this year, fewer than four out of nine of the drugs put forward were refused by NICE, which left 16,000 patients with nowhere to go, whereas if they had been French or German those drugs would have been available? Furthermore, is he aware that there is currently great criticism of the processing, structures and methodology used by NICE and that, against that background, his news that the organisation is to be totally reformed is enormously welcome?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. It is important for me to state that the Government respect the independent expertise provided by NICE and we think that it should be allowed to continue to issue guidance free from political interference. That is a point of principle. However, we also think that there are failings within the wider system regarding drug pricing and drug access. We are determined to address that but we are clear that NICE plays a vital advisory role.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, how will the Government ensure that the research, which NICE requires to provide the data on which it can make informed decisions, will be supported in the newly reorganised NHS? The NICE document published today, with its review of Alzheimer’s drugs, has as a major recommendation: co-ordination of research to provide good, long-term, end-of-life care studies of the effects of these new drugs in patients.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the noble Baroness will have seen in the White Paper the emphasis placed on research. A number of paragraphs in it will be of interest to her, as they emphasise the key role that research and research funding play in the long-term agenda of the NHS and as regards the interests of patients.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if early treatment benefits and enhances the lifestyle of those suffering from dementia, and if the cost of granting such treatment is very low, not only would that enhance the life of the individual, it would give added value to carers, as their caring role and their role in employment and in the exercise of their skills would continue to benefit society and all of us for much longer?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a very important point about dementia. She will be aware that when the Alzheimer’s drugs were appraised by NICE some years ago, there was disquiet that the role played by carers had not received adequate attention in the appraisal process. It is an issue of great importance to many people, but it is very complex. Given the finite, overall health budget, if we give greater weight to one factor, such as carers or getting people back to work, we automatically, by default, give less weight to others, such as people at the end of their lives. We need to look at this, but it is complex. We shall not let it go, but I cannot give the noble Baroness a definitive answer today.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can do better than the Prime Minister did in Prime Minister’s Questions earlier today, when he declined to give a guarantee that the 14-day period, within which cancer patients should receive hospital treatment, would be upheld. Can he confirm that the Government will stick to the 14-day period?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, that target of a 14-day referral period has a definite clinical underpinning. There are certainly no plans to abolish it.

[Lord Alderdice]

My Lords, the treatment of such disorders—particularly cancer, but it is also true of Alzheimer’s disease—requires not just biological but psychological and social interventions. Although the biological research is often funded by pharmaceutical companies, NICE has great difficulty in finding the funding for research for psychological and social treatments. Can my noble friend indicate whether there is any way in which NICE can be assisted to be more broad-ranging in its understanding of a bio-psychosocial approach to treatment of these disorders by facilitating more funding for research in the psychological and social areas?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will accept, as I hope I made it clear the other day, that the Government are wholly committed to improving the quality of care for people with dementia and their carers. We are standing fully behind the dementia strategy, instituted by the previous Government. That strategy contains a specific objective of improving the quality of dementia care in hospitals. I take on board what my noble friend says about the absence of adequate research in the psychosocial domain. I shall discuss that point with NICE over the next few weeks as I am aware that it is one of its concerns.

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I welcome the statement that the Minister has made about keeping NICE as an independent voice. That is vital. Will the Government still support NICE in its work not just in medical research, but as regards the broader aspects of disease, social conditions, social care and so on, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice? NICE has broadened its brief and has taken a much more holistic view about the conditions on which it issues guidance. Will the Government still support it in doing that?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness will know, in 2005, the then Government charged NICE with producing public health guidance as part of its work. As we establish a more integrated and effective public health service, we will look actively at how NICE can contribute to that agenda, and, in particular, how it can contribute to integrated care provided by health and social care combined.

Agriculture: Farming

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

15:30

Tabled by

[Lord Plumb]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ Task Force on Farming Regulation will make their recommendations.

[Lord Plumb]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare my interest as a farmer.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, I, too, declare my interest as a farmer. The Task Force on Farming Regulation, to be chaired by Richard Macdonald, will identify ways of reducing the regulatory burden through a review of relevant regulations and their implementation, as well as advising on how best to achieve a risk-based system of regulation in future. It will produce its initial views in early 2011.

[Lord Plumb]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and I congratulate him and the Government on calling for a task force to consider this whole issue, which has got out of hand in the past year or two. Although the Rural Payments Agency has been making improvements, the way in which it has operated over the past couple of years or so has been a great shambles. Action is therefore needed to simplify the whole process. Is the Minister aware, therefore—I know that he is, of course—that all cattle reared on farms have to have a passport and that sheep have to be electronically tagged? Think of the difficulty of getting 5,000 sheep off a hill to electronically tag them. Livestock movements have to be recorded in quadruplicate. On the whole question of the movement of livestock, forms are supplied in second-classed envelopes. The Minister is obviously aware—

[Noble Lords]

Question!

[Lord Plumb]

Does the Minister accept that every field, hedge, pond and tree has to be entered on the environmental map, to name but a few of the problems that we face, all creating high costs for little benefit? Does the Minister accept—

[Noble Lords]

Too long!

[Lord Plumb]

Does the Minister accept that future procedure needs the application of a bit of common sense to reduce the regulatory burden on farming without compromising standards?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, if I can answer briefly, we must move away from the idea that the only way of solving problems is to regulate. To take just one of my noble friend’s examples, the EID for sheep, I can give him an assurance that, when Commissioner Dalli, who has responsibility for this in the EU, visits this country, we will certainly make him aware of the problems that electronic identification of sheep is creating. I am sure that my honourable friend in another place, Mr Paice, will make a point of encouraging him to visit one of the big sheep sales to see what the problems are.

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the least necessary aspects of regulation is the multiplicity of visits and inspections under each protocol? Will the task force look at the cost to the farmer of compliance with each regulation?

[Lord Henley]

The task force will certainly look at that. As has been made clear, it will look not only at regulation but at the multiplicity of inspections, because inspections take up time.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords—

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords—

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, the task force is very welcome, and there is a lot to be done, but it consists entirely of people from the farming and food industries. There will be no representation of expertise on the environment and conservation or of agricultural workers and other people who live in the countryside and are affected by farms. In those circumstances, does the Minister agree that it is essential that, when the task force reports, its conclusions are thoroughly debated and there is time and opportunity for the country to debate them, including a debate in your Lordships’ House?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, debates in your Lordships’ House are a matter for people other than me, but I can assure my noble friend that the membership of the task force is not drawn just from the farming industry. It includes Judith Donovan, who is a board director of HSE, and Dr Stephen Tapper, who comes from the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, so it covers other aspects.

[Lord Harrison]

My Lords—

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Pearson!

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, what happens if the recommendations of the task force do not find favour with our lords and masters in Brussels and their infamous common agricultural policy? Which prevails?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I had a suspicion that the noble Lord or his noble friend might raise that subject. It might be that we would want to seek to renegotiate a certain number of regulations that come from Europe. If that is the case, we will try to do so. I accept that there are no quick fixes, but we are more likely to be successful if we go to Brussels with a positive attitude rather than a negative one.

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, given the concern expressed yesterday in this House, will the Minister rule out transferring to Defra any regulatory role of the Food Standards Agency? Does he agree with me that the independence of the agency from Ministers and from the food and farming industries was strongly supported by his party and, indeed, was very strongly supported by the Liberal Democrats when the FSA was introduced under the previous Government?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the noble Baroness should not necessarily believe everything that she reads in the papers, tempting though that might be. All I can say to her at the moment is that no decision has been taken on the Food Standards Agency and that all arm’s-length bodies in all departments will be subject to review.

[Lord Harrison]

My Lords, given the deaths in the agricultural industry that were revealed by the most recent HSE report, will the Minister ensure that any change in regulations will not dilute the regulations concerned with the safety of workers in farming?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I can give that assurance to the noble Lord and I can tell him that a further review of health and safety is being carried out by my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham. Those two reviews will not overlap in any way, so my noble friend Lord Young will review that issue, but obviously the health and safety of farm workers must remain paramount.

Immigration: Brook House

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

15:37

Asked By

[Lord Avebury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the report by the Chief Inspector of Prisons on the management of Brook House immigration removal centre.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the Government accept the broad conclusions of the chief inspector's report, and we have acted swiftly to implement most of the recommended improvements. It is a fact that the vast majority of detainees in Brook House have committed very serious crimes, including involving drugs, sex and violence. We are absolutely committed to meeting the challenges posed by these detainees, and additional improvements will be made in coming months. We will respond to the report in mid-September.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, perhaps my noble friend would like to join me in thanking Dame Anne Owers for her nine years of sterling work highlighting inconvenient truths about prisons and detention centres. Unfortunately, those years end today. Considering that it costs more to keep a detainee in a removal centre than in prison and far more than it does to send a boy to Eton, will my noble friend consider granting temporary admission to the detainees who cannot be sent back to their countries of origin, such as the 27 Somalis and Zimbabweans in Brook House who are costing more than £1 million to accommodate every year? Will the Government also think about suspending plans for four new immigration removal centres by taking steps to halt the rise in the detainee population, such as the improvements in the bail system recommended in the Bail for Immigration Detainees report published today?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I join my noble friend in thanking the outgoing Chief Inspector of Prisons and on behalf of the Government I thank her for her service and congratulate her on what she has achieved. The Government’s policy starting points are a presumption of release and that detention should be used only to enforce the removal of those with no basis of stay in the United Kingdom or whose deportation is required to protect the public from harm. It is true that where a detainee refuses to co-operate with the process, detention may indeed be quite long, as my noble friend suggests, and we need to try to find ways of dealing with this. If and when there is no longer a realistic prospect of removal, our policy is that we will release the detainee. It is also open to any detainee to apply to the court for bail. However, I think noble Lords will agree that we have a duty to protect the public from those who pose a serious risk of harm.

[Lord Hylton]

My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that if the Ministry of Justice got its act together, criminals would be deported on the day of their release or within a very short time afterwards?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that point. I understand that it is the practice for caseworking to start before the end of the sentence, but that it is the travel documentation which often delays matters for two main reasons. The first is that it depends on the compliance of the individual, which sadly is not always forthcoming, and secondly, because the level of identification required varies from recipient country to recipient country. Having said that, we are looking closely at how what the noble Lord suggests can be done because clearly it would tackle head on the genuine problems which the report highlights.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, expanding on the question put by my noble friend Lord Hylton, as Chief Inspector of Prisons I recommended as long ago as 2000 that all prisoners with deportation included in their sentence should have the deportation procedure completed while they were in prison so that they could be taken straight to the airport of departure. It should not be left so that they have to go into a detention centre and have the process started all over again. The problems noted in Brook House have been repeated over and over again in detention centres where disaffected ex-prisoners are quite the wrong people to put with immigration detainees who are there while their ordinary applications are processed.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord says and, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, we are looking closely at how we can achieve what he suggests should be done. As I have said, there are some problems that can delay matters, principally in the area of travel documentation, but we are looking at this closely.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Can the Minister clear up the position regarding the Dungavel immigration removal centre in Edinburgh? As I understand it, the Conservatives in the coalition have given in to the Liberals, so that illegal immigrants with families are no longer detained in Dungavel but are removed to England and held in centres there. Can the Minister explain the policy regarding the detention of illegal immigrants with families in Scotland?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, but today I am briefed specifically on Brook House. However, I will ensure that I write to him with an answer to his question.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that Brook House as a removal centre is designed to hold detainees for a maximum of three days, but the chief inspector’s report found that more than 17 per cent of the detainees there had been held for longer than three months? Will he look into why that is the case?

[Lord De Mauley]

Yes, my Lords. It is the Government’s firm intention to keep the length of detention to the shortest possible period. However, in some cases detainees cause delays by failing to comply with the removal process, in particular by refusing to provide accurate information about their nationality and identity. While we always seek to release a person where there is no longer a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable time frame, noble Lords will agree that we none the less have a duty to protect the public from those who pose a risk of harm, in particular those who have committed serious criminal offences. The vast majority of detainees at Brook House fall into this category. However, the Government are committed to finding ways of removing people more quickly.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, the Minister has twice referred to the background of the detainees at Brook House. A representative of the UK Border Agency has talked about a majority of detainees having committed serious crimes and said that the centre therefore faces a number of challenges on a daily basis. Is this indicative of a mindset that confuses detention before removal with crime and is this not one of the inherent problems? Was the chief inspector not right to point to the design of buildings as high security prisons as also being part of the problem?

[Lord De Mauley]

I thank my noble friend for her question. She makes an important point. The centre was, indeed, designed for short stays. Once the applications and appeals of failed asylum seekers had been refused, their length of detention was expected to be short. However, over time, the length of detention has risen, mainly due to detainees failing to comply with the removals process. The challenge, therefore, is to find ways to secure compliance while providing a decent regime which is able to cater for the needs of detainees. The Government are committed to finding solutions to reduce the length of stay and remove or release people quicker.

Arrangement of Business

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Lords Chamber

Announcement

15:46

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, if proceedings on the Local Government Bill conclude before the dinner break, the House will proceed straight on to the Question for Short Debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. If the Question for Short Debate is taken as last business in this way, the time limit for the debate will be 90 minutes rather than 60 minutes.

Communications Act 2003 (Maximum Penalty for Persistent Misuse of Network or Service) Order 2010

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Lords Chamber

Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Consequential Amendments No. 3) Order 2010

Control of Donations and Regulation of Loans etc. (Extension of the Prescribed Period) (Northern Ireland) Order 2010

Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Disclosure of Information by SOCA) Order 2010

Motions to Refer to Grand Committee

15:47

Moved By

[Lord Strathclyde]

That the draft Orders be referred to a Grand Committee.

Motions agreed.

National Assembly for Wales (Legislative Competence) (Housing and Local Government) Order 2010

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

Moved By

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 1 March be approved. 11th Report, Session 2009-10, from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 13 July.

Motion agreed.

Local Government Bill [HL]

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Lords Chamber

Committee

15:48

Clause 1 : Prevention of implementation of certain proposals for single tier of local government

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “section” and insert “Act”

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 3. Before addressing the detail of these amendments, I should register our concern at having reached Committee stage without having had sight of the transcript of Mr Justice Ouseley’s pronouncement at an oral hearing on 5 July. We take it from the communication that we have received from the Minister that the effect of the pronouncement was to quash the orders with effect from 5 July, nullifying from that date the full effect of the orders and, in particular, causing the term of office to come to an end of those councillors who remained in office as a result of Article 11 of the two orders. Should our understanding be changed by eventual access to the transcript, we reserve the right to return to certain matters on Report.

However much we deprecate the current situation, we have to accept for the purposes of the Bill that the quashing of the two orders obviates the need for Clause 1(3) and that the proposals for unitary government for Exeter and Norwich, which were the subject of the orders, are brought to an end. Furthermore, Clause 1(1) will, if enacted, preclude the current proposals for Exeter, Norwich and Suffolk from being taken forward at all.

However, as we have discussed previously, the provisions of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 are being left intact by the Bill, so the opportunity for the Secretary of State to invite principal authorities, including Exeter, Norwich and Suffolk, to bring forward proposals in the future for unitary status remains. Of course, we can take no encouragement from what the noble Baroness said at Second Reading about the likelihood of that happening. She stated that,

“it would also be fair to say that the Government have no plans to issue further invitations for unitary authorities and, if there were applications, they would be viewed against the serious economic situation we are in at the moment and consideration would be given to whether they offered any value for money whatever”.—[Official Report, 30/6/10; col. 1832.]

Value for the money is, therefore, at the heart of the Government’s concerns.

The impact assessment for the Bill is essentially the mirror image of the impact assessment for the original orders. We are faced with three scenarios: the status quo; the value for money arising from unitary Norwich and Exeter; and value for money from the Boundary Committee proposals. The latter two have been the subject of detailed work and independent review. I believe that the Minister now accepts that the transition period costs and savings, for example, from Norwich and Exeter unitaries were broadly equivalent and that ongoing savings could amount to £6.5 million per year.

All that we have for justifying continuing with the current arrangements is the assertion that the savings achievable through restructuring could be made by the councils working more closely with each other. We do not know whether the savings that the Government have in mind reflect the level of savings that would flow from the Boundary Committee proposals or from the Exeter and Norwich proposals. The Minister might take the opportunity to say which. No detailed figures have been presented to us; no explanation of the basis on which the Government are making this judgment has been given; no independent verification of the judgment has been done; no assessment of what history tells us about the propensity of the councils to co-operate has been made—hence our amendments.

Amendment 1 would simply extend the reference to the 2007 Act to the whole Bill, not that there will be much of it left. Amendment 3 gives us an opportunity to test the Government’s assertion around the savings that they believe are possible without restructuring. It would require an independent report to be prepared to determine whether value for money is being delivered for each authority whose unitary proposals are stopped by this legislation.

What do we mean by “value for money”? Value for money is about offering efficient, effective and joined-up public services, delivered through maximising collaboration and technology. It is about services that are effective, responsive and best suited to meet the needs and preferences of local and business communities. It is ultimately about services that people use because they value them, not because they have no alternative. Those services should reflect consideration of demand and other factors in the area, including areas of deprivation, transport links and travel to work, and shopping and leisure patterns. They should involve communities playing an active role in influencing and shaping both their planning and delivery. The coalition Government’s programme proposes to abolish the comprehensive area assessment and to cut local government inspections, so whatever performance framework will be left intact or will be introduced to see what progress any council is making is a matter of uncertainty.

In light of this, the amendment represents an extremely modest proposal. It would give the principal authorities at least two years to make progress. It does not seek to direct the Secretary of State to any course of action should the review show the status quo not to be delivering value for money. However, it would provide an opportunity for some reflection on the decisions that prevent Exeter, Norwich and Suffolk from attaining unitary status—reflection that, regrettably, the impact assessments make clear is not otherwise to be done. I beg to move.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, before I speak to Amendment 3, perhaps I may apologise to the House for being unable to be present for the Second Reading debate and explain that I was chairing a trustees’ meeting and the annual general meeting of a charity in Brighton. I gave my apologies to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, but, until now, I have not had an opportunity to explain and apologise to the House.

The independent report that Amendment 3 would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament would hold both Norfolk and the Department for Communities and Local Government to account in a useful and appropriate way. In the past, certainly in the case of Norwich, whenever proposals for unitary local government have been made, Norfolk has promised to work in better partnership with Norwich City Council and to achieve economies, but in practice nothing effective has been done. These have been empty words intended to fend off the threat of unitary status. If we were to have the report proposed in this amendment, it would put the county on the spot.

CLG produced its impact statement of the costs and benefits of its policy to abort unitary status for Norwich and Exeter to accompany the Bill when it was introduced. As my noble friends explained at Second Reading, that was a shabby piece of work. The Government contended in the impact statement that the scale of efficiency savings that had been forecast to be achieved through unitary status could be achieved by other means and without the disruption of reorganisation. However, the evidence basis for that assertion has not been presented. On the first page of the impact assessment, the question is asked, in the format of these assessments:

“When will the policy be reviewed to establish its impact and the extent to which the policy objectives have been achieved?”.

The Government answered, in the box opposite that question:

“It will not be reviewed”.

Then this question follows:

“Are there arrangements in place that will allow a systematic collection of monitoring information for future policy review?”.

“Not applicable”, say the Government. It is clear that they do not want the cost-effectiveness or the value-for-money implications of their policy to be analysed and reviewed in the future.

A section of the impact statement provides a checklist of specific impact tests that the Government might have applied as they prepared the policy. However, they did not take the trouble to carry out any of these specific impact tests, whether on,

“Statutory equality duties … Economic impacts … Environmental impacts … Social impacts”,

or,

“Sustainable development”.

The Government simply put “No impact” in each of the boxes opposite those tests. It therefore appears that CLG might be rather embarrassed if there were to be any systematic audit of the value for money and the administrative and economic consequences of the policy of retaining the status quo as opposed to going to unitary status.

As the document continues, it asserts:

“Stopping these unitaries … is good value for money … there is no need for forced amalgamations to achieve efficiencies of scope and scale, and the way forward is to reform and improve local government from within”.

That begs the question. How do you reform and improve local government from within? One of the options would be a post-implementation review plan, the possibility of which is contemplated in Annexe 1 to the impact statement, but the Government have declined to bring one forward. In the box that inquires of the Government’s views about,

“Success criteria … Criteria showing achievement of the policy objectives as set out in the final impact assessment”,

the Government’s answer is, “Not applicable”. Then there is the question of what “Monitoring information arrangements” are to be provided; again, “Not applicable”.

Finally, the Government are invited to answer the question in the impact statement on reasons for not planning a post-implementation review. Their answer is:

“We are not proceeding with unitary councils in Exeter and Norwich. As these unitaries have not yet been created, the proposal is in effect remaining with the status quo of two-tier authorities in Exeter and Norwich. As such it is not appropriate to evaluate it”.

That seems to me the most extraordinary and irresponsible approach to the responsibilities of government. In the impact statement, the Government have concealed and conjured figures to disguise the fact that the preservation of the status quo with the two-tier system of local government is the most expensive of the three options before the Secretary of State. The other two options were a unitary Norwich and Exeter or unitary counties of Norfolk and Devon. Both those options would have been administratively cheaper than preserving the status quo.

16:00

The Government have given no justification or evidence as to why their choice of policy—the cancellation of unitary status—would produce more economic administration or wider economic benefits. The reason why they do not intend an evaluation of the policy must be that they would be embarrassed at what the evidence would show. I suspect that Ministers do not believe that it would actually provide value for money.

This is surely breathtaking irresponsibility from a Government who are busy sharpening their knives to make cuts of 25 per cent to 40 per cent in social provision, for example in programmes to support workless people and in housing and incapacity benefit, causing particular pain and damage to the poor people of this country. Mr Bob Neill, the junior Minister at CLG, said in the House of Commons:

“Those in greatest need ultimately bear the burden of paying off the debt”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/6/10; col. 450.]

That appears to be the Government’s philosophy and practice. As an instance of that, the deprived communities of Norwich, which can so ill withstand such treatment by comparison with the affluent rural communities of Norfolk, will suffer as a consequence of the Government’s reversal of the policy to create a unitary authority in Norwich, which would have focused on and attended to the specific, particular and different communities in Norwich—similarly in Exeter.

Yet the Government shamelessly declare that they will not evaluate the value for money of their policy. The reason is, of course, that there is no value for money; the status quo is more expensive and the policy has been brought in simply and solely out of political motives, with no regard for economy or public well-being. The requirement to produce this independent report will expose the truth—whether the Government are right or whether we who are their critics are right. Surely the Permanent Secretary, as accounting officer, who made it plain in the last months of the last Government how exercised he was about value for money, must want such an audit to take place.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

Is there not a danger that, if this amendment were passed, the noble Lord would place a particular duty on these authorities that does not apply to any other authorities anywhere else in the country and that he would therefore be turning this Bill into a hybrid Bill?

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

We were at very particular pains to draft these amendments and have benefited very much from the advice of the Clerk of Public and Private Bills, who has ensured that these amendments are not hybrid—and of course I respect his opinion on that particularly important and sensitive matter. What we propose is a model for all principal authorities, for district and county councils throughout the land. I am simply illustrating the case by reference to what might occur in Norwich, Norfolk, Exeter and Devon, because those are the particular authorities that the Bill deals with.

Just as I would imagine that the Permanent Secretary as accounting officer would certainly want the kind of audit that this report would provide, so, too, I think that Parliament would. As has been extensively debated in your Lordships’ House in recent days, Parliament wants to undertake more post-legislative scrutiny. If there is to be post-legislative scrutiny, we will need the data about the performance of the policy that the legislation implements. Does the noble Baroness agree with this amendment and feel that there is a good case for improving transparency and accountability as the amendment proposes? If she does not, what are her reasons for opposing- it?

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I speak to oppose these amendments. I first apologise for not attending the Second Reading debate. I was attending a session on why I should not speed, which, as it required me to attend and not to have three points on my licence, took priority over your Lordships’ House. I successfully completed that training. Secondly, although I am not sure whether I need to declare this as an interest, I should say that I live 10 miles from Exeter and initiated the Motion of Regret when the previous Government were in power.

I find it odd that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, should talk about the irresponsibility of this Government when the previous Government were patently acting entirely irresponsibly in putting forward both Exeter and Norwich at a time when the Permanent Secretary, as the accounting officer, was pointing out that that was not good value for money and that the government department was likely to lose on the judicial review, as, indeed, it quite properly did.

The noble Lord is speaking to your Lordships as though this were a new event and nothing had happened before. I regret to tell your Lordships that I have come without all the documents, because I really did not think that it was necessary, but we had an enormous amount of information in the latter days of the previous Government setting out the irresponsibility of making Exeter and Norwich unitary authorities, the enormous cost that that would imply and, indeed, the damage that it would do to Devon and to Norfolk. The creation of unitary authorities at the pleasure of these two cities—big cities, I recognise—would do a great deal of damage to the counties. As a small example, the biggest town in Devon if Exeter were a unitary authority would be Exmouth, with 37,000 people. Devon would be expected to run a huge county—the second largest in England, with small towns and large rural areas— with very little money. As the Permanent Secretary said in relation to Exeter and Norwich, that would not be good value for money.

Listening to what the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, was saying, one would think that there was no past to this story, but there is a long past. I hope that your Lordships will not accept these amendments.

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. If I recall, the first time that we debated this topic in this House a little over three months ago, the order was reversed, so I am particularly pleased to be able to follow on this occasion.

I was rather surprised that the noble Lord chose to begin the Committee by talking about value for money. It was only a little over three months ago that he had the duty—I accept that it was his job—to move orders in this House against all the advice that they did not represent value for money, and despite an acceptance by the then Government that the orders did not meet their value-for-money criteria. There was also strong legal advice that they would certainly be challenged in the courts and that such a challenge was likely to be successful—and lo, we know now that both of those things have happened; the orders have been quashed in the courts and the costs of those legal proceedings have been awarded against the Government. When the noble Lord speaks again on this amendment, he might like to explain to us how that represents value for money and why he chooses to start by discussing value for money. It seems to be a foolish way to begin.

The substance of Amendment 3 epitomises in so many ways the approach of the former Labour Government towards local government: this need always for local government to be answerable to central government—to Parliament, in this instance—and to be answerable upwards, to be telling the Government what it is doing, why it is doing it and so on. If there is to be an independent report in two or three years’ time, that report should be going to the councils concerned, particularly to the people who have elected them. It should not be going in the other direction, but that is what we in local government experienced for 13 long years from a Labour Government. I am just a little sad that already that party is showing that it learned no lessons at all from that.

The other thing that worries me about this is how little understanding there seems to be on the other side of the House about the financial climate into which we have all moved and what the next few years will bring. Are we seriously saying that local authorities should spend the next two or three years—a period in which we will all be required to find at least 25 per cent and possibly 30 per cent cuts in budgets which have been continuously squeezed year-on-year anyway—worrying about structures, mergers with other authorities, and so on? These matters are always emotionally difficult and often practically difficult, and they are always expensive at least in the short term, whatever long-term benefits may eventually come. In the short term, which means this very difficult financial period, such restructuring is always expensive. It is justified on the basis of longer-term savings.

Most particularly, it shows that we cannot move on from this. The election was fought by two parties, now in coalition government, which were very clear in this House and elsewhere about what would happened if they won the election. It could not have been clearer that, should the election be won, the unitary restructuring would not go ahead. I understand that the party which favoured it in the first place has not changed its mind. That is fair enough—of course it has not. That is perfectly reasonable. However, the action that the Government are taking, and were committed to taking, is very clear. What is the purpose of having a report in two or three years’ time other than to continue this argument and debate which has already been so debilitating for two or three years; and then to reopen it all again when that report is produced in three years’ time? How does that move anyone on? How does that help the people of Norfolk and Devon, Norwich and Exeter? They and we need to concentrate our efforts over the next two or three years not on restructuring but on how local authorities will work together and, where appropriate, share services. If this House should be sending any message to the counties and cities concerned, it should be: please try to put the very divisive past behind you and look forward to how you can work together in the best interests of all the people that you represent.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

This amendment calls for what this House, when it suits it, has called for on numerous occasions: post-legislative scrutiny. I suspect that there is not a person in this House who would vote against post-legislative scrutiny until it comes to this particular Bill, these particular cities and these particular amendments, where it is inconvenient to look back to see whether the decisions taken were wise, prudent and represented value for money, which I insist they did not. Many of the remarks of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord are effectively Second Reading points. I will stay with the substance of the amendment, which is that what the Government are proposing does not—I repeat, not—represent value for money.

16:15

There are two considerations here. First, there is the statement made by the Permanent Secretary. Secondly, there are the responses in the impact assessment. The Permanent Secretary said that going from unitary Norwich and unitary Exeter did not represent the best value for money—but compared with what? Not with the status quo, as your Lordships seem to think, but with the alternative put forward by the Boundary Committee, which was for unitary counties that no one—not even the counties themselves—wanted. In a comparison between what is on the Order Paper in terms of the Government’s Bill—that is, the status quo—and our amendments, which try to introduce unitary status for Norwich and Exeter, which is the better value? Unitary status for the cities is better value; the figures are indisputable. Over the transition period, the costs incurred in implementing the two unitary cities would be around £40 million. Over the same period, the savings will be of the order of £39.4 million; that is, a deficit over six years for the two cities of £600,000. That is £300,000 per authority and £50,000 a year.

The impact assessment also refers to estimates of further ongoing annual savings forgone, which is the nice way of saying lost, through stopped restructuring—in other words, not going ahead with unitary status for Norwich and Exeter—of £6.5 million a year. That is £3.25 million per authority per year. Who am I quoting? I am quoting the Minister. So I hope that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord will understand that these are financial statistics which the Minister first ran in the impact analysis and subsequently confirmed in her letter of 8 July. She is saying that for the first six years there are total costs of £300,000 for each authority, and that those costs will be recovered in the first six weeks of the seventh year—£300,000 of costs over six years, £3 million of savings per authority per year thereafter. Six weeks’ worth of savings would nullify the £300,000 in costs.

Will someone please explain to me why an impact analysis and the Minister’s figures, which I have quoted accurately, do not show that unitary Norwich and unitary Exeter are best value for money when compared with the status quo? Please do not let anybody tell me that we cannot afford this. We cannot afford not to do it, because the Government are voluntarily forgoing the opportunity for those cities to save their taxpayers £3 million a year per authority hereafter. Why will the Government not let this matter be exposed to scrutiny? It is because—noble Lords know this as well as I do—these figures would be embarrassing if they were revealed. The Minister already believes that this is what is going to happen. The reality, I suspect, may well be an even greater increase in savings and be better still in terms of value-for-money services. But are we going to scrutinise this? Are we going to see whether these assertions are correct? That would be inconvenient. It might be embarrassing and show that the Government were wrong; therefore we will not do it. But please be under no doubt that all the value-for-money arguments go with unitary Norwich and unitary Exeter, as the Minister revealed first in the impact assessment and secondly in her letter of 8 July. Therefore, I hope that no other Member of your Lordships’ House suggests the alternative. If they do so, they are critiquing and objecting to the Minister’s own assessment.

My noble friend’s amendment asks that we have what, when it suits your Lordships, we all call for—post-legislative scrutiny, to see whether value for money in terms of cash and effective delivery of services have been achieved by this refusal to go ahead with reorganisation and the submitting of partnership arrangements in its place. We will come back to this on later amendments. What have noble Lords opposite to fear? What have we got to lose? If they are right, the scrutiny will reveal that. If they are wrong, the scrutiny will give us the opportunity to correct the situation and recoup the savings in future. The refusal of noble Lords opposite to support such an amendment shows that they wish to conceal rather than reveal. I think that is very regrettable.

[Baroness Shephard of Northwold]

My Lords, I would like to declare an interest: I am a lifelong resident of Norfolk. I have also been a Norfolk county councillor, a Norfolk county councillor representing a part of Norwich, and I am a deputy lieutenant for the county.

The words of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, struck a great chord with me. He said that it was time for us to move on from the wrangles and arguments about unitary status for Norwich and Exeter. He also said that the Bill is the result of a manifesto commitment by the Conservative and the Liberal Democratic Parties, not an honour accorded to the legislation brought forward by the previous Government. I often chided them in this Chamber for omitting from their 2005 manifesto something that was obviously so very important to them. What an omission.

However, we do need to move on. The people of Norfolk and Norwich, and doubtless of Exeter and Devon, have been in organisational uncertainty for far too long—for four and a half years, I think. They have many pressing concerns. While the Committee will of course wish to give full and careful attention to the amendments before us today, it should be our aim to end the uncertainty and make progress with the Bill.

I also had sympathy for another comment from a noble colleague on the Liberal Democrat Benches—which was, given that the orders brought forward by the previous Government have been quashed, the position in both counties and both cities is as it was before. Therefore, why pick them out for special treatment and ask them to produce special reports on their financial arrangements?

Of course, it is pretty ironic that we should be asking for any kind of financial information involving Norwich City Council. After all, Hazel Blears, when she was Secretary of State, rejected its case for becoming a unitary authority on financial grounds. She said that she had concerns about the reliability of the financial data submitted in the proposal. Not only that, the proposal was rejected a second time by the Government’s own—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

The information submitted to Hazel Blears came from a Lib-Dem minority council.

[Baroness Shephard of Northwold]

That is as may be, but the Government’s own Boundary Committee produced another report on the Norwich proposal. It said:

“While we have given Norwich City Council every opportunity to demonstrate to us the affordability of the two-unitary pattern, we consider that there remain a number of significant risks to the financial case set out by the Council”.

I am not sure, on a number of grounds, that there is any purpose at all in supporting the amendment. I repeat that it is regrettable that there should be at this stage yet another attempt to prolong the organisational uncertainty caused by the previous Government in Norfolk and Devon.

[Lord Burnett]

My Lords, I should declare that I live in Devon, I have a farm in Devon, and I own property also in Exeter. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, opened by asserting that value for money is at the heart of the Bill. It is certainly a major factor. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can give us a breakdown of the costs to Exeter and Norwich of becoming unitary authorities. It would be extremely helpful to have some sort of validation for what we believe would be extravagant and reckless costs incurred if the previous Government’s legislation were to be implemented.

There would be a loss of economies of scale by establishing new offices, new IT systems and new directors of numerous departments for highways, social services, education and children—all with support staff, all of whom would have pensions, and with all the attendant bureaucracy. I hope that my noble friend can give details of those costs. The country is facing huge debts, as the previous Government knew full well in February and March. Today the Independent sets out what the Office for National Statistics says our underlying debt is. This endeavour for unitary status for Exeter and Norwich is an act of financial recklessness, and I hope the Minister can explain the fundamental flaw in the previous Government’s legislation.

[Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market]

My Lords, I, too, declare an interest as a resident of Norfolk for many years. We have had debates on the wider issues affecting this Bill for some time already in this House and I will not repeat the arguments. I will make three points in relation to this amendment—I very much agree with my noble friends Lord Tope and Lady Shephard.

First, it is important to remember that there were reasons other than financial ones—although I stress the importance of them—why many of us resisted the unlawful attempt by the previous Government to carry through the unitary authorities. It was very unpopular in most of Norfolk, where other councils were going to be severely affected. The county council and most district councils were opposed to this. In the only poll taken of the people of Norfolk, only 3 per cent voted for the proposal. There are other arguments apart from financial ones: there would have been considerable effects on the other authorities if the proposal had gone through.

Secondly, I wonder what the point of the amendment is. Within two or three years, we will not have seen the full six-year evaluation of the costs and so on, and in any case I very much doubt whether, with the coalition Government still in existence, it will make any difference to policy.

My final point is about costs. All the up-front costs will come in the early years and the savings, if they come in the way that is intended—and very often these calculations made at the outset are wrong—will come much later. Of course, it is in the two or three years when the costs would be incurred that the particularly severe effects of financial constraints on public expenditure will apply. This would be an additional cost at a time when we would least want it. That is why I, too, do not support the amendment.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I thank everybody who has spoken in this short debate on what I considered a slightly strange amendment to be brought forward at this stage. It is worth reminding the House that the orders have been quashed—they are null, void and gone. With them have gone the alterations and changes to any thought of unitary authorities in those areas. They have been quashed not only in terms of not going forward as unitaries but also in terms of the other processes that we will come to, such as elections.

The judge was clear. In the original judgment, he said that the proposals were unlawful because the previous Government had not followed their own guidelines and criteria in coming to decisions, and had changed their mind from time to time. They had started off being very opposed to unitary status for Norwich and Exeter and then, by dint of a few squirls and whirls as time went on, they decided that there were compelling reasons why these two orders should go through.

That is the background. We are finishing off a process that was started—as my noble friend Lady Shephard said—with our commitment to getting rid of these orders when they were first put through the House, against the strong advice of both of the opposition parties, who said then that if and when they were in government, they would alter that. The Bills started, but in the mean time the judicial review was put in hand and came up with the view that the orders should be quashed.

We are not in a position to be talking or bothering about reports for the future. The fact is that we are now back to having two city councils in county council areas. It would be patently absurd to have a report on these two proposals and authorities when they are not going to be doing anything different to what they were doing—and nobody has even thought about having reports on the other unitary authorities and how they differ from other authorities. Therefore, I completely reject the arguments about the need for a report. This is not about post-legislative scrutiny; it is about trying to tie up matters and ensure that at some stage Norwich and Exeter can bring forth another application for a unitary authority. The amendment is trying to bring about information that will not be available to any other authority.

There have been a number of questions and a number of criticisms, and I should like to start with the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, who asked specific questions about costs. He asked how much it would cost for Exeter to go unitary. The answer is £19.9 million. In addition, the combined cost of restructuring the two unitaries would be more than £40 million. I think that local authorities have other things to do than waste £40 million on restructuring at present.

16:30

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, is the noble Baroness also going to tell the House about her own impact analysis of the savings of £39.4 million that would occur during the same six years? Offset against the £40 million, there would be a net cost of £300,000 per authority.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I am not going to go any further into the impact assessment; it is there for noble Lords to read. Our view was that, although there ultimately would be savings, they would not come about for at least another six years.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

No, my Lords; that is not what the impact assessment said.

[Baroness Hanham]

It looks as though it would be about six years before the savings came about. There have indeed been references to ongoing savings of £6.5 million being forgone in 2015 and 2016. We have never said that those savings would arise from the unitary solution, but we believe that savings on a greater scale are possible from sensible collaboration between the county and the cities—something that every other authority is beginning to have to do. All across the country, local authorities are having to begin to co-operate with each other. They are having to make reductions in costs and they are not spending money on restructuring.

I do not see any point at all in bringing forward such a report, as it would have no virtue. If it were brought forth in three or four years’ time, I am not sure whether it would have the slightest effect on the coalition Government, if they were still here, and I do not think that it would be of benefit to anyone other than perhaps the proponents of unitary status in both these areas.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about Mr Justice Ouseley’s transcript. It is not available, as I believe the noble Lord knows. I do not know whether he was trying to put me on the spot but I do not have it. He does not have it and my understanding is that no one has it, although I am sure that it will be available at some stage. However, it is absolutely clear that his judgment quashed the orders in their entirety. That is the message that we have and that is where we are at the moment.

In all this, we do not want to lose sight of the fact that the path started on by the previous Government was unwise, illegal and totally flawed. If anyone now tried to shore up and perpetuate the proposals, that would be very unwise and would not get anywhere.

[Earl Cathcart]

My Lords, I was not intending to speak on this amendment but I think that I have Mr Justice Ouseley’s judgment, and I believe that one or two other noble Lords have all 106 paragraphs of it as well.

[Earl Attlee]

We are on Report.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

We are not; we are in Committee.

[Earl Cathcart]

The final paragraph, number 106, says:

“However, for the reasons which I have given”—

those are his words—

“the orders are quashed”.

Therefore, the judgment is available.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Perhaps I can help the noble Lord. We have a copy of the judgment but what we do not have is a copy of the transcript of the oral evidence that was given on 5 July. I was not trying to score a point when I said that. Our understanding is based on the information that we have received via the Minister. We have not had a chance to look at it at source. That was the only point I was making.

[Earl Cathcart]

I stand corrected.

[Baroness Hanham]

That backs up exactly what I said which was that the orders were quashed. I do not have much more to add. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, made a very powerful speech, as did the noble Lord, Lord Tope. It is time for this to be put aside, so that the two authorities can get back to business, working as they should with their counties and other local authorities to ensure that they provide the best service possible. I reject the amendments.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

This has been an interesting debate. Not much of it has been focused on the specifics of the amendment before us. The amendment calls for a report at a stage in the future on whether value for money is being delivered by the status quo. Implicit in that—we have accepted that the orders have been quashed—is that the Bill, in its amended form, will undoubtedly pass and that the arrangements proposed in respect of Exeter, Norwich and Suffolk indeed will not proceed. We have accepted that; we do not like it and do not think it is the right judgment, but that is quite different from what we are seeking through this amendment.

We are seeking to understand and to validate, effectively, the proposition from the Government, which is that you do not need restructuring to get value for money as you can do it via a range of other means. My noble friends Lord Howarth and Lady Hollis have stressed that. That is the assertion of the Government and it is an integral part of the basis on which they have made their decision to go ahead as they have. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked why there would be a report in respect of only these two unitary authorities. She said that they would do nothing different from what they do at the moment. If that is the case, we would be extremely worried. If they simply proceed as they do at the moment, the comparison, which has been made by my noble friend, between the status quo—without any of the changes to which the noble Baroness made some broad reference—and the undoubted net present value benefits that could come from unitary status for Exeter and Norwich and, frankly, the even greater benefits that would flow from county unitary status, would be very significant indeed. Therefore, it seems to me that the Government, on the basis of the proposition of the noble Baroness, would not achieve the value for money that could come from one of the alternatives.

Today, it is accepted that what we want will not happen. All the amendment is saying is that we should have a chance to review, in the future, whether the Government’s assertion is borne out in practice. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, made the point that the report would be made upwards to Government and, of course, it would be available to the local authorities as well. There is no difficulty in that.

Many of the comments have gone back over the debates that we have had. I do not think my noble friends propose to reopen them this afternoon in respect of some of the other amendments. I have heard no coherent case from Members opposite about why we should reject the proposition of a report, after two years, to test the assertion which is fundamental to the Government’s position that value for money is being delivered under the current structures—not only change-over structures. That seems to me a reasonable and modest proposition. As I said when I introduced the amendment, should the report show that value-for-money has not been delivered, it does not seek to impose on the Secretary of State any particular course of action to try to open up the opportunities of further proposals for unitary status. It simply seeks information that all of us should be pleased to receive.

If the outcome of the report were that value-for-money has not been delivered, if the Government’s assertion were wrong, it is clear that the law is in place—the Government have not amended it—to enable the Secretary of State to come forward with invitations to get further proposals for unitary status. The current Secretary of State may never be minded to do that—it may be ideological and political rather than based on an analysis of value for money and other factors. I accept that value for money is only one of the factors in which noble Lords are involved in making their judgment on this.

With the leave of the House, I propose to withdraw the amendment today. However, it is important to state that we wish to return to the matter on Report. I urge noble Lords to look at the substance of the amendment and draw back from some of the broader debate that we have revisited today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Baroness Hanham]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out subsection (3)

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 7 and to my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill.

As we have discussed, on Monday 5 July, the High Court decided to quash, in their entirety, the structural change orders creating unitary councils for the cities of Exeter and Norwich. As a result, the terms of offices for one-third of the members of Exeter and Norwich city councils, which had been extended by the orders, ended on 5 July and the cities will need to arrange by-elections to fill those vacancies. Moreover, the decisions taken in March to implement the unitary proposals for Norwich and Exeter by the then Secretary of State are now overturned.

Amendment 2 seeks to remove Clause 1(3) from the Bill. This subsection currently revokes the structural change orders for Exeter and Norwich which have just been quashed by the court. Consequently, the Bill no longer needs to revoke these orders and this subsection is no longer required.

I have also made clear my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 makes consequential electoral arrangements that would have deferred the elections of one-third of councillors from May 2010 to May 2011 on the revocation of the structural change orders. As the orders have been quashed by the court, they will no longer be revoked by the Bill and these consequential provisions will never be invoked and are no longer required.

As I have explained, because of the quashing, these one-third of councillors are no longer councillors and have not been since 5 July when the orders were quashed.

Amendment 7 will make consequential changes to the Long Title of the Bill, reflecting the removal of Clause 1(3) and Clause 2 from the Bill.

The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the Bill does not include unnecessary legislation, and correspondingly to ensure that parliamentary time is not taken up on debating legislation that is not required.

For this reason, I would ask the Committee to support these amendments.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I should have declared my interest as a resident of Norwich at the beginning of my contribution to the previous debate. I do so now.

Government Amendment 2, to strike out Clause 1(3), raises important constitutional issues—they were raised by the judgment in the High Court—and I want to offer some remarks about them. The noble Baroness’s amendment provides that it should not be Parliament that revokes the structural change orders because, she says, it is unnecessary, given that the judge in the High Court has already quashed them. However, perhaps we could just think about the implications of this constitutional situation. Is it not in fact rather remarkable?

Is my understanding of the British constitution so old-fashioned as to be obsolete? I thought that Parliament was the sovereign law-making body in Britain. Thirty years ago, I do not think that that would have been disputed. When Parliament took the decision that we should join the European Community, Parliament knowingly and deliberately subordinated Westminster legislation to the authority of the European Court of Justice, but Parliament retained and retains the power to undo our membership of the European Union. When we incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into our domestic law, Parliament specified that judges should be entitled to point out any inconsistencies between legislation passed by Parliament and the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, but specifically did not give the judges power to set aside Acts of Parliament that they deemed to be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Meanwhile, however, over the past 40 years of judicial activism, the scope of judicial review has grown enormously. Many of us have welcomed that. Many of us, time and again, have been grateful to the judges for acting to strike down acts of an overweening and incompetent Executive. We accept the power of the judiciary to quash administrative acts by the Executive when they are in breach of the law or when procedures have not been properly followed. That is one thing. Although his arguments are debatable, I can understand why Mr Justice Ouseley found grounds to criticise the Department for Communities and Local Government and the previous Secretary of State. However, it is surely an entirely different matter when a judge takes upon himself to quash orders that have been formally approved by Parliament. The structural change orders were extensively debated in both Houses, with both Houses, thanks to the report of the Merits Committee and numerous speeches made by noble Lords, including by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, being fully aware of the facts and the issues that exercised Mr Justice Ouseley. Being aware of those issues, both Houses voted to approve the orders.

I am told that there are precedents for the quashing of secondary legislation. Indeed, the Minister cited one to us in one of her letters. I am also told that the precedents have all been at the level of the House of Lords, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, now the Supreme Court. I stand ready to be corrected if my information is wrong, but I understand that, for the first time, a High Court judge has arrogated to himself the power to overthrow legislative decisions properly made by Parliament.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

Does the noble Lord see any difference in a judicial decision at whichever level? As I understand it, the previous Government did not appeal the decision of the High Court judge, so that is as good a decision as that of the Supreme Court. If there was an appeal pending, that would be a different matter, but the noble Lord is not entitled to say that a decision of the High Court is not as good as a decision of the Supreme Court if the loser chooses not to take it to a higher court.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Technically, the noble and learned Baroness is of course right. I just make two points in response. I see this as part of the creep, the continuing extension of judicial authority to supersede parliamentary authority. The other point is that the district councils, Norwich and Exeter, did not have the money to appeal against the judgment. They could not afford to do so. There is no legal aid for local authorities which suffer rulings hostile to their interests. I do not think that CLG was going to pay for the cost of their appeal. So there has never been an appeal to test that point.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

Forgive me for rising again, but was not the decision made against the government department?

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

The decision was made against the government department. Again, I gently point out to the noble and learned Baroness that it would be very unlikely that the government department headed by Mr Eric Pickles, who spent most of the election campaign denouncing the iniquities of unitary status for Norwich and Exeter, would appeal against the judgment by Mr Justice Ouseley. I think that is a rather fanciful objection.

We are witnessing a constitutional development that we need to ponder and that we should deliberate on very seriously. It seems to me—this perhaps reflects my old-fashioned view of the British constitution—an improper and dangerous development. I read with enormous interest, admiration and pleasure the recently published book by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, The Rule of Law. In that book, he counselled judges to walk delicately, like Agag in the Old Testament, and to proceed with very great caution when tempted to usurp the authority of Parliament. When the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, last Thursday repeated the Government’s Statement on their response to the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights on Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, I asked whether the Government still accept that Parliament is the sovereign law-making body. She replied:

“As for the supremacy of Parliament, yes, of course it is supreme”.—[Official Report, 8/7/10; col. 385.]

That was, to a degree, comforting, but there seems to be an inconsistency between her outlook upon this and the outlook of CLG because the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, made what seemed to me a very peculiar statement, coming from a Minister, in the debate at Second Reading:

“Judicial review became possible because they were orders, so it was a judgment not on a parliamentary decision, but on secondary legislation that arose from primary legislation”.—[Official Report, 30/6/10; col. 1833.]

I think that is a curious statement. Does the noble Baroness really believe that the votes in Parliament to approve the structural change orders were not decisions made by Parliament? If not, what is the status of statutory instruments? Why does Parliament spend all these hours considering secondary legislation? There are thousands of statutory instruments every year.

In proposing to delete Clause 1(3), why are the Government hiding behind the High Court? Why do they not want Parliament to use its authority to cancel the laws that Parliament has made? Do this Government, or do they not, believe that Parliament and not the High Court is sovereign? Can the noble Baroness persuade us that this Government respect Parliament? The noble Baroness urged the House not to follow the procedure approved by the Speaker to refer a Bill to the Examiners where a reasonable case is made that it is hybrid. When the noble Baroness spoke at Second Reading, she described the moving of that Motion as,

“a somewhat dubious delaying tactic”.—[Official Report, 30/6/10; col. 1798.]

I simply observe to the noble Baroness that among those who took a different view and voted in favour of the reference were two former heads of the Civil Service, three other Permanent Secretaries, four bishops, three very senior and distinguished judges, including the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—and I pay tribute to her because I thought it was an honourable vote on her part—and other extremely distinguished Cross-Benchers. They listened to the argument and took the view that the Government were misbehaving in opposing the reference to the Examiners. Whatever the noble Baroness thinks of my motives, I hope she will be respectful of their view.

[Viscount Eccles]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is his argument that once Parliament has made a decision—let us accept for a minute that he is right that the affirmative instruments were approved—it is in no position to change its mind and reverse its decision?

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

On the contrary, that is exactly my argument. I have asked the noble Baroness why she is simply relying on the High Court to quash the decisions of Parliament rather than having Parliament exercise its own authority to quash the decisions that it previously took. That is precisely the point at issue. I suggest that this is part of a pattern that we are beginning to see emerge in this coalition Government of an habitual disrespect for Parliament. If I may, I shall give one other instance.

[Earl Cathcart]

I thought that it was for Parliament to make the laws and for the judiciary to judge on them. In this instance, the judge said that what the Secretary of State did in coming to his decision was illegal and so he quashed it.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I understand that that is what the judge said, but my question is whether it is within the competence of a judge, whether a Supreme Court or a High Court judge, to overthrow orders that have been duly made by Parliament. Parliament was fully aware of all the arguments that moved Mr Justice Ouseley to arrive at his judgment, but the fact is that if Parliament is the sovereign law-making body in this country, its authority ought to prevail. That is my opinion.

I will briefly illustrate what I take to be part of an emerging pattern of disrespect on the part of the Government to Parliament. On 29 June, this House voted to approve a Motion, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, that called on the Government to table Motions to enable the House to approve or disapprove of four specific reforms that would enable this House to be more credible and effective. However, a week ago, on 7 July, the Leader of the House informed the House in a Written Statement that the Government do not intend to respect the will of the House in this regard and,

“do not consider it appropriate to table Motions”,—[Official Report, 7/7/10; col. WS 13.]

that the House has called upon them to table. He cited as justification the irrelevant fact that the Deputy Prime Minister has set in hand work on a draft Bill for an elected second Chamber. Why are the Leader of the House and the Government treating the House with this contempt?

The Deputy Prime Minister arrogantly breezes around declaring that our parliamentary institutions are not fit for purpose. This arrogance is particularly unbecoming in a Government with no mandate from the people and in a coalition that has been cobbled together and is tempted to use its majority to bulldoze this House in ways that this House has not tolerated and not expected from Governments for many years. The vote yesterday in this House on the Academies Bill on which the Government were defeated is a very salutary indication to them that they cannot simply take it for granted that they now have a majority in the House of Lords that entitles them to treat this House of Parliament with the same contumely with which Governments habitually treat the House of Commons.

We see this attitude in the big declarations and the small actions, and here in this amendment, which casually endorses the subordination of considered decisions of both Houses to an adventurous decision by a High Court judge that happens to suit the Government’s self-indulgent political agenda. How does the noble Baroness defend it?

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, perhaps I might be allowed to speak before the Minister replies. I start by bringing us back to what we are actually doing today, and by reminding the House that I am a Cross-Bencher. I do not support the Government or the Opposition; I support the belief that Exeter should not be a unitary authority. I have three or four points to make. I proposed a regret Motion under the previous Government that was overwhelmingly supported by this House by a large majority. The previous Government deliberately and arrogantly—I cannot resist using the word “arrogant” because the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, has used it of this Government—went ahead and ignored the will of this House, knowing that their Permanent Secretary to the relevant Ministry had said that the government department would be likely to lose when the judge took his decision. This House was in effect misled, because of course we did not have the judge’s decision; we had the facts. Most of us thought that what the Permanent Secretary said was right, but had to wait for a judicial decision. The Government decided to go ahead despite a judicial review and quite rightly lost. So it was that Government who insisted on putting through illegal orders, and that is what the judge found.

There is nothing adventurous about a High Court judge sitting in the Administrative Court deciding that local government or national government are actually acting illegally. That is the work of the Administrative Court at three levels—the High Court, the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court—and the order and decision of a judge in the High Court is as good as the decision of any court until it is reversed. So there is nothing adventurous about a High Court judge holding a government department to account. That has been happening for years and years. For the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, to talk about it being adventurous and to cast aspersions on the High Court is not what I, as a former judge, would have expected to hear in this House and I am saddened by it.

What is particularly important to remember is that this all started because the previous Government insisted on putting the orders before this House when they knew they were likely to lose before the judge, and that is what the situation has created. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I cannot see anything wrong in orders of this House which should never have been presented because they were in fact illegal, having then been found by a judge to be so, being revoked. When the Minister said that it is not necessary for the Government to have this House revoke them because they could not stand, that was the point. They were illegal from the beginning, even though the announcement was not made until after this House was required, despite the vote against the Government, to accept that the Government would insist on going ahead.

17:01

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Before I address the substance of Amendment 2, which is what I really want to speak on, I want to challenge the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the wider arguments she has made. I do not think she has been involved in all of the orders that have come before your Lordships since 2006, of which to my knowledge there have been at least half a dozen. Nearly all have been accompanied by judicial reviews. No one knew at that stage what the outcome of those judicial reviews would be. They were carried through by my noble friend Lady Andrews and on many occasions I tried to give her some support to that effect.

On the argument of the noble and learned Baroness, the fact that there was a judicial review suggests, before we know the outcome, that by definition it must have been illegal. With the benefit of hindsight with regard to the judge’s ruling, the noble and learned Baroness has said that the orders were illegal.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

I said that only in relation to these orders were they illegal, and they were found to be illegal after the judge made the order. But they were illegal from the moment that the Minister insisted on presenting them to the House.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I understand that perfectly well, but as we did not have the outcome of the judicial review at the time the orders were being made, we were in no different a situation than that of all the previous debates, in which I think the noble and learned Baroness did not take part, where a judicial review was running alongside a debate about particular orders. If she is alleging that we should have known the outcome of the judicial review before the judge made his determination, in that case none of the previous orders would equally have proceeded until the judge had made his determination. Had the noble and learned Baroness been involved in those previous procedures, she might be aware of that fact.

So the judicial review ran simultaneously, as it did with all the other orders. As a result, because we could not and did not know the outcome of the judicial review before the orders were laid before Parliament, Parliament made its decision in the full light of information and after something like seven hours of debate. The judge then chose to overturn those orders. We could have argued it, but when the noble and learned Baroness says we could have gone to appeal, I should say that the costs of such an appeal would probably have been £500,000 or more, which would have had to be shared between two authorities. Such a sum would have represented between 5 per cent and 8 per cent on the district council tax. That is not something we can ask the citizens and ratepayers of Norwich to pay.

As for the Department for Communities and Local Government, against which those judicial orders were made, with a change of government it is clearly impossible or at least unlikely that it is going to appeal. To that extent, I hope that the noble and learned Baroness will accept that her argument that these orders were always illegal is simply wrong. You only know them to be illegal when the judgment is made—and Parliament was making its decision before any such judgment was made.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Is there not a distinction between conduct by the Minister in his capacity as head of a Whitehall department which the court judges to be illegal, and a decision taken by Parliament? This is a qualitatively different decision.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I entirely accept that. In the same way that if any Minister—myself in a former capacity, my noble friend or the noble Baroness opposite—were to make an administrative decision within their department—in my case it might have been about the Child Support Agency or whatever—which did not go through parliamentary scrutiny, it would be perfectly proper, and occasionally happens, that there should be a JR. At that point a judge might well say, “Minister, you have exceeded your administrative power”, and that would be fine. That is exactly what judges should do—they do it all the time—both for central government Ministers and for local government councillors. No one is challenging that. Of course there is an important key role for JR to ensure propriety of behaviour by people in official positions who carry official responsibilities.

However, that is a completely different situation from the one described by my noble friend. Parliament had seven hours of debate on these orders and—knowing all the facts alleged by Members opposite and ourselves and what they entailed—decided to support them. One judge, 1,000 parliamentarians, seven hours of debate. You can see why some of us feel that this was perhaps an intrusion on parliamentary sovereignty too far. I do not recede from that line.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

The noble Baroness said that the House decided to support the orders. The point is that the House did not support them; it followed me into the No Lobby and opposed them by a considerable majority. The Government overruled the decision of the House of Lords not to accept these orders.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, if I may put it delicately, the noble and learned Baroness misunderstands the import of her own amendment. She tabled a Motion of regret, but the orders went through. Had Members opposite chosen to do so they could have put down a Motion opposing them, as the Lib Dems did. The House chose not to support the Lib Dems. I understand why the Lib Dems opposed the Motion—it is a convention that we have established—but, none the less, when the House chose not to support the Lib Dems’ Motion it did not say, “We do not support these”; instead, it called on the Government to consider and review their position—which they did—and then to proceed, as the Government are perfectly entitled to do. Noble Lords had a choice between two Motions: one to nullify, the other to regret. They chose not to nullify, only to regret. Therefore, I say to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that this House supported through that mechanism the Government’s intent, as did the other place. I am sure that, on reflection, she will accept that that is a proper interpretation of what happened on that night.

In bringing forward Amendment 2, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, seeks essentially to strike out the orders for Norwich and Exeter over and beyond the impact of the JR. I do not want to talk about the election issue, which is part of the subsequent clause—I shall come back to that on Amendment 4—but to refer to the arguments made by the Minister at Second Reading, together with her follow-up letter of 8 July. At Second Reading the Minister said that her position and this debate was not about the,

“value or virtue of unitary government: it is about the mismanagement and mishandling of two applications for unitary government”.—[Official Report, 30/6/10; col. 1831.]

So it was not about the virtues of unitary government but about the process. She said—rightly—that this was because two additional criteria were added late and were not consulted on. This was because, as we know, an ineffably incompetent Boundary Committee delayed its final report by some nine months.

The Minister may also know that her officials in DCLG, as the judge states in his conclusions, could have met the judge’s concerns by sending out a letter on behalf of the Secretary of State in the December or January preceding the introduction of the orders. The judge made it very clear that DCLG officials could have asked the Secretary of State to do so—the Secretary of State may have refused to follow their advice, of course. Had such a letter gone out in December or January, the transcript of the judge’s conclusion makes it clear that that would have satisfied his concerns and that he would not have squashed the orders—although I do not doubt that he might still have had serious concerns about the process. Why that letter, telling the relevant four authorities of Norfolk, Devon, Norwich and Exeter that there were compelling reasons—that is, the issue of economic development in a period of economic recession on the one hand and the concern with Total Place on the other—was not sent out, I do not know. I can only assume that it was cock-up and not conspiracy.

If the Minister’s opposition is on grounds not of principle but of process, as she said on 30 June, then why not allow Norwich and Exeter to follow any or all of the due processes that she thinks were cut short and resubmit their bids? Why cancel this clause? The courts have JR’d the original orders and therefore squashed them, but if the Minister agrees with what she said on 30 June—that she was opposed not to the virtues of unitary authorities but merely to the process—we could make a fresh start.

We cannot know the outcome of further consultation, which was short cut because of the inexcusable behaviour of the Boundary Committee, until it happens. So I presume that we go back to what the Minister said on the previous amendment, that her residual reason for objecting to the orders was not the issue but cost. We debated that on the previous amendment, when the noble Baroness—I really do not want to be personal about this; I am sure that it was not intentional—was again in danger of misleading the Committee by telling us that the cost of transition would be £40 million. She was not going to go on to the second part of her own impact analysis, which showed that the savings over the six years would be £39.4 million—funny, that. The net cost, therefore, would not be £40 million but £600,000—£300,000 per authority, £50,000 a year. Moreover, the Minister was unwilling to commit again to say what she said in her letter and in the impact analysis: that, after those first six years, the net savings between the two authorities would be more than £6 million a year, or more than £3 million per authority per year. I repeat: on any cost/value-for-money argument, the net costs—which is what matters despite what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and others have argued—for the first six years are £50,000 a year and the savings thereafter per authority are £3 million per year. That £300,000 over the first six years would be recovered in the first six weeks of the seventh year. If the Minister thinks that that is bad value for money, I find it hard to understand what will ever meet with her approval for being good value for money.

What is for sure is that the option that she is arguing for today, the status quo, is the most expensive option of the three. It costs far more than unitary Norwich and Exeter and far more than unitary counties, which is what the Permanent Secretary argued for. On the previous amendment, however, the Minister was not giving the Committee the full picture. I assume that most of your Lordships will have read the impact analysis and know the stats for themselves; they will know that what I am saying is accurate. Is a net cost of £50,000 a year for six years and £3 million of savings per authority thereafter really bad value for money?

17:14

As it is clear that the Minister cannot rely on the process point, because we could restart that, or on the cost point because, as she says in her own letter of 8 July, the savings will effectively far outweigh the costs over the period, will the Minister tell us why she is really opposed to this? If it is not process, which can be remedied, or costs, which she admits are a fiction, what is it? It is political. Frankly, we could be into savings in year one and the Minister would still be making a speech opposing the unitary status of Norwich and Exeter, because—this is not personal at all—she is not being moved by information, or evidence, or statistics, or finance, or even by the impact assessment or the letter that she has written to me, both of which she herself has signed off. She is not influenced by any of that, but only by the political considerations which are motivated—as I say, this is not personal—by her party on grounds of political spite. There ain’t no other argument: not the value of unitary government, because she accepts that it is only a process point, or the issue of costs, because there will be huge savings. What, then? Spite.

I recognise that your Lordships will support the Government on this position; none the less I hope that your Lordships will reflect and not come back today at any stage on the value-for-money-argument because, frankly, if any of us had spent even five minutes looking at the impact assessment, we would know that value for money rests with making Norwich and Exeter unitary. The Minister accepts that even though she only gives half the argument today. It is there and it cannot be ducked. It may be an inconvenient truth, but it is a truth. I support my noble friend’s reservations on these amendments and oppose Amendment 2.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, we have strayed a long way from where we started. We have had a constitutional debate or a debate on the constitution. I have been called spiteful by the noble Baroness opposite, which I regret—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I repeat that it was not personal. I said that the Bill was spiteful.

[Baroness Hanham]

There was spite and it was associated with me. None the less, there we are.

This was about the constitution. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, was trying to make a great deal out of the fact that the judge made a decision and should not have done. As I understand it, these were draft orders, which were put through this House and had to be signed off by the Secretary of State, who is then judicially reviewable under those circumstances. The noble Lord may want to go and have the constitution changed and do all that, but that is not in our power. The fact that, as he said, Parliament had a good debate on it and came to a view on a number of amendments was not the end of the story. Its end was when the Secretary of State’s decision was challenged. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, with her experience, put it much better than I could: there is nothing to prevent a decision from being made at any level of the High Court. It was not this Parliament and not a Member of Parliament that went for judicial review; it was those cities that were being affected. I do not think that we can spend an awful lot of time wandering around on the constitutional issues. That may be a debate for another day, if somebody wants to see them changed, but we cannot do that.

As I said, the appeal was brought by Norwich and Exeter. The fact of the matter is that they lost, because the previous Government were seen not to have performed correctly against their own criteria. The noble Baroness drew our attention to the fact that the judge said that, if the Secretary of State had taken a different course of action and had undertaken a second consultation, as it would have been, on the other aspects that he was now going to take into account away from the original criteria—he was going to add other criteria—that would have been a different matter. He did not, so the situation remained as it was when the judicial review was undertaken—the decision had been taken by the Secretary of State on the back of a flawed consultation and flawed criteria.

There is no argument about that and no argument about the fact that these orders were debated, that the debates were controversial and that the Opposition at the time said that they did not support the orders. In fact, they made it clear that, if the orders were brought forward and they were in government, they would not support them. There has been absolutely nothing about this that anybody could have been in any doubt about—once this Government were formed, the orders would be set aside. This Bill was brought forward days after the election. Its purpose is to reflect precisely what happened in the High Court, which is to stop these unitaries going ahead. There have been two arms to this—the judicial arm and the government arm—which both came to the same conclusion. In reality, most of this Bill, which we are spending an awful lot of time on, is virtually obsolete because of the court’s decision, but we need to take it through its formalities to ensure that it is completed.

The noble Baroness made a big point about the savings, but I draw attention to the fact that the cost of restructuring, even if it was £50,000 a year at the end of six or 10 years, would be of the order of £40 million. That is a lot of money at this stage of our great financial crisis to do something that was by and large not welcomed—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Can the Minister talk about the net costs as opposed to the gross costs, which she persists in presenting to the Committee?

[Baroness Hanham]

I refer to gross costs because that is what we are talking about.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

But we should be talking about the net costs. It is not fair to talk about costs without talking about the offsetting savings. Nobody in any balance sheet would do that. I respectfully urge the Minister to give the Committee a clear indication of net costs, not gross costs—or, if she is going to talk about gross costs, also to talk about the savings.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I have made it clear that the gross costs are those that would have to be paid at the moment to set up the structural changes. I agree that there would be savings, but they are a long way down the road and they might never be achieved. It is the capital sum now—

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I apologise for further intervening, but it is important that we have clarity on this point. Yes, there were gross costs of £40 million, but there were also savings over the transitional period of almost an equivalent amount. There was a separate issue about ongoing savings of £6.5 million thereafter. Over the transitional period, looked at on net-present-value basis, the gap between costs and savings was very small indeed. As my noble friend says, it is important that we have that clearly on the record.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I shall write to the Opposition with those costs.

[Lord Rennard]

Does the Minister agree that many of the potential savings that could have been made had the reorganisation gone ahead could be achieved by better and greater co-operation between the councils in any event? Therefore, many of the savings identified in the impact assessment could be achieved without the reorganisation. However, if we had had the reorganisation, we would still have had the massive costs identified in the impact assessment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

If that is the noble Lord’s view, why on earth would he reject an amendment that calls for a report to establish just that?

[Baroness Hanham]

As I have said, the position is that the gross cost would be £40 million and the gross savings would be £6 million a year. If you tide that over seven or eight years and there is a consistent £6 million saving a year, I think that after eight years you would get up to the figures that the noble Baroness was talking about. I think that we will leave that.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

The Minister’s statement is inconsistent with her letter of 8 July. I will write to her to that effect. I expect that she has her letter with her today. She says—these are her words, not mine—that over the transition period costs incurred in the implementation of the two unitary cities would be around £40 million while over the same period the savings would be in the order of £39.4 million. Forty million pounds, £39 million—those were the Minister’s figures to me.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I think that I just said that. The savings would be about £6 million. However, savings can also be made by organising services in a different way and by co-ordination and co-operation between the various tiers of government. I am sure that that is what the local authorities will want to do now, rather than spending any more time on this matter. I cannot offer any further advice on this.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Will the Minister comment on the point that my noble friend Lady Hollis was pursuing about unhappiness with the process? If there is a will to take forward unitary status for Exeter and Norwich, that could be done under the Bill; I do not think that that would have to rely on Clause 1(3), because those orders are in fact dead, but the structure of the rest of the Bill, leaving intact the provisions of the 2007 Act, would enable it to happen. If the main gripe is about process, once the Bill is enacted there will be nothing in it, in its amended form, to prevent future proposals from coming forward.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, it was the process that was wrong. It was judicially reviewed and it was found to be flawed. As well as the process, the problem related to the criteria and the fact that the previous Government were not accurate in what they were doing.

My understanding of the Bill is that it stops the creation of unitary authorities in Exeter, Norwich and Suffolk—none of those can go ahead—but that, if there is an application in future, it will be considered. I do not say that it would be considered just against the background of process, though; there would be a whole other raft of considerations at that stage.

It is worth saying that the Boundary Committee concluded that unitary Exeter and Norwich did not meet the affordability criteria and recommended that those proposals should not be implemented. It is equally wrong to speak of massive savings that the unitaries would have yielded. At most, the savings would have been £6 million each year. We have been through that again and again; it gets you up to the figures that we were first talking about.

In my letter, I said that the costs would be around £40 million and that there would be savings in the order of £39.4 million. We have come to that; I have already said that we acknowledge that there would likely be savings in the region of £6.4 million, so six years would take us to £39 million. However, the point is not savings over a number of years; those will have to be made by whatever form of government is in these counties, otherwise the counties will find themselves in very straitened circumstances.

Amendment 2 agreed.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed.

Amendment 3 not moved.

17:30

Amendment 4

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

4: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Report on costs
(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the costs incurred by city councils in holding elections for councillors from the vacancies originally created as a consequence of the Exeter and Devon (Structural Changes) Order 2010 (S.I. 2010/998) and the Norwich and Norfolk (Structural Changes) Order 2010 (S.I. 2010/997)
(2) The Secretary of State must lay the report before Parliament within three months of the coming into force of this Act.”

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, amendments in this House should not relate to the issue of who should be paying for what and how much, hence the wording of the amendment, which calls for a report. I hope that the noble Baroness will, when she responds, talk about who should be paying the costs of the elections for a number of councillors in Exeter and Norwich. These are due to take place shortly, following the decision in the High Court on Monday 5 July to quash in their entirety the structural change orders creating unitary councils for the cities of Exeter and Norwich. I use those words to describe what happened in the High Court because those are the words used by the Minister in her letter to me of 8 July. As we know, we do not know exactly what happened and was said in the High Court on 5 July since, certainly as of lunch time today, a transcript of the proceedings was not available. This is not entirely satisfactory when we are considering the Bill more than a week after the hearing on 5 July.

In her letter of 8 July, the Minister states that, as a result of the decision in the High Court,

“the terms of office of one third of the members of Exeter and Norwich City Councils, which had been extended by the Orders, ended on 5 July and there will be by-elections to fill these vacancies within 35 days as required by statute”.

I should be very grateful if the Minister could say which Act of Parliament and which section of that Act the Government believe require these elections to be held within 35 days. If the Minister is referring to Section 89 of the 1972 Act, does that not in fact refer to elections to fill casual vacancies being held within 35 days? If the Minister regards these as casual—as opposed to ordinary—vacancies, under which of the circumstances giving rise to casual vacancies set out in the 1972 Act is she saying that these elections for one-third of the two councils fall?

I understand that the Minister’s view does not appear to be a universally held view of the law in legal circles, but if her interpretation of when these elections must be held is right, it also means elections for one-third of each council in the height of the holiday season when many people will be away. That is not ideal. Has the Minister heard from either Exeter or Norwich councils about when they intend to hold these elections? Has she had any representations from either of them on this issue?

Does the Minister not take the view that the quashing orders were not declarations by the High Court that the offices of the councillors concerned were now vacant within the meaning of Section 89 of the Local Government Act 1972, but rather that the order of the court quashed the structural change orders creating unitary councils for the cities of Exeter and Norwich, as indeed the noble Baroness said in her letter to me of 8 July? Does the Minister not take the view that the event which caused the vacancies was nothing specific to any of the councillors concerned, as is surely the case when giving rise to a casual vacancy as opposed to an ordinary vacancy, but rather that the vacancies arose because—for reasons we all know—the ordinary elections were not held on 6 May 2010?

In her letter the Minister also said:

“We recognise that any by-elections will involve the councils in additional costs”.

She then went on to repeat the coalition Government’s stock line, which I paraphrase, about this all being the fault of the previous Government, of whom she does not seem to be the greatest fan. Once again, it would be very helpful if, when the Minister replies, she could say what additional costs the Government have apparently decided that Exeter and Norwich councils should bear. Presumably, if the council elections had taken place on the same day as the general election in May, there would have been some cost to Exeter and Norwich councils of running their elections in tandem with the parliamentary election. However, the cost of the council elections to come, for one-third of the seats, will be somewhat greater than would have been the case had they been held on the day of the general election because they will be being run separately from any parliamentary election, and thus the councils will bear all the costs.

When the Minister refers in her letter to additional costs for the councils, is she referring to their having to contribute the expenditure they would have incurred had the council elections been held on the day of the general election, or is she seeking to say that the councils will have to pay all the surely much higher costs of running the elections this summer for one-third of the members of the two city councils? Bearing in mind that in her letter of 8 July, the Minister puts the responsibility for what has happened on what she views as the big, bad previous Government, will she confirm that she is not therefore proposing that Exeter and Norwich councils should pay, at the most, any more towards the costs of the imminent elections than they would have paid had the council elections been held on the same day as the general election?

The judicial review, which led to the quashing of the orders, was against the Government in the form of the CLG, not the two authorities. I understand that the cost for each authority of the forthcoming elections will be in the region of £80,000 to £100,000 of unbudgeted expenditure, equivalent, I am told, to a 1.8 per cent increase in council tax in the case of Exeter. There is no suggestion in the Minister’s letter that either council has acted in a way that has incurred her wrath—this in a letter where, as early as the third paragraph, the Minister is extremely eager to tell me where she lays the finger of blame. Surely, coming at it from her stance, the Minister will not say that what she regards as additional costs incurred by two local authorities as a result of a previous decision by central government should now be paid for not by central government but by those local authorities, which have not acted in a way that she regards as unacceptable. In the light of the Minister’s trenchant views in the third paragraph of her letter of 8 July, I suggest that she cannot now in all fairness expect the two local councils—rather than central government—to bear the additional costs to which she referred.

This amendment calls for a report to establish exactly what costs are incurred by the two councils in holding the forthcoming elections in order to assist the Minister, as I hope she will say that central government will, at the very least, bear the bulk of the costs of these elections. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment on electoral provision. Norwich and Exeter have behaved lawfully and impeccably throughout these proceedings. At each stage they have followed parliamentary law, unlike some Ministers in DCLG, such as Mr Neill, who instructed us to do not what Parliament said but what he wished us to do. If a Labour Minister had issued such a letter, there would be fulminations on the Benches opposite.

Councillors have been unseated not because of any sin. There is no question of ultra vires, personal bad behaviour or of betraying their fiduciary duty. They have at each stage done what the law required them to do. Now, because of JR, reinforced by this Bill, a third of councillors in Norwich and Exeter have been removed. In Norwich, the leaders of the Tory Party, the Green Party and the Liberal Democrat Party on the city council have been unseated, as well as the deputy leader of the Labour group. In Exeter, the leader of the Labour group, among others, has been unseated. There has been a serious loss of experience across all parties. Your Lordships will remember that the JR was not against the cities, which have behaved lawfully throughout every day and month of the process, but against DCLG.

[Lord Rennard]

Does the noble Baroness accept that the High Court decided that the previous Government had behaved unlawfully, and that no blame was attached to Norwich and Exeter councils? The previous Government clearly did act unlawfully, according to the High Court. Therefore, the previous Government, of whom she was a member and supporter, should accept responsibility for this.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I certainly accept that the High Court judge has ruled that the proceedings of the Secretary of State, as advised by DCLG, were to be quashed. I do not challenge that for a moment. However, I remind the noble Lord, if he looks at the judgment, although we do not have the full transcript, that on appropriate advice—I expect that such advice to a Minister would come only from the department—a letter in December or January would have met the judge’s concerns and the orders would not have been quashed. Alternatively, if the Boundary Committee had reported on time, which it failed to do, there would have been enough time for a quick consultation which, again, the judge says would have met his concerns and the orders would not have been quashed.

So let us not suggest that my right honourable friend in the other place, Mr John Denham, was somehow acting in an inappropriate way. He followed the appropriate procedures which were then held by the judge not to have properly taken into account the need to advise the four authorities of the additional criteria of economic recession and Total Place of which they should have been aware before the Secretary of State proceeded with his orders. That is all. He did not do that. The department failed to send out a letter and he failed to have time for that consultation. That is what happened and therefore there is no—I repeat, no—moral or legal impropriety to be associated with my right honourable friend in the other House.

[Baroness Shephard of Northwold]

Does the noble Baroness accept that the former Government were very well warned about the implications for local elections of the way that they were handling these orders and the timetable adopted? Part of the report of the Merits Committee—chaired, I believe, by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser—pointed out with considerable seriousness that the timing of the orders would put candidates in a difficult position, and such uncertainty is generally undesirable. I am sure that the noble Lord will remember the exact wording.

There were similar strictures from the JCSI, which also said that the “unexpected use of power” was the cancelling of the city council elections due to be held on 6 May. The committee’s report stated:

“If the court decides that the decisions to implement the unitary proposals were flawed, it will be too late to restore the elections which will have been cancelled”.

Does the noble Baroness accept that even for the previous Government that was warning enough?

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, such warnings had effectively occurred on all the previous JRs—I should note that the noble Baroness did not take part in those debates. We have had something like six or eight rounds of councils becoming unitary authorities, which for the most part had the full support of Members of this House, and at each stage—

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

The noble Baroness rightly reminded me that I was not in the House during the period covering all eight previous JRs, but I have been here long enough to have learnt a little—although not as much as the noble Baroness. In all previous JRs, did the Permanent Secretary ask for the letter exonerating him as the accounting officer from the cost of all of this, because it was inappropriate for the Minister to be doing what he was doing? My understanding was that that was an unusual process for a Permanent Secretary.

17:45

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

The noble and learned Baroness is absolutely right that the Permanent Secretary followed this unusual, though not unprecedented, process. As I tried to suggest in an earlier amendment—though clearly I did not make myself clear—the Permanent Secretary wanted best value for money, which meant a unitary Devon and a unitary Norfolk, as opposed to a unitary Norwich and a unitary Exeter, which represented second-best value for money, let alone the status quo, which was the worst value for money. The Permanent Secretary’s letter therefore called for an organisation of local government which only the Permanent Secretary and the Boundary Committee supported, and which even the county councils would have had judicially reviewed against themselves. That is the nature of the Permanent Secretary’s request for a direction. Therefore, given that we are not debating unitary counties—I am afraid that now it is past that point—the issue is status quo versus unitary, not status quo versus unitary versus unitary county. Had that been the case, the Permanent Secretary's advice would have been correct and we would have had a very different outcome.

I go back to the electoral point. It is the DCLG, not Norwich or Exeter, that lost the JR, and the department should take responsibility for its actions. With appropriate behaviour—a letter, for example—it could have abated this problem and the orders would not have been quashed. It is not reasonable that two cities that have acted lawfully on every day and at every stage of the process should pay the bill because the DCLG failed to act prudently. The costs of £100,000 in Norwich and perhaps another £80,000 in Exeter, with additional costs for all the local parties, will be incurred not because of what the cities did but because of the failures of the department.

Therefore, first there is the issue of costs. Secondly, as far as concerns these elections, there is the issue of timing, which my noble friend explored. I understand that the DCLG has advised Mr Pickles that the elections should take place within 35 days. This comes into the same category as the weak advice from the department, or its failure to act appropriately, that we have seen throughout this saga. On the opinion of a counsel specialising in electoral law, the DCLG is wrong. The Minister, Mr Pickles, is assuming that these are casual vacancies to which 35 days would apply. Casual vacancies are defined in Sections 83 to 87 of the Local Government Act 1972, which was Mr Peter Walker's disastrous attempt to impose unitary counties across the country—and, belatedly, some district functions. However, these are not casual vacancies. I am sure that the noble Baroness has checked the legislation. Section 83, for example, tells us what counts as a casual vacancy: it is when there has been a failure to make a declaration of office. Section 84 deals with the resignation of an office holder, Section 85 covers the case of a councillor who has failed to attend meetings, Section 86 deals with councillors who are no longer living or working in the area or who have been disqualified for a personal offence that has resulted in imprisonment, and Section 87 covers death. In all cases, the casual vacancies relate to a particular councillor. None of the sections applies to what has happened here, which was the inadvertent failure of returning officers to hold the ordinary elections in May 2010 because they were following the existing orders that were in place until Parliament or a JR struck them down.

If we are right—and we are confident that we are—this means that elections are not necessary within 35 days because the vacancies are not casual. As 35 days would take us into August, that produces major democratic issues. We are not challenging—because we cannot—the need to hold by-elections. We are challenging, first, where the costs should fall, and secondly, whether the elections should occur within the 35-day deadline, which they clearly should not. A date in September, a couple of weeks later, after the school holidays, might make the difference between a 15 or 20 per cent turnout and a 40 per cent turnout.

To ask local authorities to spend £100,000 on local elections because of the failure of the department, and then to order that they must occur in August when a large proportion of the electorate will be away, compounds a democratic deficit on to departmental negligence. The law, which I have gone through, does not require it. Therefore, I hope that the noble and learned Baroness will accept that by-elections can take place in September, for example as soon as the school holidays are over, and that there should be an appropriate recognition of the department's responsibility for their cost.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I add my support to the arguments made by my noble friends Lord Rosser and Lady Hollis on Amendment 4. Significant and unbudgeted additional costs would be created by these by-elections, if they occurred. I refer not just to the cost to the authorities—£80,000 for Exeter and no less for Norwich—but to the costs for the parties and candidates. This would come at a time of severe financial pressure on the local authorities.

This situation has been brought about through no fault of either Norwich or Exeter. The judicial review was taken out by the counties against the CLG and not against Norwich and Exeter, and it seems unjust that council tax payers in Norwich and Exeter should have to foot the bill for it. In Exeter, the cost has already been computed at no less than a 1.8 per cent increase in council tax, which is a significant burden to land on local people.

It would be open to the Government to amend the Bill to reinstate the councillors who were unseated by the High Court on 5 July and to defer the elections on the original plan until next May. That would save money and would restore an orderly situation. As it is, if Section 2 is simply deleted, the leaders of all the opposition groups in Norwich will be unseated.

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The amendment does not go to the point of how elections should be held; it goes only to the point of a report being prepared. Surely the proposers of the amendment are simply suggesting an ex post facto report, and the statutory obligations of Exeter and Norwich to deal with the matters that arise from the High Court judgment is being left to them. We are not being asked, either in the Bill or by the amendment, to interfere in those statutory arrangements.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Rosser has explained the statutory situation fairly compellingly. The reality is that a mess—a chaotic situation—is being created by a combination of this legislation and the judgment in the judicial review. In looking at the predicament of these authorities, it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to consider what can best be done to help them. After all, if all the opposition leaders in Norwich are unseated and in Exeter the leader of the Labour group is unseated, a third of the seats on the city council are vacant and 13 by-elections are required to be held at short notice in the summer holiday period, that is not good for local democracy, although the Government profess to be interested in improving the quality of local democracy.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

Following on from the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, perhaps I may ask what the point of this amendment is. Everything that is being said by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, we have heard before, but the amendment does not help on any of the points that are currently being made. I wonder why that is and why other, useful amendments were not put forward.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Because we are trying to deal with the wreckage left behind by Mr Justice Ouseley. The judges can interpret the law regardless of the practical consequences, but it is open to government and Parliament to repair this judicial damage.

[Baroness O'Cathain]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. From listening to a lot of this debate, I rather understood that the wreckage was caused by the previous Government in the first place.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

The noble Baroness is entitled to her view. If the Government, who could do so, will not restore order to the chaos that the court has left behind, will they at least pay the costs which CLG policy has imposed on Norwich and Exeter? They are authorities with very small budgets—so small that they cannot afford to appeal against the judicial review—and the Government are driving them into deeper poverty by their decision to freeze council tax.

[Baroness Shephard of Northwold]

I apologise to the noble Lord for intervening again—he has accepted interventions with great grace—but I ask him to consider how the mess was made. I ask him to consider also that Members opposite were warned what might happen if the orders were quashed. I quote from the debate in this House on 22 March when his noble friend Lord McKenzie was asked whether it would result in electoral chaos if the orders were quashed. The noble Lord replied:

“In relation to the elections that did not take place, the councillors would cease to hold office as a result and vacancies would have to be filled in the normal course of events”.—[Official Report, 22/3/10; col. 827.]

That could, of course, have been prevented. I do not recall and Hansard does not record the noble Lord or the noble Baroness protesting about the nature of that response from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on that day.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

It is always a pleasure to take an intervention from the noble Baroness. She has held elected office in Norfolk for many years and I am sure that she is concerned that the people of Norfolk should be extricated as best they can be from the mess in which they find themselves. Whether the mess was caused by the previous Government or this Government or the High Court has been debated up hill and down dale. It is not particularly profitable to return to that. We are faced with the practical problem of how to restore order to this chaotic situation in the best interests of local democracy.

[Lord Rennard]

In our debate on the orders put forward on 22 March, I pointed out that the only effect of approving those orders may well be to deny people in Exeter and Norwich the right to elect their councillors in May, when they would normally have done so, when many other local authorities did so and when they were also voting in the general election. Of course, it would have been much cheaper to have held those elections together on that day. That is why I continue to think that it would have been better if those orders had not been approved and the fatal amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Tope had been carried. However, because those orders were not blocked and because, as so many people predicted, they were struck down by the High Court, additional costs and additional stresses are now being unnecessarily incurred.

I would be interested to see what a report on costs incurred would show. It does not seem right to me to legislate for the Secretary of State to lay such a report before Parliament. No doubt the issue of costs will be raised in the future and there will be many attempts to apportion blame for them. My conscience is clear on the matter of costs. We need to move on and this is an unnecessary amendment. The sort of information that such a report would lay before Parliament should be available to all of us anyway, but in relation to costs and having listened to the recent contributions, I feel that some apology should be forthcoming from those who were responsible in the Department of Communities and Local Government, who got us into this mess at the time.

[Earl Cathcart]

So far, I have intervened twice without declaring my interests. I live in Norfolk, I have been a district councillor for more than 10 years and I am chairman of my parish. Although I was brought up overlooking the River Dart in Devon, most of what I say will concern Norfolk.

I have a letter from the leader of Norwich City Council saying:

“It had been our desire to have the Judicial Review hearing heard before the draft Orders were debated in Parliament; however Norwich, Exeter and the Treasury Solicitors argued against this on the basis that they would have insufficient time to prepare their case”.

When it was pointed out to them that this might lead to complications with the elections, they replied that it did not concern them. Their main concern was to prepare their case. I find this a curious amendment—that the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the costs incurred. That is all it says. Norwich City Council holds an election for one-third of its members each year. It knows only too well how much each election costs and would have budgeted for it. So if the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Rosser, wish to find out the cost, no doubt a quick telephone call would do the trick, rather than bothering the Secretary of State.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

As this is Committee stage, not Report, perhaps the noble Earl would allow me to intervene. The point was that the election took place on general election day, therefore the costs would have been subsumed in the votes for a general election and, therefore, a negligible additional cost would have fallen on the local authority for the councillors then standing. When those elections did not take place, we had not heard either the judge’s JR nor the verdict of the electorate, resulting in the coalition Government.

18:00

[Earl Cathcart]

The noble Baroness makes a good point, but that is not what the amendment says. It says only that the Secretary of State has to lay before Parliament a report as to the costs. It says nothing about repaying costs or additional costs because this and that has happened. It just says that the Secretary of State has to lay before Parliament a report as to the costs. That is all it is saying and that is all I am speaking to. The noble Baroness has indeed been making many other points, but I am trying to talk to this amendment.

As I was saying, I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, picks up his telephone. In any event, these elections will, I believe, be no more onerous than the elections that Labour postponed until 2011. Any additional cost could have been avoided had the then Labour Government not forced their orders through against all their own rules and advice. Therefore, I find it a bit rich to cry now about costs that could and should have been avoided.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, perhaps I may comment on what the noble Earl has said. I ask the indulgence of the House, but it is Committee stage—it is not Report stage procedure—and there is ample opportunity for discussion.

On the elections, the noble Earl is of course right. However, the point was that if the orders had not been quashed by the High Court, and had the Bill not followed as the result of a general election, this tranche of councillors would have stood for election or re-election next May, when the other year’s worth would have done, too. There would have been two years’ worth of elections in the one year, so again no additional costs would have fallen.

Either, as we had expected and hoped, there would have been elections associated with the general election, in which case there would have been no additional costs, or there would have been elections after 12 months, in which case there would have been no additional costs because elections would have taken place in any event. The additional costs that we are talking about occur because these by-elections are being called in the middle of the electoral year.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, we had quite a round robin of a debate on this amendment. I agree with my noble friends that it did not seem to lend itself to anything very much around which the debate centred.

It has been said that some things are a bit rich, but I actually do believe that it is a bit rich to try to lay at the door of the department the fact that the Secretary of State made a decision against advice from the Permanent Secretary of the department and did not follow the procedures that he himself had set down. It seems to me to be quite rich to start saying that that is all to be laid at the door of the DCLG.

This was a political move towards the election and it was clear that the decision was taken by the Secretary of State for compelling reasons, which were never quite laid out. Some of it was to do with Total Place, but there was not a great deal of information about that at the time. Total Place was an extra that was put in on the combining of budgets.

This is now a matter for the authorities. They now have to hold elections and if they do not know when to do so, they must seek their own legal advice. They must also bear the cost of what has happened. This is what would happen normally. Any UK council would have to bear them for any by-election. I understand that we have received no representations about it from the authorities and that they are taking their own legal advice.

The amendment does not seem to get us anywhere. It has been the base for a long wander around this whole issue, trying to lay the blame where the blame is not due. This situation has arisen, as I have said ad nauseam, because the Secretary of State did not follow advice or his own criteria. As a result, we have ended up with what other people have described as a total mess. It is still there, my Lords.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, issues have been raised about the wording of the amendment. I said at the beginning of my contribution that of course amendments in this House should not relate to the issue of who should be paying for what and how much—hence, the wording of the amendment, which calls for a report. Amendments are not meant to be tabled in this House relating to the paying of moneys or to financial affairs, in that sense of the word.

We want to see these elections held shortly. One of the issues concerned, and why it is perfectly relevant despite the constraints affecting the wording of the amendment, is the reference to costs. Obviously, if we are going to end up with a significant difference of opinion between the department and the local authorities over the timescale within which these elections could occur, that could affect the costs. The Minister has been abundantly clear in her view of what the law says. I simply refer again to the letter that she sent to me on 8 July, stating that as a result,

“the terms of office of one-third of the members of Exeter and Norwich city councils, which had been extended by the Orders, ended on the 5 July and there will be by-elections to fill these vacancies within 35 days as required by statute”.

There are no ifs and no buts; instead,

“there will be by-elections to fill these vacancies within 35 days as required by statute”.

Obviously, I asked the Minister whether she stood by that very clear legal opinion—there were no ifs or buts in what she said. I put to her that there were, apparently, in legal circles people who held a different view. I asked her about her interpretation as to whether these were casual vacancies or whether they were ordinary vacancies. That, it seems to me, affects the question of whether they have to be held within 35 days. I can only note with regret that although the Minister, in her letter of 8 July, was quite willing to offer a very specific view of what the law says, when challenged here today about what she said, she dodges the question, to put it bluntly, and declines to answer. That is the first point.

The second point relates to costs. Unless I have not been listening properly, the Minister has given no indication of who should pay the costs. I simply reiterate that the Minister, in her letter to me, was quite clear that the issue that had arisen at the elections was as a result of the decisions taken by the previous Government—that is, central government. One would therefore have thought that, if that was her view, she would then say that it was not the responsibility of the local authorities to pick up the bill but the responsibility of central government. Once again, we do not seem to have had a clear response, or any response at all, to a clear question.

However, I will carefully read the Minister’s reply in Hansard to ensure that I have not misinterpreted it. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

Clause 2 : Consequential electoral provision

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)]

The Question is that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill. It was spoken to in an earlier group. As many as are of that opinion will say Content.

[Noble Lords]

Content.

[The Lord Speaker]

As many of that opinion will say Content.

[Noble Lords]

Content.

[The Lord Speaker]

I remind the House that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has given notice of her intention to oppose the Question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill. The Question is that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion will say Content. The contrary Not Content.

[Noble Lords]

Not Content.

Clause 2 disagreed.

Clause 3: Extent, commencement and short title

Amendment 5

Moved by

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

5: Clause 3, page 2, line 43, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) Subject to subsection (2A) this Act comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.”

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

We come to the final pair of amendments today, Amendments 5 and 6. That brings us back to the issue raised by various noble Lords, including the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, which is that there are alternative ways to proceed through partnership arrangements which would have the same effect. The Bill states that it comes into force on the day that it is passed. Amendment 5 would instead allow the Secretary of State to determine when that should happen, and Amendment 6 specifies some requirements that we believe should be in place before he does so.

Why are we suggesting that those pre-requirements should be in place? Back in 1994-95, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, will well remember, when Norwich narrowly failed to become a unitary authority, a strong argument was then put by Norfolk County Council that partnership arrangements could do all that was required to bridge services and increase scrutiny and accountability. That was the argument in 1994-95. Lots of promises were made. As far as I am aware, not one of those promises has been delivered. Those promises of collaborative partnership and structural arrangements were empty air. The sense of betrayal in the city was profound.

Now, we read on page 1 of the summary of the impact analysis:

“It will be for councils themselves across England to work together, as many already are, to benefit from e.g. joint working … This approach, driven by the councils themselves, will help to reduce costs and improve coordination between different tiers of local government”.

In her letter of 8 July, the Minister says that the savings envisaged by unitary status should be achievable,

“through the working together more closely with the other councils in their areas”.

In other words, the Minister is essentially recommending partnerships in lieu of structural reform, a point made several times by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. Fine words repeated twice. How will the Minister ensure that? She argues that joint working is an appropriate alternative to unitary status. We were told that in 1994-95, but nothing happened. The Minister has argued strongly that despite the fact that the status quo is poorer value for money than making Norwich and Exeter unitary, none the less, partnership arrangements can achieve the value for money she wants. How will she ensure that this time around? In particular, how will she ensure that the two county councils are required to provide the essential information about services, costs and clients that the two district councils need, when those same county councils have refused to divulge much of the necessary information required under previous orders?

If the Minister really means what she says about joint working—I am sure that she does—she will take seriously the push for detail in Amendment 6, because if she does not, as in the previous round in 1994-95, we are back to empty platitudes, which the Minister and the department are willing to utter but not deliver.

What is called for in Amendment 6? In all three examples which I have given, it calls for arrangements for intelligent partnership between county and city, but it is a partnership that must be informed. That means that the relevant information that the county holds must be available to the district councils on the effect on their services. Without that information about the cost of the services as carried out in those two district councils as measured against service delivery, those words about joint working are worthless. To say that it is up to the good will of the local authorities will not do. That was said in 1994-95, but nothing happened. If the Minister means what she says—and I am sure that she does—she needs to come in behind that request to ensure that the county is required to engage with the district councils of, respectively, Exeter and Norwich, to establish constructive partnerships. She cannot use the localism argument to deny the city’s unitary status, on the one hand and, on the other, to refuse to help us to construct intelligent partnerships, which the counties do not particularly want.

The first proposition in Amendment 6 is that district councils should be able to scrutinise the county’s spending plans and financial statements. That information is not difficult to disaggregate from county totals on a district basis. It cannot be unreasonable to have that information made publicly available to sit alongside parallel information from the city councils, so that, for the first time, the residents and council tax payers, as well as the local authorities, can have a coherent and holistic analysis of combined local authority policies, priorities and expenditure. As it stands, the counties are under no obligation whatever to tell the city what they propose to do in the city, even when it affects the delivery of the services that the city, as district authority, is responsible for.

18:15

For example, Norfolk has reorganised the geographical areas for children's services by brigading Norwich, the most deprived district in Norfolk, with one of the more affluent, the wealthiest, South Norfolk. Unless we can disaggregate the statistics between those two authorities about service needs, service delivery and costs, the result of putting the two together—the poorest and one of the wealthiest—is a fudged mean average, and Norwich children will fail to get the services that they need. Incidentally, the district council, as a housing authority, will not be able appropriately to help vulnerable families with vulnerable children.

Even more urgently, the coalition Government propose to replace regional development agencies with local enterprise partnerships. I do not express a view about one or the other at the moment, but that is currently under consultation, and will probably be in operation by next April. They are to be local authority and business-led, covering a natural economic area. That makes perfectly good sense. In the south-west, that would probably embrace Devon and Cornwall in one new partnership. At the moment, district councils are finding it very difficult to be allowed to engage in that. The counties and, in Devon, the two existing unitaries, seem to be the only bodies that count in the new partnerships. If Norwich and Exeter cannot be unitary, yet at the same time they are the key drivers of economic development and jobs in the counties, surely they should be represented on those bodies as of right. Will the Minister give guidance to that effect?

In one field only, as a city council in Norwich, we have been able to disaggregate the statistics for the city, as opposed to other district councils. I refer to education. That shows that the city is underfinanced by £12 million a year to cross-subsidise small rural schools. I support keeping small rural schools open—it is a way to keep vibrant local communities—but not at the expense of stripping out education services from some of the most deprived council estates in the eastern region. The alternative is to impose a proper precept to pay for it, not to asset-strip the city.

Had we become unitary, we would have had a recalculated grant formula which would have rebalanced spending. We now need that same information to press for fairer spending across the county. To do that, we need the statistics for the districts. That must be a reasonable request, but we are resisted at every stage. Although we were promised some such response in 1994-95, it never happened. It will be very interesting to know whether, similar promises having been made to the Boundary Committee by the counties, we will get it in future. I doubt it, unless we have the help and support of Ministers. The citizens of this country and the council tax payers in the relevant cities are entitled to know that information if they are to be active members of their community.

The county has set up a Norwich area committee—this relates to the second part of the amendment—but it meets just twice year, has no senior members on it and is powerless. We need ways of ensuring that Norwich city councillors and Exeter city councillors can properly air concerns on behalf of their constituents. For example, on urban planning, when the city of Norwich and Norwich businesses wanted to pedestrianise a central shopping street called Westlegate—we pioneered pedestrianisation in the city of Norwich in the 1960s under the late planning officer Alfie Wood—a county committee with no Norwich members vetoed it, presumably because they wanted to drive their cars through a shopping street which business wanted pedestrianised. They would not move in response.

In the next two years, as the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, and the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, know, all the street lights in Norfolk and Norwich will be turned off at midnight. That is great in the Fleggs and the rural areas, and I have no problem with it, but, unless they can obtain and afford a taxi, Norwich residents, including me, will not be able to take the 10 o’clock train home from London because most of the walk home will occur in total darkness. The risk of mugging and assault is real for anyone, and the perceived threat, I fear, is even greater. How many people, especially women, who, unlike me, have no car or who, unlike me, cannot afford a taxi, and for whom there is no public transport, will have to risk attack in the city of Norwich before the county understands that what makes sense for a Broadland village, which I respect, is nonsense in the city. Would the Minister, who is a former leader of Kensington and Chelsea, tolerate that in her borough?

Norfolk County Council, as in 1994, recently said to the Boundary Committee recently that it would set up a Norwich area board which would include a dedicated portfolio holder—a member of the cabinet with special responsibility for Norwich—and that it would devolve certain powers. Will this proposal be taken forward as given in an understanding or commitment to the Boundary Committee? Has it been taken forward? You must be joking. There is a litany of empty promises, vacuous promises and broken promises, and then the Minister is surprised when the Boundary Committee recognises how poorly served Norwich is by the present county council arrangements. I understand and accept that senior members of the county council, because they are Conservative, do not live in or represent Norwich. That is the democratic will of the people. What I cannot accept is their apparent arrogance and indifference to the city’s needs, even though it is the powerhouse of the county. They say repeatedly that they did not want Norwich to become unitary because it would rip the heart out of the county, but they treat Norwich not as its heart—if they did, they would pay rather greater attention to it—but as something like an appendix, which may grumble occasionally, but is irrelevant to the county body’s functioning.

Finally, the same issue and arguments apply to the police. Norwich has just one representative on a police authority of nine members, even though a third of all crime in Norfolk is in Norwich and even though there are double the number of incidents of anti-social behaviour per capita in Norwich than in the rest of the county. Equally, on the Devon and Cornwall Police Authority, the Isles of Scilly, with a population of 2,000 and two constables, has a seat, but Exeter, with a population not of 2,000 but of 125,000, does not. Yet in Exeter, the police rate is huge—it is larger than the precept that the district council makes on its own citizens—and Exeter has no right to a voice on the police authority. That simply cannot be right. Why is it that there is more crime in cities? We know that it is drugs and drink and the people who come into the city: the unemployed, the young, the homeless, the transient, the disturbed and the distressed. That is true of most cities, and it is before we get to the rowdiness of young people wanting a good time. Yet not all of this is understood by rural councillors or by a police authority whose members live miles away. As a result, we get rural policing standards imposed on a city.

When we were unitary, we had a joint Norwich and Norfolk constabulary, which balanced views and needs on a proper partnership basis. Even after unitary status was taken from us in 1974, in the later 1980s, during the miners’ strike, when Kent miners wanted to come to Norwich to block foreign coal being imported on to our quays, as leader, I could go to the Norwich chief superintendent, and we could sort it out. There was no trouble; neither the foreign coal nor the Kent miners found it wise to come to Norwich. That sort of partnership is no more. Despite the best efforts of the police operationally—this is no criticism of officers of the police force—the county police authority has no understanding of city needs because there is no appropriate, proportionate presence on it. This amendment would help to rectify that.

To conclude, Amendments 5 and 6 effectively call on the Minister to make good her words today and ensure that the partnership that she is praying in aid in lieu of structural reorganisation is delivered. I simply ask her whether she means what she says—I am sure that she does—and will she therefore help to ensure that her words are taken forward in the practices of county and district councils? Her reply to this amendment will tell us, I hope, what we need to know. I beg to move.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

In opposing these amendments, I shall give a slightly different perspective. I am not in a position to say what happens in Norwich and Norfolk, but I have just been taking some advice from a senior representative of Devon County Council who has been listening with great interest to this debate. I am told that for the past 10 years, Exeter, in joint stewardship with Devon County Council, has outperformed the national average in a very successful way. There has been a fruitful partnership between Devon and Exeter. The relationship between them, despite all of this, is good, and as soon as the inconveniences that have arisen because of the order in relation to Exeter have finally been put to rest, it is the intention of Devon County Council and Exeter City Council to look to go further and better on economic development in a way that has already been successful, and they expect to be even more successful in future.

There are three areas to which I shall refer in particular. The first is economic development, which I have already mentioned. The second is highways—there has been very close co-operation between both councils on highways—and the third is cultural activities, which have also been very successful. These proposed amendments are bureaucratic and, in my view, unnecessary. They are undoubtedly unnecessary for Devon and Exeter, and I very much hope that the Committee will not wish to support them.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I shall speak in support of Amendments 5 and 6. They must surely meet with the Government’s approval, making, as they do, for transparency, accountability, equity and localism. Mr David Cameron, setting out Conservative Party policy in November 2009—before he was Prime Minister—said:

“We will require the people and organisations acting for the state to be directly accountable to the people they are supposed to serve ... Through decentralisation, transparency and accountability we can give people power over the services they use, over the way their tax money is spent, over how their local area is run”.

It is surely self-evidently right that people in Exeter, Norwich, King’s Lynn and Yarmouth and people across the whole of Devon and Norfolk should have the right to know how the county council’s resources are being spent, district council by district council, across the range of service areas: social care, children’s services, highways maintenance, culture and libraries.

I have a report from Exeter that is rather different from the report that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has just received from her friend on Devon County Council. I am advised by a very senior person in Exeter that, as in Norwich, they simply cannot establish with any accuracy or confidence how much the county council spends on services in Exeter or what its performance in delivering them is.

We recommend from Norwich that, by 30 September each year, Norfolk County Council should be obliged to provide a detailed analysis of the money that it has spent and the services that it has delivered in each district council area in the previous financial year. Moreover, I propose that, when the county makes its budget for the year to come, it should equally set out in detail what money it proposes to spend on what services in each district council area. It would not be difficult for the authority to produce the financial information in that form. If it were to do so, that would cast light on whether Norfolk or Devon has been in good faith in claiming to be equally committed to the good of all the communities in the county, with their greatly varying needs, and how effective these counties have been in addressing those needs. We will see, for example, what progress the counties have made in tackling inequalities in educational attainment and in ameliorating social deprivation. Such issues are enormously important in themselves but are particularly so in this context because, in rejecting the case for unitary authorities in Norwich and Exeter, the counties, supported by the Government, claimed that they could deal with these problems better. Taxpayers and citizens are entitled to see the evidence on that as it emerges.

This clarity of accounting would also better enable productive partnerships between the districts and the counties. We believe that there should be a Norwich City Council scrutiny committee with the responsibility of scrutinising Norfolk County Council’s policies and spending in the area of the city. It is remarkable, as has been mentioned before in our debates, that not one member of Norfolk County Council’s cabinet lives in or represents any part of the Norwich City area, yet that cabinet routinely takes decisions that have major impacts on the lives of people in the city. My noble friend Lady Hollis explained to the House just now the fatuity of the Norwich area committee. Does the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, defend this lack of accountability? Having unitary authorities would have dealt with this problem. These are the last amendment of the afternoon and this is her last chance to accept at least these amendments.

18:30

[Earl Cathcart]

My Lords, I will try to stick to the amendments rather than be tempted into going off at tangents. Amendment 5 says that,

“this Act comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint”.

That is unnecessary, because Clause 3(2) already says:

“This Act comes into force on the date on which it is passed”.

The Secretary of State has already decided that the Act will come into force when it is passed.

I find Amendment 6 strange, as the Secretary of State is not required to lay before Parliament a statement about arrangements for co-operation between district councils and county councils for any other two-tier system, so why now? In any event, the spending plans are a matter for local councils, not for Parliament. The leader of Norfolk County Council acknowledges in a letter to me:

“The economic climate is such that there is an even greater need for local councils to co-operate and share at this time, if we are collectively to protect vital public services in Norfolk”.

I have no doubt that the county council intends to co-operate fully with other councils.

Secondly, Norwich City Council already has two twin-hatters, by which I mean members of both the city council and the county council. Surely these twin-hatters can scrutinise the spending plans and financial statements and raise issues on behalf of their constituents. That is why they are there. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, talked about decisions made by cabinet. However, those decisions have to be passed by a full council on which these two twin-hatters sit, so they should know what the arguments are and put the case for Norwich City if they think it appropriate.

As for the police authorities, the police are a county council responsibility and, as such, and quite rightly, the authorities comprise a number of county councillors—eight in all—and independent members: in other words, non-councillors. Of the eight councillors, one is from Bowthorpe, Norwich, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred, and one is from Thorpe St Andrew in greater Norwich. Having a quarter of the appointed councillors—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

The Bowthorpe councillor speaks, basically, for the south Norfolk area, which is not the Norwich City area, on the police authority.

[Earl Cathcart]

We may be splitting hairs, but he lives in outer Norwich. In any case, I think that there is city council representation on the police authority. The amendment is extraordinary in that no other council is required to report in this way through the Secretary of State. It is also unnecessary, because all the things for which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is calling already happen.

[Baroness Shephard of Northwold]

Does my noble friend not agree that the force of this amendment is to ask the Government to get Norwich City Council and Norfolk County Council to get on? Is that not rather overegging the power of the state? I hope that the opposition spokesman will bear that in mind when summing up.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I will speak only briefly on this issue, given the time and the important business that is due to follow. I support the thrust of what my noble friends are trying to achieve by this amendment. We have heard of the specific issues and challenges that arise, the relationships between Norfolk and Norwich, and differing views of the relationships between Exeter and Devon. I am bound to say that I do not see twin-hatters as the way to solve all this, as they are subject to the vagaries of the electoral system; they are not a reliable or desirable way to do this.

The nub of what my noble friends are seeking is to recognise that if we truly support partnership working and if Total Place and area-based budgeting is to become a reality and a success—as it must, given the dramatic cuts that are coming down the line from central government—information, the role of councillors, the engagement of councillors between authorities and representation are absolutely central issues, as they are to the assertion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and her party on the way forward for Norfolk and Devon. Even if she does not embrace the formulation in the amendment, will she follow up in writing if she cannot say so fully today quite what mechanisms are and should be available and which mechanisms will be introduced to ensure that all this partnership working, to which we all subscribe, can really become fruitful and deliver the outcomes that are wanted for local citizens and local taxpayers?

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, these amendments contain worthy aims about co-operation between the councils concerned—something that obviously everyone should seek, although we may not have been a model of co-operation among politicians in our debate today.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, made some good points about the unfairness in the balance of representation in Norfolk. I must say from the Liberal Democrat Benches that there is an obvious answer to that unfairness and lack of balanced representation in many local authorities: proportional representation for local council elections. I am sure that that will be a subject for a debate in future.

I do not, as noble Lords will know, believe that the process of local government reorganisation in these areas, in particular the way in which the previous Government tried to railroad through new structural changes in their dying days, has been exactly conducive to the sort of co-operation that is now required. However, nor do I think that it is compatible with a localism agenda for the Secretary of State to have to report to Parliament on plans for co-operation between the councils in these areas. That must be agreed locally. It is something that I believe local people will want and vote for in the elections. It is not something that could practically be controlled from the centre. The uncertainty and the consequential divisions of the last few years, and the last few months in particular, need to be set aside. The councils concerned now need to do what many other councils are looking at in terms of proper co-operation without the need for structural reorganisation at this point.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Rennard and Lord Cathcart for virtually winding up this debate for me, because they have said more or less all that I wanted to say. There are two main issues here. First, in order to produce the sort of report that is being asked for before the Act starts would mean more delay. Frankly, I think that there has been enough delay and chivvying around with these orders. As I said earlier, this is the end. We must stop this now and let everyone get on with working normally. The amendment would only delay that.

The second issue is that it is not up to Parliament to sort out how local authorities collaborate with each other. It is certainly up to Parliament to say that there is an expectation that local authorities will work together—that counties will work with their districts and districts will work with their parishes. They are going to have to do so because, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said, there is going to be far less money. If services are to be provided to a standard and in a way that all local authorities will want, there will have to be close relationships between all levels of authority.

I do not see that these amendments are for Parliament. The first one would certainly delay the issue, which would be an enormous mistake. We have many examples of where there is excellent co-operation in services in terms of procurement, transparency, social services, children’s services and waste collection. I have a long list of every single responsibility in local authority services of where co-operation is taking place, but I shall not weary the Committee with it. All of us know that there are good collaborative arrangements.

I think that Norwich’s miseries have had a good airing today. A lot of information has been given about how things take place and I am sure that that will be noted. I have no doubt at all that Norfolk and Norwich will read Hansard avidly and so will note the noble Baroness’s concerns about the difficulties and how things stand. I was going to say that I do not support these amendments. Indeed, I do not think that Amendment 6 in particular has anything to do with Parliament, so I hope very much that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for contributing to the debate. Perhaps I may run briefly through the comments by individual contributors. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said that she represented the views of a senior county councillor in Devon. I am sure that is the case, but forgive me for noting that, as county councillors, they would say that, wouldn’t they? Of course they would say that the arrangements are fine. I have met senior—

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to interrupt. If I said “county councillor”, that was absolutely wrong. It was a senior executive working for Devon County Council.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Forgive me, but that does not affect my point. If I misheard the noble and learned Baroness, I apologise. I understood her to say that it was a senior county councillor, but if it was a senior county official, none the less it is from the county perspective. Like my noble friend Lord Howarth, I have met district councillors in Exeter from all the political parties, so far as I am aware—I am not sure whether the Conservatives were there, but the Liberal Democrats certainly were—who have given us a very different view and say that such co-operation as is being recommended and extolled by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is simply not happening on the ground.

18:45

[Lord Burnett]

My law firm has offices in Exeter. I know Exeter well and a lot of the time I work there. The noble Baroness should rest assured that the people whom I come across—those who live and work in Exeter—are entirely happy with the co-operative arrangements, which are now working very well indeed.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I can only say that that is not the view that I or my other friends have been given by senior members of the district council. Perhaps I may also say, for what it is worth, that if the noble Lord were to ask his noble friend Lord Tope whether that was the view that he was given when the delegation from Exeter came to see him, I think that in all honour the noble Lord, Lord Tope, would support the comments that I am making.

I come next to the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart. He asked, perfectly reasonably, “Why these two councils and not other councils?”. The reason why this amendment was tabled and the reason—I shall come on to this—why this should go through Parliament is precisely that, as a number of noble Lords have said, the benefits of unitary status that Norwich and Exeter have sought can be achieved by partnership arrangements. That is why we are talking about Norwich and Exeter. We are not talking about other places that are not seeking such arrangements. We are talking about two authorities that have been denied unitary status, which they believe would produce best value for money and the most effective delivery of services. In place of that, constructive partnership arrangements can have the same effect. That is why this amendment concentrates on those two authorities.

I would be delighted if other district councils in Norfolk, in Devon and across the country equally benefited from the ability to disaggregate county council statistics about the value for money, effectiveness and cost of the delivery of services in their district. That would be splendid. However, it is these two authorities that are being told that this is an effective, value-for-money alternative to unitary status—hence the amendment.

Why are we saying that this should go through the Secretary of State? The noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said that this is not a matter for Parliament. My problem is this. If the Government are seriously arguing that collaborative partnership arrangements are, in the Government’s eyes, a proper and appropriate alternative to unitary status, that collaborative partnership arrangement depends on both parties—the county council and the district council—co-operating fully, which I am sure happens elsewhere in the country. If, for that co-operative arrangement, information about the costs and delivery of services is required by the cities involved so that they know what is happening in their cities as a result of county council services, but the county councils refuse to divulge the information, on which partnership must rest, what does the noble Baroness suggest can be done?

We cannot have unitary status because that has been denied to us. We cannot have collaborative partnership because the information is being withheld. What does she suggest we do? That is why I have moved this amendment: to focus Parliament’s attention. Warm words are nice—

[Viscount Eccles]

I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I think that what she is suggesting is to pass an unenforceable law.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, no one has asked the Committee to make a judgment on this, so I think that the noble Viscount is being just a little premature.

The point of the amendment is to test the validity and the viability of the noble Baroness’s assertion, which has been reinforced by a number of noble Lords during the debate, that constructive partnership arrangements are a viable alternative to unitary status. We were promised that in 1994-95, but despite those promises it did not happen. Norfolk County Council has already promised some of this to the Boundary Committee, but so far it has not happened. For these arrangements to work, we must have the information, but so far the council has refused. The noble Baroness says in all conviction, I am sure, that these alternative partnership arrangements are a viable option in place of unitary councils, but how is she going to advise us to make it stick? What advice can she give Norwich when Norfolk refuses to give it the information that it needs to make those partnership arrangements work? Will she please tell me? I will give way to the noble Baroness, because I have run out of remedies.

[Baroness Hanham]

As I said, there has been a barrage of questions about Norwich today. Councils will be required, first, to be transparent and, secondly, to co-operate and co-ordinate with other parts of local government. Parliament will not be able to do anything if, as the noble Baroness suggests, there is a block between Norwich and Norfolk. However, I do not believe that that can be the situation. My advice is to get in touch with Norfolk and make sure that you all work together and co-operate. This is not a matter for Parliament.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Will the noble Baroness support us when we seek from the county council the information the city needs in order to build these partnership arrangements?

[Baroness Hanham]

The noble Baroness asks the question again. This is entirely a matter between Norwich and Norfolk County Council and arrangements should be made at that end. There is not a role for the Government in this unless there is complete obduracy—and I rather doubt that that will be the case after this debate has been read and understood.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I thank the noble Baroness for her response. I hope that she is right and that there will not be complete obduracy. She is resting her case for opposing Norwich and Exeter becoming unitary on the ability to construct partnership arrangements between the two authorities. However, if one of the parties refuses to give or disaggregate the necessary information on which the partnership is to be built—and as a district council we have no way of requiring them to give that information—and the Government will not impress upon it the need to give that information, in what way will her alternative recommendation of a partnership have any validity whatever? In one or two years’ time it will be exactly the same as it is now, and as it was in 1994, and as it was in 1988 for all I know.

That is not enough. We cannot build services for citizens who are paying their rates and their taxes by precept on ignorance, but that is what we are doing. No Government of any political complexion should expect councillors to go to their taxpayers and ratepayers and say, “These are the services, but we do not know whether we can do better than this because the information is being withheld from us”. How can we deliver, as we all want, effective, value-for-money, transparent and accountable services when that information is withheld?

We shall return to this on Report. I hope the noble Baroness will be able to help by impressing on the relevant county councils their possibly legal but certainly moral obligation to share information so that the citizens of the counties of Devon and Norfolk get the best possible services, which we all want them to have. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 5 withdrawn.

Amendment 6 not moved.

Clause 3 agreed.

In the Title

Amendment 7

Moved by

[Baroness Hanham]

7: In the Title, line 2, leave out from “2007” to end of line 5

Amendment 7 agreed.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendments.

Arrangement of Business

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Lords Chamber

Announcement

18:54

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, because the Question for Short Debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, will now be taken as last business, the timing for the debate becomes 90 minutes rather than 60 minutes. Speeches should therefore be limited to eight minutes, except for the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and the Minister, which remain limited to 10 minutes and 12 minutes respectively.

Environment: Low-carbon Technologies

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

18:55

Asked By

[Lord Haskel]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage low-carbon technologies in the market place.

[Lord Haskel]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends, including the noble Lord, Lord Smith, who will be speaking in this debate. I also thank the Minister, who, unfortunately, is the only speaker from the government side. Perhaps I may also say how much I—like everyone else, I am sure—am looking forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Prescott. He has been a real champion for a low-carbon environment, and over many years he has really delivered on that.

The coalition, however, has so far only made promises. Its agreement promises to,

“implement a full programme of measures”—

of measures—

“to fulfil our joint ambitions for a low carbon and eco-friendly economy”.

Those are fine words, and yes, many measures are needed to run a low-carbon economy. The purpose of this debate is to find out whether the Government are really going to do it. But even if they do, they will not be successful unless they have the political will and the determination to see it through.

What are these measures? The first is money. You need public money to stimulate private investment, because science and technology is too risky for the private sector alone. It is a kind of market failure. The Enterprise Minister recognised that when commenting on the new enterprise capital fund and the growth capital fund announced in the recent Budget. The Government plan to create a green investment bank during the next Parliament. The Conservative Party Green Investment Bank Commission reported at the end of last month that the green investment bank must be established now because of the lack of funding for small low-carbon projects and the hope that a green investment bank would encourage more investment in the green economy from the private sector. It made the important point that these institutions need the clear goal of reducing carbon, not of creating shareholder value. It is not there to crowd out the private banks.

Another reason why that Conservative commission is anxious for the green bank to start is that money is global. If the state procrastinates or keeps changing its mind, the money will go elsewhere, probably into something far less risky than technology. Last week’s NESTA report makes exactly this point. I hope the Minister will listen to his own supporters who are concerned that, without these financial measures, much of our investment in science, technology and innovation will be wasted.

What about people? People are a key part of these measures. The Royal Society’s report The Scientific Century contains a section called “Scientific People” and it says it all. It deals with the shortage of secondary school science and mathematics teachers, because without good teachers there is little hope of inspiring children to stick with science and engineering; with the need for inspiration and encouragement for students to stick with STEM subjects; and with the shortage of skilled people in the supply chain. Diversity in the science and engineering workforce remains a real challenge, and we now have to compete with the United States and elsewhere to attract the best talent. It may be a statement of the obvious, but the point I am trying to make is that unless we teach, train, attract and encourage enough good people, the project will not succeed.

So what about the science and technology itself, which is perhaps the key measure? We are inundated with reports, all of which argue the intellectual case for maintaining a strong science base to enable Britain to engage in research, development and innovation. The environmental industry has produced its own manifesto on how we can contribute to economic growth through technology. In many ways, it agrees with the recent Hartwell paper—which the Minister says he has read—which states that decarbonisation goes hand in hand with improving our quality of life.

According to Mr Willetts, the Science Minister, government procurement can also help promote a low-carbon economy. Last Friday he said on the radio that he would like to encourage government procurement from innovative, small technology companies. It is obvious that the coalition has not yet got the hang of joined-up government, because the small business research initiative operated by the Technology Strategy Board has done, and is doing, precisely that. During the past couple of years, some 400 companies have had contracts from 14 government departments. I hope that the Minister will tell his honourable friend about it.

What about jobs? The way that the market seems to work is that the moment something we invent here needs scaling up, it is outsourced to Asia or eastern Europe. So most of the jobs created by new products will not be located here; they will be located there. The Government have said that we need to create 2 million new jobs in the private sector in the next five years. I am not suggesting protectionism, because protectionism never works anyway; but I am suggesting that “making it here” is another aspect of the low-carbon market which needs the Government's attention. I know that my noble friend Lord Sugar has something to say about that.

A lot of low-carbon technology deals with energy. Renewable energy and nuclear energy are seen as having a key part to play. The problem is that there is no single best solution. The Committee on Climate Change points out that, at the same time as strengthening our ability to generate low-carbon electricity, we have to reform the energy market, achieve a floor price for carbon, and improve the energy efficiency of buildings, agriculture and transport. All this requires the Government's attention; all this is part of the “measures”.

So where do we find the political will, the commitment and the determination to do all this? I hope the Minister will agree with me that the first task of the Government is to get the balance right. Because of the financial crisis, the level may have to be reduced, but it is no use being selective. You have to do it all.

Secondly, the Government can show political will by setting high standards. The market wants standards to create a level playing field; business wants high standards to encourage innovation; and the British people want high standards to make Britain a better place to live. I know that the Government are reluctant to regulate but, as the Committee on Climate Change says in its report, regulation is needed to achieve the reduction in greenhouse gases which the law demands. It is needed because exhortation and social responsibility have not worked. Another way of showing political will is to tax carbon emissions instead of taxing work and innovation. Before the election, the Liberal Democrats were very vocal on this, but, since then, they have been uncharacteristically quiet. Is the Government’s vision limited to cutting the deficit, or is there a greater ambition—an ambition to create a low-carbon economy by tackling all the measures that I have raised? Or is this too much for a Government who believe in smaller government? We need to know, because there is an awful lot riding on it.

The Minister has indicated previously that many of these issues will have to wait until the spending review in October. That is not good enough, because markets do not wait for Ministers. If they sense delay and procrastination, they just move on regardless. So here is an end-of-term suggestion for the Minister that he could be getting on with. He should cancel the use of all ministerial cars in central London and instead use the mayor’s free public bicycle scheme, which starts soon. It will save money. It will reduce carbon. The technology is proven. Most Ministers have the necessary skills. It demonstrates the Government’s commitment to a greener economy. It is leadership by example. I look forward to seeing the Minister with his trousers tucked into his socks.

19:06

[Lord Bhattacharyya]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Haskel for securing this important debate and for his characteristically wise opening remarks. However, I find myself in the unusual role of a warm-up man—or should that be “warm-up Peer”?—to my noble friend Lord Prescott. Given his great work at Kyoto, he could not have chosen a more fitting topic with which to open his account. I am sure that the whole House looks forward to his contribution today and in the years to come.

I have to admit that I am grateful to my noble friend. I doubt whether the Press Gallery would be paying such close attention to this vital debate without his presence. Despite the terrible inattention of Lobby correspondents and despite what my noble friend Lord Haskel said, most people are very conscious of the low-carbon message. That is shown in the fact that low carbon is already being widely adopted.

Today, the low-carbon revolution is being driven by consumers, not legislators. For example, car manufacturers know that buyers look at a vehicle’s emissions performance as well as the quality of the trim. The green revolution is now consumer and market led. Much of the technology exists and it is now a matter of achieving competitive pricing, which will come with scale.

By taking a consumer focus, we can be realistic about the future, which is happening in the majority of countries. If we are not, we might fall prey to the hocus-pocus that we find in any new market. For example, the all-electric car, which has received huge publicity during the past few years, is a long way from being a widely used reality. Imagine the impact on the grid if tens of thousands of cars were plugged in to charge every evening. We need giant strides in battery technology and massive investment in infrastructure before this will be viable.

At the same time, car manufacturers are achieving massive reductions in emissions through light-weighting, advanced hybrid technology, improved engine efficiency and technology to guide drivers. We should focus on an integrated research programme that includes practical low-carbon innovations alongside the “green sky” big infrastructure projects.

There are two reasons why such investment in practical low-carbon technology is essential. First, reductions in emissions have been a consistent goal for a long time. The “easy” emission cuts have already been made and emission cuts from now on will be far harder to achieve. The bulk of post-1990 reductions came from the switch from coal-fired power stations to gas. To find sources of lower-carbon energy today will require huge investment. The sums involved are staggering. The Green Investment Bank Commission says that up to,

“£1 trillion of investment is required by 2030 to replace, upgrade and decarbonise Britain’s infrastructure”.

Given that scale, we must do all that we can to encourage private actors, whether individual or corporate, to make low-carbon choices, thus reducing the pressure on our energy infrastructure.

Secondly, if emissions caused by the production and transportation of imported goods are included, some argue that UK carbon consumption rose by a fifth between 1990 and 2005—a point made forcefully by exporting nations whose emissions are rising today. We are not merely responsible for what we produce; we are also responsible for what we consume. This means that reducing global emissions requires behavioural change by British consumers. If we are to encourage consumers to choose low-carbon products, we need innovation to make those choices attractive. In other words, there is no point in developing a new green engine if drivers find it inferior to current ones, or in designing green homes that families cannot afford to buy.

Government funding for low-carbon technology, then, must bring businesses and research groups together at the very beginning. We must encourage innovators to develop practical solutions that help consumers adopt low-carbon behaviour. There is an obvious opportunity here to supply the world with the low-carbon technology that consumers demand. Grasping that chance requires support for industrial innovation clusters. It demands that we invest in product and process-based research and innovation.

We should, of course, also be mindful of the need for value for money. We should acknowledge the work of the National Audit Office, whose report into renewables in June proposed fewer but more affordable and effective funding bodies. One suggestion is to bring together the regional growth fund—I do not know what that means—with the Technology Strategy Board and targeted research council funding to create a focused green technology body. When funds are tight, we have to do it in a highly focused manner. Such a clearly defined group would have the resources to make a real impact in low-carbon innovation. That support would encourage innovators, from manufacturers to research laboratories, to invest in green technology programmes. It is not that we are behind any other country in green technologies; it is because the advantage of having financially efficient products is not there.

We must keep a clear focus on consumer-focused practical innovation if we are to meet our targets. Otherwise, much of our investment will be wasted. We cannot afford that, either for the environment or financially. A low-carbon economy requires practical action, not the recitation of mantras. Whenever Prime Ministers and Chancellors talk about low carbon, I do not think any of them really understand what it means. With a clear focus on practical solutions, we can develop low-carbon products and processes that will secure growth, jobs and the environment. That is something all sides of the House would wish for. It is within our grasp. Let us take this opportunity to make it a reality.

19:13

[Lord Prescott]

My Lords, first, may I express appreciation for the very warm reception given to me by noble Lords here in this debate and in the House? It is quite different from the House of Commons, I might comment. I have no interest to declare, except to declare the political interest of pursuing social justice and, indeed, global solutions to global problems. I am therefore most pleased to have another parliamentary Chamber in order to make that case and I look forward to doing so, no longer as the Member of Parliament for my constituency in Hull but as a Lord of Hull—not pronounced with the big H—a very proud city, full of Yorkshire people. I am delighted to find another opportunity to represent their case.

It will come as a surprise to some to know that I am related to others of this House. A person of my family served this House with distinction: a Member known to some of your Lordships as Lord Bancroft. I have discovered only quite recently that I am related to him. In fact, we share the same great-great-grandfather, a Welsh miner in the 1830s. Lord Bancroft became the secretary to the Cabinet and the head of the Civil Service, but was removed by Prime Minister Thatcher because he was not prepared to change the Civil Service. That just shows it is in our genes. Lord Bancroft was the Permanent Secretary to the Department of the Environment in 1977. Twenty years later, I had the honour to become the Secretary of State of that department and, as has been referred to, the European Union negotiator for the successful Kyoto agreement on climate change.

I welcome having this opportunity for my maiden speech and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Haskel on this debate. It is a timely and important debate, as I am sure the speeches will show, but I want to reserve my comments to the consequences of climate change, because it is important to get a global solution to that global problem. Unless we can solve the output of carbon, either at the national level or globally, we will inevitably be affected by the result. I shall address my remarks in this limited time to securing a Kyoto 2 agreement at the coming conference in Cancun in Mexico, in December this year. I do so from my experience as a Kyoto negotiator and as the present Council of Europe rapporteur on climate change. I attended the recent Copenhagen conference and will be attending the Cancun conference in December. I have, in the past two months, visited China a number of times to discuss the issues of climate change.

Copenhagen was not a success. Expectations for it were too high, especially in hoping for an internationally agreed and legally enforceable agreement. I said at the time that it was not possible to get that. My colleagues in the previous Government believed that we could, which contributed to the failure of Copenhagen. Kyoto’s legally enforceable agreement applied to only 47 developed countries; in Kyoto 2, we are now dealing with 187 developed and developing countries—a much more difficult problem. Moreover, the Kyoto agreement took four years to negotiate and finalise while at Copenhagen, because a few leaders arrived, it was expected that it would be done in four weeks. As we soon showed, that was not possible.

However, Copenhagen accepted the climate change science—that is now readily accepted—the need to reduce carbon outputs and limit the global temperature increase to 2 degrees centigrade by 2050, and to provide sufficient funds for developing countries to invest in low-carbon economic growth. Yet an international, legally enforceable agreement could not be agreed. That was not only opposed by China, India and most of the developing countries but could not be implemented even by America or China, so in those circumstances it really was not possible.

A continuing difficulty at those Copenhagen negotiations was that they were not able to establish proper criteria for carbon targets. The mood at Copenhagen was soured by the Americans claiming that as China and the US had the same absolute output of carbon, the cutbacks should be the same. That totally ignored any concepts of population and fairness being taken into account; namely, that the measures should be per capita, per person in order to be fairly accepted there. It also needed to be embodied in the concept of the UN principle governing a global solution, that of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.

Bearing in mind the prediction in the excellent work done by the noble Lord, Lord Stern, for the previous Government—it has had a tremendous effect on thinking on climate change and is much to his credit as a Member of the House—when we take into account that the world economy will have grown to be three or four times larger by 2050, while emissions will have to be kept to a quarter of the level they are today. That is a staggering conclusion when we are talking about the efforts to be made to reduce the amount of carbon. Therefore, in order to have burden-sharing, carbon production must reflect targets on national carbon outputs per capita.

For example, if we look at the United States, it may be the same in absolute terms but if we look at it by population, it is in fact 20 tonnes per person for America, 10 tonnes for Europe, five for China, two for India and one for poor old Africa. It is impossible to assume that somehow we can find an agreement that simply cuts the carbon. It has to reflect social justice and the right of developing countries to develop prosperity and reduce unemployment and poverty which they have in that early stage. Social justice is at the heart of any possible agreement at Cancun. It does not make it any easier, but we must bear in mind that 2 billion people live on this planet on less than $2 a day and that they are largely in the developing countries.

My concern is not repeating that same mistake of anchoring on to the problem of a legally enforceable agreement. My concern was heightened by the statements given by the Prime Minister in the other House and by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who said that they believe that is still the target for Mexico. If we make that the target for Mexico, we are bound to make the same complaint and have the same failure. We cannot afford to have another failure at Cancun.

There is an alternative, which I hope the Government will consider, particularly as they say in the same statement that they want a successful conclusion at Mexico. They are absolutely about that. What they can do is to get each nation to declare a voluntary agreement, as many of them are doing, put them together in a global package and let them operate and see how it works in the next few years. That would require them to change the end date of 2012 from Kyoto 1 and extend it to 2015. After all, we are specialists in Europe in stopping the clock. That would allow us to look into whether we can voluntarily exercise this agreement. It needs transparency and accountability and we have to think how to do that, as a challenge for Cancun. If we can do that, we can prevent a failure if we hang on to the legal framework; if we use the voluntary commitment, which China and America have in their programmes, we can make that the global target, work for the agreement and build the trust. Let us see how it works in the next few years. I think that is the way forward.

Failure must not be allowed to happen at Cancun. I believe that the proposal would be a sensible compromise, allowing a continuing discussion and progress to a fully acceptable Kyoto 2. I believe that China and Europe, representing the largest developed countries and the largest developing countries, could make this happen. I hope that the UK will do all that it can to see that is brought about.

19:20

[Lord Giddens]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Haskel on initiating this debate. I especially congratulate my noble friend Lord Prescott on his marvellous maiden speech, delivered with his characteristic verve, passion and good humour. The noble Lord has been an inspirational force in left-of-centre politics for many years, but he has also been a doughty environmental campaigner. As he has mentioned, he was key negotiator for the UK in Kyoto. As he did not mention, he made a massive impact on the consequences of those negotiations. He has been a rapporteur for the Council of Europe on climate change, as he said—but he did not say that he had represented the Council of Europe at Copenhagen at meetings although, as he did say, they did not lead to great success. Nevertheless, we are on track to reach an outcome of the sort that he described.

My noble friend Lord Prescott, rightly emphasised strongly the importance of China in climate change negotiations and the importance of being sympathetic to China’s position and the difference between China and the industrial countries. That is a very appropriate emphasis. Noble Lords will agree that by any reckoning the noble Lord is a notable addition to your Lordships’ House, and I hope that all other noble Lords will join me in giving him a hearty welcome.

“Deeds not words” was the motto of the suffragettes and it is an appropriate slogan for Governments in dealing with climate change and energy security. Unfortunately, for many Governments across the world, it is the other way around, with lots of promises and plans but very little action on the ground. As the Minister will know from our several meetings, I am very pleased that the Government are sustaining the cross-party consensus on climate change and energy policy initiated by the preceding Government. However, as my noble friend Lord Haskel has said, now is the time for action. The business leaders who will help to drive change are waiting for much clearer signals than they have received so far. Many, as I know from speaking to them, are already feeling frustrated.

Will the Minister respond to three sets of issues? First, the Government have stated unequivocally that they will introduce a floor price for carbon. It is perhaps the single most important measure to help to stimulate an investment in low-carbon technologies. But how far has government thinking advanced? Will the floor be established by a carbon tax on energy producers? What will be the implication for EU regulations? I do not think that it is good enough any more simply to say that we should wait until autumn, because that excuse is wearing thin. What is the Government’s initial orientation towards the issue? Is it possible to produce a consultation paper during the summer which would give businesses, in particular, the chance to be involved in an open discussion leading up to whatever decisions are taken in October?

Secondly, the Committee on Climate Change has proposed that CCS should be extended to gas-fired power stations, not just to coal. Will the Government accept that one of the four planned CCS trials with coal should be with gas, as the committee proposed? That is a very important question, given that there is a lot more natural gas in the world than we thought even seven or eight years ago because of the possibility of extracting natural gas from shale. Therefore, natural gas could continue to be an important transitional technology towards a low-carbon economy but, as the committee shows, it will need CCS if such a plan is adopted. Again, I do not think that saying that they will let us know in due course is a substantial enough position. Do the Government accept the idea in principle that we should put money into investigating CCS for natural gas production of electricity?

Thirdly, speaking as a social scientist and economist, I think that a lot more work needs to be done on what a low-carbon economy actually is or will be. It cannot be just an economy like the existing one, with a lot more low-carbon technologies in it. It is a transformative thing and we have to look at it holistically. To my mind, there is still a good deal of loose thinking about what a low-carbon economy will be like. For example, in respect of jobs, the implications of a low-carbon economy for job creation are a crucial phenomenon. Even in official documents I have seen it stated that low-carbon technologies will create thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of new jobs. But this is a meaningless statement unless these are net new jobs, and I do not see where the analysis is—at least, I have not traced it in official documents—of what the net implications are of a transfer to low-carbon technologies. A lot of jobs are likely to be lost in the older technology industries.

We need a different entrepreneurial model to look at job creation in an emerging low-carbon economy. I would label this the Starbucks model. No doubt like other noble Lords, I lived in America for many years. There is a lot of coffee in America, but most of it was pretty horrible; the only good thing about it was that your cup was endlessly refilled. Who knew that Americans—and, indeed, people in many other countries too—were harbouring a desire for a much better kind of coffee and the sociability that went along with it? That is what the initiators of the Starbucks chain spotted. It would be the same for entrepreneurial opportunities in the emerging low-carbon economy, because job creation will come largely from the structural changes in habits which such a transition will bring about and express. In spite of the talk about a return to manufacturing, we will still live in a predominantly service economy. It is the entrepreneurs who will spot the opportunities that the transformation of a society to a more sustainable economy will bring about, as well as who will make money and create jobs. It is not just up to the Committee on Climate Change to think about this. The Government must think about it, the Treasury must think about it, and it must be linked to actual practice. I repeat the theorem with which I started: “Deeds not words”.

19:29

[Lord Smith of Finsbury]

My Lords, I join in the thanks to my noble friend Lord Haskel for initiating this important debate, and I echo my noble friend Lord Giddens’s warm congratulations to my noble friend Lord Prescott on his typically robust, well informed and passionate maiden speech. I join in the warm welcome that my noble friend has been given on all sides of your Lordships’ House.

As chairman of the Environment Agency, I am acutely aware of the reality of climate change. The agency stands at the point where environmental change, changing weather patterns and the challenge of climate change have their greatest impact on individuals and their lives. We have to deal with the increasing incidence of flooding, the increasing threat of drought, the extremes of weather that we are increasingly going to experience, the difficulties of scarce water resources that we may well encounter in years to come and the impact that climate change is having and will increasingly have on biodiversity.

The report issued this week through the United Nations by Pavan Sukhdev that looks at the economic importance of biodiversity is likely to be as important in many ways as the Stern report was in looking at the economics of climate change itself. The conclusion, of course, has to be something that is almost universally agreed across all sides of this House: we have to reduce our carbon emission as a country, and we need to make the shift as rapidly and sensibly as we can to a low-carbon economy.

My noble friend Lord Prescott graphically outlined the disappointments of the Copenhagen process. He himself played a game-changing role in the original Kyoto conference, and the progress that he was outlining to us needs to be a real possibility for the future. There is, however, a temptation for us to take the view that because Copenhagen was such a disappointment, and because other countries have not signed up in legal form to carbon and other greenhouse gas emission reductions, we should therefore not do anything ourselves. We cannot and should not wait for the rest of the world to take action.

My central point today, and the reason why the topic that my noble friend Lord Haskel has chosen is so important, is that insisting on high environmental standards and driving low-carbon emissions presents an economic opportunity for this country, not a potential burden. A huge potential market is opening up now around the world for low-carbon technologies, innovative products and carbon-free ways of generating and using electricity and of finding new products to ensure that we can continue as a developed world—and, I hope, as a developing world—to have high standards of living but in a low-carbon way.

There are real opportunities here, but unless we insist on those high standards and put in place both the regulation and the incentives to ensure that industry responds, we are not going to seize them. Look at what happened, for example, when wind technology began to take off. It was Danish and German companies that seized the opportunity, invested in product design and made the products. Now, if we want to buy wind turbines, we frequently have to go abroad to purchase them.

A recent report by PricewaterhouseCoopers surveyed businesses across the world at a very senior level. The result of that research was that there was a common thread across the whole business community: they got the seriousness of climate change and they wanted to be part of the low-carbon future, but they wanted certainty and clarity from government in order to enable them to get there. That is why I welcome the coalition’s commitment to putting a floor price in place for carbon. That is probably the most important thing that can possibly be done in order to get that clarity and certainty. Of course it needs to be done in the right way, at the right place and with the right prognosis for the carbon price in place as well, but it presents a real opportunity.

There are three obvious areas, among many, where government decisions, actions, incentives and investment can help. The first is carbon capture and storage. The coalition Government have, rightly, committed themselves to continuing with the four demonstration projects that the previous Government put in place. I welcome that. We need to get on with it, though; we need to ensure that we are ahead of the game, using the advantages that we have with regard to this technology. We have much more usable carbon storage areas under the North Sea than many other countries do—let us turn that to our advantage and develop this technology quickly.

The second area is electric cars. The full carbon benefit of electric cars comes only when we decarbonise electricity production, but none the less we know that it will take years for the technology of electric cars to be fully developed so we ought to be putting the effort in now.

The third area is wave and tidal power. We have done far too little as a country up to now in the research that is needed into the development of wave and tidal. We are a country surrounded by waves and tides; we ought to be able to use these forces of nature to our advantage. We need the Government to provide the right framework, to stimulate the research and early development that are needed, to support innovation, to help with the provision of essential infrastructure, to require standards and, yes, to insist on regulation where necessary, and then the marketplace will respond. It needs to be a partnership between the Government putting the framework in place and the market then doing what the market does best, which is to innovate and be entrepreneurial and develop the products and sell them to those who wish to purchase them.

I am pleased that this development of the low-carbon economy has been such a priority item in the agreement that formed the coalition. There now needs to be urgency about its implementation.

19:38

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Prescott on a fantastic speech. It is not just we in this country but, I suggest, people in many parts of the world who should be indebted and grateful to him for the work that he has done on climate change and sustainability. Maybe Kyoto has not gone as far or as fast as he, or any of us, would have liked, but I am pleased to hear that he is going to continue with some of this work. It is a major achievement that we have got this far.

I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Haskel on securing this debate. It is interesting that, just as we found last week in the debate on the railways, the Benches opposite are empty, apart from the Front Bench and one sole survivor from the Liberal Democrats, whom it is good to see in his place. Is there any interest in the Conservative Party in energy or, for that matter, in railways? There was not a single speaker from the Conservative Party in the railways debate last week. There were many Liberal Democrats interested in railways, which was great, but I wonder how many speeches from Liberal Democrats we will hear tonight. Maybe we will hear one—or maybe we will not.

That is indicative of something that has worried me in the period since the election. I wonder whether there is a coalition policy on energy; perhaps the coalition is still working it out. I understand that in the nuclear field it may be difficult. The Liberal Democrats were very much against nuclear power in their manifesto, while the Conservatives were much in favour. I do not know how you can have half a nuclear policy. Maybe we will have nuclear power stations if there is no state subsidy or subvention. I suspect that that will be quite difficult. It may reinforce the point made by my noble friends Lord Haskel and Lord Giddens: if the businesses do not see a clear way forward soon, they will go somewhere else. That would be unwise, but there is certainly a lack of enthusiasm here. I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will tell us all that there is a firm energy policy and what is going to happen, rather than something that is possibly a little skin deep.

I will confine my remarks tonight mainly to biomass, which is a useful renewable. It is not often spoken about. It is a fairly balanced means of generation in terms of carbon in and carbon out. What I like about it is that not only is it sustainable but there is quite a lot of it around. I think that it offers the fourth largest amount of energy after coal, oil and gas. It is not too difficult for us to import what we do not have locally from Canada, North America and the Baltic, without destroying areas of farmland. It fits well into the generating mix because it is a proven technology. The equipment and stations can be built quite easily and quickly. It is not intermittent like wind, wave or solar power. You can switch it on or off in accordance with demand. It is an important part of the renewable mix. I still worry about some of the others. People talk about the Severn barrage, the development scheme for which I worked on about 30 years ago. Producing a tonne of cement needs a tonne of carbon; I am not sure what the figure is for steel. One must think about the carbon cost of building some of these things, in addition to their generating carbon savings when they are working.

The other benefit of biomass is that you can mix it with coal and generate power using both products at the same time. Companies such as Drax, which operates one of the biggest power stations in this country, are working on it by mixing it or even building a plant that works only on biomass. It is also interesting to explore the possibilities for much smaller plants. I have been talking to people in Cornwall, who tell me that it is quite economic now to build plants of 20-megawatt size, which is ideal for places where there is demand but, at present, very little supply. You save the extra costs of transmission from the bigger areas, which also gives the generators something of a financial advantage.

There is local opposition to anything like this. We have had and will have many debates about changes to the planning system, as proposed by the Government, which seem to centre on localism. However, I have not heard anyone explain how to separate localism from nimbyism. That, if we are not careful, will prevent the construction of many projects, be they large or small, some of them part of the remit of the Infrastructure Planning Commission, which the previous Government proposed. One of the advantages—if it works—of localism when it comes to small biomass plants is that it would be possible for discounts to be given to local residents if they supported one of these plants locally. It is not the same as burning waste without any filters on top. It is a sustainable type of generation and should be welcomed. However, I am not sure of the extent to which the local authorities that will be giving planning permission for these things will go along with them, even if they get a discount. It happens very well with wind power in places such as Denmark. The local authorities participate in the financing and, somehow, the construction. We will have to see, but maybe the Minister can explain how it will be easier to get planning for some of these things under the new localism agenda.

I shall say a little about transporting biomass. Rail freight is useful in this. I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. It is not just about shoving branches into power stations and fires. Biomass usually comes in pellets or chips. The only problem with moving it is that it does not much like getting wet. It must be kept dry during storage and transport. It has less than half the density of water, so the volumes are quite large. There is a lot of potential for generating jobs in ports and on railways, and using the same supply chain as for coal does not work too badly. However, there is a cost to it. Biomass must be harvested, which is rather more expensive than digging up coal in Australia, and it must be processed, as well as transported. For this product to be used effectively, there has to be a recognition in the renewable obligation that the cost of transport and processing needs to be taken into account rather more. It is still a new technology, or a variation on it. If one wants the private sector to invest in small generating stations, or even to change the very big ones such as Drax and others, it needs more comfort that in the longer term it will get a reasonable return on its investment. It can then go ahead with it.

In conclusion, biomass offers a major and useful contribution to the renewable part of our generating capacity, which we will need. Co-firing with coal is one thing. If we have new, smaller stations with local benefit and something to help with planning permission, biomass could be a significant part of a flexible and sustainable energy policy, which I am sure the Government will develop.

19:48

[Lord Sugar]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Haskel on initiating this debate. I also welcome my noble friend Lord Prescott and congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech. There was I thinking that he would be nervous, but obviously not. I think we are all in agreement about the need to deploy low-carbon technology in the future, for the obvious and well debated reasons. Therefore, I will not labour on that subject, but instead focus on the emerging opportunities available to UK industry in low-carbon technology.

Having spent 45 years in technology, I, like many of your Lordships, have experienced the rapid advancement in many industries. However, to my disappointment, I have witnessed time and time again how Britain has fallen behind, and regrettably does not lead in any sector. My fear is that we are going to miss out again.

I have time to discuss only one sector, wind turbines, on which my noble friend Lord Smith has already touched. This is one very good way of achieving our renewable energy targets. There has been talk that these sci-fi constructions will scar our landscape, but this technology is needed to secure our future. So it is no different from the days in 1883 when Thomas Edison introduced the first electricity pylons, which we have all come to accept. To those objectors I simply say: get over it, because it is going to happen—and happening, it is. As a small island compared with mainland Europe, we have nearly exhausted land sites where wind farms can work efficiently, so we have turned to offshore wind installations. I say “we”, but your Lordships should not assume that any UK companies are enjoying this massive growth industry. No, once again, we are behind. As mentioned by my noble friend Lord Smith, foreign companies are winning the contracts dished out by the utility companies.

It is estimated that in the next five years in the UK, £11 billion will be spent on wind turbine installations. It is further estimated that more than £100 billion will be spent between now and 2028.

I am going to take a little time to look at these things. They are made up of turbines—which, for simplicity, let us say are giant dynamos with a propeller on the front—a tall steel tower with a concrete base and a load of sophisticated wiring, transformers and more wiring routing to a grid. This is not rocket science; it is large-scale engineering, metal bashing and construction. But do we in the UK get a slice of the cake? The answer is no. Your Lordships will be disappointed to hear that so far no more than 10 per cent—possibly 11 per cent—of the build cost is down to UK suppliers.

To embark upon offshore installations, specialised ports and boats are needed to service the projects. Britain has many ports that can be adapted to handle this traffic, with associated land for the construction of factories and grid stations. Recently we heard of the closure of a steel plant in Middlesbrough. Coincidently, in the same region, we have seen our shipbuilding industry completely decay. Let us take those two elements in the area that I just spoke of. It does not take a brain surgeon to work out that, given the opportunity, there is a workforce and facilities there that can take on and make the lion’s share of this stuff. Frankly, they could do it with their eyes closed.

The current contractors which enjoy the orders dished out by the utility companies will of course accuse me of oversimplifying the technology and would no doubt put up arguments to defend their position. Certainly, there seems to be no patriotism from the utility companies when dishing out the contracts. They focus on employing contractors who have done it before. This ethos needs to change and change quickly.

I have heard that in recognition of the potential of the UK, some foreign companies are making noises in committing to a UK presence. I am sceptical about this; it smacks of the old screwdriver plants that were set up years ago to overcome tariffs and pressure from the then UK industry and Government. The Government hold the ace card here. The Crown Estate is responsible for dishing out the licences to the development companies. These companies need to generate renewable power in order to comply with the Government’s renewables obligation certification scheme. Here is the solution which I should like the Minister to take away, despite the fact that there is no one else listening over there. No licences should be granted unless there is an undertaking that an agreed percentage of UK content and labour is used on the contract. This will force the hand of the current foreign suppliers to set up in the UK, buy from UK subcontractors, build plants and pay for modification to some of our ports. To be reasonable, the percentage can be phased in in a stepped manner, starting at, say, 25 per cent in the first year, rising to 70 per cent by the fifth year. Eventually, UK subcontractors will turn into main contractors and be able to compete and not only enjoy business in the UK but win valuable exports.

I am sure that my simple suggestion will raise issues of EC law, unfair trade and all that stuff. I say to the Minister, “Please take a leaf out of our French cousins’ book”. They somehow manage to use French contractors for all major projects. As an example, their public offices are littered with normally uncompetitive—on a worldwide basis—Alcatel and Sagem IT and telecoms equipment. The Minister has clever people at his disposal to overcome these hurdles and can do it if he wants to. The coalition has said that 500,000 people from the public sector will be put out of work. However, it goes on to give us the good news that the private sector will employ 2 million. Well, if that is true, here is a way to start to employ some of those 2 million. Britain needs to put a stake in the ground in this technology and become a major player.

My parting comment is that when the Minister returns to his office, I want the Siemens Fujitsu computer on his desk to prey on his conscience every single day as a constant reminder of my words today.

19:56

[Lord Woolmer of Leeds]

It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, with his typically incisive and practical proposals. I join my noble friends in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, for bringing forward this debate. Given the number of speakers, it is clearly a welcome and timely one. I join all other noble Lords in warmly congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Prescott. He is a fellow Yorkshireman, as it were, and, as always, managed to bring Yorkshire and Hull into a global speech—and quite rightly so. I warmly welcome the noble Lord.

I shall concentrate my remarks on two matters, biomass and carbon capture and storage, both of which are of enormous importance to the Yorkshire and Humber region, where I reside. Biomass has been touched on by my noble friend Lord Berkeley. It has many advantages as a source of electricity generation. It can be fully sustainable and can provide a reliable, flexible and responsive source of power generation. There is a plentiful supply of biomass. Contrary to what my noble friend Lord Berkeley said, taking its cycle of production as a whole, it is a relatively cheap renewable source. It is not being held back in its application by that matter.

There are three ways in which biomass can be used to generate electricity: co-firing in existing coal-fired power stations; building new 100 per cent biomass powered stations; and converting existing coal-fired power stations into completely biomass supply. The first is already in operation and is held back in its use of non-energy biomass only by an unnecessarily restrictive application of the renewables obligation scheme. I hope very much that, unlike the previous Government, the new Government will be willing to look more vigorously at that. Civil servants tended to resist Ministers’ proposals because they did not want to damage wind power coming on stream and they thought they might keep coal in production. As studies show, these are unnecessary concerns.

The second way of providing 100 per cent biomass use in power generation is a very practical and known technology that could be brought forward within a relatively short period. It requires a further look at the regulatory environment, creating more certainty, particularly as regards grandfather rights. I know that the Minister and his department are looking at this. I hope very much that he can give us some additional reassurance on that tonight. The third, along with carbon capture and storage, requires support for a demonstration plant, either with the renewable obligations system or a new framework such that the Government may bring forward.

Yorkshire and Humberside has a number of big coal-fired power stations, and biomass is one—only one—important component in reducing CO₂ emissions while maintaining electricity generation and employment. Wind power generation has dominated renewables thinking and that has had an impact on government policy. I very much hope that the new Government will look again at the way in which biomass really can play a major part.

I turn finally to carbon capture and storage. I welcome the Government’s continued support for CCS demonstration projects and I was delighted at the establishment of the Office of Carbon Capture and Storage. I welcome the way in which the department and the Minister are being proactive in encouraging major interested parties to engage with them.

Last Friday, I chaired a conference in Leeds which brought together a wide range of interests in the Yorkshire region. There were contributors from DECC, National Grid, Powerfuel Power Limited which is developing the Hatfield CCS project, Drax Power, and representatives from a number of engineering, technology and service-related industries. There was a real sense at that conference for the first time that carbon capture and storage is a serious possibility within business planning horizons.

Why in Yorkshire are we so interested in CCS? The region emits 60 million tonnes of CO₂ per year—equivalent to almost half of all emissions generated by households in just the Yorkshire and Humber region. Yorkshire is the second largest generator of CO₂ in Europe after the Ruhr valley. There is a large number of power stations and heavy industry in the region. There are 14 emitters of more than 1 million tonnes of CO₂ and these are mainly clustered in a corridor north and south of the M62. The region therefore has a genuinely large potential for reducing carbon emissions. It has large potential offshore storage sites in the depleting gas fields and saline aquifers. There is a number of existing gas terminals on the coast that could be linked between the pipelines and the storage facilities.

The next three CCS demonstration projects need to capitalise on this potential for huge benefits in reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the region. It is important from the start to develop a potential trunk pipeline with linking spurs. This requires the demonstration projects to use an oversized pipeline for CO₂ transport. That might seem to be rather arcane, but is actually important. The important Hatfield project, which is likely to go forward, will emit about 4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. That requires a pipeline of only 18 inches in diameter. However, if that goes to the coast, no one else can use it. A 40-inch pipeline, which is double the size, can transport 40 tonnes of carbon dioxide—10 times more. So the issue of installing an oversized pipeline is genuinely important.

The Committee on Climate Change commented on this in its recent report. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is in his seat, because when he took the Climate Change Bill through the House on behalf of the then Opposition, he wanted the committee to take decisions, not give advice. Let me tell noble Lords what the committee said in its report last month. It stated:

“The competitive bidding process for the CCS demonstrations will need to make clear how proximity to other sources of CO₂ and the oversizing of CO₂ pipelines will affect a project’s chance of selection”.

If the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, had had his way, that would have been a decision, not a piece of advice. So I ask the Minister and the Office of Carbon Capture and Storage to consider with the greatest care the huge potential of CCS in Yorkshire and Humberside, to consider with equal care the advice of the Committee on Climate Change on the cluster and pipeline capacity issues, and to ensure that the CCS demonstration project selection takes the advice of the Committee on Climate Change fully and effectively into account.

20:05

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, it is good to be able to welcome my noble friend’s initiative in securing this debate. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Prescott on an excellent maiden speech. As noble Lords have said, he played a critical role in the successful Kyoto 1 negotiations. He has been a strong champion of the low-carbon economy and the environment, and he disclosed tonight that he has a family connection in your Lordships’ House. I am sure that his noble kinsmen, as we tend to call them, will warmly welcome him. My noble friend’s continued interest in climate change is very much welcome.

This is a very important debate. For me, climate change is probably the most critical issue that we face or are likely to face this century. My noble friend Lord Smith spoke of some of the difficult problems on climate change that we already face in this country. When we look at the impact of floods, water shortage, drought, mass migration and species extinction in so many parts of the world, we have to take action.

My fear is that since Copenhagen, and in the context of the current global economic turmoil, there is a real risk of climate change dropping off the agenda. We cannot afford for that to happen and we cannot ignore what happened at Copenhagen. As my noble friend Lord Prescott said, it was not a success. The fact is that an accord was agreed. I understand that more than 100 countries have now signed up to the accord and have made substantial emission commitments. They are not sufficient to meet the required increase limit of 2 degrees Celsius, but there is none the less some progress. Agreement was reached on the need for measurement, verification and reporting of emissions, which is absolutely essential if there is to be integrity behind global agreements. Agreement was also reached on fast-start finance of up to $30 billion by 2012, leading to $100 billion by 2020—a figure that the previous Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, originally suggested should be the aim.

It is important that we build on that. I ask the Minister to give a clear commitment to spare no effort in working for a globally binding treaty. I invite him to state what is the Government’s negotiating strategy. We have heard very little about it in the past few weeks. My noble friend Lord Prescott gave some important pieces of advice to the Government on how they ought to approach the negotiations at Cancun. I particularly emphasise his point about the potential partnership between China and Europe, and on building on the agreements that have been reached. What is for sure is that the UK should be a leader. I am very proud of the actions that the previous Government took in introducing the Climate Change Act. The UK was the first country to introduce a legally binding framework to cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 through the mechanism of carbon budgets. I ask the Minister to confirm that the coalition Government are committed to carbon budgets. What is his response to the recent report of the Committee on Climate Change which stated that we should not bank overperformance in the first budget through to the second budget?

Binding treaty or not, the world is on a trajectory to a low-carbon world. My noble friend Lord Bhattacharyya spoke about a consumerist-led approach. It is vital that the UK is not left behind. My noble friend Lord Sugar had a real warning for us on this. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, spoke about the history of wind turbine manufacturing being a hard lesson that we had to learn. My noble friend Lord Sugar was sceptical about the positive signals about the potential manufacturing capacity of the UK, particularly for offshore wind turbines. However, I was confident at the time of the election that we would see this manufacturing capacity, but crucially that depended on government activism. We published the Low Carbon Transition Plan in 2009, which was designed to encourage the development of a strong low-carbon manufacturing capacity in this country by supporting a British-based offshore wind industry, capitalising on the UK's wave and tidal sector strength, providing venture capital support for developing low-carbon businesses, providing capital investment to establish the Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre and supporting electric vehicles. I wanted to hear from the Minister tonight that the Government intend to continue to support these initiatives—or, as my noble friend Lord Haskel said, are we going to miss out on a huge opportunity for this country?

There are issues that we have to tackle, such as skills, as my noble friend Lord Haskel said; support for UK manufacturing; and the need to set high standards to ensure a level playing field for UK companies. Government procurement policy can have a hugely positive impact in this area. We can provide practical support, as my noble friend Lord Bhattacharyya said. As my noble friend Lord Giddens said, business needs signals about what carbon price intervention is likely. Will the Government agree to the recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change on the potential extension of CCS to gas? What does a low-carbon economy mean when this is translated into jobs? My noble friend Lord Woolmer spoke of the huge potential of CCS. I agree with him. His comments about the overcapacity that is required to give confidence for investment in the future is important. Another point about CCS is that, given that coal will continue to be used extensively and globally, developing CCS technology has huge potential for our ability to export UK-based technology. It is a vital area that we need to support in future.

There are positive signals about what the coalition has agreed to, but action has not been so encouraging, as my noble friend Lord Berkeley said. I worry that the Government are returning to the 1980s philosophy of non-intervention in industry in this country. There has been confusion over the Government's approach to nuclear energy. I have heard what Ministers have said, but in industry there is great concern about the Government's policy and a lack of confidence in what it means. The decision on Sheffield Forgemasters was not a sign to give confidence to industry. The decision to abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission and take planning decisions back to Ministers will not give confidence to the energy sector. Ministers have said that they will make planning decisions within the 12 months that the IPC was expected to make them. Well, we shall see.

I hope that the Minister tonight will be able to respond positively and to give the right signals that we, the public and industry require. However, the absence of any Back-Benchers from his party speaking in this debate is not an encouraging sign.

20:14

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)]

I thank noble Lords: this has been an impressive debate of great quality, as I have come to expect. I could listen for a long time to what such eminent speakers have to say. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, for tabling this important question about what steps the Government are taking to encourage low-carbon technologies in the marketplace. I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond. I am sorry that he is suggesting that I should get on my bike so early in my ministerial career, because it does not bode well for our future interchange. I also commend the noble Lord on his work as honorary president of the EIC. This debate allows the EIC to hold the Government to account, which is fundamental to making decisions and keeping the integrity of what we are trying to deliver. We welcome many of the EIC’s recommendations. Its voice is clearly heard and its calls for action are much appreciated.

I am particularly pleased to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, on his much anticipated speech, which we all enjoyed. He was a key figure in the Kyoto agreement, showing genuine leadership and starting a platform for delivery. In my short time in the House, we have always enjoyed, respected and honoured forthright views. We are delighted to see the noble Lord here and look forward to listening to him with great interest in future.

This Government may be a coalition of the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Benches, but we need to establish a cross-party coalition to deal with the major infrastructure changes and challenges that are required to develop low-carbon technology. We have a shared responsibility. Nothing can be achieved overnight. We cannot yet know the full range of technologies needed to facilitate the move to a low-carbon economy, but we can say that the transition will not happen without early action and strategic direction. We also need cross-party buy-in.

I will say a few words about what the Government are doing to encourage the transition to a low-carbon economy. The transition is about a genuine transformation of the UK economy. As the Prime Minister said, our economy is heavily reliant on a few industries and a few regions. We need to change that by giving the industries of the future the opportunity and incentive to grow. Low-carbon technologies, goods and services are central to that vision. What does that mean? First, it means that the UK has to be a world leader—I agree with noble Lords who said this. Already, the sector employs more than 900,000 people and is worth more than £112 billion a year. The UK has the sixth largest sector in the world. The global market is set to grow by approximately 4 per cent per year over the next five years, from £3.2 trillion. We need to put ourselves at the forefront of that growth, seizing the benefits for the UK while also showing international leadership and providing momentum for a global deal.

Secondly, it means a low-carbon transition for the whole economy. The low-carbon sector is vital, but it is not the whole story. All businesses need to re-engineer their products and services. All businesses, from aerospace to consumer products to retail, need to cut the environmental impact of the products and services that they produce in order for us to develop.

Thirdly, it means businesses and households reducing their energy use and improving their resource efficiency. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, made the point that the previous Administration failed to educate. Education is vital in this area and I completely agree with him. There are sound commercial reasons for focusing on the move to a low-carbon economy. We are already taking steps to turn rhetoric into reality. However, we need to do that in a way that takes account of the financial context. A low-carbon economy cannot and should not be delivered by government expenditure. It needs to be delivered by getting the incentives right to enable the business community to invest. That means setting the right incentives and stimulating private sector investment. Furthermore, as the coalition has made clear, we will support the key technologies which are vital to the UK’s low-carbon future and which offer huge opportunities for economic benefit to the UK. These include offshore wind, marine energy, CCS and anaerobic digestion.

We are also ensuring that we have the right policies to stimulate demand for low-carbon technologies. They include the green new deal, which will help to create a new and much more dynamic market for energy-efficient goods and services, as well as helping consumers. We are committed to green government and shall lead by example, cutting emissions across government by 10 per cent. This comes within my personal bailiwick. I have just referred to the green new deal. We are also committed to the green investment bank to pump-prime investment in the new technologies and we are committed to cutting red tape. I have just written to 300 businesses that are relevant to our department asking for their views on what red tape we should cut.

I turn to the specific points made in the debate. I enjoyed the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, that we have to get on with it—a point made by other noble Lords, too. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, argued with his own Government as forcefully as he has with us. I shall desist from being partisan, but his argument presupposes that his Government did not get on with things. He pointed out that we will not be responding to many of the comments on our energy policy until October. However, the truth is that, within the next two weeks before the Summer Recess, we will be giving an annual statement covering most of our policies for the next period. The noble Lord referred to the CCC. Its report is excellent and noble Lords on all Benches seem to embrace most, if not all, of it. Because of the timing of the parliamentary Session and our need to have a sensible debate—as good a debate as we had previously on that subject—we are not going to opine on it until October. However, of course we need to get on with it and I take on board his remarks in that regard.

The noble Lord, Lord Bhattacharyya, referred to electric cars. He is completely right: this is part of a vision that needs to be endorsed. However, it cannot be endorsed unless we have a low-carbon supply of electricity. He is also right that this issue must have consumer focus. I am grateful for his remarks.

The noble Lord, Lord Prescott, commented on voluntary agreements. He is completely right about that. Cancun requires greater endeavour and greater success than we had in Copenhagen. However, we must not build up people’s expectations, as we did with regard to Copenhagen. This involves long-term debate and encouragement, as he rightly said and as he showed when in office. We need to keep up the pressure but we also need to keep expectations balanced.

The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, whose wonderful book, The Politics of Climate Change, has been very good reading for many of us on these Benches—my noble friend Lord Taylor and I have been indebted to him—talked about deeds, not words, and I think that I have covered that point. I have just been handed a note saying that time is passing very quickly. That is rather good, as it means that I do not need to answer most of his questions. However, he is right about CCS for gas. I can confirm that it is part of our policy to look at that.

I want to move on quickly to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, who has done a fantastic job as chairman of the Environment Agency. He referred to the economic opportunity and said that we must show leadership. I want to make one particular point, which picks up on what the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, said. We are the leading market in offshore wind power. Only last week, we gave seven grants to seven British companies to deliver products that encourage offshore wind power. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, is also right about the need to look at tidal power. Marine parks are central to our theme.

The noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Woolmer, talked about biomass. Personally, at this point I am not convinced that it is absolutely fundamental to our energy development, but we must look at all ways of obtaining a sustainable low-carbon economy.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, feels that he has handed over the baton to someone who will carry on his great work. I should tell him that the Prime Minister was in Washington this week with the Secretary of State, Christopher Huhne, talking to the American Government. He will be in India in two weeks’ time with the Minister for Climate Change, Mr Gregory Barker, and is in strong dialogue with China.

Noble Lords should rest assured that the coalition is determined to move to a low-carbon economy; we are determined to make it happen. It is vital for generations to come that we support each other, that this is a cross-party issue and that we establish a broad alliance. I invite noble Lords to continue with these debates, because they are fundamental to our keeping the broad alliance going in the future. Again, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable comments, which I have taken on board.

House adjourned at 8.26 pm.