House of Commons

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

Tuesday 19 October 2010

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

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

1. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on drug addiction services in prisons.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

I have had discussions with Ministers in a number of Departments, including the Department of Health, the Home Office and the Cabinet Office. Those discussions have covered a range of drugs-related topics, including reforming drug addiction services in prisons.

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He will be aware that many prisoners struggle with choosing abstinence over methadone when they want to kick their drug habits, so what action will the Government take to encourage prisoners to take an abstinence-based regimen instead of methadone?

[Mr Blunt]

Our policy is that we should move towards abstinence from maintenance, but it is not the practice that we have inherited. The main programme, the integrated drug treatment system, is relatively new and based around National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse models of care, but the effect in practice is much more about maintaining addicts safely than leading them to abstinence. However, there are very good abstinence-based programmes in prison, such as RAPt, and our goal is to challenge offenders to take responsibility for the harm that they have caused and to accept help to come off drugs. We will therefore reshape existing drug services in prisons to establish drug recovery wings that are based on abstinence, free from drugs, motivate change, support rehabilitation and, on release, link offenders into community services that can continue the progress made in prison.

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

It sounds as if the Minister is going to be pretty rigid in pursuing a policy that, in some cases, will work and be wholly appropriate. In other cases, however, people will fail, and when they do so they will be a problem not just to themselves but to our communities. They will feed organised crime and return to their habits. Surely he accepts and recognises that.

[Mr Blunt]

Of course I accept and recognise that. That is the reality of the current position. All too many short-sentence offenders are going into prison, and occasionally they do not have a drug habit but acquire one while they are there. We are failing to rehabilitate drug addicts effectively and, indeed, to address properly alcoholics, in the community and in prison, who are under the sentence of the courts. That is why we will move to a much more output-based system, measuring people by what they achieve rather than simply measuring inputs. Of course, that is a very difficult area, and many people need more than one go—indeed, several goes—at effecting successful rehabilitation from drugs, and of course this Administration acknowledge that.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

2. What proportion of young offenders reoffended within one year of being released from custody in the latest period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

16. What proportion of young offenders reoffended within (a) one and (b) two years of being released from custody in the latest period for which figures are available.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

The latest reoffending rate for young people, those aged between 10 and 17, released from custody in England and Wales in the first quarter of 2008 is 74.3%. Reoffending rates for young people are based on whether an offender has been convicted at court or has received an out-of-court disposal for an offence in the year following release from custody.

[Laura Sandys]

Does the Minister agree that young offenders, when released from prison, need a more demanding and challenging set of programmes? In my constituency, the Kent Film Foundation runs a programme teaching film skills, and it has an 85% success rate in getting young offenders into work or further education, at a cost of £5,000 per course.

[Mr Blunt]

There are many isolated examples of really good practice all over the country, and our challenge is to systemise it so that people can learn from what works, experience the flexibility and the opportunity to implement it and deliver the output, which then effectively turns those young people away from crime.

[Mark Reckless]

Given the abject failure of the Youth Justice Board to reduce reoffending among our young people, what plans does the Minister have to replace it, and in particular what role does he envisage for the private and voluntary sectors in that area?

[Mr Blunt]

The functions of the Youth Justice Board will be taken into the Ministry of Justice, but I am not sure that I would be quite as condemnatory as my hon. Friend is about the board’s record. It has achieved success in getting youth offending teams effectively embedded within a local delivery framework, and it is now up to the Ministry of Justice and myself, as the Minister for Youth Justice, to take that work forward and take responsibility for it.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Precisely how much money will the Minister save by the abolition of the Youth Justice Board? Will he ensure that that money is reinvested in front-line services to support youth offending teams? How precisely does he expect to organise youth offending teams without the oversight of the Youth Justice Board?

[Mr Blunt]

There will be some savings to be taken, but they will not be taken at the outset because the delivery functions of the Youth Justice Board, principally in purchasing custody for young people sent into custody by the courts, will obviously remain. I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman remembered the system that he had, whereby one-on-one policy advice came from the Youth Justice Board and from his own policy officials in the Department. That sort of duplication will be taken away by bringing the functions of the Youth Justice Board within the Ministry of Justice.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I am glad that the Minister has not taken the opportunity to rubbish the Youth Justice Board, because the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), heaped praise on it in abolishing it last week. Having praised and buried the Youth Justice Board, what does the Minister suggest takes its place? He knows that 25% falls in youth reoffending rates occurred over its first eight years. What is his strategy for continuing the excellent record of the previous Labour Government in reducing youth reoffending?

[Mr Blunt]

I am not entirely sure that I would be that sanctimonious about presenting the record of the last Labour Government, when we had not only the awful reoffending rates out of custody but, in relation to community penalties, 67.6% of young people reoffending within one year. That is not a record to be wildly proud of. We need to continue to embed youth offending teams in their local authority areas and ensure that there is a proper, effective delivery of local services to young people, including from the education departments of local authorities, for example, to ensure that we properly co-ordinate the effective delivery of services to young offenders within the gift of the state to ensure that they do not reoffend.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

3. If he will take steps to improve co-operation between judicial systems in the UK and in Greece.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

Both the UK and Greece are party to a number of European instruments that facilitate co-operation between judicial systems within Europe. In addition, I know that my hon. Friend is taking a particular interest in the separate bilateral issue of improving the provision of locally obtained information regarding deaths of our citizens in Greece to coroners here.

[Margot James]

I thank the Minister for his answer. My constituent, Luke Walker, has been imprisoned on the island of Crete for over 150 days, and his defence team have been constantly frustrated by the denial of information that should rightfully be theirs. Can my right hon. Friend update the House on the progress of the working group set up between UK and Greek officials and designed to improve co-operation between the UK coroner service and the Greek authorities?

[Nick Herbert]

I understand that Luke Walker has been charged but that a trial date has not been set. It is of course a matter of great regret that delays are occurring in the exchange of information between the Greek authorities and coroners in England and Wales. That can only increase the distress felt by everyone involved in such cases, of which there are a number. We are working with the Foreign Office and the Greek authorities to try to improve the situation so that inquests can be concluded without further delay. The working group to which my hon. Friend refers will be able to have its first meeting to discuss these issues shortly; we are pressing for a date to be set.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

4. What steps he plans to take to provide alternatives to custody for vulnerable women in the criminal justice system.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

We are already providing effective alternatives to remands for the courts with new enhanced bail provision for women and robust community sentences supported by voluntary sector-run women’s community projects.

[Julie Hilling]

I thank the Minister for that answer. However, will he pledge that funding for voluntary and community sector projects designed to help vulnerable women out of a life of crime and away from prison is not undermined by cuts to Ministry of Justice budgets?

[Nick Herbert]

I appreciate the value of such community projects. The hon. Lady will understand that I cannot make pledges on funding, not least ahead of tomorrow’s spending review announcements. However, we are keen to ensure that such projects continue if they can and, in particular, that there is a role for the voluntary sector in helping to deliver them.

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

In 2007, the Corston report stated that custodial sentences for women should be reserved for serious and violent individuals who pose a threat to the public, yet 68% of women in prison are there for non-violent offences, compared with 47% of men. What more can the Government do to ensure that fewer women who are guilty of non-violent offences go to prison?

[Nick Herbert]

My hon. Friend may know that when the then Government broadly accepted the Corston report’s recommendations, we in opposition broadly accepted them too. The female prison population rose sharply from when the previous Government took power. It had risen by 86% by 2002, although it has been broadly static since then. It is important to provide alternatives such as community projects, particularly to help vulnerable women who do not need to be in custody, although custody must of course remain for the most serious offenders.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

While obviously the Minister cannot anticipate tomorrow’s comprehensive spending review decisions, in order to fulfil the strategy set out by Baroness Corston of reducing the number of women offenders in prison, there must be good community provision. Can he now commit to maintaining the existing provision?

[Nick Herbert]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her new role. We want to embed women’s community projects into mainstream service provision and provide support for women at each stage of the criminal justice process, so we are devolving both budgets and contracts to directors of offender management. They are working with the probation service, which will have the lead role in sustaining successful projects. We want those projects to succeed.

[Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)]

5. What restorative justice pilot schemes his Department has or has recently completed in England.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

I am providing good value for the taxpayer this afternoon. [Interruption.] Buy one answer, get one free.

Pre-sentence restorative justice for adults was trialled as part of a Home Office crime reduction programme that ran between 2001 and 2004. A youth restorative disposal has also been piloted, allowing police officers to resolve minor first-time offences by young people using restorative techniques. We are currently ensuring that the pilot is independently evaluated.

[Elizabeth Truss]

The community payback scheme in Downham Market was initiated by volunteers and has proved very effective in both showing justice being done locally and delivering key community projects such as improvements to paths and car parks. What plans does the Minister have to give local communities the power to make it easier to deliver similar schemes?

[Nick Herbert]

I am aware of the Downham Market scheme. If sentencers and the public are to have confidence in community payback, we need to make it tougher. We need to ensure that the work done is meaningful and challenging, and that there is rigorous enforcement of community payback orders. We are also keen on ensuring that as much as possible is done, like in Downham Market, to encourage members of the community to nominate projects and therefore take an interest in them.

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

In view of the Minister’s comments earlier about embedding best practice in the mainstream, what will he do to ensure that judges and magistrates have a full understanding of the outcome of restorative justice projects and make full use of them?

[Nick Herbert]

The right hon. Gentleman probably knows that we will announce a set of proposals on sentencing later this year, and restorative justice will form an important component of that. It is a coalition agreement to seek to promote restorative justice programmes, and the evaluation of them that has been carried out is encouraging, showing high levels of victim satisfaction and reduced rates of reoffending.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend referred to the community payback scheme. I recently spent a day with the community payback team in my constituency, helping to cut back branches in a local area of woodland. I saw the benefits of such work to both offenders and the community. Does he agree that such schemes play an important part in the justice system?

[Nick Herbert]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I assume that he was taking part in the scheme as an observer, not as somebody who was required to pay back to the community. It was not a Whips-run scheme.

It is important that community sentences are effective, and that there is confidence on the part of members of the public and sentencers that the schemes are rigorous. At their best they can be, but there is a great deal more work to be done to ensure that they are supervised and enforced properly.

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

Last year alone, offenders carried out more than 11 million hours of unpaid work through the community payback scheme, which is a model of restorative justice. Across the country, offenders have cleaned graffiti, repaired community centres and worked on environmental projects, including helping to repair flood damage in Cumbria. The scheme was established by the previous Labour Government in the face of Conservative opposition—indeed, at the time, the current Attorney-General dismissed it as a gimmick. Will the Minister confirm that that excellent Labour programme is in fact now being expanded by his Government because it provides an important role in punishing and rehabilitating offenders?

[Nick Herbert]

May I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new position as Opposition spokesperson? He does not seem to recognise that there are public confidence issues with community payback as it is currently run. He did not refer, for instance, to the ITV documentary that was broadcast recently that showed offenders abusing community payback and problems with supervision. It is the Government’s intention to considerably improve and toughen up community payback so that there is confidence in it.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

6. What estimate he has made of the number of prisoners in England and Wales addicted to class A drugs.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

We estimate that on average, 55% of all people entering prison have a serious drug problem, but we are unable to give a robust and precise estimate of the number of prisoners who are addicted to class A drugs. A recent study reviewed 1,457 newly sentenced prisoners from 49 prisons. It showed that 62% of prisoners reported some drug use, and 41% of the sample reported heroin, cocaine powder or crack cocaine use during the four-week period prior to the study.

[Andrew Griffiths]

The Secretary of State will know that more than 60,000 prisoners received methadone or another drug intervention in our prisons last year alone. Almost 24,000 of them received a regular methadone prescription. Does he agree that that state-induced dependency must end?

[Mr Clarke]

rose—

[Andrew Griffiths]

And will he urgently bring forward proposals to tackle the problem?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is testing the knee muscles of his right hon. and learned Friend.

[Mr Clarke]

I was compelled by my hon. Friend’s first question and I had not thought that there was more to come. As he said, we must move away from the overuse of drugs and methadone maintenance, and aim at detoxification and returning people to a condition in which they might stay out of prison. Methadone maintenance is sometimes necessary when dealing with people who are seriously addicted when they enter prison. If people are serving a very short-term sentence, there is not much more we can do than maintain them on methadone.

However, the Ministry of Justice is looking, with my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary, to see what can be done in the context of his health reforms to deal more constructively with the huge problem of drugs offenders and crime. As I said, more than half the people whom we admit to prison are believed to have a serious drug problem when they arrive, and some who enter drug-free become addicted while there.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Some of us believe that decisions on drug treatment, including in prison, should be taken by doctors, not by politicians. Which Government agency will take the lead on drug treatment in prison under this Government?

[Mr Clarke]

I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in drug treatment in his constituency, where he has an excellent record on the subject. Responsibility for such treatment in prisons has been transferred to the NHS. I agree with his proposition that clinical judgments must lie at the heart of any drug treatment programme, but it is necessary for Departments to collaborate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I hope to produce a combined framework on treatment in prison and treatment for convicted drug users in alternative residential accommodation. That might include the transfer of prisoners in suitable cases to community-based mental health care. All those things must be tried, because the current situation is quite appalling. However, in the end, treatment of an individual must be a clinical decision. It is certainly not a decision for politicians.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

7. What steps he is taking to provide relationship skills programmes for prisoners.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

Currently, commissioning services for offenders is devolved to directors of offender management in the regions and Wales. They are responsible for deciding what services they wish to commission to meet the needs of prisoners in their area. We are examining how reforms to the justice system could enable delivery of more programmes from a broader range of local providers of greater relevance to the many rehabilitation needs of offenders.

[Andrew Selous]

Given that there is a mass of academic evidence from the UK, the US and the Netherlands that strong family relationships reduce reoffending and, therefore, cost to the Minister’s Department, can I ask him to stress that in the Green Paper and when he and his colleagues speak to prison governors?

[Mr Blunt]

I tend to agree with my hon. Friend. We have to get to a position in which those people who are charged with the rehabilitation of offenders have a much freer hand to deliver the interventions that will be effective for the offender who is in their care. If we over-prescribe exactly what has to be done from the centre, we will have a much less effective system. That process will be central to the rehabilitation revolution of delegating responsibility and authority for these decisions to a local level.

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

While I would not go as far as the Minister’s party in terms of rehabilitation for prisoners, is it not better to have resources going into rehabilitation so that we save money in the long run? When I spoke to those who work at Nottingham prison in my constituency, they were very concerned that the cuts that will be implemented tomorrow could mean that prisoners will be locked up for much longer periods with no rehabilitation services.

[Mr Blunt]

I detected a degree of contradiction in how the hon. Gentleman presented his question. He does not want to go as far as we would on the rehabilitation of offenders, but then asks us to go the distance. That is exactly what we will do. It would be wholly short-sighted to cut our capacity to deliver rehabilitation of offenders, and that is why we will enable a system that gets the whole country—including the voluntary, not-for-profit and the private sectors, as well as the existing state services—to work together to deliver effective rehabilitation of offenders and effect a step change in the delivery of what is a critical public service.

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

8. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the provision of training for prison service staff on the management of offenders with mental health conditions.

[Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

12. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the provision of training for prison service staff on the management of offenders with mental health conditions.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

18. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the provision of training for prison service staff on the management of offenders with mental health conditions.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

Ministry of Justice and Department of Health Ministers and senior officials discuss offender health issues regularly. Over 17,000 prison officers received mental health awareness training between 2006 and 2009. A new mental health training framework was launched in 2009-10, which regional offender health teams now co-ordinate.

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer and I am delighted to hear that his Department is working with the Department of Health. Will he do all that he can to work effectively with that Department to ensure the proper commissioning of mental health services, which will not only improve intervention in the police station, but ensure a wider range of effective sentences in our courts?

[Mr Clarke]

That is precisely what we want to do, and my hon. Friend’s approach is very much in the right direction. Much reform will take place in the Department of Health, including obviously the commissioning of services for mental health. It is important that account is taken of the need to commission proper services of all kinds for prisoners, and that is being taken on board by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and his team. We will work closely with them. The present prison population includes people whose criminality goes alongside a definite need for support—in this case for mental health problems—which, if tackled successfully, might reduce their liability to reoffend.

[Dr Poulter]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the treatment of prisoners with mental health problems does not just end when they leave prison but continues far beyond? Will he please outline what steps the Government plan to take to support prisoners with mental health problems after they leave prison?

[Mr Clarke]

I agree entirely. It is all part of what we hope to do on rehabilitation. In addition to tackling prisoners’ problems inside prison, we have to look ahead and almost certainly join up with the community mental health services providing support for prisoners when they are released. That will be an important part of ensuring that the reforms we are carrying out to the prison service and the criminal justice system are properly tied up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health’s important reforms to the future shape of the NHS.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I gently encourage the Secretary of State to look at the House when he addresses us?

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

How do the Government intend to implement the proposal in the coalition agreement to explore alternative forms of secure treatment-based accommodation for mentally ill and drugs offenders?

[Mr Clarke]

I recall that proposal in the coalition agreement. I think I mistakenly drew upon it a few moments ago when talking about drug treatments—I do not think we will be moving to that quite so rapidly. However, that is an important part of the coalition agreement, and I can only say at this stage that we certainly have not forgotten about it and are working on it. Undoubtedly, if we can set up a proper and, where necessary, secure treatment facility, it would perhaps be a better place to treat mental illness than an overcrowded prison.

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

What discussions have been held between the Secretary of State’s Department and the devolved Administrations on this important issue? Are there any glaring variations between the training available across the different regions of the United Kingdom?

[Mr Clarke]

These matters are devolved. I have no doubt that we will look at good practice on both sides of the Irish sea from time to time to ensure that we benefit from what we each do. I am in regular contact with my opposite number in the devolved Northern Ireland Government, and I will try to take the opportunity to discuss these matters with him to see how we are both getting on.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

I am encouraged by the responses from the Secretary of State, particularly given that this is a big issue in my constituency, which is home to Her Majesty’s Prison Brixton. We want to expand provision for mental health services in that prison so we are keen to know whether he agrees that it would be a mistake this week to reduce funding for mental health services in our prisons?

[Mr Clarke]

Not surprisingly, everyone is trying to anticipate tomorrow’s announcements. We will have to make fairly marked reductions to the budget of the Ministry of Justice and the various services for which we are responsible. Against that background, we will need to take an approach to how we tackle these problems that is more radical and reforming than the previous one, which involved simply paying for more and more places for more and more people, leading to overcrowded prisons. Our approach will underline the need to take a particular look at drugs, mental health, illiteracy, innumeracy, foreign national prisoners and all the other things to ensure that we find better ways of dealing with rehabilitation problems whenever possible.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

9. What recent discussions he has had with the Sentencing Guidelines Council on its guidance on short custodial sentences.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

The Sentencing Guidelines Council has not issued any specific guidance on short custodial sentences. We have had no discussions with the council on this topic, which we are considering as part of our assessment of sentencing policy.

[Hazel Blears]

The Secretary of State may be aware of a recent case in my constituency in which a young man suffering from autism and Asperger’s syndrome was subjected to a series of horrific attacks by three other young men. The judge said that the attacks could almost amount to torture, yet the three perpetrators were given community orders. During the general election, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), now the Prime Minister, told the country that we are not convicting enough. He then explicitly said that

“when we do convict them, they’re not getting long enough sentences.”

Just two weeks ago, in his speech to the Conservative party conference, the Prime Minister said that

“offenders who should go to prison will go to prison”.

I agree with the Prime Minister—does the Secretary of State?

[Mr Clarke]

One of the failings of the last Government was to take a popular subject from the popular press and make rather shallow partisan points out of it. Sentencing in individual cases is not a matter for Ministers, and should not be a matter for sensational comment to the newspapers by Ministers with the frequency that it was. We have to ensure that justice is done, particularly to the victims of crime, and that justice is carried out in such a way as to reduce the risk of reoffending. We have made our approach to crime perfectly clear: we must punish the guilty. Prison is the right place for serious criminals—they will not commit more crimes while inside—but we also strive to avoid reoffending. The case that the right hon. Lady mentions was obviously a serious case for the victim, but newspaper cuttings from Salford are not the source of future criminal justice reform.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to acknowledge that very few people are sentenced to prison for a first offence? The vast majority of people who serve short-term prison sentences do so only because they have been given community sentence after community sentence, all of which have failed. The last thing to do with those people is to give them another community sentence, only for it to fail once again.

[Mr Clarke]

It is very pleasant to say that I largely agree with my hon. Friend. He has probably been upset by reports that I am minded to abolish short prison sentences. Actually, I have always expressed precisely the opposite opinion. It has never been my view that we should abolish all short prison sentences. Indeed, I have rather shared his opinion that with the kind of irritating recidivist offender who is causing a lot of damage, if they offend over and over again there is quite often no alternative to a short prison sentence. There are too many such offenders, and although there are cases in which we can avoid the use of short prison sentences, if we do that we must have a very effective alternative.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

May I begin by saying how much I genuinely relish the prospect of debating—and, dare I say, arguing—with the Lord Chancellor and his team on the matters in their portfolio? I am also looking forward to working with the coalition Government where there are areas of agreement between us, notably on the use of restorative justice projects such as community payback—a subject that has already been raised by the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) and other colleagues. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that most people who receive short prison sentences are persistent offenders who have refused to change their behaviour, even after undergoing community sentences, as has been said. He has said that he is not against abolishing the power of magistrates to award short sentences. Will he commit today not to reduce, in the sentencing review now taking place, the power of magistrates to give custodial sentences where appropriate?

[Mr Clarke]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his place, and I look forward to debating with him. He has certainly got to Cabinet level a damn sight more quickly than I ever did, so I am sure that he will prove a formidable challenge to the Government. As I have already said, we will not take away powers from magistrates courts, which sometimes find it absolutely inevitable that they have to give somebody a short prison sentence, because everything else has failed and that person is continuing to cause damage to other people. However, we hope to provide magistrates with the full range of alternatives. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice said a few moments ago, more credible community sentences—sentences with a properly punitive element that might have a better chance of rehabilitating the offender—should be tried in more cases, and we will try to provide them for magistrates.

[Sadiq Khan]

I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for that answer. He has made it absolutely clear that magistrates will not have the power to give short sentences taken away from them. For clarity, will he also confirm that the cuts that will be announced tomorrow will not lead to a reduction in any prison places or to any prisons being closed?

[Mr Clarke]

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to follow his predecessors in making a great policy point about a target for the number of people in prison, because there is no evidence that that does any good to anybody. We do have to—[Interruption.] The present numbers are enormous compared with the numbers when we were last in office. There are 20,000 more people in prison than there were when we last had a Conservative Home Secretary in charge. We are looking at what works, and what protects the public. Prison must be used for those for whom it is essential, but it is simply not the case that prison is the only way of dealing with all offenders. Once we have punished people and given others a break from their activities, the key thing is to do more than the present system does to reduce the risk of their reoffending and committing more crimes against more victims, to which the present system almost condemns us. More than half of prisoners—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the Secretary of State, but we now need shorter questions and shorter answers.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

10. What plans he has for future funding of Victim Support homicide service teams.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

The Government recognise the importance of providing support, information and advocacy for families bereaved by homicide. We are currently considering options for future funding of services for victims.

[Karl Turner]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response, but I am still concerned, because the draft structural plan for the Ministry of Justice makes no reference to continued funding for the national victims service. Can the Minister guarantee that the £8 million committed by the previous Government will be protected by the present Government, ensuring that families of murder victims get the support that they need?

[Nick Herbert]

The Government of course recognise that families who are bereaved through homicide require the most intensive support of all, and we are working with Victim Support on the continuing development of the homicide service, which is relatively new. It has supported 600 bereaved people, although it has only been going since March 2010. However, I cannot make commitments about funding ahead of tomorrow, or ahead of the proposals that we will set out later this year.

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

11. What progress his Department has made on implementation of its payment by results policy for the rehabilitation of offenders; and if he will make a statement.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

The Government are committed to introducing payment by results as part of a new approach to offender rehabilitation. We will provide further details in the rehabilitation and sentencing Green Paper.

[Stephen Mosley]

With 60% of offenders on short-term sentences reoffending within a year, it is absolutely critical to have a major step change in our attitudes to rehabilitation. To that end, will my right hon. and learned Friend tell us whether he plans to introduce any more pilot schemes, and if so, when and where will they occur?

[Mr Clarke]

I entirely share my hon. Friend’s view, and we are hoping to get more pilots under way in the new year, as soon as we have got our Green Paper out and drawn up the framework contracts that we shall have to enter into with providers. The country is full of people with extremely good ideas on how to improve rehabilitation and reduce reoffending, and we must ensure that we have a proper means of engaging with people in the voluntary and independent sectors and in private sector companies—in any combination of those that people wish—to try to produce the result that my hon. Friend and I, and all our constituents, would like to see.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

13. What steps his Department is taking to increase access to legal representation for the most vulnerable.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

On 23 June 2010 the Justice Secretary announced in a written ministerial statement that the Government were undertaking a policy assessment of legal aid in England and Wales. The Government intend to seek views on proposals later this autumn. In addition, on 26 July I announced the Government’s intention to consult on implementing Lord Justice Jackson’s proposals on funding arrangements from his report later this autumn. Those proposals, if implemented, would help to maintain access to justice at proportionate costs for claimants and defendants.

[Mr Ward]

The only organisation in Bradford with qualified solicitors offering welfare advice ceases its service part-way through the year as it uses up its allocation of matter starts, while other solicitors still have unused but non-transferable allocations. Will the Justice Secretary please ensure that, as part of the review, the inefficiency of matter starts is given due consideration?

[Mr Djanogly]

That will form part of the review, which, as I said earlier, will be out later this autumn.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) has talked about the importance of legal aid. Like many other hon. Members, I believe that legal aid is critical for those who want to address an injustice. Can he assure us that it will continue, and there will still be an opportunity to access it, even after the comprehensive spending review?

[Mr Djanogly]

Absolutely. The Government support legal aid very much. As far as we are concerned, however, it is a question of directing that legal aid to those who need it most, and that will form the core component of the review whose findings will come out later this autumn.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

14. If he will establish how many foreign national prisoners held in UK prisons wish to serve out custodial sentences in their country of origin rather than in the UK.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

Since 1 January this year, 97 applications for transfer have been received from prisoners wishing to serve their custodial sentence in their country of origin. The Prison Service has in place procedures—principally on induction—to ensure that prisoners are aware of the possibility of transfer and of how to submit an application. In addition, prisoners are advised, during interviews with immigration staff, of the possibility of being repatriated. Relevant prisoners are advised in writing of any new prisoner transfer agreement that comes into effect.

[Mr Hollobone]

May I urge my hon. Friend to place in the Library the details of the countries to which those 97 prisoners wished to return? I also urge him and his ministerial colleagues to do far more to encourage foreign national prisoners to go back to where they came from, because taxpayers in this country are fed up with paying for their board and lodging.

[Mr Blunt]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for continuing to keep a spur to the Ministry of Justice’s side to ensure that we do not slack in our responsibility to get these foreign national prisoners home if at all possible. I am pleased to be able to tell him that when I spoke recently to the annual conference of the Independent Monitoring Boards, I asked them to help us with this, to ensure that we have our procedures in place, and to identify any cases of delay involving prisoners wishing to return under a prisoner transfer agreement. I am determined to ensure that all those who are willing to go home should be encouraged to do so at the earliest opportunity.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

15. What recent representations he has received on his review of parental responsibility in sentencing.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

As part of our informal consultations for the Green Paper, we have received clear support for greater engagement of parents and families in the youth justice system. There is strong international evidence and promising emerging evidence from the UK of the effectiveness of supportive parenting interventions in reducing offending by young people.

[Jason McCartney]

I welcome the Minister’s statement that international evidence shows the effectiveness of parenting in reducing offending. Will my hon. Friend do everything he can to increase the role of parenting in sentencing in the youth justice system?

[Mr Blunt]

What we want to do is to move towards a restorative approach to the youth justice system, and particularly to examine whether we can transfer the lessons from the experience of the youth system in Northern Ireland. Youth justice conferencing was very successful there, which involves, of course, the parents of offenders as well as the offenders themselves having to face up to the consequences of their actions. I hope that that gives a pretty unqualified yes to my hon. Friend.

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

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

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

I would like to point out that we recently launched the new legal ombudsman scheme on 6 October 2010. The legal ombudsman, established under the Legal Services Act 2007, will act as a one-stop shop for all complaints against legal service providers. The new scheme replaces the previous complaints-handling regime, whereby service complaints about lawyers were dealt with by their regulatory body. The legal ombudsman will preside over the new complaints system, which will be efficient, easily understandable for consumers, and clearly independent from the legal profession.

[Paul Maynard]

I recently received a letter from a constituent who in 2000 received a three-year custodial sentence for a non-violent crime. Despite successful rehabilitation and gainful employment, he now discovers that his conviction can never be legally spent—with a dreadful impact on the future lives of both himself and his family. Given the Lord Chancellor’s enthusiasm for rehabilitation, and also the inflation in sentencing over the past 10 years, will he commit to look again at the threshold at which convictions can be legally spent?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

My hon. Friend has pointed out some of the problems with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 as it operates in today’s climate. I can confirm that this will be covered by our review of sentencing and rehabilitation.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

Will the Lord Chancellor confirm that in the forthcoming review of the Human Rights Act, its abolition has been ruled out?

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

The coalition agreement sets out that we will appoint a commission, which will probably happen next year. We will certainly not resile in any way from our obligations under the European convention on human rights, which the Government accept. We will also examine the prospects of improving understanding of how human rights legislation works in this country.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

T3. Are my right hon. and hon. Friends aware of the devastating consequences, particularly for victims of domestic violence, of the decision taken by the Legal Services Commission to halve the number of legal aid providers? In the whole of my constituency of South Northamptonshire we have only one small firm specialising in domestic violence legal aid cases, yet it has just been told that its licence will be revoked. Can Ministers do anything to help my constituents?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

It was a competitive contract, and the contracts have now been awarded. It is appropriate to note that the new legal aid contracts for family law were due to commence on 14 October, but that on 30 September the Legal Services Commission lost a judicial review brought about by the Law Society against its recent tender process. The tender was ruled unlawful and the awards quashed, meaning that the Legal Services Commission is unable to proceed with the new family contracts until a fresh process can be undertaken.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

T2. What action will be taken to ensure that the arrest and prosecution of foreign nationals can be undertaken only by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan police?

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

I will make careful inquiries into what steps are being taken. Obviously foreign nationals should be treated on the same basis as any other residents of this country when it comes to being dealt with via the criminal law. However, if the procedures give rise to some concern, perhaps the hon. Lady would draw the specific problem that troubles her to my attention and that of my team, and we will look into it.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

T5. Given the potential closure of Northwich court in my constituency, as a result of which people will have to travel a considerable distance to reach the nearest court in Chester, what plans have the Government to encourage the use of technology to minimise the necessity for members of the public physically to attend the court for routine purposes?

[Mr Djanogly]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity to discuss the merits of technology in relation to the courts. As for the court in his constituency, access is important. The Government took the view that an average travelling time of an hour or less would be acceptable.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State think that there should be a public acceptability test relating to the time that prisoners spend in purposeful activity?

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

I think that it would be very publicly acceptable if there were a more work-based regime in more of our prisons. I am not sure what specific tests would need to be devised, but we would need to ensure that, whenever possible, the hours spent in productive employment by prisoners reintroduced to the work habit were similar to those to which they would have to adapt if they obtained a job when they left prison, and that they would be able to produce goods, for instance, generating earnings that would help them to make a contribution to compensation for victims. However, I am not sure that each of those programmes would need to be subjected to a public acceptability test.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

T6. Many millions of pounds are spent on court cases involving divorcing couples. Yesterday David Norgrove was quoted as saying that the Department was looking to a Swedish model to help to resolve divorce cases— Name her! What changes does the Secretary of State propose to make, and how much would—[Interruption.] Order. I want to hear the rest of the question. It is becoming more fascinating by the word. What does the Secretary of State intend to learn from the Swedish model, and how much money would be saved?

[Mr Djanogly]

We have some good English models too. Family mediation can be quicker, cheaper and less stressful, and provide better outcomes, than contested court proceedings. We know that informing people about mediation helps them to understand how it can enable them to avoid long-drawn-out cases. I am pleased to report that the issue forms part of the Norgrove review, which we will follow with great interest.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Chris Leslie. He is not here, so I call Mr David Winnick.

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

How many of those who were seriously injured in the 7/7 bombings are still waiting for compensation? Presumably the Department has some responsibility in that regard. As for the claims that have been finalised, is the Secretary of State aware that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction among those who have received inadequate sums, in view of the serious injuries inflicted by the mass murderers?

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

Because of the system that we have inherited, the criminal injuries compensation scheme will have to be re-examined. It simply has not received adequate funds in each year’s budget to keep up with the level of claims. We will have to establish how we can produce a system that works more efficiently, is affordable, and does not depend entirely on huge delays before payments are made because no one has been allocated any money to settle all the outstanding claims.

There is quite a lot behind the hon. Gentleman’s question, but of course everything possible is being done to provide the compensation due to people as quickly as possible. Obviously I cannot comment on the assessment of damages in individual cases, but I note the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about the disappointment that some have felt.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

T7. As part of his efforts to save money by reducing the workload of the magistrates courts, will my right hon. and learned Friend make it his policy to decriminalise the non-payment of the BBC television licence fee, so that the BBC, like every other organisation, must recover its civil debts civilly rather than through the magistrates courts?

[Mr Clarke]

I am not sure that that is my responsibility at present; I will consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. I can only say that the last time I can remember a Government attempting to do that, the idea was not met with a great deal of favour by the BBC—but I shall find out exactly where we are now.

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

Like many others, I would like to see less use of short-term prison sentences, but will the Justice Secretary expand on his curious remark a little earlier that there is little evidence that prison does any good to anyone?

[Mr Clarke]

If I said that, it was one of those slips of the tongue that I very rarely make. Prison is the best and only punishment for serious criminal offenders; it is the one that we all want to use. It has a strong punitive element if the just and correct sentence is given, and the public are, of course, spared from the crimes of the individual for so long as he is in prison—but we should also strive to do much better than we have ever done before in reducing the likelihood of the person reoffending and committing new crimes as soon as he is released. I am, however, delighted to hear that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me that short-term sentences are used too much. He should have a word with his party’s newly appointed Front-Bench spokesman, before that Front-Bench spokesman slips into the folly of the last 10 years.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Since no funding was in place from the previous Government for the post of chief coroner, the decision not to go ahead with it was hardly surprising, but does that not leave a gap both in raising standards and in having an appeal procedure less costly than judicial review?

[Mr Djanogly]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity to explain the fact that we aim to improve the coroner system in line with most of the policy in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. However, the purpose of abolishing the chief coroner post is, first, to save the £10 million start-up costs and then the £6.5 million running costs, but also so that some of the chief coroner’s leadership and operational functions can be transferred to an alternative body.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that prisoners held within the prison estate are still allowed to smoke tobacco. Does the Secretary of State agree that that presents a huge health risk to Prison Service employees, and are the Government considering the matter?

[Mr Blunt]

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the prisoner’s cell is regarded as his home for the purposes of the smoking legislation, and that is what gives them their rights in that regard.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

T8. My right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary will be aware of the considerable disquiet felt about the Judicial Appointments Commission both by those within the ranks of the judiciary and by those seeking preferment to it. According to the Library, the cost of the JAC to his Department is in the order of £10 million annually. That is for the discharge of functions formerly performed by the Lord Chancellor’s Department for an amount that I have little doubt was one twentieth of that. We saw the axe taken to a number of quangos this week; when can the House expect the JAC to join them?

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

I do not think we are going to abolish the JAC, and it did not appear on the list for the axe this week. My hon. Friend makes a well-founded point, however. While retaining the commission, we will take a close look at improving the way it operates, particularly in respect of the amount that it is now costing, the time it is taking to make appointments, and the burdensome processes that are sometimes introduced.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Perhaps it was also a slip of the tongue when the Secretary of State completely failed to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman). Before the election, Members now sitting on the Government Benches, from the current Prime Minister down, all promised on umpteen occasions to sort out the issue of universal jurisdiction. Why have they so far completely failed to do anything about it at all? Why are they shilly-shallying about? When are they going to get it dealt with?

[Mr Clarke]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; for some reason, I completely failed to get the full point of what was being said. I thought it was being suggested that there should be a different method for dealing with foreign arrests than for domestic arrests. I entirely agree with the point that has been made. We have already said we are going to readdress the law. The Leader of the House is sitting alongside me, and he tells me that legislation will be introduced in the House very soon.

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

T9. When can those opposed to the closure of Skipton court expect to hear a decision about it, and can the Minister reassure me that its unique rural case will be listened to carefully?

[Mr Djanogly]

My hon. Friend has made strong representations in support of the court, and they were well received. The decision will be taken shortly before the Christmas recess.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Will the Lord Chancellor update the House on the Government’s thinking on prisoners having the right to vote?

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

The Government, led by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, are giving careful consideration to that point.

[Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

T10. The Ministry has a laudable and exemplary commitment to evidence-led policy. Given that, can the Minister assure me that when he reviews the magistrates courts, he will look critically at the information on the condition and use of Southport’s courts in the Ministry’s consultation document—which is, frankly, duff, inaccurate and misleading?

[Mr Djanogly]

I do not know how the consultation report was misleading, but if the hon. Gentleman contacts me later I shall be happy to look at it.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Ministry of Justice is aware of early-day motion 794 in my name, on the Court of Appeal ruling on mesothelioma liability. I received a letter this morning from the Association of British Insurers. I will deal with their very polite request that I withdraw my early-day motion after this, but first I want to focus briefly on its assertion that

“the industry and the ABI agrees…that the appropriate trigger point for employers’ liability policies is the point of exposure”

to asbestos,

“not the point at which the disease develops”—

the disease being mesothelioma. Does the Minister agree?

[Mr Djanogly]

This is not a matter on which we propose to legislate in the near future, but if the hon. Lady wishes to discuss the issue further with me, I shall be happy to meet her.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry, but we must cut things off there; as usual, demand has exceeded supply.

Education Maintenance Allowance (Wakefield College)

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I rise to present a petition on behalf of Wakefield college, the residents of the Wakefield constituency and others, and in the name of Sue Griffiths, the principal of the college on Margaret street in my constituency. The petition is signed by 271 young people from across the Wakefield district.

The petition states:

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to consider the value of the EMA as a vital support to students from low income backgrounds; to recognise the importance of the EMA as a tool for raising attainment levels for 16-19 year olds and to increase social mobility; to recognise the devastating impact any cuts to the EMA would have on students at Wakefield College; and to therefore pledge that the EMA will not be subject to government cuts but protected and maintained in the future.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The Petition of Wakefield College and residents of the Wakefield constituency and others,

Declares that the previous Labour government's introduction of the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA), to students from households where the combined family income is less than £30,810, has increased the recruitment and retention of 16 year olds in full-time education; further declares that 58% of students at Wakefield College receive an EMA; further declares that for many families the EMA has become an essential part of their income; further declares that the EMA is a vital tool for raising attainment levels for 16-19 year olds and increasing social mobility; and further declares that this financial support to young people continuing their education and training is a valuable investment in young people across the country.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to consider the value of the EMA as a vital support to students from low income backgrounds; to recognise the importance of the EMA as a tool for raising attainment levels for 16-19 year olds and to increase social mobility; to recognise the devastating impact any cuts to the EMA would have on students at Wakefield College; and to therefore pledge that the EMA will not be subject to government cuts but protected and maintained in the future.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.]

[P000865]

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

15:31

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the strategic defence and security review. There are four things that I would like to say up front. First, this is not simply a cost-saving exercise to get to grips with the biggest budget deficit in post-war history. It is about taking the right decisions to protect our national security in the years ahead, but let me say this: the two are not separate. Our national security depends on our economic strength, and vice versa.

As our national security is a priority, defence and security budgets will contribute to deficit reduction on a lower scale than most other Departments. Over four years, the defence budget will rise in cash terms, and fall by only 8% in real terms. It will meet the NATO 2% of gross domestic product target for defence spending throughout the next four years. But this Government have inherited a £38-billion black hole in our future defence plans. That is bigger than the entire annual defence budget of £33 billion. Sorting this out is vital not just for tackling the deficit, but for protecting our national security.

Secondly, this review is about how we project power and influence in a rapidly changing world. We are the sixth largest economy in the world. Even after this review, we expect to continue with the fourth largest military budget in the world. We have a unique network of alliances and relationships—with the United States, as a member of the EU and NATO, and as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. We have one of the biggest aid programmes in the world, one of the biggest networks of embassies, a time zone that allows us to trade with Asia in the morning and the Americas in the afternoon, and a language that is spoken across the globe. Our national interest requires our full and active engagement in world affairs. It requires our economy to compete with the strongest and the best, and it requires, too, that we stand up for the values that we believe in. Britain has traditionally punched above its weight in the world, and we should have no less ambition for our country in the decades to come, but we need to be more thoughtful, more strategic and more co-ordinated in the way we advance our interests and protect our national security. That is what this review sets out to achieve.

Thirdly, I want to be clear: there is no cut whatsoever in the support for our forces in Afghanistan. The funding for our operations in Afghanistan comes not from the budget of the Ministry of Defence, but instead from the Treasury special reserve, so changes to the Ministry of Defence that result from today’s review will not affect this funding.

Furthermore, every time the chiefs of staff have advised me that a particular change might have implications for our operations in Afghanistan, either now or in the years to come, I have heeded that advice. In fact, we have been and will be providing more for our brave forces in Afghanistan: more equipment to counter the threat from improvised explosive devices; more protected vehicles, such as the Warthog heavy protection vehicle, which will be out there by the end of the year; more surveillance capability, including unmanned aircraft systems; and, crucially, at last, the right level of helicopter capability.

Fourthly, the review has been very different from those that went before it. It has considered all elements of national security, home and abroad, not just defence on its own. It has been led from the top with all the relevant people around the table and, crucially, it will be repeated every five years. The review sets out a step change in the way we protect this country’s security interests. We will move from a Ministry of Defence that is too big, too inefficient and too over-spent to a Department that is smaller, smarter, and more responsible in its spending; from a strategy that is over-reliant on military intervention to a higher priority for conflict prevention; from concentrating on conventional threats to having a new focus on unconventional threats; and from armed forces that are overstretched and under-equipped and that have been deployed too often without appropriate planning to the most professional and most flexible modem forces in the world, fully equipped for the challenges of the future.

I want to take each of those in turn—

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

What about the cuts?

[The Prime Minister]

I shall give the hon. Gentleman all the figures he requires.

First, even though the Ministry of Defence will get real growth in its budget next year, the Department will face some significant challenges, so the MOD will cut its estate, dispose of unnecessary assets, renegotiate contracts with industry and cut its management overheads, including reducing civilian numbers in the MOD by 25,000 by 2015. We will also adjust and simplify civilian and military allowances. The new higher operational allowance stays, but there will be difficult decisions, although these will be made easier by the return of the Army from Germany. Taken together, all those changes in the MOD will save £4.7 billion over the spending review period.

Getting to grips with procurement is vital. The Nimrod programme, for example, has cost the British taxpayer more than £3 billion; the number of aircraft to be procured has fallen from 21 to nine; the cost per aircraft has increased by more than 200%; and it is more than eight years late. Today, we are announcing its cancellation.

Secondly, from military intervention to conflict prevention, Iraq and Afghanistan have shown the immense financial and human costs of large scale military interventions, and although we must retain the ability to undertake such operations, we must get better at treating the causes of instability, not just dealing with the consequences. When we fail to prevent conflict and have to resort to military intervention, the costs are always far higher. We will expand our capability to deploy military and civilian teams to support stabilisation efforts and build capacity in other states and we will double our investment in aid for fragile and unstable countries so that by 2015 just under a third of the budget of the Department for International Development will be spent on conflict prevention.

Thirdly, we need to focus more of our resources not on the conventional threats of the past but on the unconventional threats of the future. So, over the next four years we will invest more than £500 million of new money in a national cyber-security programme. That will significantly enhance our ability to detect and defend against cyber attacks and it will fix shortfalls in the critical cyber infrastructure on which the whole country now depends. We will continue to prioritise tackling the terrorist threat both from al-Qaeda and its affiliates and from dissident republicans in Northern Ireland. Although efficiencies will need to be made, we are giving priority to continuing investment in our world-class intelligence agencies and we will sharpen our readiness to act on civil emergencies, energy security, organised crime, counter-proliferation and border security.

Fourthly, and crucially, we need to move from armed forces that are over-stretched and under-equipped to the most modern and professional flexible forces in the world. We inherited an Army with scores of tanks in Germany, but that was until recently forced to face the deadly threat of improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan with Land Rovers designed for Northern Ireland. We have a Royal Air Force hampered in its efforts to support our forces overseas by an ageing strategic airlift fleet and we have a Royal Navy locked into a cycle of ever smaller numbers of ever more expensive ships. We cannot go on like this.

The White Paper we have published today sets out a clear vision for the future structure of our armed forces. The precise budgets beyond 2015 will be agreed in future spending reviews. My own strong view is that this structure will require year-on-year real-terms growth in the defence budget in the years beyond 2015. Between now and then the Government are committed to the vision of 2020 set out in the review and we will make decisions accordingly. We are also absolutely determined that the Ministry of Defence will become much more commercially hard-headed in future and will adopt a much more aggressive drive for efficiencies.

The transition from the mess we inherited to that coherent future will be a difficult process, especially in the current economic conditions, but we are determined to take the necessary steps. Our ground forces will continue to have a vital operational role, so we will retain a large, well-equipped Army, numbering around 95,500 by 2015—7,000 fewer than today. We will continue to be one of very few countries able to deploy a self-sustaining, properly equipped, brigade-sized force anywhere around the world and to sustain it indefinitely if needs be. We will also be able to put 30,000 into the field for a major, one-off operation.

In terms of the return from Germany, half our personnel should be back by 2015 and the remainder by 2020. Tank and heavy artillery numbers will be reduced by about 40%, but the introduction of 12 new heavy lift Chinook helicopters, new protected mobility vehicles and enhanced communications equipment will make the Army more mobile, more flexible and better equipped to face future threats than ever before.

We will also review the structure of our reserve forces to ensure that we make the most efficient use of their skills, experience and outstanding capabilities. That review will be chaired by the vice-chief of the defence staff, General Houghton, and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who has served for many years in the reserves, will act as his very able deputy.

The Royal Navy will be similarly equipped to meet the challenges of the 21st century. We are procuring a fleet of the most capable nuclear powered hunter-killer Astute class submarines anywhere in the world. Able to operate in secret across the world’s oceans, those submarines will also feed vital strategic intelligence back to the UK. We will complete the production of six Type 45 destroyers —one of the most effective multi-role destroyers in the world. We will also start a new programme to develop less expensive, more flexible, modern frigates. Total naval manpower will reduce to around 30,000 by 2015—that is a reduction of 5,000—and by 2020 the total number of frigates and destroyers will reduce from 23 to 19. However, the fleet as a whole will be better able to take on today’s tasks—from tackling drug trafficking and piracy to counter-terrorism.

The Royal Air Force will also need to take some tough measures in the coming years to ensure a strong future. We have decided to retire the Harrier, which has served this country so well for 40 years. It is a remarkably flexible aircraft, but the military advice is clear: we should sustain the Tornado fleet as that aircraft is more capable and better able to sustain operations in Afghanistan. RAF manpower will also reduce to around 33,000 by 2015—again, that is a reduction of 5,000. Inevitably, that will mean changes in the way in which some RAF bases are used, but some are likely to be required by the Army as forces return from Germany. We owe it to communities up and down the country who have supported our armed forces for many years to engage with them before final decisions are taken.

By the 2020s, the Royal Air Force will be based around a fleet of two of the most capable fighter jets anywhere in the world—a modernised Typhoon fleet, fully capable of air-to-air and air-to-ground missions, and the joint strike fighter, the world’s most advanced multi-role combat jet. The fleet will be complemented by a growing number of unmanned aerial vehicles and the A400M transport aircraft together with the existing fleet of C-17 aircraft and the future strategic tanker aircraft. This will allow us to fly our forces wherever they are needed in the world.

As we focus our resources on the most likely threats to our security, so we will remain vigilant against all possible threats and we should retain the capability to react to the unexpected. As we cut back on tanks and heavy artillery, we will retain the ability to regenerate those capabilities if need be; and while in the short term the ability to deploy air power from the sea is unlikely to be essential, over the longer term we cannot assume that bases for land-based aircraft will always be available when and where we need them, so we will ensure the UK has carrier strike capability for the future. This is another area where I believe the last Government got it badly wrong. There is only one thing worse than spending money you don’t have, and that is buying the wrong things with it—and doing so in the wrong way. The carriers they ordered were unable to work effectively with our key defence partners, the United States or France. They had failed to plan so carriers and planes would arrive at the same time. They ordered the more expensive and less capable version of the joint strike fighter to fly off the carriers. And they signed contracts, so we were left in a situation where even cancelling the second carrier would actually cost more than to build it. [Interruption.] I have this in written confirmation from BAE Systems.

That is the legacy we inherited—an appalling legacy the British people have every right to be angry about, but I say to them today: we will act in the national interest. We would not have started from here, but the right decisions are now being made in the right way and for the right reasons.

It will take time to rectify these mistakes, but this is how we intend to do so. We will build both carriers, but hold one in extended readiness. We will fit the “cats and traps”—the catapults and arrester gear—to the operational carrier. This will allow our allies to operate from our operational carrier, and it will allow us to buy the carrier version of the joint strike fighter, which is more capable, less expensive, has a longer range and carries more weapons. We will also aim to bring the planes and the carriers in at the same time.

Finally, we cannot dismiss the possibility that a major direct nuclear threat to the UK might re-emerge, so we will retain and renew the ultimate insurance policy—our independent nuclear deterrent, which guards our country round the clock every day of the year. We have completed a value for money review of our future deterrent plans, and as a result we can do the following. We can extend the life of the Vanguard class so that the first replacement submarine is not required until 2028; we can reduce the number of operational launch tubes on those new submarines from 12 to eight; we can reduce the number of warheads on our submarines at sea from 48 to 40; and we can reduce our stockpile of operational warheads from fewer than 160 to fewer than 120.

The next phase of the programme to renew our deterrent, the so-called “initial gate,” will start by the end of this year. But as a result of the changes to the programme, the decision to start construction of the new submarines need not now be taken until around 2016. We will save around £1.2 billion and defer a further £2 billion of spending from the next 10 years. So, yes, we will save money, but we will retain and renew a credible, continuous and effective minimum nuclear deterrent that will stand constant guard over our nation’s security.

Finally, the immense contribution of our highly professional special forces is necessarily largely unreported, but their immense capability is recognised across the world. We are significantly increasing our investment in our special forces to ensure they remain at the leading edge of operational capability, prepared to meet current and future threats, and maintaining their unique and specialist role. This enhanced capability will allow them to remain at “extremely high readiness” for emergency operations.

We were left a budget £38 billion overspent, armed forces at war, overstretched, under-equipped and ill prepared for the challenges of the future, and the biggest budget deficit in post-war history. I believe we have begun to deal with all these things, sorting out the legacy and fitting Britain’s defences for the future. I commend this statement to the House.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

May I start by joining the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the men and women of our armed forces? I also want to pay tribute to their families, who sustain their loved ones as they prepare for, serve on and recover from operational service. They are the best of Britain, and we should recognise that in the House here today. We must ensure that their interests are protected in all the decisions we make.

I thank the Prime Minister for advance notice of his statement—in today’s papers, yesterday’s papers, Sunday’s papers, Saturday’s papers and Friday’s papers. It almost did not matter that I got his statement at 3.15 pm because I had read so much of it in the newspapers, but, as someone who takes Parliament seriously, I have to say to the Prime Minister that the process of announcement of the review has been a complete shambles. I genuinely hope he will learn the lessons from it.

On issues of defence and national security, we will always seek to be constructive. I believe the Prime Minister approaches the challenge of national defence, as all Governments have done, with the right intentions, and it does neither our politics nor our armed services any good to imply anything different. That is the approach I shall follow today.

The cuts announced today clearly represent a significant reduction in our defence spending, but what matters in our defence spending is what the money does for our defence and security needs. That is what I want to focus on today. First, I remind the Prime Minister of the concern expressed by the Defence Secretary in the letter to him. He said that

“this process is looking less and less defensible as a proper SDSR”.

The Prime Minister will know that the concern that the Defence Secretary expressed was expressed not just by the Defence Secretary, but by the Chair of the Select Committee, by many Members of the House and by many independent observers.

Is it not instructive that the strategic defence review of 1998 took 15 months to complete and involved much greater consultation and in-depth study? May I ask the Prime Minister to respond to the widespread perception that the review has been driven only by short-term considerations? Does he think, on reflection, that it would have been better to have had a longer-term strategic defence review, continuing after the spending review?

Secondly, may I ask the Prime Minister about the most immediate and pressing issue of Afghanistan? I reiterate that we support the mission in Afghanistan and will work in a bipartisan way with him to stabilise the country and bring our troops home safely. I was reassured by what he said in his statement about Afghanistan, but may I ask him for some further assurances that he has been told by the Chief of the Defence Staff that no decision announced today will in any way undermine or disadvantage our military operations in Afghanistan?

I welcome what today’s statement said about delivering new equipment, but may I raise with the Prime Minister the issue of extra helicopters? People will remember that he made much of the issue of helicopters in the previous Parliament. The order, as I understand it, was for 22 extra helicopters, but the document produced today states on page 25 that “12 new Chinook helicopters” will be ordered. I simply ask the Prime Minister to explain the discrepancy between the 22 helicopters that I believe he wanted in the previous Parliament, and the 12 that have been ordered.

Thirdly, I am sure the Prime Minister would agree that a key part of preparing for the challenge of the future is the targeting of limited national resources on the most pressing threats. He mentioned terrorism in his statement, and the national security strategy identified terrorism as a tier 1 threat. Given that today’s announcement forms only a partial response to yesterday’s national security strategy, can he assure the House that nothing announced tomorrow in the changes to the Home Office budget will in any way undermine or weaken our ability to counter terrorism in all its forms?

Fourthly, on the issue of preparing our armed forces for future challenges, we agree that savings can be made on the legacy cold war capability, such as in the number of Challenger tanks and in heavy artillery. However, I seek reassurance from the Prime Minister that he is content that the decisions made today do not in any way compromise our ability to support current operations and defend our interests round the world. In particular, what does the capability gap arising from the scrapping of our Harriers and the withdrawal of Ark Royal mean for our force projection, which was made much of in the national security strategy document yesterday? What does it mean for our ability to defend our overseas territories? In that context, will he also reassure the House that the best strategic decision for the next decade really is for Britain to have aircraft carriers without aircraft, which is the decision he announced today?

May I also ask the Prime Minister about two things that he did not mention in his statement? Will he confirm what he did not tell the House but what I think is set out on page 19 of the review—that he is today announcing a one-third reduction in the number of troops that Britain can deploy on both short-term and enduring bases? Will he also take the opportunity to respond to the huge disappointment that there will be in south Wales, following the decision announced in a written ministerial statement this morning to terminate the defence training college at St Athan, which he personally promised would go ahead?

Fifthly, there will be concerns that the review has failed to address strategically the important questions about the future of our nuclear deterrent. All parts of the House support the retention of the nuclear deterrent, alongside progress in multilateral disarmament talks, but can I say—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Ellwood, these constant sedentary heckles are not necessary, they are not welcome and they do not help you.

[Edward Miliband]

There will be concern that the Prime Minister has announced a whole range of decisions on Trident, despite telling us for months that it was not part of the strategic defence review. He made much of the issue of the procurement budget, but will he confirm that by choosing to delay Trident, he is creating a large unfunded spending commitment in the next Parliament—precisely the problem he told us he wants to get away from in procurement.

We will help the Prime Minister and his Government as they seek to do what is best for our country’s security, but many people will believe that this review is a profound missed opportunity. It is a spending review dressed up as a defence review; it has been chaotically conducted and hastily prepared; and it is simply not credible as a strategic blueprint for our future defence needs.

The Opposition will support him where we can, but we will also give his strategy serious scrutiny, and where necessary and appropriate we will subject it to the principled and responsible opposition it deserves.

[The Prime Minister]

I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about our armed forces. Anyone who does my job or that of Defence Secretary knows that we have in our armed forces the bravest of the brave, some of the most professional and dedicated people, and everyone in this House looks up to them and is proud of them.

I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is here at all, because of course today is the day of the TUC rally that he promised to attend. I am very glad that he got his priorities right, and I am sure that all the trade unionists who voted for him will fully understand.

The right hon. Gentleman complained that I had not got him the statement early enough, but I got the document to him two hours ago, which I do not remember his predecessor being very quick to do, but there we are. I might be being unfair.

I thought that the right hon. Gentleman should have started his statement with one word—“sorry”: sorry for the £38 billion of overspend in the MOD; sorry for the fact that the previous Government left more civil servants than we had sailors or airmen; sorry for the £2.3 billion that they spent on refurbishing the Ministry of Defence; and sorry for the completely unsustainable promises that they made.

The right hon. Gentleman asked a series of questions, and I shall try to answer every single one. He compared this review with the 1998 review, but one crucial difference is that the 1998 review did not include the funding to go with the promises that were made. Yes, we have made tough decisions in this review, but the funding is there to meet the promises that have been made.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the review was all about short-term considerations, but I have to say that we have made some long-term decisions: to invest £650 million in cyber at a time when one is making cuts is a long-term decision; to sort out the future of the carriers is a long-term decision; and scrapping many tanks and heavy artillery involves difficult but long-term decisions. On his idea that we should take longer over it, I have to tell him that these decisions do not get any easier by just putting them off. We have had a proper process—a national security process. I note that during his leadership election, he said:

“I think there is a strong case for carrying out our own Strategic Defence Review so that we can give appropriate scrutiny to the Government’s plan”.

I have not seen that review; perhaps it will emerge eventually.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s question about no decision doing damage to what we are doing in Afghanistan, I made it clear in my statement, and I make it clear again to him now, that that has been absolutely uppermost in my mind.

The reason I kept talking about helicopters in the last Parliament is that every time I went to Afghanistan, that is what the troops on the ground were worried about. Now, talking to our troops on the ground—I did a video conference call with the commander of our forces in Helmand only a few days ago—one finds that that is not their concern; they now have the helicopters they need. Let me answer specifically the point about the Chinook order. There was no order for Chinook helicopters—it was this Government who have had to fund that. The number of Chinooks is going from 46 to 60, and we will also be refurbishing the Puma helicopters to add to capacity.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Home Office budget; he will have to wait until tomorrow for that. However, I would stress again that this decision—this document—was brought about by the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the International Development Secretary and the Business Secretary sitting round as a National Security Council making the right decisions. On his question about being able to produce 30,000 forces in theatre, that was in my statement.

Let me address very directly the issue of the capability gap, because this has been the most difficult decision for the Government to take. There is no gap in our flexible posture. With our air-to-air refuelling and our fast jet capability, we have the ability to deploy force around the world, but I accept that there is going to be a gap in carrier strike. The alternative would be to keep the Harriers but not to keep the Tornados. I think that that would be the wrong decision. The Harriers, in any event, would have to be in Afghanistan, not on an aircraft carrier. The Harrier, while a brilliant aircraft, is not as capable as the Tornado. There are fewer Harriers than Tornados, so there would be a question as to whether they could sustain the action in Afghanistan. The premise underlying the question is not right. The current carriers are not equivalent to the future carriers that we are building. I have to say to hon. Gentlemen who may think, “Well, why not try to keep all of them—the Tornados, Harriers and Typhoons—and develop the joint strike fighter?”, that that would be prohibitively expensive. As I say, it is the sort of decision that was taken in the last Parliament just to push these things off into the future. We have to make the tough decisions now to line up our forces for the future.

The right hon. Gentleman’s last question was on Trident. I have been saving that up for the end because I was so excited by his questions. We held a value-for-money review on Trident because we really wanted to find out what money we could save, and we are saving money, including £700 million in this Parliament—that is money available to invest in other things, and it does nothing to risk our Trident replacement. I believe that Trident is vital to our nation’s security and, having looked at all the evidence, that a proper full replacement of Trident is the right option for the future. These are responsible decisions, well made. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman, who is now running away from the Trident replacement that he supported, that that would be a profound mistake for this country.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A great many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. As always, I want to maximise the number of contributors, but brevity in questions and answers alike is vital to the chances of doing so.

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister understand that many will view with great concern the decision to postpone the vital decisions on the future of the Trident nuclear deterrent until 2016—after the general election, when, for all we know, Lib Dem Ministers may still be there in Cabinet and, having been lifelong opponents of the nuclear deterrent, will continue to try to veto it, so that this decision looks like a subordination of the national interest to the political expediency of keeping the coalition going?

[The Prime Minister]

I really can reassure my—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. First, it is courteous to listen to the Prime Minister, and secondly, I want to hear his answer.

[The Prime Minister]

I really can reassure my hon. Friend. I am a very strong supporter of replacing Trident. We have sought the best military advice on what is right for its replacement, and the fact is that because we have been operating the Vanguard submarines for many years, we know what their life can be. We know that it is absolutely right to go through the initial gate this year—we are spending some £700 million in this Parliament on Trident’s replacement—but to go through the final gate of actually commissioning the building in 2016. We are on track to replace Trident and have a full-service nuclear deterrent. It is the right decision, and it saves money at the same time. That is what we should do.

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

Is not the Prime Minister doing precisely what he criticises with regard to Trident? He is putting off the decision and delaying the expenditure, thereby increasing it. He has also cancelled the Nimrod aircraft, rendering our nuclear deterrent less than invulnerable. How is that sensible, never mind strategic?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me first answer the right hon. Gentleman’s last question. What we are proposing would mean no reduction in continuous at-sea deterrence, which is vital. We set out that we were committed to Trident’s replacement but wanted a value-for-money review, and we asked the Ministry of Defence to go through all the possibilities and look to see how we could extend the life of the existing submarines, work on Trident’s replacement and ensure that we had continuous at-sea deterrence all the way through. Those are the sorts of questions, frankly, that the last Government should have asked. It would be irresponsible not to do so if we want to have a full-service nuclear deterrent but want value for money. That is the sort of thing that the last Government should have been asking about.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

May I offer the Prime Minister some comfort in relation to Trident and say that I welcome the proposals, particularly as they are consistent with the Liberal Democrat position and also make an important contribution to multilateral nuclear disarmament? Will he confirm that between now and 2016, he will continue to pursue opportunities for multilateral nuclear disarmament, and also investigate the possibilities for greater military co-operation, including nuclear co-operation, with the French?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course we will continue to look at our responsibilities on nuclear disarmament, which we believe can be done on a multilateral basis, and of course we should be looking at co-operation with the French. Let me say to anyone who fears that that is a cloak for a European army that it is completely the opposite. Britain and France have very shared assets and very shared interests in developing our Army and Air Force and working out where we can work together to increase our sovereign capability. I will be having a defence summit with President Sarkozy before Christmas, at which I think we can take some very exciting steps forward.

The one place where I would probably part company with the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that although I know the Liberal Democrats are absolutely entitled to use the time between now and 2016 to look at alternatives, from looking at those alternatives I do not think that any of them would give us the assurance of having a full-service nuclear deterrent with the Trident submarine and missile system. I do not think the alternatives come up to scratch in anything like the ways some of their proponents propose, but under our coalition agreement he is free to continue to look at that. The programme for replacing Trident is on track and going ahead.

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

The Prime Minister has announced cuts and deferred defence decisions today, and tomorrow the Chancellor will announce cuts to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the BBC World Service, yet the national security strategy states:

“The National Security Council has reached a clear conclusion that Britain’s national interest requires us to reject any notion of the shrinkage of our influence.”

Given that statement, is it not true that the national security strategy is not worth the paper it is written on?

[The Prime Minister]

May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman a novel idea? Why do we not start looking at what we get out of public spending rather than what we put in? He will see in the strategy that we are actually ensuring that we get the things we need for our Army, Navy and Air Force. We are going to get greater efficiencies, even in vital bodies such as the intelligence services—that is what we have to do at a time when we have such large deficits and debts—but he can see the priority that this Government give to defence and national security in the decisions that we have taken.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

With such a thankless task because of the economic background, may I commend the Prime Minister and his colleagues for ensuring that even though reductions in defence capability are inescapable at the moment, we will be able to reverse many of them if our economy improves and resources increase? May I also suggest that the whole House ought to welcome the prospect of saving £700 million on Trident without interfering with continuous at-sea deterrence? Is he satisfied that the technical evidence that he has been given supports that conclusion?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his question. As a lifelong supporter of Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent and someone who wants us to have a full service replacement, I wanted to make absolutely sure that we would have continuous at-sea deterrence and that there would be no break between the Vanguard submarines and what will follow. I am satisfied from all the evidence I have seen that that is what we will get. The reason that we have been able to do that is that the Vanguard submarines have been operating for longer. We now know about their life extension and what is possible. It is possible to continue with the independent nuclear deterrent and its replacement without a break in capability.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

Thoughts must go to servicemen and servicewomen in communities around the country. Many will be worried about their futures following the Prime Minister’s statement, including thousands at RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Kinloss in Moray. Does he understand that if both those bases close, it will mean a 25% cut in the uniform service posts in Scotland as a whole? Given that it will cost more to close RAF Lossiemouth than to maintain it as a Tornado base, will he or the Defence Secretary meet me to discuss its future?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. Clearly, RAF Kinloss will not be required by the RAF following the decisions that we have taken, but we are not announcing base closures today because more armed service personnel will come home from Germany than will lose their positions following my announcements. There is therefore an opportunity to use RAF bases for other military purposes. I hate to make too much of a political point, but one wonders how many bases and how much capability there would be if there were an independent Scotland.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

That is outrageous!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman that he must calm himself, however strongly he feels. I want to hear the Chair of the Defence Select Committee.

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

The Defence Select Committee will wish to give the review very close scrutiny. It seems to take a real gamble with the short term in order to provide security and stability in the longer term, but how will my right hon. Friend answer those who say, as they will, “If we can get away with no fast jet aircraft carriers for 10 years, why do we need them at all?” Will he defend the Defence budget against such an attack?

[The Prime Minister]

That is absolutely the crucial question and the one that I personally spent the most time on. In many ways, the politically easy answer would be to keep Harriers in service and thereby pretend that there would be no real carrier-strike gap between the carriers we have now and those we will have in future, but militarily, that would be the wrong thing to do. Our greatest priority today is making sure that we have what we need in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, the Harrier did great work, but the Tornado is more capable and carries a bigger payload, which is vital. Retiring the Harrier and keeping the Tornado is the right decision.

On our ability to project power around the world, as I said in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, we have air-to-air refuelling, the friendly bases, our allies and overfly rights. It is not easy to see in the short term the need for that sort of carrier strike, but we cannot rule it out for the longer term. I think that a good decision plus a carrier strike gap is better than a bad decision with what we might pretend is no gap. Actually, there is a big difference between our current carriers with the Harriers on board and the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers that we will have in future, with the joint strike fighter, which has a far larger range.

It is difficult, but, having heard all the arguments, I am convinced. I came at the problem as a politician quite tempted by the easy political answer, but the right military answer is the right thing to do for our country.

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister will know that the country’s only remaining factory for the manufacture of battle tanks and heavy fighting vehicles is located in Newcastle upon Tyne. Is the factory of strategic importance to the United Kingdom—being the only one we have—and will he say what implications today’s announcement has for the factory?

[The Prime Minister]

Clearly—and everyone will accept this—we need to get away from the sort of cold war tactics of having massed tank regiments in Germany, as we have had in the past. The statement as a whole is extremely positive for Britain’s industrial base, in terms of things such as the joint strike fighter, in which we have a huge participation; the A400M, which we will be building; and the shipbuilding that will continue on the Clyde. Obviously, we need to retain key sovereign capabilities and we have to ask in each case what is strictly necessary. Clearly, we will retain a number of tanks and we need them to be properly serviced and workable, because we cannot predict all future conflicts—and it would be a mistake for a document such as this to try to do so.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

May I welcome this review, and especially the careful analysis that has gone into it and the conclusions that have been reached? Does the Prime Minister agree that this is just the starting point for a fundamental transformation of defence in this country so that in 10 years’ time we will have a defence posture and capability capable of securing the way ahead for Great Britain?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. The whole point about this review is that it has a vision for what our forces should look like in 2020—10 years’ time rather than just five years’ time. Because the Ministry of Defence and the service chiefs can now see their budgets for the whole of the spending review period, they can make proper plans and try to drive some efficiencies through the MOD so that they get even more for the money that they have. We must have reviews every five years. The problem has been that we had a review in 1998, which was not properly funded, and then a sort of scissors crisis, in which the commitments went in one direction and the ability to fund them went in another direction. To stop that happening in future, we need regular defence reviews and that is what we are committed to having.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

We have now seen some of the biggest cuts ever in defence, as we saw when the Conservatives were last in power. The so-called party of defence is no longer the party of defence. The Prime Minister has already said that we should be out of Afghanistan in five years, no matter what. Do the assumptions he has made assume that that is still the case and that the capability will therefore reduce over those five years?

[The Prime Minister]

Along with our NATO partners, we believe that there is a clear programme of training up the Afghan national army, police and security forces so that they should be in the lead by 2014. That is our aim, and in addition I have said that by 2015 we should not be in a major combat role or there in major numbers. By then we will have been in Helmand province for longer than the entire second world war. We will have played our part, and I am confident that we are making good progress so that the 2014 calendar to which NATO is committed will go ahead. I do not accept that taking long-term, difficult decisions about the defence of our country makes us somehow anti-defence—the opposite is true. I am passionate about our armed forces, what they represent in our country and what they do on our behalf, but we do not serve them by putting off decisions for the future, making all sorts of airy-fairy promises and then not funding them.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

It was sad to hear this morning that the appointment of Metrix as the preferred bidder for the St Athan project had been terminated, although we can understand the reasons. It is a disappointment for the armed forces who need those facilities, as well as for Wales and the Welsh economy. The statement also says that

“work on the alternative options will begin as soon as possible”.

Can the Prime Minister give us an assurance that the St Athan site will remain prominent among those options?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The current programme and PFI for St Athan is not affordable, but this is not the end of the road for training at St Athan. Training, including fire training, takes place there now, and everybody knows that the MOD and our armed forces need to train together and in fewer places—and St Athan is perfectly placed to bid for that training. There will now be intense discussions between the MOD and others to try to bring that about.

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

For obvious reasons, the Prime Minister was not able to list in his statement all the vessels that will potentially be scrapped. Those vessels may include HMS Chatham, HMS Cornwall and HMS Ocean, but those are all due for refit in Devonport. Without that work, 300 jobs will be at risk and the skills base will also be at risk, because there is an 18-month trough in the period in which those vessels will be refitted. What discussions did he have on the issue of the skills base with the defence industries before this announcement?

[The Prime Minister]

I know the hon. Lady has a very strong constituency interest in this matter, and perhaps I can get back to her in greater detail on the refit programme. I can tell her that HMS Ocean will be going into refit. Clearly, as we have explained, the number of frigates and destroyers combined will be coming down to 19. The decision on the future of HMS Ocean and HMS Illustrious will have to be taken on the basis of what is the best platform for the use of helicopters. The best thing is for us, as we go through the details, to tell her more about what I think will be fundamentally good news for both Plymouth and Portsmouth, because we want to keep both naval bases—and keep them busy. The communities there are hugely supportive of our armed forces and give them tremendous backing. I have never believed that it is right to put all our defence eggs into a very small number of bases, as it were, so Portsmouth, Plymouth and Faslane will of course all go ahead.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend’s determination to adopt a more thoughtful and strategic approach. Has he had a chance to read the Public Administration Committee’s report “Who does UK National Strategy?”, in which the outgoing Chief of the Defence Staff commented that the UK had

“lost an institutionalised capacity for, and culture of, strategic thought”?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need a more co-ordinated approach to strategic thinking across Whitehall, and will he adopt the report’s recommendations?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That was one of the reasons why yesterday we published the national security strategy separately—so that people could see that the defence review flows from strategic thinking about Britain’s place in the world, about the threats we face and about how we can bring all of the Government together to try to deal with that. The National Security Council and the national security adviser, Peter Ricketts—I pay tribute to him and his team for their work—are working well at bringing the Government together to interrogate the experts and really think about what our strategy should be and what that means for the decisions we have to take. That is much better than a two-way battle between the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury.

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

The Prime Minister says that savings can be made in this Parliament by delaying Trident, but can he say what the increased cost overall to the deterrent programme will be of this delay and how this needless risk and uncertainty are showing leadership in the long-term interests of the country?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has a strong constituency interest in this matter. I can tell him that overall the cost will be lower—this was a value-for-money exercise. We are driving costs out of the programme, and overall we believe that it will be less expensive. Further good news is that the Astute class submarines are going ahead. Obviously he will have a tortured time ahead as he considers the fact that this Prime Minister and Government support the Trident replacement when his own party is going a bit soft on it.

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

My right hon. Friend has it in his power to secure the future of the nuclear deterrent until 2055 by holding the vital vote and making the main gate contract decisions in this Parliament, not the next one. He could do that at no extra cost, even if he wishes to delay the introduction of the system. Will he explain his reason for delaying this vital vote into the next Parliament, other than to make our ultimate deterrent a political gambling chip to satisfy the Liberal Democrats?

[The Prime Minister]

I worked with my hon. Friend for many, many years, and I know that he takes an extremely close and professional interest in this matter. I remember he did it when there was not a single supporter of nuclear deterrence on the Labour Benches. He did a great service to the country. However, I would make two points to him: first, the military advice is that we need to go through the main gate in 2016, not earlier. I would also like to make another, slightly more frivolous point: I am not as lacking in confidence as he is that there will be plenty of supporters of Britain’s strong and independent nuclear deterrent in the next Parliament.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

Given that the Prime Minister, in his previous answer, cast doubt on the Labour party’s commitment to Trident, and given that we know that his coalition partners are against it, may I return to the question he was just asked? Why is he afraid to put this to a vote before 2015?

[The Prime Minister]

I really think that I have answered the question. The military advice is that 2016 is when we need to go through the main gate. We are going through the initial gate this year. We now have the Backbench Business Committee, so if anybody wants to hold a vote in this Parliament, they can do so, to check that we are going through the initial gate, which we are steaming through this year. I question the Opposition’s position, because the leader of the party said throughout the leadership election:

“I have been clear…I believe the right approach is to include the decision about the replacement of Trident in the…defence review”.

He is therefore not automatically committed to the full replacement of Trident, so perhaps the hon. Lady ought to have a word with him and put him right on that.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I welcome the decision that we will build the new carriers. Can the Prime Minister confirm that Portsmouth will be their home and that the Navy can meet its commitments with a surface fleet of 19?

[The Prime Minister]

I can say yes to both those questions, particularly the second, which is: do we have the naval assets to meet the tasks of tackling piracy, combating drug running, maintaining patrols and suchlike? Yes, we do have that capability, and it is extremely important that that should be on the record.

[Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

The Prime Minister announced a reduction of 7,000 to the Army. Will he give the House an assurance that this will not include front-line infantry units such as the Royal Irish Regiment, which is currently deployed in Afghanistan? Secondly, I welcome the establishment of the review of the reserve forces and the appointment of our hon. Friend the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier). Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that the review will seek to expand the role of the reserve forces in support of our regular forces? Finally, will he ensure that the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the special forces deployed there receive the support that they need to deal with the threat from dissident republicans?

[The Prime Minister]

That was very ingenious: the right hon. Gentleman managed to get round your restriction on questions, Mr Speaker, and I think managed to get in at least three. As for regiments, I can confirm that no infantry regiments will be abolished or scrapped as a result of the review. The reduction in the Army numbers will be achieved by reducing the number of headquarters, particularly the divisional and regional headquarters. There may be some impact on logistics and artillery, but no infantry battalions will be altered.

On the reserves, I was personally keen that we should look widely at what other countries are doing on the balance between regular and reserve forces, and ensure that our reserve forces are properly equipped for the sort of modern wars that we have to fight and the modern services that they have to undertake. I do not think that we have done that work yet, which is why I have taken it out of the defence review and said that we should have a proper, separate look.

On Northern Ireland, I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that the last Government gave a number of commitments on the devolution of policing and justice, and the funding that this required, and we will continue with those. We have had a discussion in the National Security Council about these issues and how we best tackle the threat from dissident republicans. I can give the right hon. Gentleman my word that we will continue to give the issue our highest attention, and he will have noticed in the national security strategy that we have put it down as one of the highest priorities for our country, which is right.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement that there will be no shrinkage in Britain’s role on the world stage. The Royal Navy has fulfilled a number of deployments around the globe for many decades. Can he reassure me that with the reduction in the number of frigates, there will be no reduction in the number of the Royal Navy’s commitments?

[The Prime Minister]

The Royal Navy has said that it is able to undertake its task with this lay down of frigates and destroyers. We obviously have the new Type 45 destroyers coming into service, which are costing something like £1 billion each, and we will have the less expensive, more flexible future frigates coming forward as well. I genuinely mean this point about no strategic shrinkage. We are having to take some difficult decisions, but when we think about how much time we spend in this House talking about natural disasters the world over, and about our role in trying to tackle them, one argument that we need to develop is about how the money that we spend through our aid budget plays a key role in ensuring that there is no strategic shrinkage.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty commits this country to long-term nuclear disarmament and to take steps to achieve that. The Prime Minister has just announced the replacement of the Trident nuclear system at some point in the future. Is this not illegal under the terms of that treaty, and how much money will it cost us to develop another generation of weapons of mass destruction, when what we need is peace and a nuclear-free world?

[The Prime Minister]

Our proposals are within the spirit and the letter of the non-proliferation treaty. Also, I did not necessarily come to the House today to try to make the hon. Gentleman happy, but I did announce that we would be reducing the number of warheads on each submarine from 48 to 40, and our operationally available warheads from fewer than 160 to no more than 120, which is all contained on page 38 of this excellent document today, which I commend to him.

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

The communities of Wootton Bassett and Calne, as well as that of Lyneham itself, will deeply regret the loss of the RAF from my constituency to that of the Prime Minister. Will he accept that those communities are absolutely ready to accept soldiers into the vacated base, and that the base itself, which will be vacant by the end of next year and is close to Salisbury plain, is ideally suited to brigades returning from Germany?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has stood up for Lyneham with vigour and tenacity for many years, and I commend him for that. This is a good opportunity to put on record the respect that everyone in this House and in the country has for the people of Wootton Bassett for what they have done. I am in the embarrassing position of having in my constituency the premier RAF base, Brize Norton, which, I am afraid, does not particularly suffer from the announcements made today. My hon. Friend has made a good suggestion for the future of Lyneham, and I am sure that he can pursue it with the Ministry of Defence.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

There are human costs attached to the 42,000 job losses across the Ministry of Defence and the military that have been announced today. Can we have an assurance that those people who are losing their jobs in the Ministry, the civil service, the military and the defence industry will be given help and support to relocate, and that their housing needs will be addressed, given the housing cuts that have been announced in the past few days? Can we have an assurance that the people who have served and offered their lives for this country are not going to be discarded?

[The Prime Minister]

I can absolutely give the hon. Lady that assurance. We want to ensure that as many of the job losses as possible are found through voluntary redundancy and retirement, rather than through making people redundant. I can also confirm what has been said before, which is that we will obviously not be making anyone redundant who is in Afghanistan or whose units are in Afghanistan. That will not be happening; that is extremely important.

In terms of the industrial base, of course there will be impacts—for instance, with the decision on Nimrod—but if we look across British industry as a whole, and at the decisions on shipbuilding, on the A400M and on the joint strike fighter among many others, we can see that there is a strong future for defence manufacturing in our country.

Let me just put on record how much we should value the MOD’s civilians and how hard they work, because I know that they sometimes feel undervalued. I was at the Permanent Joint Headquarters today and saw many civilians working alongside their military counterparts to co-ordinate our efforts in Afghanistan; they were doing a fantastic job. It is right that we reduce the number of civilians in the MOD—it has got too big—but we need to ensure that we do it in as sensitive a way as possible.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the honour that he has done me in putting me on to the commission. I also find it deeply humbling that five parliamentary colleagues have been among the 27,000 men and women who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq as reservists over the past eight years. I welcome this wide-ranging study, and my right hon. Friend made it clear that it goes across all three services and will look at the balance between regulars and reserves. Has he thought about who else he might put on to the commission?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I thank my hon. Friend for taking part in this. I want the vice-chief of the defence staff, General Nick Houghton, to lead it, and I think that my hon. Friend should be the deputy. General Lamb, who has served our country outstandingly in Iraq and Afghanistan and was taken on personally by the Americans in Afghanistan because of the great work he has done, has also agreed to serve. My Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne) is one of the many people in the House who has served in the reserve forces, but I am afraid that he will not be free to do this. I once suffered a capability gap when he went to Iraq during the last Parliament in the rather hard-to-explain role of liaising with the Italian forces—something I know everyone thinks he is uniquely qualified to do.

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

Given that a nuclear attack on the UK by another state was judged by yesterday’s national security strategy to be of “low likelihood” and in the light of the formal exclusion of Trident from the strategic defence and security review, will the Prime Minister use the delay in the Trident main gate decision to allow a full public review of the necessity of nuclear weapons?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that there will be a continuing debate in this country about nuclear deterrence. I have been through the arguments in my own mind a thousand times, and I always come up with the same answer, which is that, in an uncertain, unsafe and dangerous world, with countries like Iran trying to get a nuclear weapon, it would be a profound mistake for Britain to discard her nuclear weapon. But this debate can always take place in this House. I think that my party has a very settled view on it, and the White Paper safeguards that, but it is for others to make up their own minds.

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

I remind the House of my interest. Will the Government match their commitment to conflict prevention with an expansion of the stabilisation unit and greater use of our specialist reserves in a military stabilisation and support group?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend, who has served in Afghanistan and has expertise in bomb disposal—we should give him credit for that—makes a good point. The whole point of taking the reserves out of the review and of having a separate, longer and more thoughtful look is precisely to answer the sort of question that he puts. When it comes to what is called “hot stabilisation”, I think it is right to try to develop units where we bring the military and civilians together. Then, in that vital golden hour when we have gone into a community, we can start to get things done so that the population is on our side rather than against us. If we are to have more of what have been called “wars among the people”, we must make sure that we are properly equipped to deal with them.

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

I have always supported the case for greater conflict prevention, but conflict prevention needs to be understood and practised by the military themselves. How will the Prime Minister guarantee the continuing and proper focus of the Department for International Development on women, children and achieving the millennium development goals if a third of its budget should be reallocated to conflict prevention, which is something quite different?

[The Prime Minister]

I would say that conflict affects women and children and that broken states have the worst records on poverty and development. Far be it from me to recommend a reading list to the right hon. Lady, but Paul Collier’s work on the bottom billion and broken states backs up the case for how we should use our DFID budget—yes, for meeting the millennium development goals; yes, for vaccination and malaria reduction and all those extremely worthwhile things; but I think we are mad if we do not put money into mending broken states, where so many of the problems of poverty arise.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

At Warton and Samlesbury, we have a world-class work force building world-class aircraft, but I need the Government to commit and get behind BAE Systems to ensure that those aircraft succeed in a highly competitive world market.

[The Prime Minister]

I strongly support our defence industrial base, which is one of our great industries and a great export earner for our country. We should support it. However, when we were looking at how to make this very difficult budgetary situation work, I checked the figures and found that between 2011 and 2015, we will be spending £17 billion with BAE Systems. We are an enormous customer for it. Just as it behoves us as a Government to spend responsibly and think of our industrial base, so it must ensure that we get value for money for the very many millions we spend.

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

I find it passing strange that the Prime Minister made no reference in his statement to the defence training academy at St Athan and then failed to answer a direct and simple question from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Has the Prime Minister not been told that the academy is cost effective, delivers savings and will improve the quality of training for our armed services? He talks about professionalism and flexibility, so how does it make sense to axe it?

[The Prime Minister]

This is what the defence review was all about—asking some of these difficult questions. The conclusion on St Athan was that the current private finance initiative is not right and is not working. That is why, although we recognise St Athan as a great base for training—important training takes place there now and much training can take place there in the future—we need another look at ensuring that it is right and provides value for money at the same time. That is what is going to happen, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, as a former Secretary of State and former First Minister, will want to get involved in that.

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to fast jets. Will he confirm that the final tranche of the Eurofighter will be placed?

[The Prime Minister]

We are supporting and, of course, upgrading Eurofighter because it is important that it has a ground attack capability. What this document sets out is the total force of Typhoon and joint strike fighter that we anticipate having as part of our 2024 structures.

[Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister may not be aware that my son is serving in 40 Commando Royal Marines, and has just returned from duty. He tells me that when he asked the RAF for a helicopter to take his men into the field, he was told, “We do not fly in the day because we are being shot at.” Will the Prime Minister have the matter investigated?

[The Prime Minister]

Certainly. I do not think that it would be right to exchange operational points across the Floor of the House of Commons, but I shall be happy to look into the case that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his commitment to the aircraft carriers—I am very grateful for that—but is he in a position to confirm that Plymouth Devonport in my constituency will continue to play a major role in the defence of our country, and will remain a premier naval port?

[The Prime Minister]

I can absolutely confirm that. The decisions that we make through this process will clearly have impacts on Portsmouth and on Plymouth Devonport, and we shall have to work through those because of the different lay-down of ships and forces. However, I can confirm my belief that fundamentally, for the long term, this is good news for both Plymouth and Portsmouth.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

Thousands of aerospace workers across Lancashire, including hundreds in my constituency who work at BAE Warton and Samlesbury, will want to know the practical implications of these warm words about a Typhoon fleet, the joint strike fighter and a growing fleet of unmanned air vehicles. Incidentally, all those were previously Labour Government policy. As the Prime Minister has already given us an ambiguous answer on the issue of Eurofighter Typhoon, will he now give us a more substantive answer on whether he will support research and development and investment in Taranis?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course all those things, and many others were Labour policy. That is the problem. There was no prioritisation, and no sign of how any of it was to be paid for. It is the easiest thing in the world to rack up a defence budget that is £38 billion overspent, but it is a difficult thing to come in and work out what is to be kept and what cannot be kept, and that is what we have had to do.

As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), this is, in some ways, the start of a process. The document makes clear how many fast jets we expect to have in 2020. We now have to make decisions between the joint strike fighter and the final tranche of Typhoon. There is extra money for unmanned aerial vehicles, and I think that anyone who has been to Afghanistan and seen the incredible work that is being done there knows that that is a capability in which we should be investing. Let me repeat, however, that it cannot be invested in unless difficult decisions are made elsewhere. We have done that, and the Labour Government did not.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. These are hugely important matters, and I should like to accommodate some more colleagues, but greater brevity is now vital.

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

One of the fundamental problems of the last eight to 10 years has been the split between foreign policy and defence. Will the Prime Minister please tell us what steps are being taken to ensure that not just the National Security Council, but the Joint Intelligence Committee and the Foreign Office, really drive us to have the right resources and the right priorities?

[The Prime Minister]

I am going to sound a bit like a stuck record on the National Security Council, but it really has struck me over the last few months that when it comes to issues such as how we respond to the Pakistan floods, what we do to help Haiti, how we go through the defence review and what is the future of our development programme, the fact that the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for International Development, the Business Secretary and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are all sitting around the table discussing the issues means that decisions are not being made in silos. Much of what the Ministry of Defence does has a huge impact on our foreign policy. Our fleet of frigates is hugely influential in building relationships the world over. I think that the fact that we are all working together much more positively than has been the case in the past solves the problem to which my hon. Friend has alluded.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Can the Prime Minister tell us whether Rosyth dockyard’s frigate refit orders between now and 2013 will go ahead? If I understand the document correctly, he has put back the Queen Elizabeth’s entry date, and we note that there is no entry date for the Prince of Wales. What does that mean for the work force at Rosyth and elsewhere? Will we simply see a continuation of the policies of the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), and the destruction of the Scottish shipbuilding industry?

[The Prime Minister]

Given that the Government are going ahead with building both carriers, I think that that is not exactly gratitude.

The Queen Elizabeth is not being “put back” in terms of its manufacture. Once it has been manufactured, we will fit the “cats and traps”—the catapults and arrester gear—to the operational carrier, so that it can then work with the carrier version of the joint strike fighter, which is a better aircraft than the one that the last Government ordered. That will make it fully interoperable with our closest allies, the Americans and the French. So there is not a delay in the production of the carriers, as the hon. Gentleman says. Some extra equipment needs to be added.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

The Prime Minister will be aware that his words of support for Plymouth naval base will be extremely well received in the west country this evening, but can he say a few more words about the Royal Marines? Does he agree that they will have a glorious future in serving our country and its defence as well as a glorious past?

[The Prime Minister]

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. The Royal Marines have done fantastic work for our country over recent years, not least in Afghanistan. I know how loved they are, not just in the south-west but across the country. There will not be a reduction in their capabilities but clearly, just as with the Army, there will be some regard to ensuring that there are not issues of top-heaviness, if I can put it that way. The Royal Marines are here to stay. They do a fantastic job and will go on doing so—so much so that I have actually employed one as a private secretary.

[Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has mentioned a reduction in service numbers. Can he give us his assurance that that will not involve the use of manning control points as a cheap alternative to proper redundancy payments?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes.

[Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con)]

The national security strategy yesterday and the Prime Minister today both emphasised cyber-threats and communication. The Prime Minister will be aware that there is tri-service training in communication and information systems at the defence college at Blandford in my constituency. The 3,000 people who depend on that for their jobs will welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement this morning on the Metrix decision, but can the Prime Minister assure me that defence training decisions will be focused on centres of excellence such as Blandford, and not on political considerations?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, all these decisions should be based on proper military logic—what is right for the armed forces—and that is what we want to do.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

May I ask the Prime Minister about the important issue of the defence training college at St Athan? As he knows, there will be profound disappointment in both the military and south Wales generally at the cancellation or postponement—I cannot tell from the statement which it is. He has referred several times today to the PFI deal as somehow not being right. What is wrong with it exactly, because we understood it to be providing good value for money?

[The Prime Minister]

The contract is not working. The work for which contracts have already been met will continue to completion, but new contracts will not be started. Turning to the future, we continue to believe that technical training co-located on as few sites as possible is the best solution for our armed forces. St Athan was previously chosen as the best location at which to co-locate that training, and it was chosen for very good reasons. Those good reasons remain. That is why I have said that this is not the end of the road for St Athan, and we can work hard to try to find a good solution for the future.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I have noted time and again in the past that brave new talk of co-operation with the French has dribbled into the sands partly because of British Aerospace’s understandable preference for commercial relationships in the United States. Will the Prime Minister explain how he will drive this process forward personally with President Sarkozy, because we are the only two nations in Europe that can propel our power, and we will either swim together or sink separately?

[The Prime Minister]

I am delighted that someone with such impeccable Eurosceptic credentials shares my view that this is a really worthwhile thing for our country to do. Let me explain what has changed: first, President Sarkozy is extremely keen on this defence relationship; secondly, he has put France straight into the heart of NATO; and thirdly, we both face the same pressures. We both have full-service armed forces: we both have very effective navies and air forces, and troops that really can make an impact on the ground. We both want to maintain and enhance those capabilities and I believe that, together, there is a huge number of things we can do. I am working on a programme with President Sarkozy—I have already discussed it with him—in advance of our summit that will take place soon, and I hope my hon. Friend will be pleased with the results that I think we will be able to deliver.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

Can the Prime Minister confirm that the 2010 GDP pledge does not include the cost of Afghanistan?

[The Prime Minister]

On the NATO figures, what I can confirm is that in terms of the NATO definition of what 2% should include, we are comfortably ahead of that 2%. Obviously, it does include current military operations and other military expenditure. It is all set out. If the hon. Gentleman likes, I can give him all the figures I have seen, because there are quite a lot of competing figures for who spends what. Fundamentally however, in terms of GDP we are the third highest in NATO. The Americans are first; the Greeks are second, for some historical reasons that I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand; and the UK is third, ahead of France and the others.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

May I welcome the Prime Minister’s considered statement and, in particular, his important reference to cyber-security? Does he agree that if cyber-security is to be effective, there needs to be a real working partnership with the private sector, particularly as regards critical national infrastructure?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is not about some great big Government organisation spending lots of money on cyber; there has to be engagement with private sector organisations that have the expertise. As hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House will know, when the Government come up with a new programme and some new spending, everyone suddenly becomes in favour of extra cyber-things. We have to make sure that the money is well spent and well targeted, and that we use experience from the private sector.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Perhaps the Prime Minister would listen to me. Will he answer a simple question? He refers to more flexible, modern frigates being less expensive. I know that he would not want to put our sailors at any risk, and that those ships will therefore have the same, if not better, defensive capabilities. Will he describe what this modern, cheaper frigate looks like?

[The Prime Minister]

They should have a range of capabilities. The point that I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that the Type 45 destroyers, which are extremely capable, are costing £1 billion each. When one looks at the tasks that we want our Royal Navy to perform in the future, which include combating piracy and drug running, and undertaking other patrol duties, there is a case for saying that the future frigate programme should be less expensive and more flexible. That is what the commissioning process will try to deliver.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

As a former soldier, may I thank the Prime Minister for the close personal interest that he has taken in making sure that the review came out in the way that it did? Does he agree that it will only be possible to rebalance our force structures within this sort of spending envelope if we get to grips with the disastrous procurement process that we inherited, and will he confirm—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. One question is quite enough.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: procurement is extremely difficult, but we have absolutely got to do better. One of the decisions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has made is to get Peter Levene back into the Ministry of Defence to look at some of those issues. It is vital that we try to improve on the record that we have inherited.

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

Two years ago, when jobs were threatened at the QinetiQ Hebrides range—that is where Type 45s, among other defence assets, exercise—the current Defence Secretary and Armed Forces Minister joined me and the Hebrides range taskforce in forcing the then Labour Government into a U-turn. Will the Prime Minister join them in their support of the Hebrides range by valuing its work?

[The Prime Minister]

We have not made decisions about that yet, but what I can say is that the hon. Gentleman can see the overall lay-down that we have set out, in terms of the Type 45s, the frigates that we will retain and the future frigate programme.

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

I welcome the statement, but does the Prime Minister agree that one of the problems with delaying decisions over the years is that one ends up with a military strategy that does not meet modern threats? Does he agree that, for the future, it is vital to have a flexible, adaptive strategy that means that we are up to date with modern technologies, whether they are action in cyberspace, unmanned aerial vehicles, or other technologies?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. One of the reasons for having more regular defence reviews is so that we force ourselves to ask these difficult questions more often. Where one can sometimes bring forward a programme that has been delayed, one should. That is what we are doing with the A400M because, frankly, we need to replace the ageing transport fleet, and the sooner we do it, the better.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

In his statement, the Prime Minister made quite clear his support for Eurofighter Typhoon and the joint strike fighter. Can he tell the House how many fighters of the tranche 3B type he will be ordering, and whether he will be ordering the joint strike fighter for the new aircraft carriers?

[The Prime Minister]

We aim to have 110 Typhoons by 2020—the figures are all set out in the document—but clearly the balance between the two is something that we have to make decisions about. I think that one can see the general thrust, which is that we will be based around two fast jet types, the Typhoon and the joint strike fighter. I am sure that that is the right strategy.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

My constituency of Devizes is home to more than 10,000 soldiers, plus a huge number of families and MOD civil servants, many of whom will welcome some of the uncertainty that has been removed by the Prime Minister’s statement today but who will have great concerns about the detail underlying it—about the boarding school allowances, the Army recovery centre at Tidworth and so on. When will they finally get information about what will stay and what will be cut?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We have not yet announced the full range of allowance changes. This is important—we are seeking some savings, and I do not hide from hon. Members the fact that this will involve some difficult decisions. There is one bit of reassurance—the Army is coming back from Germany, which involves 20,000 troops. I think that we spend something like £250 million a year on allowances for those troops in Germany. Obviously, having them back at home will change the cost structure and enable us to change some of the allowances, but we will be making further announcements.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I unequivocally welcome the announcement on the aircraft carriers? It took long enough. However, may I clarify whether the provision of the catapults and the rest of the gear will delay in any way the production of the carriers and have any job implications and whether it is intended that the Type 26 work will proceed to the already announced timetable?

[The Prime Minister]

The answer to the second half of the hon. Gentleman’s question is yes. On the carriers, it will not delay their manufacture and production. What it means is that as the first is produced, the most logical step would be to fit the “cat and trap” to that carrier, which will therefore come fully into service when the carrier version of the joint strike fighter arrives at the same time. We will have solved one of the inherited problems of bringing the two things together. Clearly, an alternative would be to fit the “cat and trap” to the second carrier, but the most logical way ahead is the one that I have set out.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

My constituents and I—and, it seems, many other Members in the Chamber—are naturally disappointed that the Metrix proposal for St Athan will not go ahead. Will the Prime Minister confirm that St Athan remains central to defence training and will he make available some of his officials to provide a detailed breakdown of why Metrix was not suitable?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to do that. I know how strongly people feel about this in south Wales and I know how important this decision is, so I am happy to make officials and Ministers available to meet my hon. Friend to explain the thinking. As I have said, this is not the end of the road for St Athan. There are many opportunities to concentrate training at that excellent resource and so, I think, he can continue to fight hard for his constituents.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

Lord Robertson’s strategic defence review was so well regarded internationally that he was made Secretary-General of NATO and his thinking shaped NATO’s strategy for a decade. Next month, the Prime Minister goes to the NATO summit in Lisbon to agree the new strategic concept. All four of his priorities are already in the concept. What is new enough and strategic enough for this defence review to shape NATO’s policy over the next decade?

[The Prime Minister]

There are a number of things that are new. The emphasis on a national security strategy in the round is new. The emphasis on cyber is new. The fact that we have prioritised national security tasks is quite high risk, frankly. If things happen that are in priority two or three, people will clearly be able to say that that should have been priority one. We have taken some risks with this process. I would also say that the force structure and the equipment going with the forces—making them more adaptable and flexible—is something, too. I expect other NATO countries will have to go through this process of making changes to their defence posture at the same time as trying to deal with their deficits.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Despite the futility of the Afghanistan war, our troops deserve the greatest support. In part, they have suffered from a lack of equipment and numbers. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that this review will not only ensure that there are no cuts in support but that there is increased support, should our troops require it in the future?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, absolutely. As I say, Afghanistan is funded through the Treasury reserve but we cannot entirely insulate what happens in funding for Afghanistan from decisions made elsewhere in the defence budget. As I said in my statement—I wanted to get this in—any time the chiefs of staff said that a decision could impact on Afghanistan either now or in the future, such as the decision on whether to go ahead with the Puma refit, I took the decision that we should go ahead with it to ensure that there is no danger of any shortfalls in equipment. That should be our first concern. They are on the line for us every day, and I never forget that.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

May I say how much I agree with the Prime Minister, particularly on the occasions at the conference in Manchester on which he said that he was committed to the defence training academy, and with his hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), who said it had to be won because it was the right military thing to do? However, I am still not clear, and perhaps the Prime Minister could answer me on this point. Is there are future for the defence training academy at St Athan, whether it is run by Metrix or anybody else?

[The Prime Minister]

Fundamentally, yes, there is a future for defence training at St Athan, as I have said. We need to make sure that more is done on a tri-service basis and that more is concentrated in fewer places. St Athan is uniquely well qualified for that but the current private finance initiative was not working—the MOD could not get it to work in the way that it wanted—so we have to start again. This is not the end of the road.

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

Cyber-security is a relatively new threat. Are we lagging behind other countries?

[The Prime Minister]

With the announcements that we have made in the national security strategy and today, I do not think that we will be lagging behind. We have considerable expertise both in our private sector and with GCHQ, and this is an opportunity to build some competitive advantage.

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

This is financial, not strategic. The defence academy in south Wales has been cancelled, the Royal Navy will be without carriers for the first time since world war two—[Interruption.] There will be an eight-year gap. Does this herald the end of “Britannia rules the waves” and the start of “Cameron waves the rules”?

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman’s break from Parliament did not do anything for his temper or his nature. He is completely wrong. We have to get these decisions right for the long term and, as I have tried to explain, a politically easier decision would have been a militarily wrong decision. That is a good way to start.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Last week, the Public Accounts Committee heard from Sir Bill Jeffrey, who said that the lack of a strategic review over the last couple of years had made the situation in the defence budget more difficult. I welcome the Prime Minister’s assurance that there will be a strategic defence review every five years, but what can he do to entrench that and to ensure that the shambolic position of there having been no review for 12 years never happens again?

[The Prime Minister]

I hope that it can become accepted between all parties in the House that we have five-yearly reviews. There is a provision for similar reviews in America. Given all the things that have happened since 1998—Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and 9/11—I think that future generations will find it very hard to understand why there has been no defence review.

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

Earlier, the Prime Minister sounded the death knell for Kinloss as an RAF station, but he did not respond to the question about Lossiemouth. Will he tell the House and the people of Scotland, all of whom are interested in this, what the future is for Lossiemouth and for RAF recruitment in Scotland?

[The Prime Minister]

I said that we are going to look at all the bases and see clearly what impact there is on Kinloss and Lossiemouth from the announcements about what the RAF’s lay-down is going to be. Clearly, there will be opportunities as British forces come home from Germany, so we will look at all bases and see what can be done. As I said in the statement, it is important that we consult all the communities who have given so much support to our forces over many years and that we do not rush these things.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry to disappoint some colleagues, but I have allowed the statement to run rather longer than is customarily the case for statements, in recognition of the enormous importance of the issue, but we must make progress. [Interruption.] I could never forget the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and I would not try.

Points of Order

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

17:03

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to raise what happened last night regarding amendment 3 to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. Many people judged what happened to be a breach of the underlying conventions of the House—the spirit of the rules—irrespective of the precision that could be applied to the Standing Orders themselves. We saw the cynical adoption of amendments with which the coalition Government clearly disagree merely to induce a negative vote. No opportunity was given for my amendments or those of other hon. Members to be debated or voted on in Committee. The threshold amendments are about percentages and proportionality, as is the principle of the Bill itself. I urge you to protect the underlying fundamental conventions of the House and the spirit of the rules on this matter on Report.

[Mr Speaker]

Before I respond to the hon. Gentleman, I think the House will want to hear from the Deputy Leader of the House.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am most grateful to you for letting me respond. It was entirely regrettable that we did not reach what was an important group of amendments last night. Clearly, the House wanted sufficient time to take a view on the matter, which was why the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), quite properly indicated that he would put the amendment before the House to give Members the opportunity to take a view on it. In the end, they decided not to take a view; there was no one in support of the amendment. However, having taken account of yesterday’s events, and given the important matters that we have to debate today, may I draw the House’s attention to the programme motion that we will shortly be taking a view on? It will take away any knives this evening, which means that if we do not complete clause 9 this evening, we will be able to continue discussion tomorrow. That seems to me an entirely appropriate course of action.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House for what he said. I am trying to wrap it up, but of course we must hear from Chris Bryant.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the Deputy Leader of the House is somewhat mistaken in his interpretation of what happened yesterday evening. I think there was a clear desire by many hon. Members not just to debate the particular issue of thresholds but actually to debate clause 6, which has not been debated at all in any shape or form in this House. [Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary is saying from a sedentary position that I was wasting time. I profoundly object to the fact that when we choose to scrutinise his legislation, he is calling into question my good faith.

The truth of the matter is that the Government did not provide enough time for the debate. In addition, the Deputy Leader of the House last night, when he suggested to me that he was bringing forward this new motion, said that it was because all the rest of the stuff that we were going to debate tomorrow was a pile of dross and did not need very much analysis. I hope that there will be a process of ensuring that the House of Lords is made fully aware of the fact that today’s programme motion makes absolutely no difference to whether or not yesterday we had any opportunity to consider the three clauses and three schedules that were before the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I certainly cannot go into all of that. Suffice it to say that I think the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made constitutes a self-fulfilling prophecy; in so far as he is concerned that the other place should be aware of his interpretation of last night’s events, he has made it aware of his interpretation by what he has just said. It is on the record and I am sure it will be studied carefully there and elsewhere.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) for giving me notice of his point of order. It is not for me to rule on what has happened in Committee of the Whole House. On the wider issue he raises, it is not unprecedented—the hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House since 1984, so he will testify to the truth of this—for a Minister to move a Back-Bench amendment, even if he or she does not wish to vote for it. As the First Deputy Chairman said last night:

“What the Government propose is orderly under Standing Order No. 83D(2)”—[Official Report, 18 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 767.],

although it is, as some hon. Members have observed—including, today, the hon. Gentleman—somewhat unusual. I am sure that hon. Members will also have noted the opportunities open to them, as has been remarked, on Report. Members present will certainly have noted what the Deputy Leader of the House has just said.

I hope that is helpful; I am not keen to take, and indeed I am keen not to take, further points of order on that matter, but I think we have a point of order from Mr. Andrew Rosindell.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will recall that on 27 July this year, I raised a point of order in the House with regard to the 20th anniversary of the murder by the IRA of the late Ian Gow, Member of Parliament for the Eastbourne constituency. I asked whether it might be possible for you, Mr Speaker, to consider a permanent memorial to Ian Gow in this House, and I wonder if today you may be in a position to update us on any progress you may have made in that respect.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and, thankfully, I am in a position to update the House. The hon. Gentleman came to see me about this matter last week, together with the noble Lord Howe of Aberavon, in order to underline their strength of feeling on the subject and to articulate the request for some such memorial. I undertook on that occasion to the hon. Gentleman and to the noble Lord to seek to ensure that the matter was placed on the agenda for the immediately following meeting of the House of Commons Commission. I put it on the agenda, and I had the benefit of a detailed letter from the noble Lord.

The matter was considered at the House of Commons Commission meeting last night, and I am pleased to advise the House that the Commission decided unanimously that there should be a permanent memorial to the late Ian Gow, and that that would likely take the form of a plaque. That plaque would be put up in the Chamber of the House of Commons, similar to the plaque that has been long established in recognition of the distinction and terrible fate of the late Airey Neave.

I can also inform the House that the detailed discussions about what will now happen and the form that the plaque will take will get under way very speedily. I hope that Members in all parts of the House will recognise the merit of the case for such a plaque, which I know will be greatly appreciated by members of Ian Gow’s family and by a great many people besides in all parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that is helpful to the House.

House of Commons Disqualification (Amendment)

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

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

17:10

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to disqualify for membership of the House of Commons any person who holds the office of Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, Deputy Chief Whip, Government Whip, Assistant Government Whip, Chief Opposition Whip or Assistant Opposition Whip; and for connected purposes.

I am introducing the Bill to rebuild trust in politics. We have a problem in Parliament. A Bill

“gets sent to the House of Commons where it’s debated without diligence—because automatic guillotines cut time short. It’s passed without proper scrutiny—because standing committees for Public Bills are stuffed with puppets of the Government. And it’s voted through without much of a whisper—because MPs have been whipped to follow the party line.

We’ve got to give Parliament its teeth back so that people can have pride in it again—so they can look at it and say ‘yes: those MPs we elect—they’re holding the government to account on my behalf.’”

Those are not my words, but the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. One may even say that his words are uttered in the same spirit as those of Edmund Burke, the great Conservative thinker, who in 1774 said of the perfect Member of Parliament that

“his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice . . . to any set of men living.”

That is what we as Members of Parliament should do, and what Parliament itself was set up to do. We should be acting on behalf of our constituents and, using our “'unbiased opinion” and “mature judgment”, scrutinising every piece of legislation that comes our way to hold the Government properly to account, regardless of party politics. But Burke could surely not have foreseen how difficult it is today for a Member of Parliament to live up to his ideal. Sadly, all too many of us do indeed succumb to pressure from a very particular “set of men living”—that is, the flatterers, cajolers and sometime bullies who make up our party Whips.

Parliament was originally intended to act as a check on the Executive and to hold it to account, yet with the advent of the party and such concepts as party loyalty and party manifestos, Members of Parliament have put their individual judgment to one side increasingly frequently and, more often than not, are treated by the Whips as little more than sheep. In fact, the Whips even divide Members into groups which they call flocks. These flocks are then blindly herded into Division Lobbies and told to vote a particular way on a subject that they know nothing about. Many Members of Parliament today go through the Lobby not even knowing what part of the Bill they are voting on.

Such behaviour is an insult to our constituents and to British democracy. It was particularly bad under the last Labour Government, when the Whips, working in secret, skilfully used flattery, enticement, patronage, threats and downright bullying to get Members of Parliament to ignore their better judgment and, in many cases, the opinions of their constituents, and vote in whichever way the former Prime Minister wanted. The ways of the Whips Office are, by their very nature, secretive. After all, what party would want the public knowing precisely to what lengths a few men and women will go to secure what they arrogantly assume to be the best option for the country?

Let me give the House just one story, an example of how the Whips blatantly use disinformation even in the current Session. The disinformation in question concerned the Backbench Business Committee. The Whips sent an e-mail to Members claiming that the Committee had decided always to hold its business on a Thursday and to table motions for discussion only a day or so before. Both those alleged facts were completely incorrect. It was in fact the Whips Office that decided that the debate should be on a Thursday, against the advice of the Wright report, and the Committee should have been given earlier days in the parliamentary week, not Thursdays. It was also entirely untrue to state that the Committee tabled motions only a day or so before the debate; the Committee normally provides several weeks’ notice. The purpose of that disinformation was clearly to show the Committee in a bad light to Members, because it will inevitably take power away from the Whips.

It is frankly astonishing to think that, in an age when employees have more rights than ever before, and workplace bullying has thankfully become increasingly unacceptable, Members are still treated in such a manner. If I were to treat my staff in that way, even for an instant, I would quite rightly be taken to an employment tribunal and sued faster than you can say, “Your career is over.” Yet, it is through those unsavoury and often underhand methods that the Whips ensure that the party line is strictly obeyed. The public are therefore denied independent-minded Members and, indeed, the Parliament that they deserve.

What is more frustrating is that the individual members of the Whips Office are often very talented Members who would be better employed helping to run a Department or seated on the Back Benches holding the Government to account, rather than wasting their time as Whips. In my experience, Whips are extremely hard working and carry out their functions, including their pastoral care, with great diligence. Nor am I saying that they have not in the past usefully performed certain functions to ensure the smooth running of the House, such as communicating Back-Benchers’ views to the leadership and vice versa, and organising House business. Yet, with the admirable and long-awaited changes to Parliament which our new Government have already enacted, such as setting up the Backbench Business Committee and the soon-to-be-created business of the House committee, business could be organised perfectly well without the Whips and the usual channels.

Although my Bill would abolish the position of Whip, it would not abolish the Whips Office, an entity already run by civil servants and which would continue to deal with day-to-day House administration. As for the channels of communication between the leadership and Back Benchers, in each party there are vocal Back-Bench groups, such as my party’s 1922 committee, which perform such a function admirably and efficiently.

The position of Whip could be made redundant easily. The only role left for Whips to perform is that of strong-arming Members and ensuring a less democratic and efficient Parliament as a result. The public are clearly crying out for a change in the way that Parliament operates. They want a less powerful and overbearing Executive, and Members who are able to represent their views and use their judgment, not Members who act just as Lobby fodder in order to rubber-stamp the decisions of the Executive, blindly following the party’s view and not even knowing what Bill they are voting on.

This Parliament is moving steadily towards a separation of its powers from those of the Executive. My Bill is a further step on that progressive journey. In fact, it would benefit not only British democracy but the British economy. Following recent events, the public have become increasingly irritated by the scale of expenditure, yet by abolishing the Whips’ positions we would save approximately £6.5 million per Parliament in ministerial salaries—a quite extraordinary amount. Surely it is only right that alongside the Prime Minister’s plans to reduce the number of Members of Parliament, we make at least some effort to reduce the size of the Government.

I should like to end by quoting the words of a man who I know has the best interests of our democracy and our country at heart:

“We will give the House of Commons more control over its own timetable so there is proper time for scrutiny and debate. We will make MPs more independent, with more free votes so that they can vote as they wish and not as they’re told to.”

Those were the words of our new Prime Minister, uttered in 2009 in his powerful speech about rebuilding the connection between Parliament and the people. I am introducing this Bill to try to help the Prime Minister to achieve his aim.

17:21

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

I yield to no one in my admiration for my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who has a proven track record of raising thought-provoking questions. His speech has raised a thought-provoking question in my mind—why he has not given much more weight to the pastoral care that the Government Whips Office, and indeed the Opposition Whips Office, gives to individual Members.

I make this point not because I am a Whips’ nark—although it is for other hon. Members to judge whether that is the case—or because I am a member of that formidable trade union, the ex-Whips Office, but rather because in the past six months I have had experience of the personal advice, support and care of Her Majesty’s Government’s Whips Office. That has been given to my staff and to me; it was necessary after my temporary leave of absence after the general election.

I suggest to hon. Members that they view the Whips Office, or the Opposition Whips Office, as being bit like the NHS. We hope that we never need it, but it is very good to know that it is there if we do. That has been my experience. All of us in this place come into politics because we want to serve, and that calling brings with it its own unique demands. I am not for one second suggesting that we are a special case in that sense, but I would suggest that most other jobs have very highly developed human resources or personnel departments that individuals can go to. In this House, we do not have a similar support network—except, that is, for the Whips Office. The House relies on the Whips Office for the delivery of pastoral care. In my case, that has resulted in my full return to health and a full recovery. I hasten to add that I do not want to overdo it—it was not just the Whips Office that delivered my speedy return, but the Whips Office contributed to it, and I must say that I am enjoying it hugely.

It is for those reasons that I oppose the Bill. I am aware, however, that there is important business to be got through this evening, and I will therefore not force the matter to a Division.

Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Mr Peter Bone, Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr Douglas Carswell, Mr David Nuttall and Mr Graham Allen present the Bill.

[Mr Bone]

The list would have included my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), but he felt that it might damage his career prospects.

Mr Peter Bone accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 December and to be printed (Bill 80).

Parliamentary Voting System and constituencies Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the Order of 12 October (Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill (Programme) (No. 2) be varied as follows:

(1) In the Table, for the entry relating to the third and fourth days of Committee there shall be substituted:

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. There is a problem with regard to timing. There is some doubt as to whether eight minutes have elapsed, so the doors will be unlocked for one further minute.

17:25

Division 84

Ayes: 327

---

Conservative: 272
Liberal Democrat: 52
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Alliance: 1

Noes: 233

---

Labour: 217
Democratic Unionist Party: 8
Conservative: 3
Scottish National Party: 2
Independent: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Third Report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, HC 437, and the oral evidence taken before the Committee on the Coalition Government’s programme of political and constitutional reform on Thursday 15 July, HC 358-i.]

[3rd Allocated Day]

Further considered in Committee

[Dawn Primarolo in the Chair]

Clause 7

The alternative vote system: amendments

17:40

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 62, page 5, leave out lines 9 to 11 and insert

‘but no preference beyond the second may be indicated.’.

It gives me great pleasure to move amendment 62. It goes to the heart of what we mean by “the alternative vote system”, because there is more than one AV system. I am very much in favour of first past the post, so it is with a heavy heart that I know that we are about to get into the detail of what we mean by an “alternative vote”. Were my amendment to be carried, it might make it easier for those who want to secure a yes vote in the referendum—that is the irony of my amendment—because it will actually make the system much simpler to understand.

Effectively, my amendment would provide for the choice of replacing the first-past-the-post system with the first-or-second-past-the-post system. In other words, it would not be possible for somebody to be elected unless they had either the first or second largest number of first preference votes. Under the AV system proposed in my amendment, candidates who had come third, fourth, fifth and so on would be eliminated after the first round and the second preference votes of those who had backed them redistributed. After that redistribution, the candidate—either the first or second-placed candidate—with the most votes would be elected. So the qualifications for election would be that, first, a candidate would have to have been one of the first two people past the post and secondly, they would have to rely on the second preference votes of those who had backed candidates lower down the batting order in terms of success in the first round.

[Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

If the Committee were to accept my hon. Friend’s amendment, would it not mean that the candidate with the broader base of support among the community he or she was seeking to serve might not be elected?

[Mr Chope]

That is a defect of all alternative vote systems. One reason I like the first-past-the-post system is that it is clear for people to understand. The most popular candidate wins, and we do not get into this business of having to go for the lowest common denominator.

My amendment would put into the Bill the only AV system already operating in our country—it operates in London and the rest of England for mayoral elections.

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

Is not the hon. Gentleman proposing almost a semi-alternative vote, given that it would be a restriction on the whole concept of AV? Surely, it is up to electors. If they decide to list only two members among their favourites, that is their decision. Why does he seek to restrict the choice of voters? It is very uncharacteristic of him.

17:45

[Mr Chope]

That is what is done in London at the moment, and in mayoral elections in towns and cities the length and breadth of the country. That system is less satisfactory than the first-past-the-post system. However, it is a lot more satisfactory than the full alternative vote system, which is what is proposed in the Bill at present, because under that system the person who gets the third or fourth highest number of first preferences—or, in some scenarios, even the fifth highest—might end up being elected, because he has got the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth preferences of other candidates. That leads to a very undesirable system, in which not even the person who came first or second past the post is elected, but instead somebody who came much further down the running order, all on the basis of the lowest common denominator, which is the wrong way to choose representatives to this House.

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

The hon. Gentleman is being absolutely straightforward in saying that he does not really agree with his own amendment, but does he agree that it still does not get over the fundamental flaw in all AV systems, which is that they effectively give people two votes, and particularly people who support minority parties such as the British National party?

[Mr Chope]

Exactly. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and my amendment attempts to mitigate the terms of the Bill, under which some people might have three, four, five or six votes. For example, somebody might put the BNP first and the UK Independence party second, and then vote for some other nationalist party or whatever. All those candidates would never get anywhere near the top of the poll, thereby making it possible for that person to cast a large number of votes. Thus, some people will get a large number of votes, whereas others will not; indeed, they will get only the one vote. One way of explaining the virtues of the first-past-the-post system is to say that it is one person, one vote, which is something that everybody understands.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) made a good point about some people effectively having three, four or five votes. However, is it not the case that the meaning of the word “alternative” is “one of two”, from its true Latin derivation, “alter”? My hon. Friend’s amendment is therefore technically and linguistically absolutely correct. If the system is to be called the alternative vote system, the sense of “one of two” must come into it somewhere, not the sense of “one of four or five”.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. She and I have not colluded on this, but I took the precaution of looking up the definition of “alternative” and its usage in the “Shorter Oxford English Dictionary”, which says:

“Some traditionalists maintain”—

I think that she and I are both in that category—

“from an etymological standpoint, that you can only have a maximum of two alternatives (from the Latin alter ‘other (of two)’) and that uses where there are more than two alternatives are erroneous.”

However, the dictionary then says:

“Such uses are, however, normal in modern standard English.”

More is the pity, but that is the factual situation as described in the dictionary. However, the sense that I have described is how those of us who are traditionalists, as well as a lot of other people, understand the word “alternative”. Indeed, although I am reluctant ever to criticise a word that he says, earlier on we heard the Prime Minister use the word “less” when he meant “fewer”.

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

The hon. Gentleman is giving us a lecture on the difference between prescriptive and descriptive grammar. However, in a previous general election—in 1992, I think it was—the Inverness seat had four candidates on roughly 25% each. How were those voters allowed any power or given any alternatives to express their further preferences, rather than having the winning candidate get only roughly a quarter of the votes?

[Mr Chope]

It is exactly the same syndrome as somebody who wins the 100 metres in the Olympics by a fraction, despite perhaps coming second or third in the semi-finals. That is the way we operate, and it is something that everybody understands.

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Before the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) intervenes, may I remind the Committee that we are not discussing AV versus first past the post? We are debating a particular form in this amendment, and we are now drifting away from that a little. Perhaps we could come back to it.

[Mr Chope]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr MacNeil]

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is talking about an exact parallel. At an election, there is a division of votes, but there is no division of time in a race: everyone is striving to achieve the shortest time. That is different from a division of votes among candidates.

[Mr Chope]

Speaking from my personal experience, when I was first lucky enough to get elected to this House in 1983, I got 41.5% of the vote. When I was defeated in 1992, I got more than 45% of the vote. I did not complain about that because all my constituents could understand that the person whom they most wanted to be their MP was no longer me. That is what we understand with the first-past-the-post system. As soon as we complicate the matter with alternative systems, we get complexity. In the amendment, I am trying to reduce that complexity and mitigate the problem as much as possible.

I want to draw another analogy. If the alternative vote system proposed by the Government in the Bill were adopted, people would be encouraged to rank the number of candidates from one to however many, in order of preference. I think that a lot of our constituents have difficulty in being sure about the relative merits of one or two candidates, yet we would be expecting them to list perhaps nine candidates in order of preference. If we tried to rate fast-food outlets in order of preference, we would need not only to work out which one we liked the most, but to rank Starbucks, McDonald’s, Subway, Café Nero, KFC, Burger King and Pret A Manger in order of preference. It is quite complicated for people to rate, say, one as their sixth preference and another as their seventh. Such a voting system would be demanding and result in people having to spend a lot more time in the polling booth poring over the information about the candidates. Indeed, they would need to get a lot more information before they could exercise an informed choice.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am not sure about the constituents of Christchurch, but the constituents of Na h-Eileanan an Iar certainly have no difficulty in getting beyond the No. 2, even when it comes to fast-food outlets, which we do not have many of in the Outer Hebrides.

[Mr Chope]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.

I refer the Committee to the evidence submitted to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee by Professor Patrick Dunleavy in the 14th written submission on page 205 in the third report on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. In his important paper, he asks what the alternative vote means. Were the Bill to pass, and were there to be a referendum in which the question on the alternative vote appeared on the ballot paper, many members of the public would ask precisely that question: what does the alternative vote mean?

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. That might be in people’s minds, or it might not, but the hon. Gentleman must come back to his amendment, which covers a particular version of the system. I would be grateful if he would stay focused on that point; it is quite a narrow one.

[Mr Chope]

It is indeed.

The effect of my amendment would be to adopt the system that Professor Dunleavy describes as London AV, rather than the three alternatives—classic AV, Australian AV and London AV—also set out in his document. The amendment has obviously been selected for debate because Mr Speaker recognised that there is more than one system of alternative votes. The system that I am describing can be described as the supplementary vote system, but there is also one known as the Australian system.

[Mr Knight]

Listening to my hon. Friend, I have reached the conclusion that the strongest argument in favour of his amendment is one that he has not yet advanced—namely, that of consistency. If there is one form of AV currently operating in the UK—the one that he describes as London AV—it would make sense that any system introduced be identical to that system. Have Ministers given him any reason why they propose a totally different form of AV from the one that is currently in force in London?

[Mr Chope]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and that subject was going to form my peroration. I tabled the amendment because I have failed to receive a straightforward answer from the Minister about why the Government want to go for the particular form of AV set out in the Bill, instead of the form that we have already experienced in London and in other elections across the country.

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

It is not true to say that there is only one form of AV operating in this country. There are different forms in different electoral systems. It is not true that there is only the system used for electing the London Mayor. In London, there is also a list system, and there is a different system, in which people choose between party lists, in Scotland and elsewhere.

[Mr Chope]

The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the purpose of my amendment. We are talking about alternative vote systems. He is describing alternative voting systems, which could embrace proportional representation, but they are not covered by the clause or by my amendment. I shall not respond further to his intervention, because I am sure that I would be ruled out of order.

[Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Would not the hon. Gentleman’s proposal put the voters in London in a difficult situation? If all this were to go through, next year, there would be one system of alternative voting for them, but in the mayoral elections the following year, there would be a different one. Is it not the case that there would be two AV systems available to the people of London?

[Mr Chope]

That would be the case if the Bill remained unamended, if there were a referendum and if the yes vote in that referendum were successful. That is a lot of hypotheticals and I hope that we shall not reach that ghastly outcome, but it is better to be wise before the event rather than to complain afterwards. In anticipation of the difficulties ahead, including the inconsistency that would result from having more than one type of AV system operating in this country, I believe that there is a lot to be said for ensuring that any system put forward in a referendum is of the same type as the one that has already been experienced by many electors. I hope that the Minister will tell us why we are going for a different system from the one that is already operating in London. Up to now, I have heard no justification for that decision.

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

My heart leapt when I saw “AV variant” on the selection list, because I though that it might refer to AV-plus. That system was recommended by the Jenkins commission in the early years of the last Labour Government, and it is one that I support. However, the hon. Gentleman is now talking about a London variant. I have to say that I am always suspicious of anything described as a London variant. First, it sounds sexual and, secondly, coming from the north, I do not think that there should be any variants for London. If he is talking about choosing variants, will he allow for the inclusion of AV-plus in his amendment?

[Mr Chope]

I cannot change my amendment at this stage, and I am not sure that an amendment dealing with AV-plus would have been selected. If the hon. Gentleman wanted an AV-plus amendment, he could have—

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. We are not discussing AV-plus. Can we get back to the amendment? We have a lot of business to get through over the next two days, so I would be grateful if all hon. Members—in their interventions as well as their speeches—focused their comments on the amendment.

18:00

[Mr Chope]

I am most grateful to you, Ms Primarolo, for trying to ensure that we stick to the amendment. I am a bit flattered in that my amendment is being debated on its own. The best thing for me to do now is to sit down so that I can listen to what the Minister has to say in response to my question: why is the form of AV set out in the Bill preferable to the other form of AV already available in this country, which has been experienced in London and in other cities?

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), but I shall not support his amendment. I disagree with it first and foremost because no provision was made in any party’s manifesto for this version of the alternative vote. When the Labour party said it wanted a referendum on the alternative vote system, we certainly meant a full alternative vote system in which people could continue to express their preference, as long as there was a preference still to be expressed.

Originally, the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto had nothing to do with the alternative vote, but if they had proposed a form of the alternative vote it would have been, as we saw in their negotiations with the Conservative and Labour parties after the general election and as was commonly understood, that under AV the voter was allowed to express a preference all through the system. The hon. Member for Christchurch might object that AV was not in his party’s manifesto in any shape or form. That is why I have a slight suspicion that his amendment is intended more as a wrecking amendment, although to be generous I shall suggest it is a probing amendment. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing)—in rather elegant turquoise, if I may say so—said that AV gives some people two or even three votes. That is not the case. People have one vote, but are allowed to keep on expressing it as a preference while the process continues.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that there is some scope for confusion among the electorate? If there were six candidates on the ballot paper, people might feel that they must continue voting until they have exhausted those six options. A British National party candidate, for example, would probably be nobody’s choice, but electors might feel confused and believe that it was necessary for them to vote for such a candidate as their sixth preference. The British National party candidate might then get their sixth vote.

[Chris Bryant]

No, not at all. If the hon. Gentleman read the clauses and schedules carefully, he would see that they make it absolutely clear what information must be provided to the voter—whether voting by post or in person. The Bill provides not just for an advisory referendum but an enacting one, so it will happen if there is a yes vote. The provisions make it clear that voters can continue to express their preference for as long as they wish—or, indeed, they can stop expressing it if they wish to. They can simply say, “My first preference is exhibit A” and subsequently make no further preferences. In the Labour leadership contest, which used the alternative vote—the votes of all Labour MPs were published—quite a few Labour Members voted just for their first preference and chose not to exercise their second, third or fourth preference at all. Some chose to go right down the list—whether it was so that they could say that they had voted for all five candidates, who knows?

There is only one vote, but this brings us to a key question raised by the Minister yesterday: under the system intended to be used, will the winning candidate always have received 50% plus one of the votes?

[Graham Stringer]

On this technical point, does it not depend on how many second preferences are made or, under the full alternative vote system, on how many other additional preferences are made? It is not necessary to get past 50%.

[Chris Bryant]

I gave way rather too soon, as that was precisely the point I was about to make. If people decide not to cast a second or third preference, it is perfectly possible that the winner will not have achieved 50% plus one of the total number of votes originally cast. The winner will have acquired 50% plus one of the votes of those still expressing a preference at that stage, whereas under the hon. Member for Christchurch’s proposal more often the individual elected would not have got even close to 50% plus one of the total number of votes cast. That is why I disagree with the system he proposes.

I fully understand the point made about the term “alternative”. I am one of those irritating people who regularly objects when the word “less” is used when “fewer” is meant. I am annoyed when Marks and Spencer uses it—a pretty depressing state of affairs. I have noticed, however, that although I keep on saying this and correcting people, it wins me no friends—it just irritates people; it has not changed anybody’s practice. It is absolutely true that in Latin—most of us do not speak it much of the day, although the Mayor of London might—alternative means one or the other out of two. Sometimes in places such as Wales there are just two candidates—Labour and Plaid Cymru—but for the most part the number of candidates is considerably higher. There have not been many unopposed elections for many years, either.

If we end up with an alternative vote system, whereby people can express their preferences on a full list, the number of candidates standing will probably increase. There will probably be candidates standing for parties that do not expect to win, but they may be able to persuade their voters by saying, “Well, it is all right to give me your first preference, but when you want to plump for the person you would most like to win, as opposed to the person most likely to win, you can do so”. I understand that this is not the view of all Opposition Members or indeed of the majority of Government Members, but to my mind that would have a positive effect on British politics, enabling more people to engage in the political system.

[Sir Stuart Bell]

My hon. Friend is making his usual fluent speech with great confidence, but how can he say that this will provide a better system? I do not want to go too wide of the amendment, but how can it possibly be right that seven votes are required to end up with a majority of 50%? If there are seven candidates, people will vote seven times. How is that a fair result in a democracy?

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. I hope that in replying, the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted into a general discussion about AV.

[Chris Bryant]

I would like to ask you, Ms Primarolo, whether you view this as constituting a stand part debate as well.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

I do not consider this to be a stand part debate because the amendment is very narrow. Members should be aware of that: if they push the margins too widely, it will lead to sacrificing debate later.

[Chris Bryant]

Fine. I just wanted to give notice that we would like a stand part debate when the debate on this amendment has concluded.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) is wrong. In theory, it might seem possible to cast seven preferences if there were seven candidates; however, a preference would be expressed only six times, as at the end it is a choice between the sixth and seventh candidates. It is unlikely that that would happen very often in practice.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s speech so far, although I have not heard all the debate so far. Is not one advantage of the amendment the fact that if the voting were constrained to those possibilities, it would remove the possibility that major party candidates would try to appeal to extreme parties that might be well down the voting list?

[Chris Bryant]

I am tempted to make a partisan comment about the hon. Gentleman’s own political party appealing to extremist views, but I have decided not to.

I do not think that that opinion can be genuinely held. Undoubtedly all politicians presenting themselves for election try to secure the largest number of votes. What I think that AV will do—and here I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister—is put an end to safe seats. I say that as one who represents a seat that many people would probably consider to be historically safe.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

Has the hon. Gentleman considered the position in Australia, which operates a form of the alternative vote? I understand that a large number of seats are won on the first count, and are safe seats.

[Chris Bryant]

A significant difference is that in Australia voting is compulsory. Exactly the same argument could be used about Chile, but it also has more political parties taking part in elections, and consequently ends up with a rather broader way of doing politics.

[Sir Stuart Bell]

This intervention relates directly to the amendment, Ms Primarolo. I am grateful to Lord Campbell-Savours for pointing out to me that the alternative vote as described in “the Chope amendment” is Labour policy as recommended by the report of the Plant commission. It was described as the supplementary vote, and was devised by Lord Campbell-Savours and Professor Dunleavy. In fact, Labour policy entirely conformed with the amendment.

[Chris Bryant]

Lord Plant is a very eminent and splendid man who has contributed much to the Labour party and to the movement, but I do not think that the policy that we advocated before the 1997 general election necessarily binds us in this evening’s vote. [Interruption.] I note that the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) is worried about people standing by commitments that they made in 1996. His party cannot even stand by commitments that it made earlier this year, so I am not sure that he is one to talk.

My simple point is that I think it likely that if Britain ends up with an alternative vote system, not as recommended in the amendment but as recommended in the Bill, we will end up with fewer safe seats in the sense in which many people understand it. It may well be that the historical reality of safe seats is changing anyway because many more voters now adopt a pick-and-mix approach.

[Sir Stuart Bell]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend has received another note from Lord Campbell-Savours, but of course I will give way to him.

[Sir Stuart Bell]

Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the Committee that when he talks of being in favour of a change in the voting system and of getting rid of safe seats, he is expressing a personal opinion, and not the opinion of the Labour party?

[Chris Bryant]

I said at the outset that I knew that my personal support for the alternative vote was not necessarily shared by all those sitting behind me. I am glad that my hon. Friend—my knighted hon. Friend—has given himself an opportunity to put on record his scepticism about the policy being advocated. I am only sorry that he does not agree with me, but I know that he agrees with me about many other matters.

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

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it would be wrong to conclude—and I am sure that he is not so doing—that the vast majority of members of the parliamentary Labour party want any change in the electoral system? Many of us believe that, with all its flaws and blemishes, the existing system is the best.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that the views of the parliamentary Labour party, vast or otherwise, are not specifically relevant to the amendment. Perhaps I can help the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) by informing him that he can move on.

[Chris Bryant]

I am very grateful, Ms Primarolo. I should have thought that the views of the parliamentary Labour party were slightly relevant to the debate—certainly when it comes to the vote—but obviously I do not seek to challenge your ruling. I merely say to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) that I do not think that anyone has fully tested the precise views held, and there are many respects in which I think he is wrong. For instance, I think that the vast majority of us in the parliamentary Labour party want to change the electoral system, so that registration can be improved throughout the land and the 3 million people who are currently not on the register can be included.

I merely wished to make a few simple points. If it is certain that we are to have a clause stand part debate, I will reserve some of the other points that I wish to make until then.

18:15

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I believe that the amendment draws attention to something that is at the heart of the debate about AV: the weighting of particular votes. Under our current system, people vote positively. They go out and vote for a particular party. They have one vote, and if they vote more than once they are disqualified. They must make a choice. Under AV—under the system that may be proposed by the Government tonight—it is possible to vote one, two, three, four, five, six, seven times. What the system does not take into account is the strength of people’s preferences. A first preference may be outweighed by a second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh preference. That moves us away from positive politics, and I do not think that the system will be made any better by a second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth choice.

We are committed to a form of AV. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), in the London elections we have supplementary votes. People vote once or twice. In practice, most Members who are elected have well over 40% of the vote, and it would probably take only one count of the bottom candidate, or perhaps the two bottom candidates, before someone would have more than 50%. If we want a system under which people have majority support, I am not sure that we need “one, two, three, four, five, six”. I think that one or two might produce a better, more efficient, more effective system.

We must consider the weighting problem. Under AV, a candidate with 20,000 votes could lose. If two others gained 10,500 votes each, a candidate with twice as much support as the second candidate could come second overall. The weighting element is a weakness of AV, although it is not a weakness of proportional representation, because PR—particularly in its purest sense—involves equality of votes. Under our current system there is some wastage of votes, but people vote positively. Under the additional member system, in both Wales and Scotland, the list provides a balance against first past the post. The more choice people are given, the more likely it is that a second or third choice will outweigh a first choice. I do not think that that is fair or right. People will be allowed to vote many times because they make the wrong choices three or four times.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman said that in Wales and Scotland there was a list to balance the inequities of first past the post. Is he one of those who feel that inequities are manifest in first past the post?

[Mr Syms]

I have always supported first past the post, but if I were to argue for any alternative I would go for the German system, which could effectively be used in Scotland or Wales. I think that it is a better, more logical system, which retains the link between Member and constituency. However, that is not what is proposed in amendment 62.

I think that the amendment is sensible because it goes to the root of AV, which is the weighting of votes. Endless weighting of votes makes a system that is meant to be fairer much more unfair, because those who have a first choice are cancelled out. It might be fairer if someone’s second preference were counted as half a vote, or someone’s third preference as a third of a vote, or someone’s fourth preference as a fifth of a vote; but treating the preferences equally produces lowest-common-denominator politics. It means that the least offensive people can win, and that those with the most positive and passionate politics can lose.

[Chris Bryant]

I believe that the hon. Gentleman is opposed to the use of AV, full stop, and will argue for a “no” vote in the referendum. I should have thought, therefore, that it would make more sense for him to ensure, according to a sort of Maoist principle, that the question on the ballot paper is the one that he can most easily attack.

[Mr Syms]

I am not sure that the average voter will be much impressed by having a choice between one to seven or just a supplementary vote. I think they will be utterly confused in the coming referendum, and who wins and who loses may well be in the lap of the gods.

The weighting of votes is the weakest element of AV. I am committed to the coalition agreement and I will vote for the Bill and support the Minister, but I will also participate in the debate and I think that, regardless of whether the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is a probing amendment, it is a useful contribution to the discussion of the relative merits of the AV system, which does not have many merits.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

I will be very brief and I will try to stick directly to the issue in hand. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) that no electoral system is perfect, and I believe that first past the post is the best system for electing Members of this House. However, I do not agree with the Maoist principles to which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) just referred. If we are going to put a choice to the people, those of us who believe in first past the post should want to propose against it the best possible version of AV so that if the referendum result is the opposite of what we want, we still get an acceptable electoral system.

To answer a question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch in his opening remarks, I believe the reason the Government have got this right and their proposal is better than the supplementary vote system is that if we are going to give people the option of a preferential voting system it should be the option that gives electors the maximum flexibility possible. I am opposed to preferential systems that make people express a preference. I think that many of my constituents will choose just to cast a first preference vote for the candidate whom they most want to be elected, and I am opposed to the supplementary vote system—which the previous Labour Government forced on us in London—because it allows those electors who wish to express preferences to express no more than a second preference.

My position is very clear, therefore. I am in favour of first past the post, but if we are to give people a preferential system it should be a system that allows electors to express their preferences.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

Is the hon. Gentleman’s point not borne out by the fact that in multi-member wards where people are obliged or asked to cast many votes, they frequently just cast one, two or three? This is a matter of choice, therefore.

[Gavin Barwell]

In my experience of council elections, most people cast votes in accordance with the number of vacancies that there are, but some people do decide that they want to vote for only one or two candidates, perhaps because there are not three candidates on the ballot for whom they wish to vote, and that is their democratic right.

I believe the Government have chosen the right system. If it were ever used, it would give maximum choice to my constituents. Therefore, with respect, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch that his amendment is misplaced.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), whose remarks have been very supportive.

The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) is very interesting, but I fear that it does not do what he seems to think it does. As he is an experienced Member, I say with some trepidation that his amendment is defective. He seemed to be explaining that, in effect, it delivers a supplementary vote system under which only the top two candidates are capable of winning the election and all the other candidates are eliminated, and therefore voters only express two preferences. That is not what his amendment does, however. It limits the number of preferences to be expressed to two, but that does not have the effect he was hoping for. Under his amendment, it would still be possible for a candidate who had come third and been eliminated to win the election if they were the recipient of many second preferences. I therefore fear that his amendment is technically defective, because it does not do what he clearly outlined he wished it to do. Given that, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw it.

In choosing the form of AV that is proposed in the Bill, we were very clear that we wanted the optional preferential system as we did not want voters to be forced to vote for candidates they could not stomach. We thought it was not right to force voters to have to express a preference for a British National party candidate, for instance, when they think that the views that that candidate espouses are repugnant. However, we also thought that voters should be free to vote for just one candidate if they so wished. There should be maximum choice for the elector. That is why we chose the system that is in the Bill as the one to put to the electors, and I recommend it to the Committee.

[Mr Chope]

It appears that my hon. Friend will not address the following question: if my amendment does not achieve the purpose of introducing, for the sake of consistency, the London AV system, would he be in favour of an amendment that did achieve that being brought forward on Report? If not, can he answer this question: why does he believe we should have more than one AV system operating in this country—the London AV system plus the AV system he is introducing through the Bill?

[Mr Harper]

I will try not to stray too far outside the terms of this debate, and I will not get into a debate from the Dispatch Box on the merits of different electoral systems. The Government are proposing this referendum with the choice between first past the post and AV, and the Government are neutral on those two electoral systems. That is a matter for the yes and no campaigns, and for the Members campaigning in them. The Government will not express a preference from the Dispatch Box. I will, however, take my hon. Friend through both his argument and the reasons why we support putting to the voters the system proposed in the Bill.

If I have rightly understood my hon. Friend’s argument—I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong—he was putting forward the supplementary vote system used in London. That has two features. First, voters have only two choices: they can express only two preferences, which is also what his amendment proposes. Secondly, if no candidate gets over 50% of first preference votes—I think I am right in saying that no candidate has done so since the system was put in place—only the top two candidates stay in the race. All other candidates are eliminated, and the second preferences of those who voted for those eliminated candidates are redistributed, and we then discover which of the top two wins. That is the piece that my hon. Friend’s amendment does not insert into the Bill, however. My hon. Friend’s amendment could lead to a situation that I think he said he would find undesirable, in that it would still be perfectly possible for a candidate who had not finished in the top two to be the winner if they received a significant number of second preference votes from those who were first eliminated.

[Mr Chope]

rose—

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. The Minister is addressing very clearly a number of complex points, and I realise that he is looking behind him because he wants to be as helpful as possible, but we need him to face forward so that Members in all parts of the Chamber can hear his comments.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful, Ms Primarolo. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch wanted to intervene.

[Mr Chope]

Can my hon. Friend answer clearly whether he believes the London system—which I have described as the London AV because that is how it was described by Professor Dunleavy—should be applied nationally and therefore should be put in the referendum, or does he believe the referendum choice should give people the chance to have both a supplementary AV system and his version of AV? If so, we could end up with two different forms of AV in this country’s electoral system.

[Mr Harper]

We have put a version of AV in clause 7, so that is clearly the system the Government believe the voters should have a choice on. They should choose between that system or the existing system of first past the post. We considered the London supplementary vote system, but we did not choose it because we wanted to give voters the maximum amount of choice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central set out, we wanted to give voters the opportunity to select from the range of candidates instead of just giving them two choices.

[Mr Chope]

If the Minister is saying that the coalition Government are against the AV system used to elect the London Mayor, is he also saying that the coalition Government are minded to change that system to the AV system proposed in the Bill, if that system is supported in a referendum?

18:30

[Mr Harper]

That is not what I said, and my hon. Friend will know that we are discussing the system for electing Members to the House of Commons. The choice of systems that the coalition Government want to put before the electors in a referendum is the choice of either sticking with first past the post or using the alternative vote system that we have put forward. The reason we thought it important to put in the Bill the version of the alternative vote system that will come into effect if there is a yes vote in the referendum—the debate has brought this out—is that voters are clear about what they are voting for. It is also so that the two campaigns—the yes campaign and the no campaign—can look at the Bill and clearly explain to voters the system that they are voting for or against, and the consequences of that system. Voters can then make an informed choice.

[Austin Mitchell]

Perhaps the Minister can help me with a further point. It is good to see the Government being so nice and sensitive, in that they will not force people to vote for the whole slate; they will allow people to choose how many candidates they vote for—that is the essence of what he is saying, I think. But will that not produce unpredictable results, in that if someone votes for the whole slate—for a first, second, third, fourth and fifth preference, or whatever—their vote counts more heavily than that of someone who votes for just one or perhaps two candidates under the London system? Does that not open up the possibility of the donkey vote, which we all know applies in Australia, whereby less-informed voters simply list the candidates in first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth place according to where they are on the form? There is therefore a great premium on having a name beginning with A. For that reason, when the system comes in, I will change my name to A1 Austin. The donkey vote will count more than legitimately calculated and thought-out votes.

[Mr Harper]

It is difficult to start to get behind what is on ballot papers, and to analyse the amount of thought that voters put in to what they write on them. I am sure that all of us, when we have looked at the results of elections in our constituencies and council elections, have sometimes wondered what thought processes voters used in casting their votes. We have not always agreed with the result, but democracy is a wonderful thing; we give everyone who is over the age of 18 and who is eligible to vote the chance to do so. In a democracy, we have to take the results that we get and make the best of them, regardless of the amount of thought put into them. I will not try to psychoanalyse how voters will express their preferences and how much thought they put into them.

[Mrs Laing]

I appreciate that the Minister is trying to be very fair in how he and the Government draw up the system that might, if the referendum succeeds, come into force, but has he seen the carefully compiled scientific evidence that shows that alphabetical preferences do matter? The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) is possibly joking—or perhaps not—about changing his name to A1 Austin. If that was his name on the ballot paper, and if I became Mrs Aardvark—nobody named Aardvark has so far asked me to marry them, but you never know—[Hon. Members: “Aah!”] Thank you. There is a distinct possibility that the alphabetical weighting would have an unfair, undemocratic effect on the result of the ballot.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. I have seen the odd piece of analysis that says that even under the existing first-past-the-post system, it makes a small difference which end of the ballot paper one’s name is on. It really comes down to the point that I made to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby: I am not going to analyse how people reach their decisions. Some people reach them after careful, considered thought, and some people do not. We just have to live with the results of their decisions in a democracy.

[Austin Mitchell]

I shall not change my name back to Haddock, at any rate. My point was simply that if somebody uses all their preferences, their vote has a greater weight because it is redistributed more than that of someone who votes for only one or two candidates. Is that correct?

[Mr Harper]

Well, no. That is a common misconception. A person’s vote is counted only once at any one time, but clearly, if someone lists a number of preferences, it is more likely that the vote will still be in the count later in the process. It is up to the voter how many preferences they express, and the voter can take that into account when they cast their vote.

[Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if somebody chooses to vote for only one candidate, that is a matter for them? It is not for us to decide whether they should list five, six, seven or eight preferences. Whoever is voting, there will be anomalies; I do not know whether he agrees. Perhaps Aaron Aardvark will be first on the ballot paper—I will introduce him to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing)—but none the less, I honestly think that the matter should be left to the people.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and that is exactly why we chose the optional preferential system—so that voters could vote once if they wanted to, or for as many candidates as were available. We thought that that choice was better left to the voter.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

I will give way once more, to the Labour Front Bencher, and then I will make progress.

[Chris Bryant]

The Minister is absolutely right. In the present system, in multi-member wards in local government elections, if there are three seats to be filled, voters can put three crosses, if they want. Quite often, they do not use all three. That may be because they do not know that they are able to use all three, or it may be that they choose not to use all three—who knows? It is not for us to guess, but allowing voters a degree of freedom is a good idea.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

I am conscious, Mr Gale, that the Chair will permit a stand part debate, so I will conclude my remarks on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. As I say, I fear to point out to him that it is technically defective—it does not do what he intends it to do—so I request that he withdraw it and allow us to debate the clause as it is; we can then see whether the House is content to let the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Chope]

This has been a useful debate, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for what he said. I thank everybody who has participated; we have had some interesting insights. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) because he brought up important points about the need to give equal weight to votes and the way in which that principle is undermined by the principle of the alternative vote system.

It is semantics to say that people have only one vote, but some people’s votes may be counted more than once; that is the equivalent of saying that some people have several votes and some have only one, but if that is how the proponents of AV wish to try to campaign in the AV referendum, so be it.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) for his intervention, and I notice that he has an amendment on the amendment paper that effectively seeks to introduce the French system. I must say that when he told the Committee and me that the noble Lord Plant of Highfield and the noble Lord Campbell-Savours supported my amendment, I immediately got rather cold feet about its wisdom.

The purpose of the amendment was to try to draw out a discussion and get from the Minister a justification—whether it is satisfactory is another matter—of why the AV system put forward in the referendum is different from the AV system in London for the election of the London Mayor.

[Mr MacNeil]

I often hear Conservative party members, in particular, talking about first past the post or even advocating the form of AV that he might be advocating at the moment. Would he ever advocate that for the leadership of the Conservative party, which, as I remember, seemed almost to be AV for slow learners over the two or three weeks that it took?

[Mr Chope]

Actually, it was a very sensible system, not dissimilar to the one operated in France. Basically, there is one election and the person who gets the fewest votes drops out and there is a completely fresh start with a fresh ballot. For example, when Mr Michael Portillo sought to become the leader of the Conservative party, he had the largest number of votes—

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Roger Gale)]

Order. With great respect, we have moved an extremely long way from the purpose of the original amendment.

[Mr Chope]

I am sorry, Mr Gale. I was trying to give a full answer to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil).

My feeling is that the first-past-the-post system is best. I understand that the system in the Bill is similar to that used to decide the winner of the Eurovision song contest. If the Eurovision song contest voting system is the one contained in the Bill, I am sure it will find a lot of support with the people out there.

For my part, I think it would be better to withdraw the amendment and for us to think again about whether we want to bring forward an amendment on Report to introduce an alternative identical to the system used in London, for the sake of consistency. In any event, we should reflect on the pertinent points that have been made in this debate and seek to consider further whether we wish to adopt what used to be the old Labour party policy. That is the Achilles heel, I would be the first to admit, of my proposal, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Temporary Chair]

Order. Ms Primarolo has said that there will be a stand part debate, but she and I are agreed—and I have followed the debate very carefully—that the clause is very narrow in its remit. It sets out how votes are to given, how votes are to be counted and what information is to be given at each stage and no more. I trust that the stand part debate will address those issues and no others.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Chris Bryant]

The most important element of the clause is the fact that it turns an advisory referendum into an implementing referendum. In one sense, it is one of the most important clauses in the Bill. Indeed, if there is a yes vote, it will directly change the voting system and several elements of it. I have a series of questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer.

First, subsection (1) of the clause, on page 5 and on the subject of how votes are to be cast, states:

“A voter votes by marking the ballot paper with…the number 1 opposite the name of the candidate who is the voter’s first preference (or, as the case may be, the only candidate for whom the voter wishes to vote)…if the voter wishes, the number 2 opposite”

and so on. In relation to the discussion we have just had, I wonder whether if somebody marked the ballot paper with a cross against their first preference, which would clearly be an indication that that was the only way that they were choosing to vote, that would not be counted as a valid vote.

[Mr Harper]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

Perhaps the Minister will be able to respond when he replies to the debate, because I have a few other questions in this vein. It would be my feeling that that should be the case, although I am not sure whether in law it is necessary for us to put it on the face of the Bill. I could not see it anywhere else in the schedule that pertains to this measure and consequently I presume that at some point we might need to put it into the Bill through some form of amendment. Obviously, it is important that we get this right now, because once the Bill has gone through, it will be far more complicated after the referendum—if it is successful and there is a yes vote—for us to go back to it.

Secondly, on page 5 it also says that if one candidate has more votes than the others put together, that is the determining factor, rather than achieving 50% plus one of the total votes cast. Will the Minister clarify why we are using that process? I presume it is because at each subsequent stage one would not be able to guarantee that anybody was going to achieve more than the 50% plus one of the total number of votes cast, including those that were spoilt and all the rest of it. I would be grateful if the Minister could reply on that point.

18:45

The section of the clause that I am more troubled by—I hope that the Minister might be able to alleviate my concerns—is subsection (4) on page 6, which states:

“The Minister may by order make any amendments to primary or secondary legislation (whenever passed or made) that are consequential on amendments made by this section or Schedule 6.”

The clause, which will be that section, and the schedule comprise a large number of substantial issues. I believe that if they were ever to be amended, they should be amended by primary legislation and not by secondary legislation. It seems on the face of it that the Bill gives an enormous power to the Minister to effect a change. For instance, I presume that this means that, if the Minister wanted to, he would be able to bring forward an order to change the provision on how votes are counted or, indeed, on how votes are to be given. For instance, one might only be able to have the system that the debate on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) prompted. It seems to me that that would be an inappropriate amount of power to be giving to the Minister to exercise through secondary legislation.

I note of course that subsections (5), (6), (7) and (8) make other provisions in relation to this matter, such as:

“An order…may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament”—

I understand that—and:

“Before making an order…the Minister must consult the Electoral Commission.”

However, those are not very firm locks. I know that the Minister and the Deputy Leader of the House, in the previous Parliament, much deprecated in the previous Parliament the fact that secondary legislation is unamendable and that the debate goes on only for a fixed amount of time. If we are talking about changing the electoral system, that should not be something that is brought about by secondary legislation.

The Minister might be able to assuage my concerns, but our commitment was that we would come forward with an advisory referendum. The clause makes it into an implementing referendum, and we are still very unhappy about elements of this. I shall not rehearse the arguments about the date of the referendum—as the Minister knows, we disagree with that. We disagree with the combination of the polls and we also disagree with the process that is being adopted, whereby amendments are being brought forward. I have great hesitations about this clause standing part of the Bill. It changes the nature of what was promised, so I would be grateful to hear what the Minister has to say.

[Iain Stewart]

I wish to make a very brief contribution on a specific technical matter regarding the counting of the votes under the alternative vote system. That procedure is outlined in subsection (2), under which the candidate with the fewest votes at any stage is eliminated and his or her next preferences are redistributed. I am not clear from my reading of the Bill what the situation would be if two or more candidates were tied in last place with an equal number of votes. Would both candidates be eliminated and their votes redistributed or would some form of lot be held to determine which dropped out and had their votes eliminated first?

[Chris Bryant]

I am sure the Minister will say this in a moment, but provision is made for that in schedule 6, which states that a lot will be drawn.

[Iain Stewart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who clearly has a greater detailed knowledge of the Bill than me. My question is therefore answered and I shall resume my seat.

[Mr Harper]

Let me deal with the questions that I have been asked. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was quite right to refer to paragraph 7 of schedule 6, which explains about the elimination of candidates. If they are equal number at the bottom and all the preferences are the same, they will be eliminated by lot. If the hon. Gentleman had read a little earlier in that schedule, he would have been able to answer his first question, which was about voters who have made a mark. As page 146 makes clear:

“A ballot paper on which the voter makes any mark which…is clearly intended to indicate a particular preference for a particular candidate, but…is not a number…shall be treated in the same way as if the appropriate number…had been marked instead.”

As long as the voter makes a clear choice, even if it is a smiley face, that will count.

[Austin Mitchell]

What if an elector makes two Xs; will that ballot be discarded?

[Mr Harper]

As in many of these issues, it is about whether there is a clear mark. If the elector marks the paper in such a way that it is not possible for the returning officer to work out what they intended, it clearly cannot count, so it comes down to whether they have expressed a clear preference. In the case that the hon. Member for Rhondda set out, it would be clear what they had done, so there would be no problem.

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

The Minister talks about the voter expressing a clear preference. The practice in Northern Ireland under the single transferable vote has been that exactly—if a clear preference is shown by an X or a 1. However, new rule 37A(1)(a), in clause 7, says:

“A voter votes by marking the ballot paper with…the number 1 opposite the name of the candidate”,

so where does that flexibility come in if it is in legislation that the number 1 should be used?

[Mr Harper]

I hesitate to jump forward, Mr Gale, because we are going to debate schedule 6, which is linked to this clause. Schedule 6 clearly sets out what to do if the voter does not use numerical marking. It works in the same way as current legislation, which asks the voter to make a cross but provides that if they make some other mark on the ballot paper that shows a clear preference, the returning officer can count it. The example that we had yesterday, which I have seen, was that if someone puts a smiley face, but only one smiley face, which shows a clear intention, it can be counted.

[Chris Bryant]

The difficulty is with the way in which the Bill has been constructed to have some elements of the provisions in the schedule and some in the clause. What will happen if someone puts a cross against a name and puts a 1 against another name?

[Mr Harper]

We cannot put in a piece of legislation every single possible scenario; that is not done in existing legislation. We have set out what we want voters to do and we have made provision for some common issues. Ultimately, as with today’s elections, the returning officer has discretion to judge whether the voter’s intentions are clearly expressed. If they are, the returning officer can take them into account, but if they are not, he cannot. That is how existing legislation works.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

It is quite clear which people have not had the benefit of National Union of Students’ training, as they are struggling with how AV, or even STV, would work. What estimation has the Minister given to the cost of documentation to help voters to understand, and from which budget would that material come?

[Mr Harper]

I am not entirely certain whether the hon. Gentleman wants to know about the information that is required to ensure that we have a good referendum campaign, so that when voters cast their vote they know what they are voting for, or whether he is asking about if there were a yes vote—

[Thomas Docherty]

indicated assent.

[Mr Harper]

So he wants to know what will happen if there were a yes vote and the system were brought in. Clearly, if that became the electoral system in this country, the Electoral Commission would, in the same way that it educates people about the existing system, explain how the system worked. There is provision in the legislation about which forms would be used.

This is a good opportunity to explain to the hon. Member for Rhondda something that I was going to clarify later. He is concerned about the order-making power in clause 7(4), but it is not, as he fears, a power that allows the Bill to be amended. Indeed, I would be uncomfortable with that; I am sure he knows my views about the powers of Parliament versus the Executive. If there were a yes vote in the referendum and the new voting system in clause 7 and schedule 6 were brought into effect, a number of consequential changes to other legislation would be required—for example, a number of the forms used in parliamentary elections would need to be amended—and this order-making power would allow the Minister to make those consequential changes. It would not allow the Minister to change the electoral system other than through what is in this clause and schedule 6 if brought in by the electorate.

[Thomas Docherty]

Before the Minister moves on, let me ask my last question again, as he began to answer it and then moved on. As we saw in Scotland with the elections and the STV system, there was a great deal of voter confusion and it was accepted after the event that not enough money had been spent beforehand on making sure that voters understood the system. Will he assure us that either his Department or another Government Department will provide sufficient funding so that every voter in the United Kingdom is given materials to explain how to fill in their ballot paper under the AV system?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman is rather jumping ahead; we have not even passed the legislation for the referendum, let alone there having been a yes vote from the voters. He will know that the right body to carry out the education process he describes would be the Electoral Commission, which does not receive its money from the Government. It makes a request about the resources that it needs to the Speaker’s Committee which puts a motion before the House, which then decides what resources to give to the Commission, so it is a matter not for the Government but for the House to decide.

[Mr MacNeil]

It was not the STV system that created the difficulty in Scotland, but the way in which the lists were drafted for the first-past-the-post and additional member systems. The new STV system did not create as much confusion as is imagined; it was the lists for parliamentary voting that did so.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, but he will forgive me if I do not want to get into what happened in Scotland a few years ago.

The final question that the hon. Member for Rhondda asked was why the Bill does not refer to a candidate getting 50% plus one of the votes. The drafting is designed to work not just in the first round but, as he suggested, in subsequent rounds. As came out in the debate on the amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), although someone who wins under the alternative vote system has to have 50% of the votes that are still in the count, they do not necessarily have to have 50% plus one of the votes cast in the election, because if all voters do not express a preference, someone can get elected on a smaller share of the original vote.

It is important that I run briefly through the details of the clause, because, as the hon. Member for Rhondda has pointed out, if there is a yes vote next year, a Minister will have to lay an order before the House and the system we are debating will be the electoral system that is used in this country to elect Members to the House of Commons. It is therefore worth the Committee spending a little time considering what the rules would be.

[Chris Bryant]

Let me ask a brief question. If there were a by-election for a parliamentary seat next year, after a yes vote, which system would pertain?

[Mr Harper]

The first thing for me to do is draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the part of the Bill that talks about the order-making power. If there were a by-election, it would not be practical for different Members of the House to be elected by different electoral systems. The new system would come in at the general election so that every Member of the House was elected by the same electoral system. It would be invidious to do otherwise.

The clause sets out the key amendments to the parliamentary election rules, which are the conduct rules for parliamentary elections. It inserts two new rules—37A and 45A—which concern how votes are cast by voters, how votes are counted and how the winning candidate is elected. Further amendments are set out in schedule 6, which will be considered later. Of the range of voting systems, each has its advantages and disadvantages. As I have said, the Government are going to put before voters either the first-past-the-post system or this version of the alternative vote. In developing the provisions in the Bill, we have taken into account legislation and practices used elsewhere in the UK where preferences are used, as well as the experience of voting systems in other countries, such as Australia, where AV—albeit not the same version as we have proposed—is used in elections to the House of Representatives and in a number of state legislative assemblies. We have developed provisions that we think are best suited to the House of Commons, drawing on UK and international experience.

19:00

As we have already set out, voters will, by virtue of our new rule 37A, rank candidates on the ballot paper in order of preference by marking 1 against their first preference, 2 against their second preference and so on. It is important for Members who were not present for the debate on amendment 62 to recognise that it is the optional preferential system, so voters do not have to vote for all candidates; they can vote for as many or as few as they wish. That differs from the version used in Australia for elections to the House of Representatives, where voters are required to rank all candidates in order of preference. The Australian experience is bandied about quite a lot, but it is important for Members to recognise that although there are some similarities, this is a different system from that used in Australia.

New rule 45A sets out how the votes are to be counted. Candidates must secure more than 50% of the votes in the count to be elected, so if, following the counting of voters’ first preferences, a candidate has secured more than 50% of the votes in the count at that stage, he or she is declared the winner and is elected—and I am sure greatly relieved. If there is no winning candidate at that stage, a further stage of counting would be required. Paragraph (3) of new rule 45A provides that the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated from the counting process and each vote originally allocated to them will be reallocated to a candidate remaining in the count according to the next preference expressed on the ballot paper. If, after that stage, a candidate has more votes than the remaining candidates put together—so more than 50% left in the count—he or she is elected. If there is no winner at that stage, the counting process continues until someone has more than 50% of the votes remaining in the count and is declared the winner.

New rule 45B sets out what information the returning officer makes available about the progress of the count at the end of each counting stage, except at the final counting stage, at which the candidate is elected and the result is declared under rule 50. That makes sure that everyone knows what is going on. In answer to the hon. Member for Rhondda, I have already set out how the order-making power works.

I hope that Members are clear in their mind about which form of AV the Government are proposing that we ask voters about. It strikes me that there is a job of work to be done during the campaign, because although Members are probably relative anoraks when it comes to understanding electoral systems—after all, that is how we get here, and we all have electoral systems very close to our heart—there was a fair bit of confusion this afternoon about how amendment 62 would work, and how the AV system will work as set out in clause 7, so whatever side of the debate we shall be on in the electoral campaign, I think we all have our work cut out. I would therefore ask that clause 7 stand part of the Bill, so that we can move closer to the day when it gets Royal Assent and we can engage in that referendum campaign.

[Chris Bryant]

I think we have discovered another problem in the clause, have we not, in relation to what the Minister just said. He said that the Minister would not be bringing AV forward so that it affected any by-elections next year. However, clause 7 is the implementing element of the Bill and it hangs on clause 6, which says that the Minister must put all of this into operation by virtue of an order; and he is now saying that it is not stated anywhere in the Bill that that would happen at the next general election, rather than immediately. Let us say that there is a yes vote in May 2011 and there is a by-election at the end of May or in June or July, which is perfectly possible—or for that matter several by-elections—the Minister’s decision as to whether or not to bring in the order would almost certainly end up being challenged in the courts, because it is nowhere explicit in the Bill. So I am afraid that I do not find his answers sufficient. For that matter, I know he is relying on the word consequential in rule 45B(4), which states that the amendments have to be consequential. However, I know from our own time in government that the word consequential can be something of a weasel word, and some people try to slip larger things in than perhaps they should. I agreed with him when he used to condemn such matters.

[Mr Harper]

To return to my previous point, the hon. Gentleman should read clause 6 more closely. It states:

“The Minister must make an order bringing into force section 7, Schedule 6 and Part 1 of Schedule 7 (‘the alternative vote provisions’) if—

(a) more votes are cast in the referendum in favour of the answer ‘Yes’ than in favour of the answer ‘No’, and

(b) the draft of an Order in Council laid before Parliament under subsection (5A) of section 3 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act…has been submitted to Her Majesty”.

In other words, this system will come into force, if there is a yes vote in the referendum, once the order has been brought in implementing the new electoral boundaries. If by-elections were to be held, they would be for constituencies with the old boundaries, not with the new ones, so I think I was accurate in the way I set out the position.

[Chris Bryant]

No, I do not think the Minister was, because he is relying on what happens in the rest of the Bill. Anyway, we are not convinced by the Minister’s presentation of his case on the clause, so we will be pressing the clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Roger Gale)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

19:06

Division 85

Ayes: 327

---

Conservative: 268
Liberal Democrat: 49
Scottish National Party: 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 224

---

Labour: 212
Democratic Unionist Party: 7
Conservative: 3
Independent: 1

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6

The alternative vote system: further amendments

[Mr Harper]

I beg to move amendment 198, page 147, line 18, leave out ‘45A(4) or (5) above in’ and insert ‘45A above—

(a) in’.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 199 to 202.

I understand that there may be a consensus to hold a slightly broader debate about these Government amendments and to obviate the need for a stand part debate, and I am content with that process.

[Mr Harper]

These Government amendments—following our debate yesterday—genuinely fall into the technical category. Their purpose is to set out the procedure in the parliamentary election rules for determining which candidate is to be elected when only two candidates stand at an election under the alternative vote system and they receive the same number of first-preference votes. The amendments would provide for the returning officer to decide by lot which of the two candidates was to be elected.

Under the current first-past-the-post system, a tie between candidates is resolved by the returning officer drawing lots. Under the alternative vote system, the situation might arise whereby during the count either two or more candidates at a particular counting stage had the same number of votes or at the final counting round the two remaining candidates had the same number of votes. The provisions in paragraph 7 insert new rules 49 and 49A into the parliamentary election rules to deal with those circumstances. If the tie were at the first counting stage, on first-preference votes, lots would still have to be used to decide the outcome. If the tie occurred at a later counting stage, under the alternative vote system the use of preferences would allow the returning officer to refer to previous stages and use those preferences to make the decision.

The drafting of new rules 49 and 49A does not specifically cover the unlikely situation in which there are only two candidates at the outset who receive the same number of votes, but we thought it sensible to ensure that that possibility was clearly addressed to avoid any doubt. The Government have therefore tabled the amendments to ensure that rule 49A deals with the possibility of that situation and provides for the winner to be elected by drawing lots. I hope that Members are content with that.

We touched on this issue during our debate about clause 7, but it is worth saying that clause 7 deals with the two key aspects of the election under the alternative vote system—how votes are cast by voters and how they are counted. Schedule 6 sets out further amendments to the parliamentary election rules and other aspects of electoral law that would be required to hold a UK parliamentary election under the alternative vote. The changes reflect the fact that the election would be held under a preferential voting system. They touch on the ballot paper and guidance for voters; how we conduct recounts; how we decide whether the ballot papers are rejected; how we deal with candidates with the same number of votes—I have just set out our amendment on that; how the result is declared; a candidate’s deposit; and a number of other changes.

I am content for any member of the Committee to ask me questions on those measures, but I do not see anyone rising to their feet immediately. I urge Members to accept the Government’s amendments and to agree to the schedule.

[Chris Bryant]

In light of your earlier comments, Mr Gale, I hope that it is okay for me to stray into a debate about whether the schedule be agreed to.

The schedule makes a number of other very important amendments to the law that pertains to the election, and they, along with the other measures that we discussed in clause 7, will come into force when the Minister tables the order that follows a yes vote in the referendum. Some of the provisions are pretty straightforward. For instance, the notice that is normally exhibited on the ballot paper under the existing system says, “Vote for one candidate only”. Obviously, that would be thoroughly misleading if we were to adopt the alternative vote system, because it would point out precisely what the voters had not to do.

One relatively interesting point is that the guidance will make it clear:

“Do not use the same number more than once.’”

I presume that if a voter did use the same number more than once, that would invalidate a vote. I presume that if somebody voted 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, that would invalidate the vote at the point that one reached the second preference, because one would not be able to determine the second preference, even if there had been some other strange means of adding to it.

[Thomas Docherty]

This is obviously a very technical and complex debate, but does my hon. Friend agree that that is exactly why, in the next version of this Bill, the Government have to give way on the issue of the same date for the Welsh and Scottish elections in 2015? The potential for confusion is far too great.

[Chris Bryant]

As I have said previously, one difficulty that we as a Committee have in debating the Bill is that we do not know the precise amendments that the Government are going to table on the combination of polls in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We do not yet know what the law—as the Government expect it to be in relation to those three territorial departments—will be, because the statutory instruments have not been tabled. That makes it difficult for us to imagine exactly what a polling station is going to look like when somebody goes in. However, the measures in the schedule do not affect the conduct of the referendum next May, but rather the conduct of an election at a subsequent date once there has been a successful yes vote in a referendum and the measure has been introduced.

19:30

[Thomas Docherty]

I apologise to my hon. Friend for not being clear enough. I was referring to the 2015 elections, where we will have the additional member system in Scotland, as well as first-past-the-post and the AV system, if the Government do not give way. Would it not have been better to have one single Bill for fixed terms and for these provisions instead of this mish-mash of two Bills?

[Chris Bryant]

That is a good point, although I have not yet given up on the idea that the Government’s Fixed-term Parliaments Bill will end up with a five-year rather than a four-year parliamentary term, which would be more advisable and acceptable, I suspect, to this House and the other place. If there were to be a combination of simultaneous parliamentary elections in Scotland for this House and for the Scottish Parliament, and in Wales for this House and for the Assembly, operating under different electoral systems, both of which involved writing “1, 2, 3, 4, 5”, there would be capacity for confusion, and polling stations could be a rather complex area for voters to enter. Unfortunately, we are not able to have that provision in this Bill because the Government have decided to bring forward not a great reform Act but little tiddly bits of reform as they can be spatchcocked into Bills to appease both sides of the coalition.

Under paragraph 5, the system for recounts will be changed to allow for a recount to happen at any stage in the voting process. That is obviously a sensible measure. If, say, five candidates were standing and the person in fifth place is there by only two or three votes, they will want to have a recount to make sure that they really are the person who should be eliminated at that stage. I remember that when I stood in 1997 in High Wycombe—not traditionally a safe Labour seat; in fact, the Conservatives had a majority of 18,000—there was a recount in the ballot, and on a night when many Conservative seats fell, my friends thought, “Blimey, it looks as if Bryant has won High Wycombe.” In fact, I had not come anywhere near to winning; it was all about whether somebody else—the Green candidate, I think—had lost his deposit.

Under the schedule—it is also animadverted to in the clause that we have just debated—there is to be a public announcement at each stage of the process, so at each point where there is an elimination the returning officer gets everybody together to agree, “Yes, this is the person who is being eliminated, these are the votes that have been cast, these are the second preferences as they have been cast, this is the number of non-allocated ballots,” and so on. I am concerned about that, because there has been a growing tendency for the presumption of secrecy during the counting process to be completely ignored, with many broadcasters and journalists asking candidates on the night, in the middle of the count, to reveal what is happening in the process. That is a disturbing trend, particularly in relation to postal ballots. At some counts, the returning officer has decided not to validate the postal ballots separately but to put them in with all the others so that nobody can start doing what every political party does—the sampling process—and then say, “It was the postal ballots that won this election,” or otherwise. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that, particularly as it might apply in the process as it develops.

If we have public announcements at every stage, are we not letting the secrecy of the ballot run away with us? It has sometimes been difficult to get all the agents and candidates together for announcements, and it might take some considerable time to arrive at an election result if one had to go through the whole process at each stage. I understand, however, that according to the schedule there can also be a recount at the end of the process, as long as the final result has not yet been announced. If I am wrong about that, I am sure that the Minister will enlighten me.

I am glad to see this provision:

“A ballot paper on which a number is marked elsewhere than in a proper place shall not be deemed to be void for that reason alone.”

That mirrors provisions elsewhere in legislation. However, I wonder what improper place might be given as a reason why a vote might be declared void. In addition, the provision:

“A ballot paper on which the voter makes any mark which…is clearly intended to indicate a particular preference for a particular candidate, but…is not a number (or is a number written otherwise than as an arabic numeral), shall be treated in the same way as if the appropriate number (written as an arabic numeral) has been marked instead”,

is an important element of what we are guaranteeing. In the transition from the existing system to the new system, assuming that there is a yes vote, if a voter still has not quite understood the system, or, for that matter, is a conscientious objector to the new system and therefore wants to vote only with their first preference and chooses to do so with an X, a tick, or as the Minister frequently says—I am not sure if that is because he votes in this way—with a smiley face, then we should allow them to do so.

We are fully supportive of the Minister’s amendments, which seem to make sense in the way that he has described. I hope that he will be able to answer the questions that I have asked in the course of my comments. Otherwise, I see no reason why the schedule should not stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be mostly concerned about publicity in relation to the declaration of results. Rule 45B in clause 7 requires the returning officer to “make publicly available” specified information, so that information will be public not only to those at the count—the agents and so forth—but to the media and everybody else. He refers to an increasing trend for people to set out the partial results of elections before the result is declared. He will know that that is an offence. I shall not name the person, but there was a parliamentary candidate—a Member of this House—who did that on Twitter and was suitably chastised. However, I do not think it is a widespread situation that people are publicly making declarations or suggestions about the results of general elections. If they were to do so, that would be an offence.

[Chris Bryant]

I am not sure that that is right. I know about the instance that the hon. Gentleman mentions. Because of the practice of sampling, which happens when returning officers verify the postal votes separately, I have frequently heard people say—indeed, I have heard it in this House—that a seat was won or lost solely by virtue of the postal votes. I would have thought that that was an offence.

[Mr Harper]

I am not going to get into what may or may not be an offence. The hon. Gentleman may well be right. I thought that he was citing the situation whereby people have referred to results before the result was declared, which is clearly more significant. Because of the nature of the alternative vote, one cannot just wait until the final result but must say what is going on at each stage. The Bill makes it clear that that will be publicly declared so that everybody knows what is going on.

The hon. Gentleman alluded to the recount rules in the schedule, which make it clear that at any stage

“a candidate or candidate’s election agent…may request the returning officer to have the votes re-counted”.

In the same way as under our current rules, that would be not a demand but a request that could be made. It would ultimately be up to the returning officer to grant it, unless they thought it unreasonable. Of course, the returning officer themselves could choose to have a recount if they thought there were problems with how the count had progressed.

I think those were the only issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, unless I missed any. I therefore hope that the amendments will be accepted.

Amendment 198 agreed to.

Amendments made: 199, page 147, line 19, at end insert—

‘(b) in the case of an election with only two candidates who receive an equal number of votes.’.

Amendment 200, page 147, line 20, at beginning insert ‘Where paragraph (1)(a) applies,’.

Amendment 201, page 147, line 26, leave out from ‘Where’ to second ‘the’ and insert

‘paragraph (1)(a) above applies but the tie is not resolved under paragraph (2) above, or where paragraph (1)(b) above applies,’.

Amendment 202, page 147, line 28, leave out ‘remaining’ and insert ‘two’.—(Mr Harper.)

Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8

Reports of the Boundary Commissions

[Chris Bryant]

I beg to move amendment 127, page 6, leave out line 35 and insert—

‘(a) within twelve months of Part 2 of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2010 coming into force in accordance with section 16(2) thereof’.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 341, page 6, line 35, leave out ‘2013’ and insert ‘2018’.

Amendment 342, page 6, line 36, leave out ‘fifth’ and insert ‘tenth’.

Amendment 38, page 6, line 36, at end insert—

‘(3A) After subsection (2) there is inserted—

“(2AA) The boundary review due to be completed by the date set out in subsection (2)(a) above shall not begin until both Houses of Parliament have approved a report from the Electoral Commission certifying that in its opinion sufficient measures have been taken to provide for the registration of eligible voters.”.’.

Amendment 70, in clause 9, page 7, line 32, at end insert—

‘(1A) This rule is subject to an independent assessment of the Boundary Commission as to the potential electorate within any area where the Commission, having consulted—

(a) the Electoral Commission,

(b) the Registration Officer of the local authority or authorities in that area,

(c) such other organisations and individuals whom the Boundary Commission may choose to consult,

determine that the difference between the registered electorate and the assessed numbers eligible to be registered is so significant as to give rise to concern about the number of people to be served within such constituencies as would otherwise be created by rule 2(1) above.’.

Amendment 125, page 10, line 2, leave out from ‘persons’ to end of line 6 and insert

‘who are estimated by the Office of National Statistics to be eligible to vote in United Kingdom parliamentary elections, whether or not they are so registered to vote.’.

Amendment 135, in clause 16, page 13, line 5, at end insert

‘with the exception of Part 2, which will not come into force until—

(a) after the referendum on the determination of powers devolved to the National Assembly for Wales under the terms of the Government of Wales Act 2006; and

(b) the Electoral Commission has reported to the House of Commons, that over 95% of eligible voters in each local authority area are estimated to be on the electoral register.’.

[Chris Bryant]

I presume that once we have been through the amendments, we might then have a clause stand part debate, but maybe you will wish to return to that matter later, Mr Gale, having seen how the debate proceeds.

As the Committee will know, we are now moving into part 2 of the Bill, and into what I believe to be its directly partisan elements. Clause 8 provides for a complete change in how the boundary commissions will proceed, and particularly in the speed with which they will produce their reports. The Government say in subsection (3):

“A Boundary Commission shall submit reports under subsection (1) above periodically…before 1st October 2013, and…before 1st October of every fifth year after that.”

The last part of that presumes that another Bill that is currently going through the House, the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, will not only be carried but remain precisely as it stands. It assumes that we will have five-year Parliaments.

I have pointed out before to the Deputy Prime Minister that the average length of a British Parliament in peacetime since 1832 has been three years and eight months. Notwithstanding the fact that there have been some five-year Parliaments, not least the previous one and the final Parliament of John Major’s Government, for the most part the British political system has tended to move more or less in a three and a half to four and a half-year cycle. It would make far more sense for us to proceed on the basis of a four-year Parliament than a five-year Parliament, especially since I find remarkably few instances of the latter around the world.

The existing process for boundary reviews is that they proceed on a seven-year basis. That is partly because after the Triennial Act 1641 originally provided for three-year Parliaments, there was later a move to seven-year Parliaments. As a result of the Parliament Act 1911, Parliaments were changed to five years, but without a change in the seven-yearly boundary reviews.

The assumption has always been that the boundary commissions in each nation of the UK are independent. That has not changed, except that an overriding provision is to be arrived at before each national commission considers the matter. The Government intend that there should be boundary commission reports on the whole country by 1 October 2013 and subsequently every five years. Our amendment would leave out the words “before 1st October 2013” and insert

“within twelve months of Part 2 of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2010”—

this Bill—

“coming into force in accordance with section 16(2) thereof”,

which of course provides for the entry into force of the Bill.

19:45

We believe that given the provisions that have been put together, not least those in clause 9 about the number of seats, it is a pretty tall order for the boundary commissions to achieve a review by 2013. Some argue that the six or seven years that they have previously taken is too long and carries the risk that population movements in the meantime are not taken into account. I have some sympathy with that view, and it may be possible to expedite a boundary review, but that would require additional resources. I ask the Minister who responds—I presume it will be the Deputy Leader of the House—what resources there will be.

Why are the Government proposing to have a review conducted in less than three years? After all, it would not even be a standard boundary review. They are proposing arguably the biggest, most controversial and most complicated redrawing of constituency boundaries since the departure of Irish MPs in 1921. The reason why the 1832 Great Reform Act is the largest Bill sitting rolled up in the parliamentary archives in the Victoria Tower is that it goes through each parliamentary constituency in the land in detail, making provision for each. The current Bill, however, will give the boundary commissions carte blanche and demand a review with a swiftness that may mean it does not meet the political necessities of the British constitution.

The Government intend to do all that, of course, on the basis of an entirely new set of inflexible mathematical rules that will mean factors such as geography, history and community being completely and utterly gazumped by the need to adhere unbendingly—or, to be fair to the Government, not entirely unbendingly but only very slightly bendingly—to a higher electoral quota. We will discuss that when we come to clause 9. If there were ever a case for arguing that seven years is an appropriate period for redrawing constituency borders, it is now, because every single constituency in the land is to be redrawn.

[Pete Wishart]

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is right that the boundaries be redrawn, whether in three years or seven? Does he agree that it is almost absurd and bizarre that Labour can secure 70% of the MPs from Scotland with 42% of the vote? Surely that is wrong and must be challenged.

[Chris Bryant]

Obviously I would love Labour to secure every single seat in Scotland, but I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to entice me to talk about proportional systems, which are not the material of part 2. As he knows, I believe that there is a case for reform and for redrawing boundaries, but how do we decide how that should be done? More importantly in the context of clause 8, we have to consider what time should be allocated for a boundary commission to be able to carry out a review in a genuinely independent way that meets political needs. I understand that he may believe that the boundaries in Scotland are currently drawn up so as to benefit Labour over the Scottish National party, but I am not sure whether that is true.

[Pete Wishart]

That is exactly what I contend. It takes many fewer electors in Scotland to elect a Labour MP than one of any other party. The reason why I believe a boundary review is necessary is that there is something wrong with the fact that 42% of the voters in Scotland can elect 70% of its MPs. Surely that cannot be right. As a fair man, surely the hon. Gentleman will concede that it is wrong.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman knows that in majoritarian systems, there is a disproportionate benefit for parties that get beyond 40% of the vote. That is a simple fact, so in a sense, his argument is partly in favour of a change to the electoral system, which I am sure he supports, although I suspect he supports a fully proportional system rather than the one subject to the referendum. However, it is not true to suggest—as we read in some of the propaganda—that it takes fewer votes to elect a Labour MP than a Conservative or Liberal MP. [Interruption.] I am not denying that that has happened, but it does not happen because of the drawing of the boundaries. It sometimes takes fewer votes to elect a Labour MP because of the tendency of likely Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat voters to live in certain areas.

[Gavin Barwell]

Has the hon. Gentleman seen the report by the British Academy entitled, “Drawing a New Constituency Map for the United Kingdom”? It finds that a number of factors give rise to the apparent bias in the electoral system, but that constituency boundaries were worth 18 seats to the Labour party at the last general election. He is right to say that there are a number of factors, including the distribution of the vote, but Labour seats are smaller on average than Conservative seats. That independent analysis found that that was worth 18 seats to Labour at the last general election. Has he seen that report and would he like to comment on it?

[Chris Bryant]

I have seen the report and I agree with some elements of it. I agree with the bits that agree with me and disagree with the bits that disagree with me and that are unhelpful to my argument. The hon. Gentleman mentioned one of the bits of the report that is not helpful to my argument, so I was not going to refer to it.

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

Contrary to the evidence offered by the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) might be aware that some extensive work by the university of Liverpool that was reported on “Newsnight” in the third week of August showed that the proposed mathematical formula and the arbitrary reduction from 650 to 600 seats would result in a 13% loss for the Liberal Democrats, a 10% loss for the Labour party, but only a 4% loss for the Conservatives.

[Chris Bryant]

I happened to see that programme, and it helps my argument, so I am quite happy to refer to it.

[Gavin Barwell]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

He is back again.

[Gavin Barwell]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s honest answer to my question, and I do not mean to be unhelpful to his argument, but if he accepts that analysis—

[Chris Bryant]

I do not accept it.

[Gavin Barwell]

The hon. Gentleman must do a little better in explaining why he does not accept that analysis. If, as the independent British Academy report suggests, the current boundary system favours the Labour party, albeit in a minor way, does he accept that it is unreasonable to allow that unfairness to continue, and does he agree that it should be addressed before the next general election?

[Chris Bryant]

There are a lot of misconceptions in relation to the supposed benefits or otherwise of the system to the Labour party. For instance, I heard frequently during the general election—this is before Cleggmania rose and fell—that the system was unfair because the Conservatives would need to be 10 points ahead to gain a majority. That is not precisely the hon. Gentleman’s point, which I will come to in a moment, but many people forget that the difference between winning an election and winning a majority is significant in our system. However the boundaries are drawn, the moment a party gets over the 40% mark in a majoritarian system such as ours, it tends to do rather better than its share of the vote would suggest.

[Mr MacNeil]

The reason why parties or people do well in a majoritarian system when they get more than 40% of the vote is that the first-past-the-post-system was really designed for two players. A third or fourth player complicates first past the post and renders it idiotic, but for chaos theory.

[Chris Bryant]

I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman’s pronunciation of the word “renders”, but other than that, I am not sure I agree with his point. It is true that in elections in the previous century, the Conservative and Labour parties secured something like 95% or 96% of the vote and that in the last election, we secured considerably less than that. That is one reason why we ended up with a hung Parliament. However, I do not see how that bears on my point, which is that in a majoritarian system, once a party gets more than 40% of the vote—many think that this is the great benefit of that system—it tends to find it rather easy to get not just a majority, but a fairly hefty one.

[Graham Stringer]

We can try to work out how many votes it takes to elect a Scottish National party MP or a Labour MP, but the distribution of seats, turnout and the number of candidates standing are bigger factors than boundaries. My hon. Friend and I would have no objection to a quick boundary review if it were seen to be fair, and if there were a right of appeal against Boundary Commission decisions.

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend makes precisely the point that I have laboriously tried to make, and far more succinctly. He is right that a wide range of factors pertain to the different number of votes it takes to elect Labour and Conservative MPs. The Liberal Democrats are not in contention in a large number of seats in the country but none the less gain 15% or 20% of the vote nationally. They accumulate a lot of votes around the country, but do not necessarily secure seats in the House of Commons. That is one function of the majoritarian system. I do not think that the number of votes necessary for election indicates fairness or unfairness in relation to drawing the boundaries. Short of gerrymandering the boundaries so that the pockets of Lib Dem voters around the country ended up in the same constituencies, we would be unable to overcome that element of unfairness.

[Gavin Barwell]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me a third time. I completely agree with his argument on the number of voters that it takes to elect MPs from certain parties. However, for the benefit of hon. Members who have not seen it, the British Academy report shows that the average electorate in Labour seats is significantly lower than the average electorate in Conservative seats. Even after we strip out factors such as turnout and the advantageous concentration of the Labour vote in certain parts of the country, a partisan advantage is still derived from the way in which the boundaries are drawn. In the average Labour seat, there are just over 69,000 electors, but in the average Conservative seat, there are just over 73,000. That is unfair. Should it not be corrected before the next election?

[Chris Bryant]

I have said several times already in the course of these debates that there should be a greater drive towards equalisation. However, as we will debate under clause 9, I do not want the drawing of our constituencies to be merely mathematical. Other things must be taken into consideration.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

One factor that needs to be taken into consideration is that the United Kingdom is made of four distinct countries, with four distinct constitutional settlements. Therefore, to proceed on a purely mathematical basis is completely incorrect. We must take into account the constitutional settlements in place in the respective countries, a point of which I know my hon. Friend is very well aware.

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend has been making extremely sensible remarks on such issues ever since he and I were at university together, and he makes an important point now.

I say this to the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), who has intervened three times: changing the boundaries in the way that he suggests will not of itself make the dramatic difference that he thinks it will make. My argument on clause 8 is that there is a real danger that the boundary commissions will be unable to redraw every single constituency in the land with proper diligence and sheer impartiality using a mathematical equation. Of course, they can bear other things in mind, but not if a proposed constituency strays outside the mathematical equation.

[Mrs Laing]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the representatives of the boundary commissions for each part of the UK gave evidence to the Select Committee on that point, saying that what they will be required to do by the Bill can be done properly, reasonably and in a measured and correct way?

20:00

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, I know that they have said that, and of course they would say that, wouldn’t they? If they are required by Parliament to do that, they will undoubtedly do their best to achieve it. However, to be able to do so for 600 or 650 constituencies—whatever number we end up with—will be difficult in a completely changed system without dramatically increased resources. The only way it can be achieved in that time is to get rid of the due process—the public inquiries. Getting rid of those inquiries is likely to destabilise people’s understanding of their parliamentary constituency, and that is a retrograde step. Without due process, it is difficult to proceed in the way that is being suggested.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Surely the important factor is not what the boundary commissions think, but what the public will make of this process. Is not the real danger that the rushed approach and the huge changes that will be made to constituency boundaries will mean that the public will come to see the boundary commissions as partisan and unfair, as opposed to independent and objective?

[Chris Bryant]

Indeed. The Electoral Reform Society has produced two versions of what might happen in Wales with a reduced number of seats. The suggestion for the Rhondda, the parliamentary constituency in which I take most interest—as hon. Members will not be surprised to learn—is that the Rhondda Fach should be split, with the north end being put in one constituency and the south in another. It also suggests that one of the wards should be split in half. That would be bizarre.

Any of us could swiftly split the country up in that way, probably in less than a week, but that does not necessarily mean that the result would be the right constitutional settlement for this country or an appropriate approach to take. Members of Parliament should have roots in their local communities—not personally, but their office should have roots in the local community—and the number of voters in each constituency should be broadly equal around the country. However, constituencies also need to match the political structure in the local area, and that is an important factor. Balancing all those factors cannot be done swiftly.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman may be overestimating the complexity of this task. Gloucestershire has six MPs and almost exactly the right population for six MPs under the new system, so very little adjustment will be needed there. That could also be true in large parts of the country, and he may be extrapolating too much from the Rhondda valley.

[Chris Bryant]

That smacked a little of “I’m all right, Jack” to me. The problem is not only what happens in Gloucestershire and the boundary commissions cannot bear in mind only what happens there. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) are united on the proposal that Gloucestershire should retain six seats. The point is that neighbouring counties may not have sufficient numbers and may have to nick population from somewhere else. When we come to the divvying up of boundaries, that is one of the issues to which I wish to refer, and I have some examples. However, just as we should not look at the whole country on the basis of what will happen in the Rhondda, nor should we look at it in relation to what happens in Cheltenham.

[Luciana Berger]

Unlike in Gloucestershire, we have just over 30,000 households in Liverpool that are not on the register, which means that the number of MPs will probably be reduced from five to four, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) received a parliamentary answer that confirmed that it was conceivable that a constituency in Liverpool could be split by the River Mersey.

[Chris Bryant]

That is the sort of thing that makes sheer nonsense of the situation. Indeed, I believe that someone in Cornwall is on hunger strike because of their objection to the proposals. My hon. Friend mentioned a constituency being split by a river: for those in the Rhondda, having half the Rhondda Fach allied with the Rhondda Fawr, and the other half with the Cynon Valley is almost as difficult a concept to grasp.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

The speed with which this will have to be done and the fact that the public inquiries will be dispensed with are key points. In the last two boundary commission reviews in Northern Ireland, both public inquiries led to changes in the recommendations, and that gave the public confidence in the boundaries. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is foolish to sweep that aside?

[Chris Bryant]

I presumed that the hon. Lady would speak with some authority, as she is a member of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission and knows her stuff. She is right: if there is no due process, with a proper opportunity for people to provide oral evidence to a public inquiry, the public cannot be carried along with the changes to the boundaries. That is why it will be difficult to perform this function to the timetable that the Government suggest.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are doing a jigsaw with 600 pieces instead of 650 pieces, every piece will be different, so it is naïve to think that significant changes will not be necessary across the whole country?

[Chris Bryant]

That is certainly true. Should the boundary commissions start from the south of England and work their way upwards with their mathematical equations? When the process starts, how often should the boundary commissions allow themselves to use the 95% rule and how often they should force themselves to use the 105% rule? In addition, my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) made the good point that the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has always been constituted on the basis of its four constituent parts. The consideration has always been first that there should be X parliamentary seats for, say, Wales, and then those seats have been distributed within that area. That is a more constitutionally wise way to proceed.

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

My hon. Friend will be aware that in Wales we are looking at county council boundaries, which is causing all sorts of chaos. Some of my wards have registration levels of 70% to 75%, but in others registration levels are 95%. So the decisions will not be made on the true population levels of the seats.

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is right. There are many reasons why electoral registration is so low in certain communities, and in some cases people do not want to register because they do not want to pay council tax—a residue from the original attempt to introduce the poll tax—and others might not want it to be known that they are living in a particular house. In some urban areas, with a highly mobile population, many people are not registered because the process of registering is so difficult. We make it virtually impossible for someone to register at any one time, and that is one of the problems that we need to overcome.

[Graham Stringer]

Several interventions ago my hon. Friend was destroying the complacency of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). He made the case that county boundaries will not necessarily be taken into account in working out constituency seats. Does that not show something that has not really come out in this debate and the public discussion, which is that it is most unlikely, if these proposals go ahead, that any hon. Member will ever again represent the same constituency from one election to another?

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Gale)]

Order. The Front-Bench spokesman asked whether there would be a stand part debate. As is generally known, I take a fairly relaxed view about these things, but we can have a stand part debate only once, and it seems to me that we are having it now.

[Chris Bryant]

Although you said it with a wry smile, Mr Gale, you make an eminently sane point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) also makes a good point, which is that we are to do this every five years. In other words, between each election, every Member’s boundaries could be redrawn. That does not provide any political stability to constituents. It is already difficult enough for most members of the public to know who their MP is. It is one of the embarrassing things about the British political system that very few people know who their MP is.

I hate to refer again to the Rhondda, but it is probably easier for people there to know not the name of their MP—I am not asserting that—but that their MP is the MP for Rhondda, because they know that they live in the Rhondda. Most people do not know the name of their constituency, so when the MP for Middle Wallop comes on television, they do not know whether they live in Middle Wallop, Upper Wallop or Nether Wallop. That matters because it is about ensuring that MPs are not deracinated from the politics around them.

[Mrs Laing]

The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. The point is that all Members of the House elected to take part in the law-making process of our Parliament should come here with equal weight and represent an equal number of people, regardless of whether they are in Scotland, England, Northern Ireland or Wales, and regardless of whether they are from a mountain, a hillside, a valley or an inner city. It is the principle of democracy that matters.

[Chris Bryant]

I completely and utterly disagree with the hon. Lady. Of course one ought to strive towards equality in representation, but that is simply not the British way of creating the House of Commons. Historically, we said, “Okay, the shires need to be represented”, and consequentially the knights of the shires were brought into the first Parliament in the 13th century—incidentally, the only reason we know the names of any of those who first attended is that they presented their expenses chits and had them paid. Then we decided that the towns and villages needed representation, because the principle was that representation was based on communities—it was communities that were represented here. It was not just about the mathematical calculating machine system for deciding constituencies. There are countries that have used that system. The United States of America uses it for its House of Representatives. In fact, that is what led to the concept of gerrymandering—it was, I think, a Governor of Massachusetts, Mr Gerry, who was the first person to create a constituency designed to get him re-elected, and it was in the shape of a salamander.

[Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)]

May I return to the earlier point about urban under-registration, because it is an important point in seats such as mine? However, that is an operational matter for the electoral registration officer and the Electoral Commission; it is not an excuse for perpetuating a bias in the electoral system in favour of small urban seats. It is an important matter, but let us not confuse two things.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman is right in a sense, although I expect that the under-registration in his constituency is nowhere near as high as it is in, for example, Hackney North and Stoke Newington or Hackney South and Shoreditch, which have much more mobile populations, in part because the people there do not own their own homes and because of the ethnic mix. Clear evidence has also been provided showing that people from black and ethnic minority groups and poor people are far less likely to register. We need to bear that in mind. I shall refer to that again when we discuss how many MPs there should be.

20:15

The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) said that we should have mathematical purity when drawing boundaries. Wales has 22 local authorities. That was not our choice: they were given to us by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) when he was Secretary of State for Wales. It is a crazy number, and would make it very difficult to draw boundaries without crossing in some cases more than one local authority boundary. That is a political problem.

[Gavin Barwell]

The problem that the hon. Gentleman is trying to explain occurs under the current rules. There are plenty of constituencies in this Parliament that cross local authority boundaries. We already have and deal with the problem to which he alludes.

[Chris Bryant]

I am terribly sorry, but I missed the hon. Gentleman’s point.

[Gavin Barwell]

The hon. Gentleman made the point that, if we go for greater electoral equality, we will have seats that cross local authority boundaries, but there are already significant numbers of Members representing seats that cross local authority boundaries. Lots of London seats cross London borough boundaries. [Interruption.] No, the London borough of Croydon is not crossed, but the neighbouring borough of Bromley has a seat that crosses into Lewisham, and that applies to the seats of lots of hon. Members. It is perfectly straightforward.

[Austin Mitchell]

Not county boundaries.

[Gavin Barwell]

Yes, there are seats at the moment that cross regional boundaries. The seat of Brigg and Goole is in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire.

[Chris Bryant]

I am not sure who is giving way to whom now. The hon. Gentleman makes a point, and it sounds like he is happy with crossing those boundaries—[Interruption.] And clearly the Minister is relaxed about it as well. However, I am less relaxed about it. There is already a problem with it, but there is no need to exacerbate it.

Political boundaries are one thing—in the end they are in our minds, they are a political construct—but geographical and cultural boundaries are not just boundaries that we have imposed; they have been given to us by others.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Further to the intervention from the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) about adopting an approach of mathematical purity and equality, he will be aware of my amendment 70 on taking into account concerns about voter registration levels across the country. This is not merely a technical matter for registration officers. As I suggest, it should be a matter for the discretion of the Boundary Commission when it takes into account the relative weight of a population in an area, bearing in mind the indicative registration levels that should apply in that area, whether it be urban or rural.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The pattern of under-registration is different in different parts of the country. The consistent bits are that poorer people and those who live in rented accommodation are less likely to register, black and ethnic minorities are less likely to register and the young are less likely to register. That is a problem.

I confess to the Committee, however, that Labour Members cannot preach overly on this issue because we failed to take some of the steps that could have been taken to change the electoral registration system. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) says rather unfairly, with a scowl on his face, that we failed to take any measures. We took some measures, but we should have adopted the situation in Chile, where it is mandatory to register. I wish that we were moving towards that, but unfortunately the Minister completely disagrees.

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

I want to follow on from the point about under-registration. The response to the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), whose constituency I know quite well, is that, on average, there are more registered voters in Conservative seats than in Labour seats. The differences referred to are more than explained by that demographic bias. Many Labour seats contain as many people of voting age as Conservative seats. For example, Bradford West has an 18-plus population of 77,848, but the registered electorate is just 62,000. Bermondsey and Old Southwark is a starker example. There, the 18-plus population is more than 101,000, but only 76,000 people are registered. Does my hon. Friend accept that this is systematic bias against poorer people in Labour seats? If we compare the number of seats with the size of the 18-plus population, we see that there is no bias. This is about gerrymandering, not fairness.

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend, now the Member for Swansea West, is right, in the sense that the level of registration makes a dramatic difference to the issues that were raised by the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), which were not sufficiently addressed by the British Academy report. It perhaps takes someone who is used to knocking on doors and discovering that the electoral register has large gaps in it to make that kind of analysis. My anxiety is that many local authorities do not engage in proper canvassing, and consequently seem to take a rather lackadaisical attitude towards getting people on to the register. Local authorities should be saying, “We know you exist, because you’re being paid benefits. The least that we can do is put you on the electoral register and not make it almost impossible for you to register.”

[Luciana Berger]

Does my hon. Friend believe that the forthcoming census, which comes only a few months after the arbitrary cut-off date in March and will cost £500 million, with 38,000 canvassers knocking on doors across the UK, could provide a fantastic opportunity to boost registration in constituencies such as mine, where more than 5,000 households are not on the register?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is no reason why the census should not be able to engage in that activity. If people are going door to door, they could be doing more than one task. In addition, there will be profound embarrassment if, according to the census, the number of people eligible to register in Liverpool, Manchester or Birmingham, or wherever else, turns out to be considerably higher than the number of people who are registered, and yet constituencies have still been allocated solely on the basis of those who are registered.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

I find this conversation difficult, because we have electoral registration officers whose job it is to get people on to the electoral register. That is their day job. In South Derbyshire, registration stands at some 98.5%, which is absolutely excellent and shows that it can be done. I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman feels that the job is too difficult to do. It is not too difficult to do.

[Chris Bryant]

In a sense, the hon. Lady makes my point for me. Registration in her constituency may be at 98%, but in many constituencies in the land it is closer to 80%. That is precisely the problem, because—to meet the point that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) made—those are the places where there will be an inequity of representation if we proceed solely on the basis of what is proposed in the Bill.

[Mark Tami]

I totally agree with the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler). However, that is the point: the job can be done, but too many local authorities are interested only in doing a tick-box exercise, as if to say, “We sent the forms, we sent them again, we’ve sent someone round, and no one has replied,” despite the fact that everyone knows that a number of people are living in the property concerned. However, as far as the local authority is concerned, it has done what it wants to do, but it is not prepared to put in the extra work to get those people on to the register.

[Chris Bryant]

That is true. Most local authorities are having to make fairly substantial cuts at the moment, and my anxiety is that they will find their electoral registration budgets all too easy to cut, because people will think, “Well, you know, what’s the real benefit of that?” From my perspective, if we are to achieve equity—which, broadly speaking, means achieving the equalisation of seats, but not absolute equalisation, to allow for where the Boundary Commission has an overriding concern, whether about a geographical community or the splitting of wards, which I hope all hon. Members would think was more complicated—then we need to change what the Bill currently provides for.

The Government propose a timetable of less than three years, which is artificially quick, even under the Bill’s own terms. I do not see why the timetable has to be three years. According to clause 8(3), future reviews will be held on a five-yearly basis, but the initial, dramatic redrawing of boundaries is being tracked even faster than this apparent ideal. Why? Is the reason that the Government are trying to minimise the risks of the results being made out of date by interim changes in the population? There are significant parts of the country where population changes are moving swiftly. Is that why the Government wish to move so fast? I suspect that that cannot be the reason, or else they would be proposing that three years should always be the period for boundary reviews.

I suspect that the truth is far less respectable. As the Deputy Prime Minister himself admitted in the House in July, the real reason for this rushed process is political convenience. He said that

“we need to start with the work of the boundary review as soon as possible in order that it can be concluded in the timetable that we have set out. That is why the boundary review will be based on the electoral register that will be published at the beginning of December this year.”—[Official Report, 5 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 37.]

That is a circular argument.

[Greg Hands]

Is the hon. Gentleman defending the status quo? Under the current system, we typically have boundary reviews every three Parliaments, with the population data that are fed in typically being about 10 years out of date. The new boundaries that were introduced in May were based on electoral registers from 2000, and they may still be in force in 2024 if we have three five-year Parliaments. Is he seriously defending the status quo, under which our data can be up to 24 years out of date?

[Chris Bryant]

I think that I am correct in saying that that system was set up by the previous Conservative Government, and no, I am not defending the status quo. I am not defending it in relation to the overall structure of the system that we ought to have, nor am I defending it in relation to the precise allocation of seats, and so on. As I have said several times in this debate, I would prefer to move towards closer equalisation. However, I want the boundary commissions to bear in mind other factors, which should include the political realities of the Union, along with ward and other political boundaries. Boundary commissions should also be able to bear in mind geographical features, such as rivers, islands and, in my case, valleys, as well as physical access, because it is pretty difficult to tie two places together that have no access between them.

The timetable for the boundary review is not driven by practical concerns about what would be suitable, but by crude and, I believe, partisan calculations that are the antithesis of the supposedly high constitutional principles that the Deputy Prime Minister invoked in his first speech in office. How quickly those noble ideals seem to have been cast aside. Back then he promised the

“biggest shake up of our democracy since 1832, when the Great Reform Act redrew the boundaries of British democracy, for the first time extending the franchise beyond the landed classes.”

[Mr Love]

Is not the most iniquitous thing about this Bill that there has been no attempt to seek cross-party consensus, which has always happened in the past?

[Chris Bryant]

Not only that, but there has been absolutely no pre-legislative scrutiny. In particular—

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Roger Gale)]

Order. So far as I can see, we have debated most of clause 8 and a chunk of clause 9, and we are now moving on to clause 10. The hon. Gentleman has yet to move the first of a series of amendments to clause 8, many of which other hon. Members wish to speak to. I would be grateful if we returned to the amendment.

[Chris Bryant]

Many thanks, Mr Gale.

I was trying to argue that the Government want to move with precipitate haste towards producing a Boundary Commission report on 1 October 2013, and that that date has been arrived at for the specific purpose of trying to hold together the coalition, in order to drive all of this forward towards the measures relating to five-year Parliaments in the Fixed-Term Parliaments Bill.

An Electoral Commission study published earlier this year found that under-registration was concentrated among specific social groups. That is why I believe that it would be inappropriate to move at the pace on which the Government are insisting, and why the amendments would be more appropriate. The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) has tabled amendment 341, which proposes to leave out the date “2013” from the clause and insert “2018”. That would be a more appropriate timetable, and if he were to press that amendment to a vote, we would want to support him. Mr Gale, I am grateful for the leniency that you have shown in this debate, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

20:30

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

I must start by saying that I did not know that the word “majoritarian” existed until now, so, as a politics graduate, I have learned something new. I rise to speak in support of amendments 341 and 342. I am pleased to say that they are, in parliamentary terms and in common-sense terms, remarkably simple. Amendment 341 would simply delay the introduction of new boundaries following any boundary review, whatever its findings, until after the next but one general election. That would mean that the next election would be fought on the current boundaries, and that the new boundaries—whatever they might be—would be introduced afterwards, in time for the election in 10 years’ time, if we have fixed-term Parliaments.

Amendment 342 relates to the regularity of boundary changes. Redrawing the boundaries every five years, for every Parliament, is simply not sensible. I am happy to support the principle of having more equal constituencies, but the proposals as they are now worded show no recognition of the reality of the process of introducing boundary changes. Every boundary review and change incurs a significant cost, which we should surely be concerned about in a time of austerity. They also cause chaos for the constituents of all hon. Members around the country, and for all the local authorities that have to work out the boundaries. Recently, I found out that one of my local pubs had been wrongly put into Leeds Central as a result of the latest boundary changes.

This illustrates the point of amendment 341. We introduced significant boundary changes for the election that took place just six months ago, and to ask the people of this country to understand why we are now going to redraw them again, even for a good reason, is simply not common sense. It is simply not acceptable.

[Mrs Laing]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but he must accept that those boundary changes were based on figures collected almost 10 years ago. Also, does he accept the principle of the equalisation of the numbers of voters in constituencies?

[Greg Mulholland]

Forgive me, but I do not think the hon. Lady has been listening to my comments very well, because I just said that I supported the principle of having more equal constituencies. I support that aim, although I also support many of the caveats relating to common-sense, physical boundaries and to local determination which other amendments deal with. However, I support equalisation as a principle.

[Mrs Laing]

I was listening to what the hon. Gentleman was saying, and I am still listening, but he is contradicting himself. If he agrees with the principle of equalising the number of electors in each constituency, he must accept that populations move and that their numbers change, and that there must therefore be boundary changes. If he is simply arguing that they are inconvenient for the boundary commissions, I do not think his argument is very strong.

[Greg Mulholland]

I think the hon. Lady must be the only person in the Chamber who could possibly regard what I have said as a contradiction. I will tell the Committee who is inconvenienced by the boundary changes: it is the voters of this country, as well as Members of Parliament. There are constituents in this country who have been in four different constituencies in recent times. They simply do not know what parliamentary seat they are in, who their MP is or even who they will be allowed to support at the next election.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making the sensible case for equalisation rather than the illogical case for it. Does he agree that if such a profound change were to take place and if it were the view of Parliament, it would be right and proper to bring the measure in over a longer and more considered period of time, not least because the Government’s proposal is not for an equalisation but for an equalisation plus or minus 5%? Thus a degree of discretion will be allowed, which is potentially arbitrary. It could be countered even on the principle of equalisation if there were the ability to have public inquiries and hearings based on the principle that the hon. Gentleman is advocating.

[Greg Mulholland]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but let me make it clear again that I support the principle of having more equal constituencies. Indeed, we need to move towards such a system that recognises, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) said, that populations change. Clearly, that has to be recognised; it is why we have boundary changes now. It is also fair to say that those boundaries changes might be too infrequent and based on out-of-date data. However, that is an argument for having boundary changes every 10 years so that we have the same boundary at least for two consecutive general elections. Having different boundaries for every single general election is, frankly, absurd and would lead to utter electoral chaos.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

The problem at the first redrawing would be one of the massive reconstruction of the whole country. With the second, third and subsequent redrawings, if there is such a word, there would be only marginal changes.

[Greg Mulholland]

Indeed, but the hon. Gentleman makes my point because that huge initial change should not be rushed through, certainly not a mere five years after new constituency boundaries have been formed. He knows—I have said this to him in person—that I support his particular campaign for his area and his constituency to remain as one. He provides living proof of one of the very caveats I agree with to the principle of more equal constituencies, which I generally support.

[Naomi Long]

Another issue that has not been discussed in relation to changing boundaries more regularly is that the elections for this Parliament are out of sync with the Northern Ireland Assembly elections, for example, which happen between general elections but with the same boundaries. When the boundaries change, it can lead to the anomalous position whereby my constituents in Dundonald, for example, are part of the Belfast East parliamentary constituency for Westminster purposes—so I represent them—but they are represented by my Strangford colleague in the Northern Ireland Assembly. They are sometimes uncertain to which constituency they owe their loyalty and to whom they should go with their problems and difficulties. A level of confusion among the electorate is created. I think that is unhelpful if we want to get people more connected with politics, which is what will ultimately improve registration.

[Greg Mulholland]

The hon. Lady reminds us that there are indeed many complications stemming from devolution in the three affected nations. As an English MP, however, my concern with devolution is that there is not yet a satisfactory solution for the English people at this stage—something for which I shall continue to push.

Whenever boundary changes are made or proposed, we see the disfranchisement of possibly hundreds of thousands of people. It results in two classes among the electorate. The first class comprises the people who can vote for someone again after the boundary changes are made; but then there are people in limbo in certain parts of our constituencies. We were their Member of Parliament leading up to the last election, but we knew and they knew that they could not vote for us. They could no longer realistically hold us to account. They could not realistically expect us to knock on their doors—again because they knew and we knew that they could not vote for us. They did not know who their candidates would be in the general election. That is chaos; it should not happen more frequently than once every 10 years. The idea of making boundary changes for every election is simply ridiculous. I hope that that point will be taken seriously on Report and in the other place.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

Some Members may not be aware of the knock-on effects on constituencies. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) suggested that there might be marginal changes in subsequent boundary reviews. In fact, an urban extension might have an initial effect on the constituency involved and subsequent knock-on effects on others, and the change might be more radical each time a boundary was subjected to a review.

[Greg Mulholland]

My hon. Friend has made a good point. I am amazed that the reality of boundary changes is being accepted by so few Members, despite the effects that it will have on their constituents.

As Members who served before the last general election know all too well, there is also a huge problem with parliamentary protocol, which causes all sorts of squabbles and spats. According to the democratic process, I, as a candidate, had every right to knock on doors in the bits of the constituencies next to mine where I would be asking people to vote for me; yet, theoretically, parliamentary protocol says that I should not do so. I am afraid that such matters have simply not been considered.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Is not the reason why so many Government Members seem to have failed to notice that the Bill will have an enormous impact not just on seats in areas like mine in Wales—which will pay a heavy price—but on seats throughout England that they are being reassured by their Front Benchers that this is gerrymandering that will strip out Labour Members but not have a detrimental effect on Tory seats? The reality is very different. As the hon. Gentleman says, there will be an impact on every Member’s seat.

[Greg Mulholland]

I take issue with the sentiment expressed by the hon. Gentleman. We must stop this being a partisan, party political matter. We are talking about electoral, constitutional and parliamentary changes. They should be taken very seriously, and every Member should speak on that basis and that basis alone.

[Pete Wishart]

We are getting to the heart of the debate now. This is what it is all about. As the hon. Gentleman has said, there is an in-built Labour advantage in the current arrangements, and the coalition are trying to deal with it. I am not in favour of retaining a Labour advantage in elections, because my party is at a disadvantage. Why is the hon. Gentleman in favour of that?

[Greg Mulholland]

It sounds to me as though the hon. Gentleman is thinking of his self-interest. My point is that that should not be the principle of changes of this nature. It should not be the approach of any party in the House or any individual hon. Member. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman thinks in those terms when it comes to such a major change.

[Geraint Davies]

May I extend the hon. Gentleman’s point a little? Does he accept that in the event of gradual migration from the north of England to the south—for reasons connected with jobs, for instance—there may be dramatic and ongoing changes as each constituency in the south becomes more populated, while those in the north become less populated? If we change the boundaries every five years, there may be enormous shifts.

The hon. Gentleman made an eloquent point about whether Members were familiar with their own constituents. This proposal would lead to a shambolic effect on the association between Members and the stable populations that they represented.

[Greg Mulholland]

If the hon. Gentleman visited my constituency, he would understand why people not only would not want to leave but would want to move there in great numbers. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) asks whether we do not need two Members of Parliament. Perhaps she is making the case for an English Parliament. As I have said, the English question with regard to devolution certainly needs attention.

[Mrs Laing]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Greg Mulholland]

I am willing to do so, although I suspect that you may not allow it, Mr Bayley. It is up to you to decide whether it is in order.

[Mrs Laing]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for giving way a third time. I had no intention of interrupting him at this point, but as he has put words into my mouth, I must ensure that they are not on the record as mine. I will advance no argument for an English Parliament, now or at any other time. What I was saying to the hon. Gentleman was that if many people came to live in his constituency—as he has just said that they might, because it is such a desirable place—the population would rise considerably, and it would need more than one Member of Parliament in order to have equal representation in the House.

[Greg Mulholland]

I am starting to worry that my acting as a tourism officer for Leeds North West may attract an undue influx of people to the constituency. I think a few would be good for the local economy, but if there is such an influx I will come back to the House and explain that we do have a real problem.

20:45

It is rather odd that the hon. Lady should make that point given that I have already said that I support the principle of more equal constituencies, which she agrees with, and that it should be done on a sensible and regular basis. I think that that sensible and regular basis should be every 10 years—at every other general election, rather than every election. That seems to me to be so commonsensical that I fail to understand why someone with as much common sense as the hon. Lady does not support it. I can only suggest that perhaps some of the rather less kind comments from certain Members might explain in part why other Members do or do not support this proposal. Indeed, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) was at least honest about supporting it for the entirely self-interested reason that he hopes the Scottish National party will gain in representation as against the Labour party.

I support many proposals in the Bill, and I support the principle of sensible, more equal constituencies, but we should not be enforcing yet another boundary change—with all the ensuing chaos, cost and confusion both in Parliament and outside—before the next general election. That change should come in after the next election, and we should have a review every 10 years, or for every other election.

[Geraint Davies]

Amendment 125 suggests that instead of using the register of voters for calculating the relative size of constituencies, we should use the best estimate of eligible voters, so that each MP represents the same number of people who are eligible to vote, not the same number of people who happen to have registered. I propose that because of the demographic bias in respect of the categories of people who are more or less likely to register, and my contention is that all those people have the right to vote. They may at some point register if there are better registration systems, and they should not be denied a proportionate voice. I also contend that those Members, particularly on the Government Benches, who have argued that there is a systematic bias in favour of the Labour party because the average number of registered voters in Labour seats is less than the average number in Conservative seats miss the point that that bias does not exist when account is taken of the number of eligible voters—those aged over 18.

I do not intend to run through a comprehensive list, although I have been provided with figures from the Library. I pointed out earlier that in Bradford West there are 77,848 people over 18, yet only 62,519 are registered. In Holborn and St Pancras in London, there are 119,000 people aged over 18 and the number on the electorate is 86,000, and the electorate as a proportion of the 18-plus population is just 73%.

To summarise, the top line of my argument is that we must have the right basis for doing the calculation before we have a big argument about whether we should then apply other criteria, such as community and geography. We should establish fairly and squarely the basis of the argument put by the Government, and decide who we should be counting. I say that we should be counting those who are eligible to vote.

[Greg Hands]

I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument, I think, but does he think that there is an easy way that can be picked up in his amendment to tell the difference between a set of electors—say, US citizens living in the constituency that he just named—who are not able to vote under any circumstances, and those who would be able to vote but are simply not registered?

[Geraint Davies]

I should certainly like to help the hon. Gentleman on that point. What the amendment actually says is that we should use figures by the Office for National Statistics for who is estimated

“to be eligible to vote in United Kingdom parliamentary elections”.

Obviously, the question is how the ONS would make that estimate. The answer is by using a combination of the register of electors, the census and other data forms.

As has already been pointed out and as we all know by now, there is a systematic bias against the registration of certain categories of people—ethnic communities, people in private rented accommodation, 17 to 24-year-olds and, generally, those in poorer areas. Those poorer areas tend to be more likely to be represented by Labour MPs. That explains the difference in the average figures for registration. The problem that I have with the current thrust towards quickly redrawing the boundaries on the basis of registered voters is that clearly there will be a bias in that, so people from poorer communities will be under-represented. That is not effective or fair democracy.

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

Is my hon. Friend as surprised as I was by the fact that the Government do not seem committed to putting in extra resources in the lead-up to December to gain the count that they seek for the new constituency boundaries?

[Geraint Davies]

That is unfortunate and surprising. If one were cynical about it, one would say that the Conservatives already know that there is a registration bias in favour of people who, demographically, are more likely to vote for them, so why should they take the action that my hon. Friend suggests? I introduced the amendment to say, “Let’s do this on a fair and equitable basis.” We want more registration because the people who are registered to vote are the people who are allowed to vote. That is a separate issue from the relative sizes of constituencies, which should be based on the number of people who are eligible to vote. We hope that those people will, over time, register to vote and will ultimately vote.

[Mrs Laing]

We have been having the argument about registration across the Floor of the House for many years. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the individual has to take a certain amount of personal responsibility in registering to vote, especially when individual voter registration is introduced—a measure brought in by his Government, with the support of the then Conservative Opposition? Does he agree that there is an element of personal responsibility, that sometimes people do not register to vote because they choose not to do so, and that they therefore choose to lose their vote, for whatever reason?

[Geraint Davies]

Clearly, we all want to encourage individual responsibility, and I think that there is an individual responsibility to try to register to vote. However, there is a propensity for certain categories of people not to vote because it is more difficult for them to do so. Examples include the one in five people in Britain who is functionally illiterate and finds it very difficult to fill in forms. And what about people who do not speak English very well?

We are about to move to the next stage, which is individual registration as opposed to household registration, and that will have a dramatic impact, particularly on ethnic communities, where there may be a lead member of the household who is the only person in the household who can speak English; in such cases, we may start off with five votes and get one. Some people might say, “It’s their fault; they should learn English,” and all the rest of it, but our law is that an eligible voter is an eligible voter, whether they are educated or not.

Through the amendment, I am saying that the boundaries should be drawn on the basis of eligible voters. Parallel to that, we want more registration, because the people who can vote are those who are registered. The point is that Parliament should represent the people. Poorer people should not be less well represented because they do not register as a result of failures in the education system, or for a host of other reasons.

[John Mann]

My hon. Friend is making a compelling case. Of course, in coalfield communities, in particular, significant numbers left school aged 15 without the school being the slightest bit bothered whether they could read or write. The problem is exacerbated among those who are elderly and have, for example, eyesight problems. Among those with low literacy and eyesight problems, registration is therefore below the norm. Does he also agree that certain categories of people are over-registered? Students, for example, can be registered in two places—once by their parents and once by a university authority. That will mean that on 1 December 2010 they will therefore bias the system even more against former coalfield communities.

[Geraint Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a compelling point. In many cases, the individual who has not been educated has been born and brought up in a cultural system that might not encourage that, and that might not be their fault. There is obviously individual responsibility to get educated but, in terms of the bias, it is clearly the case that the more money people have, the more educated they and their children tend to be, and the more likely they are to be registered. If we consider the system overall, we have clearly moved to a system—[Interruption.] Oh, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) is crossing the Floor on the basis of my argument. That is good to see.

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

On the point about individual responsibility, does my hon. Friend agree that there is an individual responsibility on all hon. Members to ensure that every eligible adult gets on to the electoral register and that we have a particular moral responsibility when we consider that somebody might be disadvantaged in any way? That very much equates to individual responsibility in this case and it is shameful that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) does not seem to recognise that.

[Geraint Davies]

I certainly think that more resources need to be put in. More people need to be registered and to participate in the vote, but it remains the case that as we stand—as has been pointed out, not many resources have been put into this—there is a systematic bias against poorer areas in terms of the number of eligible voters being reflected in the number of registered voters. If we are going to make this massive change based on a numerical system of one size fits all, that numerical system needs to be rooted in the best estimate of eligible voters, not in the number of people who happen to have registered. As we go downstream with individual registration, my fear is that things will get worse and worse as groups of people who are not very literate and so on fall off the register because they are not being registered as a household. That will produce more and more of a bias.

[Mrs Laing]

The hon. Gentleman is being extremely gallant in giving way, because I have to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), who is sitting on the Bench almost beside him and has just accused me of saying something shameful. She is completely wrong and she took my words completely out of context, which is not normal parliamentary behaviour. I agree with every word that she said about individual responsibility resting also on Members of this House to ensure that people are registered. Of course we must, and it is wrong of her to call me shameful.

[Geraint Davies]

That was a strange intervention on my speech. The case that one would want to make is that we have an individual responsibility to register, but that we have to be cognisant of the fact that there is a bias in the rate of registration among different groups. With this amendment, which I would like to press to a vote tomorrow—if that is when we have the vote—I am calling for fairness in that sense.

I should declare an interest. My father, David Thomas Morgan Davies, was the secretary of the Boundary Commission for Wales between 1973 and 1984, so I have a particular interest in this area. Historically, it was always the case that the start point for drawing boundaries was equality in size and populations of constituency, adjusted for community and natural geography—rivers, seas and so on—and the needs of effective democracy. That is why we are where we are in Wales, for example, which stands, as has been pointed out, to lose a quarter of its elected representatives—the number will go from 40 down to 30. The real fear, as well as the points that I have made about the proportion of people from mining communities and other communities that are under-registered, is that we will lose out numerically and that communities will be merged—one valley with another, and with no geographical relationship between them—or that people will have to be in a constituency with a mountain in the way. In terms of effective democracy—devolution was mentioned—an Assembly boundary might be coincident with a parliamentary boundary, so that people can come to see me to talk about benefits and see the Assembly representative to talk about the health service. Now the boundaries will all be changed and then, every five years, changed again. The issue is one of effective democracy. How does the citizen know who represents them and which institution has a clear mechanism for doing so? These things have evolved into place over time and there is a risk that by superimposing a one-size-fits-all system based on the wrong calculus—namely, registered voters as opposed to eligible voters—we will end up with a much less effective democracy.

21:00

[Owen Smith]

My hon. Friend mentions devolution. Does he agree that the Bill being railroaded through to try to fix the result of the next election has another unintended consequence—on devolution? The Bill makes a radical change in Wales that will shift the balance between Westminster and the Assembly. It will be the biggest change since devolution was introduced, with a quarter of Welsh MPs losing their seats, and will therefore mean a radical diminution in both the scrutiny of Welsh-related legislation in the House and, potentially, a reduction in the quality of the Executive that hands over the block grant to Wales. It is a very important—

[The Temporary Chair (Hugh Bayley)]

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that interventions are supposed to be quite short.

[Geraint Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a very interesting and important point. Wales is a nation of just 3 million people sitting alongside a larger nation that is 17 times its size. It is completely dependent on the financial stream from Westminster to fund the devolved Welsh Assembly. Historically, the relationship between the number of seats per head in Wales has been different from that in England because of the need to keep the Union together, in harmony, in a situation of great inequality between the two neighbours.

I fear that the haste with which this process is moving forward and the tremendous step change that it will make to the representation of Wales in Westminster—reducing the number of seats by a quarter from 40 to 30—will have such a dramatic effect on the people of Wales that they will be driven into the arms of the nationalists. There is a danger that we will fracture the United Kingdom. I am sure this could be part of a Conservative conspiracy, whereby some in the Conservative party think, “Well it is nice to have the Union, but these people in Wales keep on voting Labour, so wouldn’t it be better to chop ’em down, cut their money and live with a world where we can guarantee continuous Tory government in England at the expense of an impoverished Wales that is split between Labour and the nationalists, who will then be thrown the right to raise their own taxes on a tax base that is a third poorer?” That is the sort of grand plan that seems to be emerging. It is very concerning that the haste and nature of the changes we are considering are such that they will risk and provoke rips in the fabric of the United Kingdom. That is absolutely terrible.

[Tristram Hunt]

My hon. Friend makes a very persuasive case. Do the measures in the Bill not suggest that there is no real feel for the fabric of the United Kingdom from the Government and that the interrelationship between Wales, the Duchy of Cornwall, the Isle of Wight and many of the Scottish islands is not felt by them? Their desperate desire to ram the Bill through is incorrect.

[Geraint Davies]

Yes—

[The Temporary Chair]

Order. We are straying rather far from the point that we are supposed to be debating—the registration and under-registration of voters and the relevant group of amendments. Hon. Members should confine themselves to debating those matters.

[Geraint Davies]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bayley.

The amendment is about the relationship between the number of people registered and the number of people who are eligible to vote. If, in the comprehensive spending review tomorrow, there is a particular focus on poorer people and people in public service—in Wales, 24% are in public services and in England 20%; in Swansea, in fact, it is 38%—those people will suffer. People in public service tend to be poorer, and because they are poor, they tend to be under-registered. Those people who will face the real sharpness of the Conservative axe will the next day be denied the chance to vote against it because their constituencies will be smaller and because they are less likely to be registered—unless my amendment is agreed to ensure that people who are poor, and who are more likely to be unregistered, have an equal right to a share of a constituency, by virtue of being an eligible voter.

That is part of the mix of what seems, from the Welsh perspective at least, to be doing down Wales—attacking Wales financially, attacking Wales by reducing representation, attacking the poorest communities, attacking public services. In that political and economic context, what has understandably been seen locally as constitutional gerrymandering is in danger of ripping open the Union and having dramatic effects on our historical future. That may all be clinically predicted but it is very unfortunate.

As I pointed out, the 3.5 million or so unregistered voters are not evenly distributed. We heard from the Conservative Front Bench that, apparently, we are doing very well because in Britain, some 92% of people are registered. We are told that we should pat ourselves on the back and need not make any changes, but we know that registration is thoroughly disproportionately distributed, and in some areas it may be as low as 70%. To pre-empt the arguments against the amendment, we also know that the census comes around only once in a while. I am arguing that we should assemble a portfolio of data, including the census returns, registration figures and other data sources, to give our best estimate of the number of eligible over 18-year-olds in each area. That would be much more representative than the number of registered voters.

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

Does the hon. Member believe that the registration forms are too complex and need to be simplified to encourage more people, especially from poorer backgrounds, to register to vote?

[Geraint Davies]

Yes, I certainly do. Obviously there are issues about literacy—about being able to read—language, and style. We have all seen forms produced by bureaucracies that are long, complicated and intimidating when they need to be catchy. If one wanted to persuade someone to subscribe to Sky television, one would not use an electoral registration form. I do not mean that completely as a joke; it is true. To capture someone’s attention, it is necessary to make them interested and make it easy, and ensure that there is a follow-up system; but electoral registration systems are not focused in that way. There are limited resources, and some people may say, “We have sent a form through. What more can we do?” A lot more could be done if we were serious. The worry is that people are not serious.

[Mr Love]

If we were to take the Government’s intentions seriously, would they not be building on the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 in strengthening the Electoral Commission and the work of electoral registration officers and giving more resources to ensure that we can take those constituencies with 73% registration up to at least the average for the whole country?

[Geraint Davies]

That is precisely right. The failure to provide the necessary resources and the fact that the deadline is the end of December show that the Government have no interest in doing that. Even with the best will in the world, which they do not have, there would still be substantial under-representation in various constituencies for the reasons that have been suggested—the forms are wrong, the language is difficult, and so on. As has been said, some people think they might get caught for the poll tax. They are still living in the past, when people fell off the register through fear.

The way to short-circuit those problems and move forward to a new mandate on a more equal basis must surely be to count the people who are eligible to vote, or to get the best estimate. That might not be perfect, but it would be a great deal better and fairer than the current system.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend makes a persuasive case for his amendment. Does he agree that the Government have acknowledged part of his case with their announcement last month about data-sharing pilots? They acknowledged—the Minister nods—that there is an issue of other data sources being available to authorities. Might that be a way in which the proposal in my hon. Friend’s amendment could be constructed—by using some of those other data registers to ensure a much more accurate list of adults living in an area, rather than moving rapidly to boundary changes, as proposed in the Bill?

[Geraint Davies]

That is right. The amendment proposes that the estimates should be put together by the Office for National Statistics. I hope it would use a range of data sources, and if the Government plan any initiatives to enrich the data, that would be welcome. If a sudden change is made to all the boundaries with a view to changing the composition, possibly for the next general election, let us get it right. In order to do what my hon. Friend suggests, which I entirely agree with, the necessary time must be allowed.

I am a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee. We had the great joy of hearing expert witnesses from the Electoral Commission and the administrators, and from the Minister. What was fed back from the practitioners was that given the resource and the time available, it would be difficult to administrate the changes, in particular for the administrators of the election. The commission has been given an extra £1.9 million to drive ahead, although there are only 3 million people living in Wales. That is an enormous cost to railroad the provisions through. The administrators of the electoral areas thought the results would be chaotic. In terms of effective democracy, which is what we are about, as well as inherent fairness, the speed and nature of the change are wrong.

I will conclude now as I know that Members want to move on. In essence, I am arguing that a more sophisticated, accurate and fairer way of counting voters to provide the best estimate of the number of people eligible to vote is the best way to sustain credibility and confidence in our democracy in future. I urge hon. Members to support the amendment when it is put to the vote.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), who covered all aspects of the potential interpretation of his amendment.

I give notice that I may seek to press amendment 70 to a Division. It achieves much the same as the hon. Gentleman seeks to achieve. The Bill proposes to put a straitjacket around the Boundary Commission in its interpretation of the role of divvying up the nation, or the nations, to deliver so-called equal seats, but the amendment takes into account the variability in registration around the country. It is a good idea to start from the fundamental premise that we are trying our utmost to achieve, if at all possible, a strong sense of equality throughout all seats in terms of their electorates. However, the 5 to 10% margin might create a straitjacket that does not allow as my amendment would, for the discretion to—

21:15

[The Temporary Chair]

Order. This debate is about the question of registration or under-registration and the hon. Gentleman’s amendment 70 focuses on that very directly. As we are taking amendments at this stage, he needs to confine his remarks to the question of registration or under-registration.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful to you, Mr Bayley, for your guidance. As you will notice, my amendment states:

“This rule is subject to an independent assessment of the Boundary Commission as to the potential electorate within any area where the Commission, having consulted—

the Electoral Commission,

(b) the Registration Officer of the local authority or authorities in that area,

(c) such other organisations and individuals whom the Boundary Commission may choose to consult”.

I mentioned the margin of error in order to contrast it with the proposal in my amendment, which would give the Boundary Commission some discretion over how it interpreted the rule. In other words, the commission would be able to take into account the distinction between, as the amendment itself describes, the potential electorate, bearing in mind the variability of registration throughout the country, and the actual electors on the electoral roll. The amendment prises open the issue that several Members have already teased out in today’s debate and, therefore, questions whether the 5% margin of error might in fact reflect a larger margin of error in the registration of electors in each constituency.

The Boundary Commission has not been given sufficient leeway to take account of that variability, and, as others have already pointed out, the Electoral Commission studied the issue earlier this year. It produced a report entitled, “The completeness and accuracy of electoral registers in Great Britain, March 2010”, and I shall quote from the document’s key findings. It states:

“national datasets and local case study research suggest there may be widening local and regional variations in registration levels. While there is no straightforward relationship between population density and the state of local registers, the lowest rates of completeness and accuracy were found in the…most densely populated…areas”

and among “the most mobile populations”.

The report continues:

“Recent social, economic and political changes appear to have resulted in a declining motivation to register”,

and it goes on to state:

“Under-registration and inaccuracy are closely associated with the social groups most likely to move home.”

Across the case study areas, it found, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said earlier, that

“under-registration is notably higher than average among 17-24 year olds (56% not registered), private sector tenants (49%) and black and minority ethnic British residents (31%).”

It also found that during the year the rate of completeness is likely to decline by about 10 percentage points.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that list of people who are under-represented or not registered. Does he agree that the categories he has outlined, although unregistered, often form the majority of an MP’s caseload, and that that huge impact on their workload should be recognised by the Boundary Commission?

[Andrew George]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I argue further that any Member of Parliament who does their job properly should be seeking out those silent voices rather than waiting for them to come to them. MPs should recognise that people who are not registering are probably not articulating themselves in other ways, so they should be finding ways of ensuring that their needs are properly articulated.

[Mark Tami]

Some local authorities are clearly better than others at raising registration levels. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should learn from those that are achieving much higher levels of registration? Some have improved from quite low levels, whereas others are more interested in doing the absolute minimum just to say, “Well, we have done what we are required to do.”

[Andrew George]

I agree. It may be a function of a change of staff or of the resources of the local authority and how it goes about its task. Inevitably, in different parts of the country, the situation will ebb and flow over time. One cannot necessarily say that a place with high levels of registration will always have them—there may well be variations.

[Chris Ruane]

rose—

[Andrew George]

I will gave way one more time, but I want to bring my remarks to a close.

[Chris Ruane]

Speaking from experience, Gareth Evans, the electoral registration officer in Denbighshire in my constituency, has taken the electorate up from 49,000 to 56,000—a huge percentage increase. That has been achieved partly by having a big, bold reminder in the middle of the registration form saying that not registering is an offence punishable by a £1,000 fine. At the end of the process, the chief executive sends out letters to those who are unregistered saying, “I am now turning this over to my legal department for you to be prosecuted.” That ability to prosecute, which is a powerful tool in forcing people to register, is going to be removed by the hon. Gentleman’s Front Benchers, as was outlined a few weeks ago. What does he think about that?

[Andrew George]

I would be straying beyond the limits of this debate if I discussed compulsion in registration, but it could perhaps be debated in relation to other parts of the Bill.

As well as the groups in the community that the independent Electoral Commission found were under-represented, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) and I, and many other hon. Members—the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) referred to this—represent parts of the country where there are large numbers of second homes. Those part-time residents often like to ensure that they are on the electoral register. Given the relative weight of the significance and marginality of the two, or possibly three or more, seats in which they have their votes, one suspects that in some cases—of course, this should not happen—they might decide where they might most effectively cast that vote, if indeed they cast it only once. There are questions about whether they should register to vote in the first place, which of course they are entitled to do for local authority elections. Strictly speaking, they should not cast a vote in the general election because they are not in their primary residence.

[Dan Rogerson]

My hon. Friend has a long record of pointing out anomalies with regard to second homes, and he knows that I had a meeting about that last week with the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who is not in his place. It is felt keenly in my constituency by people who stood in local authority elections—independents as well as party members—that second home ownership in an area can be influential in determining results. If someone is not normally resident in a place, they should not be on the register there. The problem is that local authority officers may not have had the point reinforced to them that they have the power to prevent people from getting on the register if they cannot prove that they are normally resident in the area. It is not about whether they own a property there.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying that point of electoral law, which needs to be emphasised. Points have been made about registration levels—the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) said that registration levels of 98 or 99% had been achieved in her area. In fact, in constituencies such as mine it is potentially possible to achieve registration levels over 100%.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman regard the student vote in the same way?

[Andrew George]

It is an important case in point. As I understand it, students can register in more than one location and decide where their primary residence is for the purpose of electoral registration and casting their vote. Most university students go to their parental home, for example, when they are not at university, and they spend about half the year in each place. The point therefore becomes moot.

[John Mann]

The vast majority of first-year students are registered where they were living with their parents, and if they are living in a hall of residence they are simultaneously registered by the university authority, often without their knowledge. They are entitled to vote in either place, but is not the salient point in regard to this Bill that they count twice in determining the size of the electorate? That will create another artificial and arbitrary division based on the date of 1 December.

[Andrew George]

The hon. Gentleman has placed his point on the record, and I wish to move on.

My primary point is that the margin of error in the registration level is significantly greater in certain areas. Registration can be as low as 80%, but I would argue that in some areas, perhaps those with high numbers of students or second homes, it could potentially be more than 100%. With such margins of error, the straitjacket of a 5% margin of error in the Bill is inappropriate.

[Mr Love]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew George]

I will not any more.

The Boundary Commission should be given discretion over the matter, because the Bill as currently drafted would unquestionably result in young, vulnerable and minority ethnic communities being under-represented and second home owners and students being over-represented. We all want equality, but we want it interpreted reasonably.

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) made some general, profound comments on the threat behind the Bill to the effect that it will destroy the accountability link between hon. Members and their electorate by ensuring that Members never stand again for the same constituency. If he presses his amendment to a Division, I will happily join him in the Lobby. The electorate has an absolute right to vote to support a Member of Parliament who has done a good job, just as it has the absolute right to throw a rascal out.

[Greg Mulholland]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Does he think I should seek to divide the Committee on amendment 342, which would mean a report every 10 years, or amendment 341, which would delay the changes until after the election?

[Graham Stringer]

I would be happy to vote for amendments 341 and 342. Although the mechanisms would be different, the proposals would have an essentially similar affect on accountability.

21:30

[Mr Dodds]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there would be support from the Democratic Unionist party and, I am sure, from other parties, if the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) were to press those amendments to a Division? As he said, there is a lack of consensus or cross-party support for those fundamental changes to parliamentary democracy.

[Graham Stringer]

The right hon. Gentleman makes his point well and I am sure the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) heard him.

I shall speak to amendment 38, which is in my name. With permission, Mr Bayley, I should also like to press it to a Division. Other than what I said on amendments 341 and 342, arguments about the number of people on the electoral register lie behind this debate. One argument that was touched on earlier is bogus, and it should be discounted: namely, that the number of electors that it takes to elect a Member from one political party is different from the number it takes to elect a Member for another party. That is irrelevant to this debate. Turnout, the number of candidates and the distribution of electors also affect the number of people it takes to elect a Member for a political party. If people want a kind of representation that means that it takes exactly the same number of people to elect each MP, the answer is PR. I am against that and in favour of first past the post. However, that is nothing to do with the clause.

The second point at the heart of clause 8 is that constituencies should be based on an equal number of registered electors. That is a reasonable starting point, but there are two exceptions—one is relevant to this clause and the other will be debated later. If people are to represent constituencies, geographical features, boundaries and real communities should be significant considerations, as well as absolute numbers. However, how can the Committee say that absolute numbers is the overwhelmingly relevant consideration and accept that change to the system when 3.5 million people are not on the electoral register?

In amendment 38, I am seeking, in a different way from the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), to address voter registration. He is trying to get the Boundary Commission to assess the difference between those who are registered and those who are not. The point of my amendment is to get the Electoral Commission, which is the more appropriate body, to try to satisfy this House and the other place that enough changes and processes have taken place to ensure that as many people as practically possible are registered. Once that has been done, but not before, the figures can be taken into account when considering boundaries.

[Chris Ruane]

My hon. Friend says that 3.5 million people are missing from the register, but the Government announced the other week that they will introduce individual registration and remove some of the measures that could help us to increase registration. When individual registration was introduced in Northern Ireland, there was a 10% drop in registration. If it is introduced on the mainland, that could mean 4.5 million people fewer on the register, so that 8 million people—including the most vulnerable in society—could be missing from the register. Does my hon. Friend agree that that constitutes a very little English coup?

[Graham Stringer]

I would not use the word “coup”, but I would use the word “gerrymandering”. In fact, a double gerrymander lies at the heart of this Bill. I would like the Electoral Commission to look at the issue of registration and report to both Houses, because there are sins of commission and sins of omission involved in why the electoral register is not complete. It has already been said that some electoral registration officers are more effective and efficient than others, and that is true. I represent areas of Manchester and Salford, and the electoral registration and returning officers there are doing a good job. They have done three canvasses and use what data they may legally access to ensure that electoral registration is as complete as possible. But that is not the case in several constituencies.

[Geraint Davies]

My hon. Friend may be interested to note that the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) is now in his place. In his constituency, the register contains 77,628 people, so it is on target, but the population of those over 18 and eligible to vote is 101,000. In other words, 26,000 people will not be counted, and that is wrong. However, Members on the other side of the House, including the hon. Gentleman, will sleepwalk into this ridiculously unfair system.

[Graham Stringer]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about the numbers—

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

rose—

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

rose—

[Graham Stringer]

Unfortunately, I think that my hon. Friend may have encouraged the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) to attempt to intervene. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound).

[Stephen Pound]

I think that the House is at one with my hon. Friend on that particular point.

Like me, my hon. Friend represents an urban constituency. I have three surgeries a week and more than 50% of those who attend are not on the electoral register because they are homeless, asylum seekers or simply incapable of being allowed to register. Does my hon. Friend agree that were we to proceed—as I sincerely hope we will not—with this crude numerically simplistic stitch-up we would be ignoring the reality of life in urban constituencies?

[Graham Stringer]

I agree with my hon. Friend and I have similar experiences in Blackley and Broughton.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I am puzzled that the hon. Gentleman agrees with the suggestion that a Member of Parliament who knows that 50% of those attending his surgeries are not registered does nothing about it. Why does he not point out to the people who attend his surgeries but fail to be on the register that they are breaking the law? If the issue is as simple as that, something can be done about it.

[Graham Stringer]

As far as I can see, the hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber for most of the debate. I ask him to listen carefully to this and the next part of my speech. There are reasons why some people are not on the electoral register, but I can assure him that I check whether people live in the constituency and/or are on the electoral register, and if they are not, I try to persuade them to get on to it.

I was coming to the reasons some people are off the electoral register. It is not just a result of how well the registration officer does his job. Among poorer people, the number of people on the electoral register in Manchester declined by about 15% when the poll tax was brought in, because it was the single easiest way of avoiding tax. It has been 20 years since the poll tax was introduced, but the position has never recovered. I could take hon. Members to an estate in my constituency where nearly 60% of people on the electoral register are women. That is not because the estate is not roughly 50:50, but because the men living there do not register so as to get 25% off their council tax. It will take time to address that situation of people avoiding both tax and being on the electoral register. It is not an easy problem, but it should be dealt with.

[Mrs Laing]

If somebody lives in a house and is partaking of the services provided by the local authority, and it is known that they live in that house, and they do not register in order not to pay tax, they are not avoiding tax—they are evading tax. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is up to someone else to register them to vote?

[Graham Stringer]

I agree. The accurate word is “evading” not “avoiding”. I stand corrected. If people are evading tax, and therefore breaking the law, one cannot expect them to change. It is up to those bodies that enforce the law to enforce it. I am happy to clarify that position. Getting the electoral register to represent everyone who is entitled to vote is not a simple process. However, I am sure that hon. Members believe, as I do, that people should be registered and should comply with the law on being registered.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way with his customary generosity, but he fails to recognise that there has to be a definitive basis for registering those qualified to vote in an election and for distinguishing between them and others who live in the area and are served by a Member of Parliament. He might inadvertently be leading the House in that direction. In my constituency, there are 70,000 electors, but nearly 78,000 residents—the rest are mainly EU migrants. As a constituency Member of Parliament, I will serve those people, but there is a distinction between them and those who are duly, properly and legally entitled to vote for me at an election. He is not making that distinction clear to the Committee.

[Graham Stringer]

I have not come to that point yet, but there is an overlap. Some recent immigrants are Commonwealth citizens and entitled to vote in general elections. It is a complicated matter. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but there is some overlap between people who are entitled to vote and people who are part of the recent immigrant community.

Another large area where there is under-representation and, probably, unlawful activity associated with it relates to houses in multiple occupation and private landlords. For different reasons—sometimes voting abuse, sometimes to conceal the number of people living in houses of multiple occupation—landlords prevent their tenants from voting or hinder their attempts to do so.

The hon. Gentleman previously mentioned recent immigrants. Registration is low among those in black and ethnic minority groups for a number of reasons. Sometimes it is because they do not understand the system or are frightened of it, and sometimes, as was mentioned previously in the case of poorer sections of the community, it is because the levels of functional illiteracy are higher than one would want. That means that many of the forms end up in the bin, because they cannot be understood. There are different estimates, but generally in this House—and not just on the issue of electoral registration—we ignore the fact that probably about 22.5% of the adult population in this country are functionally illiterate and find it difficult to deal with forms.

21:45

Those are the main reasons there are real practical difficulties—there are probably more difficulties than I have mentioned, as well as those to do with the efficiency of the electoral registration officers—and why 3.5 million people are currently not on the electoral register. I do not think that we can move to a more balanced system between the different constituencies—one based on the number of electors—until we ensure that registration is much more accurate than it currently is.

[Gavin Barwell]

The group of amendments that the Committee is being asked to consider poses the Government three questions: what is the rush, why have a review every five years, and do we not need to address the issue of under-registration? I want briefly to address those three questions.

Before I do so, however, I want to make a point about partisanship. It is important to reflect the fact that any discussion about the boundaries of our constituencies is bound to have partisan considerations, and it is much better that we should acknowledge that up front, rather than trying to pretend otherwise. I believe that the current boundaries are unfair, for reasons that I will come to. They are unfair to the Conservative party, but I also believe that they are unfair to my constituents—the people of Croydon, who are under-represented in this House. However, to make the point that this issue is about political balance, I should make the related point that the local authority ward boundaries in my borough are also unfair, but they are unfair the other way round.

[The Temporary Chair (Hugh Bayley)]

Order. I must encourage the hon. Gentleman to get on to the question of registration and under-registration. He has made his opening remarks, and he should now address the questions raised by the amendment.

[Gavin Barwell]

I take your point, Mr Bayley, but some of the amendments in the group are also about the need for speed and whether the proposals in the Bill should take effect by October 2013. The point that I was trying to make in an earlier intervention is that the average size of Labour seats is significantly smaller than those of Conservative Members. That is an unfairness and it is important to correct it, but I shall take your advice and come on to the issue of registration.

[Chris Ruane]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gavin Barwell]

I am nervous about being drawn back into what I have just been told to move off, but I will give way briefly.

[Chris Ruane]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the information I have received from research by the Library shows that of the top 100 seats with the most number of unregistered people, 96 are Labour seats? Should it not be borne in mind, when he is pointing out unfairness this way and that way, that those unregistered people are in Labour seats?

[Chris Ruane]

I think that that is a question about registration, so I can certainly address it. It has always been the case historically that, in deciding on constituency boundaries, we have looked at the number of people who are eligible to vote; that is, we have looked at electorates as the basis on which to draw the boundaries. Opposition Members have raised the issue of registration in this debate, with some amendments asking for a report on the issue and others going further, making the radical proposition that we should look at the number of adults who are eligible to register in a constituency when drawing up the boundaries.

That may well be a debate of principle that we need to have at some point, but it seems to me that the arguments of Opposition Members have varied and have been based on a number of different potential categories. We could look at electors, the number of people over 18 who are eligible to vote, or the total adult population over 18, but when the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) was quoting his figures earlier, I think he was actually quoting the figures for the adult population over 18. I do not know any data sets that can give an accurate figure for the number of people over 18 who are eligible to vote, which is an entirely different thing, because there will be many people who are not UK citizens—and who are therefore not eligible to vote—but who will appear on the census. Or we could go even further and look at the total population in each part of the country when drawing up boundaries.

My real concern is that the amendments before us suggest that we should draw up constituency boundaries based on a guess. They suggest that we look at the census data, but many Members—particularly those who represent urban constituencies—will be aware of the real problems relating to the accuracy of those data. The census is carried out only every 10 years, and there are often gross inaccuracies in the published figures, certainly for London.

[Stephen Pound]

I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, because he is making a coherent and cogent case. I must point out, however, that there are empirical data out there, and that we do not have to rely on guesswork. As any Member of Parliament will tell him, his or her constituency roll will show EU and Commonwealth citizens who can register but cannot vote for their Member of Parliament. Bizarrely, even though those people will surely come to their Member of Parliament for advice and assistance, they will not count when it comes to classifying the size of a parliamentary constituency. Surely that cannot be right.

[Gavin Barwell]

Well, there we go. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting, with his customary eloquence, that we go even further than the hon. Member for Swansea West did. I think he is arguing that we should use the whole over-18 adult population as the basis for deciding the boundaries. Indeed, in an earlier intervention, he said that he had a significant number of asylum seekers in his constituency who, although they were ineligible to vote, still gave rise to casework.

There are many different proposals for ways in which we can develop these figures. My point about the hon. Member for Swansea West’s amendment is that we cannot come up with a definitive figure. We can start with the census and take into account the electorate, and we can then use other data sets to refine that information, but we cannot come up with an accurate figure.

My own view is that we should stick with the current basis, which looks at the published electorate, but that we should also take action to deal with under-representation, which affects certain parts of the country more than others. The hon. Member for Swansea West talked about poverty, and the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who has now left the Chamber, referred to work carried out by the Electoral Commission that showed that the transience of the population—the churn—was the key factor. There are certain groups within the population, including the black and minority ethnic community, young people and people who live in the private rented sector, that are much more likely to move frequently, and that is the main causal driver of this problem.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the difficulty in the past 15 or 20 years has been that the Boundary Commission has not been guided by Government regulations specifically to look at future population changes? That has been an important factor in making many, if not most, of the constituencies in this country out of date almost as soon as they are created.

[Gavin Barwell]

That cuts to the point of one of the amendments, which deals with the frequency with which we carry out the reviews. That is an important point, because if we had more regular reviews, they would be based on more recent data, and we would not see such dramatic changes. If we had a review every five years, we would not see significant changes in many of our constituencies.

[Geraint Davies]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gavin Barwell]

I will give way once more to my predecessor.

[Geraint Davies]

The point I was trying to make, which I think has been misrepresented by the new hon. Member for Croydon Central, is that we should use the best data available on those people who are 18 and over and eligible to vote. I have accepted that we will not get a perfect number, but I propose that we should do the best we can with the data sets available to get as accurate a picture as possible, and that that is the best basis for a fair democracy. That would be much fairer than simply relying on registration figures.

[Gavin Barwell]

I take that point, but my response would be that, rather than using figures that are guesstimates, we should use the actual electorate figures. We should also, however, take action across the country to replicate the work of the best local authorities to drive up representation.

[Chris Ruane]

rose—

[Stephen Twigg]

rose—

[Gavin Barwell]

I am going to conclude my speech now; I have taken a number of interventions, and I promised that I would not speak for too long.

We have just had a boundary review, for which many Opposition Members will have voted, that was based on electorate figures. None of these points about tackling under-representation were made when the orders were put through in the last Parliament to implement those boundary changes. Although the point is a good one, it was not applied previously.

In conclusion, the people of Croydon are significantly under-represented in this House, and I think we need urgent action to address that unfairness. We certainly need to take action to deal with under-registration, but the current boundaries are not fair, which is why it is important to take action quickly to put that right.

[Austin Mitchell]

I rise to speak—briefly, I hope—in support of amendment 127. I gather from my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that we are going to press it to the vote. I also support amendment 341, which I hope the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) is going to put to the vote—he must. I support amendment 38, too, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), which he is going to press to the vote.

All three amendments are an attempt to soften the rigours of the brutal redistribution proposed in clause 8. Indeed, it is a redistribution so brutal that it amounts to a gerrymander. The pretext is that the unequal seats work against the Tory party. We have heard that argument put at length by the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell). It is true that the inequality in seats helps the Labour party and works against the Tory party, to which I would reply, in the classic words of Demosthenes, “Ah, diddums. What a great shame”! Various factors are relevant, including turnout, people taken off the register, which happens all the time—[Interruption.] Ah diddums, rural seats and so forth. Another factor, which has not been dealt with in the debate so far, is that the population moves.

There was a similar bias in the 1950s, but then it favoured the Tory party because of rural seats and the rurality factor. I hope Members will remember—I certainly do; I am old enough to remember—that the Conservative party won power in 1951 and had a working majority, but Labour had secured over 500,000 votes more than the Conservatives. The system then worked in favour of the Conservatives, who at that time were not so adamant about the need for a redistribution and a massive upsetting of the whole system to make it fairer. Now they are adamant. That unfairness towards the Conservatives persisted until the 1960s. Now it has worked the other way because of the subsequent drift of large Labour majorities out to the suburbs, where the vote is more evenly distributed.

These amendments all provide an opportunity to modify the brutality of the redistribution that the Government propose, with Liberal support, to remedy this deficiency. Clause 8 is effectively creating what I would call a doomsday machine. It is rather like the monsters my grandchildren watch on television. They are called transformers—they are huge metal monsters that go out clumping all around the country. It is a kind of redistribution by Blitzkrieg! It is just like that when this has to be done so suddenly and in defiance of any community centre or local government boundaries.

[Chris Ruane]

Why does my hon. Friend think the Con-Dem alliance is in such haste?

[Austin Mitchell]

Well, it is quite simple. The alliance wants its redistribution completed before the election in 2015—it is going to determine the date in another piece of legislation—because it will favour the Conservative party. It hopes to reduce the number of Labour Members. We shall come later to the reduction in the size of the House, but it is another attempt in the same direction—intended to reduce the number of Labour Members and increase the number of Conservative Members. The alliance simply wants to give itself a doughty majority. AV is supposed to work for the Liberals and the redistribution is supposed to work for the Conservatives. That is the calculation behind it, which is why it has to be completed before the next election, so that it can hang on to power by gerrymandering the system in its favour.

This is going to be a redistribution by steamroller—not a reasonable redistribution in which we will have the power to put opposing points of view, to argue for a sense of community or a sense of locality or to put forward views about the crossing of county boundaries. We will not have a chance to put democratic and fair arguments to the redistribution committee in the way we have been accustomed to, and the way that has been institutionalised. The committee will simply plough on with its Blitzkrieg.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

rose—

[Austin Mitchell]

I was intending to plough on with my own Blitzkrieg, but I am happy to give way.

22:00

[Mark Durkan]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way following that mixed metaphor. I will take it no further.

Does my hon. Friend agree that what we have here is a formula according to which one imperative, and one imperative alone, will drive what boundary commissions do, and that what they do will not be subject to serious appeal or challenge for the purposes of those of us in the real world who must live with the outcome or consequences? It will ignore the realities and demands of constituency service. It completely dismisses real-world considerations. We will be stuck with whatever the outcome is, and it will go from Parliament to Parliament as the Boundary Commission sees fit. Will this not constitute the IPSAfication of boundaries?

[Austin Mitchell]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend has put the case much more articulately and better than I could have, so I shall delete the next part of my speech, take it for granted and move on. This is not a redistribution; it is a Blitzkrieg—an unfair Blitzkrieg that is designed to work in the electoral interests of the Conservative party.

Interestingly, the amendments show that the Liberal Democrat part of the coalition is beginning to wake up to that fact. I understand that the hon. Member for Leeds North West intends to put his amendment to the vote. Perhaps he will nod to confirm that, because it will slow down the whole process and stop the Blitzkrieg.

[Chris Bryant]

The position is actually slightly worse than it was portrayed by our friend from the SDLP, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). In addition, the Minister will be able to lay the Order in Council on the basis of the Boundary Commission’s report “with or without modifications”. [Interruption.] I can hear the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), saying that that is the present legislation, but the present legislation allows for proper public inquiries, and he is getting rid of public inquiries.

[Austin Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The present system of redistribution was devised by the Conservatives. Now, finding themselves in electoral danger, they want to scrap it to protect themselves and remain in power in this tenuous coalition.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman is a comic turn. Does he agree, however, that he was not so voluble when in 1970—as he is old enough to remember—a Labour Government were the only Government in history to shelve significant boundary changes for party political reasons? He was probably also not as voluble at the time of the 2005 election, when the Conservative party out-polled the Labour party in England and Labour had many dozens more seats than the Conservatives. Was that fair, or was it gerrymandering?

[Austin Mitchell]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is trying to outdo my comic turn by putting me in the House of Commons well before I was actually here, but he is entitled to do that.

I am voluble now because of the threat to democracy that is implicit in this whole process. As one of my hon. Friends said earlier, that is what is waking up the Liberal Democrat part of the coalition. It is easy enough to organise a redistribution for 650 Members, but if there are only 600 pieces in the jigsaw, the implication is that every boundary in the country must be changed. That is what is waking up the Liberal Democrats, because they tend to win seats through intense community work and community politics involving cracked paving stones and late buses, and they must have a community to work to. That settled community will be disturbed by the redistribution, and the Liberal Democrats will lose seats. Their amendments suggest that they are now waking up to that fact.

It is a bit late in the day, but I can tell the Liberal Democrats that they will lose out. The AV part of the deal, which was supposed to benefit the Liberal Democrats while the redistribution was supposed to benefit the Conservatives, will not be carried, because it will be defeated in the referendum. Then the Liberal Democrats will ask themselves, “What have we got out of this coalition? We have abandoned all our faiths, we have sacrificed everything we believe in, we have allowed massive cuts to the detriment of British society—and what have we got out of it?” The answer will be “Peanuts. Nothing.” Their only resort, if they are to prevent themselves from being thrown out in the election following the redistribution, will be to throw out the Government and stop the redistribution.

I estimate that the Liberal Democrats will belatedly begin to wake up to that fact in about 2013 or 2014, and then they will become a disruptive factor within the coalition. I am trying to prevent them from ending up in that situation—[Interruption.] No, my heart bleeds for them. I am very sympathetic because it is tragic watching them betray their principles one by one in order to cling on to power and to get bums into ministerial cars and on to ministerial Benches—but if that is what they want to do, let them. I am trying to help them by persuading them to vote for amendments 127, 341 and 38. [Interruption.] No, I am a decent man. I would have voted Liberal in 1951, except that I did not have a vote because I was too young, but I wore a Liberal rosette on my meat round. That is the full history of my association with the Liberals—it ended in 1956 with the invasion of Suez—and now I am trying to protect them.

In conclusion, we should support these amendments in order to prevent the brutality of a process that would be damaging to British democracy and the community and that would create an unsettled situation for Members of Parliament. I spent many years in New Zealand, and we had much more regular redistributions when I was there—every five years, I think. That was before proportional representation came in. The seats could be made much more equal, but as a result of the changes no Member of Parliament knew five years ahead whether he would be representing the same area, or whether some bits would be shipped out and others would be shipped in because of boundary changes, and therefore the seat he would be representing would be totally changed. I want to prevent that situation from happening here. We represent settled communities that have clear boundaries, and we should not disrupt them in this fashion just for the electoral purposes of the Conservative party.

[Mrs Laing]

The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) has just given the game away. He has at last revealed what this part of the debate is really about: the convenience of Members of Parliament, and the desire to make sure that they are not unsettled. This House should not be making laws for the convenience of Members of Parliament, however; we should be making laws for the good of the people of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman has made many good points during the debate, and he has just made an excellent speech, albeit from his point of view—I disagree with him of course, but he always makes excellent speeches—but I am glad that he gave the game away at the end of his contribution.

While sitting through this lengthy debate, I have been wondering why so many Members have made illogical and inconsequential speeches. That is unusual for Members of this House—[Interruption]—especially those such as the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who is laughing, and who has engaged in many debates on these subjects over many years. Why is nobody talking about individual voter registration, even though it is an integral part of improving the registration process?

[Chris Ruane]

I have just mentioned individual registration. We all know what it is about: it is about driving a further 4.5 million people off the register to join the other 3.5 million, in order to keep the Conservatives in office for another generation.

[Mrs Laing]

It is not; on the contrary, in fact. The last Government, with the support of the then Conservative Opposition, introduced individual voter registration and this Government have speeded up the process.

I am not going to take up much of the Committee’s time as we have heard many speeches on these subjects tonight and I have had the good fortune of being able to make many interventions in other Members’ contributions. In counting the number of people who are represented by each Member of Parliament we should count on the basis of democracy and the workings of democracy, not on the basis of social work. [Interruption.] Well, we all have several roles as Members of Parliament, and one of our roles is the pastoral one of looking after the people who live in our constituencies regardless of whether they are registered to vote, of their nationality, and of where they live. We are all decent Members of Parliament, and if someone comes to us with a problem, it will be dealt with—or it certainly would be in my constituency surgeries. I am sure that that is the case for almost everybody here. I see assent from Labour Members. However, we must separate those two roles, and that is integral to the point that we are discussing.

The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) may have thousands of people in his constituency who are not voters—who are either not eligible or not registered to vote. He therefore possibly has more casework, but that can be dealt with by giving him greater resources to deal with it. The issue should not be dealt with by distorting the democratic process and the way in which the Chamber works.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Lady knows that I respect her views in many regards, but I would find it phenomenally difficult to differentiate the two elements of our role—on the one hand, the representative function of a Member of Parliament in representing all the voters in their constituency, and, on the other hand, their casework. Many, if not all, of the issues that I have taken up in this House have come to me from my casework—apart, perhaps, from the issue of the Bill that we are discussing tonight. I urge her not to stray too far down the route of trying to separate out the two concepts.

[Mrs Laing]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has brought before the House many matters that have arisen from people who come to his constituency surgeries, but he also has a role in raising points of principle on the subject of politics, the constitution and so on—I have seen him do so over many years—that are nothing to do with the casework that comes to him. I therefore do not accept his point.

[Stephen Pound]

I thank the hon. Lady for nobly offering, in a way that is typical of her, to support my special pleading to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority for additional staff. Together, we will be unbeatable. May I also apologise for perhaps inadvertently misleading the Committee earlier when I referred to Commonwealth citizens not having the right to vote? They do, of course, have that right. I am sure that the hon. Lady will have immediately spotted that I was referring to European economic area citizens, in the context of increased casework with no chance of a vote at the end of it.

[Mrs Laing]

Of course the hon. Gentleman is right. First, I do support his special pleading to IPSA. Secondly, I am glad to have given him the opportunity to put the record straight on the EEA; we are all better educated for that.

Our duty is not to try to amend the Bill to make life easier for Members of Parliament. What matters is not our certainty about where the boundaries of our constituencies will be drawn, but how the democratic process works. I have thought to myself, “Why have there been so many illogical arguments this evening?” I realise, of course, that it is because of special pleading.

[Tristram Hunt]

Does the hon. Lady recall, as I do, the evidence that we received on the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which suggested that where there were arbitrary and dramatic changes in boundaries, an absence of democracy often followed, as local party activists and local electors began to lose influence and interest in the local democratic process?

[Mrs Laing]

I recall the point being raised in the Select Committee, but I am afraid that I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. The fact is—

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Laing]

No. The hon. Gentleman has not been in Committee all evening, and it is time that we got on; this debate has taken too long. I would simply say that the reason why Opposition Members are arguing as they are is that they cannot in all honesty stand up in this House and say that the principle of equalising the size of constituencies is wrong. They are therefore manufacturing arguments against this Bill to try to stop this part of it. They are quite simply trying to avoid being turkeys voting for Christmas. They know that, and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby gave this away when he said that this is about certainty and uncertainty for Members of Parliament. The fact is that the only principle that should matter in considering this part of the Bill is the working of democracy. If Opposition Members do not have the courage to put their constituents and the people of the United Kingdom first and themselves second, they do not deserve to be Members of Parliament. It is the principle of equality that matters and that is what we must vote for.

22:15

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

If this Bill passes, we will make the most significant reduction in parliamentary representation since 1922. If we are to make such a fundamental change, we need carefully to examine the basis on which we do it. There needs to be a proper assessment of constituency size, which the electoral register will not provide. In particular, any electoral register from December of any one year will not provide it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) said earlier that we know that there are particular groups of voters who are under-represented—young people, students, those living in houses in multiple occupation, those in black and minority ethnic communities and those in social housing. In a constituency such as mine, all those groups combine and are linked to a very high level of turnover to create significant under-representation and under-registration. In just one of my wards, 23% of households have no one registered. In another, the figure is 19% and in another it is 16%. Across the constituency, the average is 15.5%. Many of those who are not registered to vote are those who face the problems that translate into higher levels of casework for me and for my office.

Registration in the constituency contrasts sharply with the neighbouring constituency, Sheffield Hallam, which is represented by the Deputy Prime Minister. It was a traditional Conservative seat until 1997 and some might say it is again. With the demographic profile of Sheffield Hallam and the stability of the population in that constituency, there are very high levels of registration. The number of unregistered households averages just 4%.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Given the depressing statistics that he has related to the Committee this evening—[Interruption.] Sorry for the confusion, Mr Hoyle. Given the depressing outlook of the figures that he has given about voter registration, can he explain what the previous Labour Government did to try to improve the situation?

[Paul Blomfield]

The previous Labour Government did a great deal. Much of the responsibility for execution, of course, lies with the city council, which is run by the Liberal Democrats and it characterised itself by turning voters away from the polling station.

[Chris Ruane]

Talking of Liberal Democrat councils, is my hon. Friend aware of the previous Liberal leader of Islington council, who, when the Labour group asked for a registration drive before the election, said, “No, we’re not having that. That’s how we win elections”?

[Paul Blomfield]

I was not aware of that. I am grateful to have been informed and I am not at all surprised. As I said, in Sheffield Hallam, where there is only 4% under-registration, we begin to see the real nature of what lies behind the Bill.

I must disagree with the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing)—this is not just about those who are eligible to vote. Significant numbers of people who are not eligible to vote still need the support of their Member of Parliament. That should be taken account of when determining constituency size because we are there to provide a voice for all those in our constituency.

[Mark Tami]

Does my hon. Friend agree that even when one or two people in a household are on the register, one often finds during elections that there are four, five or six people in the house who are eligible to vote but not on the register?

[Paul Blomfield]

I accept that point entirely. On the calculation of unregistered households in my constituency, I estimate that there are about 25,000 people who are eligible to vote but who would not be counted into the constituency on the basis of a strict redefinition of boundaries by the electoral register. I think that we should—

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

Take your hand out of your pocket when you address the Chamber.

[Paul Blomfield]

I apologise for any offence that I have caused the hon. Gentleman, but I think it would be more useful to focus on the issues under debate. In that context, I want to support amendment 125, which provides for the Boundary Commission to develop a much more accurate assessment of numbers, drawing on information from the Office for National Statistics. I would have preferred it if amendment 229 was also being considered, as that specifically covered census information and would have provided another excellent way of redrawing boundaries.

[Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)]

We all accept that the information that comes from local authorities about the electoral roll is not always totally perfect, but people would not accuse others of gerrymandering as a result. If we started using information from many sources, there might be accusations of gerrymandering because of the use of that information.

[Paul Blomfield]

Amendment 125 takes the census as one source of information, but there are and have been fairly well-justified suggestions of gerrymandering based on the way in which the electoral register would be used were it applied in the December of any year.

[Chris Ruane]

On that point, electoral registration officers can calculate the eligible population in each ward in each of our constituencies. They have that information on databases such as the housing benefit and council tax databases, so it is available and could be produced to a high degree of accuracy.

[Paul Blomfield]

I accept that point and add that taking the electoral register in the December of any year in a constituency such as mine, with its turnover, would ensure that the numbers would be depressed. In the four months leading up to the general election, we added about 4,000 voters to the register in Sheffield Central. They were caught up in the excitement of the campaign that we were running, but those additions reflect the difficulty of using the December figure.

[Henry Smith]

Is not the answer to the problem better individual electoral registration rather than playing around with the size of constituency boundaries so that some constituencies have larger populations while others have smaller populations?

[Paul Blomfield]

Obviously, we would all like to see better electoral registration. The point is that we know there are significant groups within all our communities for whom it is difficult to achieve the levels of registration that we wish to see.

[Mr Betts]

My hon. Friend is making a good point; the information that he has given the Committee about the great disparity in registration levels between his constituency and Sheffield, Hallam is very stark. But if he looks at information that was given to a Select Committee hearing in the Parliament before last in the House, about initial returns to the registration officer from different parts of Sheffield, he will find that registrations from Manor, an inner-city part of his constituency, were only just over 50% at first instance, while in the Dore ward in Hallam they were over 95%. And if we use a December figure before the canvassing has really got going to get additional people on the register, those initial returns and the disparity between them will be even greater than the disparity between the registers as they now stand.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, because it highlights the particular difficulty of using the December register. There can be only two reasons to use December as the point at which to measure registered electors: either because there is undue haste in trying to push through this process, or because there is a recognition that at that point those voters who some would wish to see disregarded will not be reflected within the register.

The Government would claim that the Bill is about new politics, but a failure to address these concerns will send a message to the public that this represents the very worst of old politics, putting party advantage before democracy and, as one Government Member said on Second Reading, putting decisions behind closed doors before transparency. If the Bill proceeds unamended, it will not only damage the Government but damage confidence in our democracy.

[Simon Hughes]

I wanted to make a couple of brief comments, even before I was provoked by the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies). As it happens, I was inaccurately provoked, because he misread the table produced by the Library. I am one of the Members of Parliament whose constituency is in the top 10 of those where the proportion of the population registered to vote is smaller and the population is larger. The official figures in a House of Commons table show that Bermondsey and Old Southwark has a population of 122,510—we are No. 10 in the list—and an electorate of 77,628: almost the quota that is suggested across the country. The electorate make up 63.4% of the population according to the latest figures.

There are two explanations. One is that a lot of the differential is accounted for by people under 18; that applies across all our seats. The second is that there is a mixture of people—inner London has this in common with many places—who live there perfectly lawfully but are not entitled to vote. They are not UK citizens, they are not Irish citizens, they are not EU citizens and they are not Commonwealth citizens. We have a lot in my constituency; we are very proud to do so, and I serve them without discrimination, just as I would serve anyone on the electoral roll.

However, there is a problem of under-registration of those who should be on the electoral register, and I am never going to take any lessons from the Labour party because throughout the period of Labour Government the problem was exactly the same, and the legacy is that the Labour party left us with an under-registration of 3.5 million people.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hughes]

I am going to be brief, because the debate is time-limited until 11 pm, but I will give way.

[Emily Thornberry]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Islington we had the second-worst voter registration rate in the country when the Liberals were in charge of my local council, and when we, the Labour group, tried to pass a resolution to increase voter registration, the deputy leader of the council shouted across the council chamber, “Bu that’s how we win elections”? The voter registration went up by 9,000 from 2005 to 2010, and my vote went up by 6,000.

[Simon Hughes]

If the hon. Lady had been present a few minutes ago, she would have heard that point made by one of her colleagues. I have heard it made before. [Hon. Members: “It is still true.”] I am making the point that for Labour to be critical of the fact that 3.5 million people are not registered but should be registered is entirely unjustified, because for 13 years Labour were in government. They could and should have done much more.

[Chris Ruane]

rose—

[Simon Hughes]

No, I am not going to get into a big debate. I address my comments to my ministerial friends, and they know what I am going to say next. There is a duty on Government to do much more to ensure that people who should be registered are registered. In my constituency there is a turnover of about a quarter of the electorate every year, so registration is difficult.

I want to make publicly the point that I have made privately to Ministers and to the Deputy Prime Minister. My first proposition is that one of the things that I want us to do—the deputy leader of the Labour party, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), made this point when she was in government—is to work across parties and to put our heads together to think of all the ways in which we can increase registration. I hope the new Labour leader, his Front-Bench colleagues and the deputy leader will work with the Government and all other parties to make sure we—

[Chris Ruane]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hughes]

No. The hon. Gentleman has intervened often.

[Owen Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hughes]

No, not now.

We need to work across parties, with all parties, to ensure that in every constituency in Britain, whatever the number of constituencies, everybody who can possibly be registered is on the electoral register.

[Mr Love]

Can we start with the Bill?

[Simon Hughes]

Absolutely. I am keen that we do with registration this autumn.

I have a second proposition. The deputy leader of the Labour party argued—I put the argument to her and she made it publicly—that we should have a regular democracy day, democracy week or democracy month. Using Government resources, the Central Office of Information, and the publicity of Government and local councils, we should have a campaign that goes out to find people to register and does not do the traditional, routine, perfectly proper thing—knocking on doors, finding that people are not in and not tracking them down.

My suggestion is that this November we have a big effort led by the Deputy Prime Minister’s Department and my right hon. and hon. Friends who are Ministers, using the radio and television and getting people out on the streets, outside the tube stations in London, outside the railway stations and the bus stations, outside the further education colleges throughout the country, and outside the supermarkets and at the shopping centres, so that rather than relying on people being found to be at home, there is a way in which people are encouraged to vote.

We need collectively to own a failure of a generation to ensure that people are registered to vote in the numbers that they should be. It is not a party political matter. It should not be regarded as a case for party banter and provocation. We all have a duty, because it is unacceptable that so many people are not on the voting list when they should be. I hope that the Government will come forward with positive proposals on a cross-party basis that will engage us this autumn—next month—to do something about that so that we on the Government Benches, at least, can be seen to be trying to remedy a problem which for 13 and a half years was not remedied by the Labour party.

22:30

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

The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) spoke passionately and ended with words to the effect that this was all about equalising constituencies. There is no equalisation of constituencies. All our constituencies are different. The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) would agree with me, I think, that his constituents who identify with Bermondsey do not identify with Deptford, and vice versa.

Even in London, we have distinct communities. We have people who hang together as a community and as a society. That is extraordinarily valuable. I want to examine for a moment who the people are whom the hon. Lady seemed to set aside as though they had no worth because, she said, they are not part of our democracy. Those are real people living in our communities, contributing to our communities. This is not a one-way street. It is not that we are here and they come as supplicants to us, to ask for favours. They are people in their own right, who contribute to our communities even when they do not vote and may not be registered. They are human beings living as part of our communities. We have to think very seriously about being dismissive of a significant proportion of our population.

The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) mentioned the Electoral Commission’s study when the Chamber was far less full, so I shall repeat some of his points. The investigation found that

“under-registration is notably higher than average among 17-24 year olds (56% not registered), private sector tenants (49%) and black and minority ethnic British residents (31%).”

It found also:

“The highest concentrations of under-registration are most likely to be found in metropolitan areas”

and in areas where there are

“high levels of social deprivation.”

That is a representation of my constituency, which is vibrant, alive and contributing, but where there is huge under-registration.

Let me look at those different categories and how they have come to be under-registered. There has been much talk of functional illiteracy being a factor in the lack of registration, but I remind the Committee that many people in my community are entirely literate in their own language. They contribute and work, but often they are not able to function very well in English, which is not their first language. None the less, our local authority, a Labour local authority, has made enormous efforts to register people, but I shall refer again to those categories of people and to why efforts fail.

Many of my constituents are poor people. Members have spoken a lot about poverty tonight, but if someone is poor in my constituency and has the chance to work, they work. People do not lie around and take benefits when they have the option to work; they work. They do two, three and, occasionally, four little jobs on low wages, and by doing all those jobs they pile up enough to live on. However, they are never at home, including when I call to canvass them or to see whether they have any needs that I can represent, and they are not there even when a proactive council such as mine sends people out at all times of the day in order to try to find people at home. There are people who never, ever come into contact with those who would try to help them to register.

[Chris Ruane]

Does my right hon. Friend think that one way around that problem is to employ local people who are trusted in such communities to do the electoral registration there?

[Joan Ruddock]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point and there have been attempts to undertake such work. My local authority has recruited well-known people in the community and efforts have been made at community events. We have many young people’s events and an elected young mayor in Lewisham, and all of that contributes to helping people understand that they should be registered and should take the opportunity to vote.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Lady describe for the Committee the barriers to her local authority having been able to do more over the past 13 years to encourage greater electoral registration?

[Joan Ruddock]

There have been very good results in my local authority area. It removed from the register many names that were there inaccurately, because it wanted to be honest and direct and not keep names on the roll. It would have been in a better position, given the Government’s attitude, if it had left all those names on, but its process was thorough, and through its efforts it has added many thousands of names to the register.

My own electorate was registered at 59,000 in 2005 and at 67,000 in 2010. Real efforts have been made, and I certainly applaud that. However, notwithstanding all the efforts, which do have results, there will always be people we cannot reach, and we must have regard to them.

[Stephen Twigg]

One barrier that many local authorities think they face is using other available data sets. Last month, the Government made a welcome announcement about data-sharing pilots. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those pilots should be carried out prior to the fundamental changes in the Bill?

[Joan Ruddock]

Absolutely. It is utterly hypocritical of Government Members to accuse the Labour Government of doing nothing, because local authorities put things into practice, and many have chosen not to. It is also completely unethical to propose a Bill of this nature knowing that millions are not registered and utterly refuse to do anything about registration prior to the Bill possibly becoming law.

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

Would the right hon. Lady care to tell us when it would be possible to carry out a boundary review, or are we to have Labour seats being smaller than other seats for ever, given that we will never have a perfect electoral roll?

[Joan Ruddock]

The judgment that the hon. Gentleman makes in saying that Labour seats are smaller is based on numbers.

We challenge the Government to work with all of us—the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark suggested how we might all work together—to increase levels of registration. If we did that, the Government would be in a much better position having made an honest effort to argue the case with us. In my view, even if we do the best that we can, there is still an issue that cannot be ignored.

[Stephen Twigg]

I think that there is a desire in all parts of the Committee to ensure maximum registration. Is my right hon. Friend aware that contrary to the point made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), some of the largest registered electorates are in Labour-held constituencies?

[Joan Ruddock]

I thank my hon. Friend for that extremely important point, and I hope that it has been heard on the Government Benches.

[Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)]

When the boundaries were drawn last time, how was under-registration taken into account by the Boundary Commission?

[Joan Ruddock]

That is a matter for the Boundary Commission; I was not party to its deliberations.

I was talking about people who are not able to be at home, people whose first language is not English, and people who live in houses in multiple occupation. Every one of us who has a constituency where there are houses in multiple occupation will have seen properties in which there is a sea of mailed documents and leaflets on the floor and nobody picks them up. There are major problems in reaching people in such places, particularly those who are living in bad housing conditions. In my constituency, regrettably, we have many thousands waiting for social housing.

[Chris Ruane]

In my constituency, the ward of Rhyl West is the poorest ward in the whole of Wales, which has 1,900 wards, and it has 900 houses in multiple occupation. Yet Gareth Evans, the electoral registration officer in Denbighshire, was able to take that ward’s registration rate up from 2,400 to 3,600 electors by cross-referencing databases and door-knocking. Does my right hon. Friend think that that should be replicated across the country?

[Joan Ruddock]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a most valuable point. I have already paid tribute to my local authority. That job can be done, but because of all the factors that I have mentioned, we will not succeed in registering 100% of people in constituencies such as mine that are affected by the problems identified by the Electoral Commission. That is partly because the population of such areas is so mobile, with perhaps 10% of people moving every year. It will never be possible to equalise constituencies such as Lewisham, Deptford and Epping Forest.

22:45

[Emily Thornberry]

Is not the most important point, and the one to which coalition Members are not listening, that constituencies may well be much more equal than local registration figures show? In constituencies such as my right hon. Friend’s and mine where there is very high churn, there are a large number of Europeans, and people who want to be on the register but cannot. A large number of people simply do not count, but they do exist and are a valuable part of our constituencies.

[Joan Ruddock]

I agree absolutely. I repeat that those are real people contributing to our communities and living among us, and we ought to value them. They may not be on the electoral register, but they certainly exist. The hon. Member for Epping Forest agreed that as Members of Parliament, we have to treat unregistered people equally with those who are registered if they come through our doors. That is a most important principle. We need to recognise their existence, value them and be willing to count them in as people who could be registered, even if they are not.

[Roger Williams]

Nobody would disagree with the right hon. Lady that we must make every effort to register everybody who is eligible, but does she not agree that there are two different issues to consider? One is that every Member of Parliament should be elected by an equal number of electors, and the other is that if one Member has to represent more people than others do, perhaps more resources should be made available to them. She is confusing two issues.

[Joan Ruddock]

I am not at all. I am talking about the equal worth of people who are eligible to be registered but are not, and those who are registered. That is the difference between our position and the Government’s. They simply wish to take a number and say that every constituency must reach that number of electors, otherwise it cannot exist. That is illogical and ludicrous, and worse still, they plan to do nothing to attempt to equalise the numbers, even on their own terms.

I conclude by repeating that as Members of Parliament we serve all our constituents and all our constituencies. I am sure that we all often say, “Well, frankly, if you’re not voting, don’t come complaining to me.” But we are not suggesting that only voters count, are we? On the technical issue of registration, that is not good enough for me, and it should not be good enough for the majority of hon. Members.

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

I am sure the whole Committee is delighted that we have now reached part 2 of the Bill, which is based on the very simple concept that votes across the country should have equal value, wherever someone is. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) can provide a simple example of why that is important. His constituency, according to the records, has 51,706 electors. My constituency of Somerton and Frome has 81,566 electors. I have 30,000 more electors than him. Why should my electors’ votes have less value than those of his electors? That is the question he needs to answer.

[Chris Bryant]

I have already made it absolutely clear in the debate that I believe that there should be greater equalisation of the constituencies. The Deputy Leader of the House says that there is one sole principle, so why, by his own analysis, is he creating two rotten boroughs in Scotland?

[Mr Heath]

If the hon. Gentleman accepts the principle that votes should be equalised, he disguised it well in his very long contribution. We had a wide debate on this group of amendments. At one point it looked like a clause stand part debate, and at another like a Bill stand part debate, given the amount of material we considered. Most Members were relatively continent, but then we had the hon. Gentleman. When I suggested that we have an extra hour for this debate this evening because of the earlier statement, I did not appreciate that it would be taken up almost entirely by him.

On previous groups of amendments, it seemed that the hon. Gentleman had not properly read the Bill, but on this group of amendments, it seemed that he had not read his own proposals. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that he was deliberately trying to avoid speaking to his amendments. Members listening to the debate might have assumed that his proposal was to slow down the process set out in the Bill. They might have thought that in amendment 127, to which he never referred, he was proposing to extend the period for the Boundary Commission to do its job, but no, that was not his proposition. If anyone cares to look at the amendment paper, they will see that amendment 127 suggests that far from the Boundary Commission doing its job in three years, as proposed in the Bill, it should do it in one year, which is entirely contrary to everything that he said in his contribution. He persuaded the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), who is not in the Chamber, that he had a sensible suggestion, but he did not persuade me.

If hon. Members listened to the hon. Member for Rhondda, they might have assumed that it would be difficult for boundary commissions to do their job within the resources and time available, but they might not realise that each boundary commission gave evidence to the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform and rebutted that suggestion in terms, saying that they had the resources and the capability, and that there was no problem whatever.

[Owen Smith]

I listened to the Boundary Commission’s evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. The Deputy Leader of the House is right that the commission said that it would be able to do its work within the time frame. Clearly, it felt able to say that only because it needs to pay attention only to the politics by numbers—the arithmetic formula this Government are imposing to gerrymander and rig the next election. The commission has no need to consider the geographical, historical or cultural identities and ties that have created our constituencies. That is why it can do its work in the time given.

[Mr Heath]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has completely demolished whatever case the hon. Member for Rhondda had for saying that the Boundary Commission’s resources were inadequate for its job.

Hon. Members who listened to the debate might also have felt that the hon. Member for Rhondda had tabled a second amendment of which they knew little. They certainly would not have heard that he wished to make the implementation of equal votes across the constituencies of the UK dependent on the referendum on the powers of the National Assembly for Wales. But his amendment would provide that nothing could change until after that referendum. Our difficulty with that is that these provisions have nothing to do with the devolved powers of the National Assembly for Wales: they are about putting the electors of Wales on the same basis as the electors of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is a question of fairness.

[Ian Lucas]

Does the Parliamentary Secretary recognise that there are four different constitutional settlements within the United Kingdom and that those issues are central to the question of the constitutional arrangements relating to this House? Why is he presenting a Bill that is constitutionally illiterate?

[Mr Heath]

I know of no constitutional principle that says that voters in Wales should have twice the value of voters in Somerset. I do not understand that as a constitutional concept, and it is not one that I support. Why should Wales continue to be over-represented? Why should it be placed in that constitutional setting in eternity? Perhaps he can tell us.

[Ian Lucas]

The Parliamentary Secretary should recognise that the relationship between Wales and England is an historic one that depends closely on the managed constitutional relations between the two countries. The reality is that Wales is a small country that has a long and strong relationship with England, a much larger country. Wales has a distinct identity, and when he was on the Opposition Benches he recognised that through devolution. Why is he now jettisoning the distinct identity of Wales and treating the people of Wales in this way?

[Mr Heath]

There we have the paucity of the argument for the defence. This is not about the historic and cultural value of the principality of Wales. I am a great fan of Wales and I always have been. It has a very important part to play in the United Kingdom, but I return to my point that I see no reason why electors in Wales should have more of a say in this, the Parliament of the United Kingdom, than electors in any other part of the country. That is the principle before us today.

[Mark Tami]

The Parliamentary Secretary was asked a straightforward question earlier. If he believes in equalisation, why will two seats in Scotland be treated differently?

[Chris Ruane]

Answer that.

[Mr Heath]

I will happily answer—

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think that we are going wide of the mark and the Deputy Leader of the House is being dragged into areas where I would not expect him to be led. I know that he knows better and I will let him continue with his speech.

[Mr Heath]

I will of course be led by you, Mr Hoyle, on what it is appropriate to deal with on this group of amendments, although I will take great pleasure in coming back to that argument tomorrow when we debate the proposed constituencies.

Many hon. Members have concentrated on registration, and it is an extraordinarily important issue. I yield to no one in my wish to see registration dealt with much more effectively. Indeed, it was one of my persistent criticisms of the 13 years of the Labour Government that they did so little to ensure that the registration of electors was much improved. That is one of the many failures of the previous Government. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who said that this issue should transcend party politics and our views on the outcome of elections. It surely should be a principle that every single eligible elector should be on the register and that those who are not eligible should not be on the register.

Those are the two sides of the coin, as far as electoral registration is concerned. That is why I am so pleased to have heard what the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) said the other day about the extra measures that the Government are taking to ensure that registration is carried out more effectively across the country. We can do more. I am taken by the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, which I have heard expressed before, that we should have a democracy day. That is something we can build on. Perhaps hon. Members could work with the local authorities in their area and make better registration a reality.

23:00

The debate stood adjourned (Programme Order, this day, and 12 October).

The occupant of the Chair left the Chair.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again tomorrow.

Business without Debate

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Millennium development goals

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 8910/10 and Addenda 1 to 5, A Twelve-Point Action Plan in Support of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); and supports the efforts the Government is making through the EU to improve the MDGs, secure Official Development Assistance (ODA) levels and improve aid effectiveness and accountability.—(Mr O’Brien.)

Question agreed to.

STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES

Ordered,

That Eric Ollerenshaw be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Privileges and Matthew Hancock be added.—(Sir George Young.)

Petition

VAT (Charities)

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Dunne.)

23:03

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be here this evening, Mr Deputy Speaker.

First, I would like to declare an interest as an unpaid patron of two charities in Wrexham—The Venture and Dynamic. Many Members will be involved in charities in their own constituencies. There are, in fact, 177 charities registered in my constituency, although, of course, many more provide services there. All MPs see the positive work that charities do. In Wrexham, I have seen the development of services provided by charities since I was elected in 2001, often co-ordinated by the Association of Voluntary Organisations in Wrexham. Many services are provided in partnership with the NHS, such as the Nightingale House hospice in the town, and some work with the local authority.

There has been an expansion of the work of charities in recent years often to cover work that previously was carried out by the Government—at local or, indeed, national level. It is this concept that, I believe, the present Government wish to accelerate through the development of the Prime Minister’s concept of what he calls the big society. This process has created an anomaly. Services previously provided by local government benefited from an exemption, under section 33 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994, allowing local authorities to reclaim irrecoverable VAT incurred for non-business purposes. The rationale was that the VAT burden should not fall on local taxpayers. In a world where services are increasingly provided by charities, it seems unfair to require charities to bear that burden. Although the problem has existed for some years, it will necessarily be made bigger as more services are provided by charities, rather than by central or local government.

What undoubtedly makes the problem more acute is the Government’s decision to increase VAT from 17.5 to 20%. That was a choice made by the Government. At the same time as deciding to increase VAT, the Government chose to announce a decrease in corporation tax, which benefits Barclays bank, for example, but does not benefit charities, which do not pay it. The Charity Tax Group has calculated that the increase will cost charities £143 million—money that will go directly into the pockets of the Government. I would like to place on record my thanks to the Charity Tax Group for the considerable work it has done in raising the issue. As a first step towards addressing the problem of irrecoverable VAT, will the Minister agree with me that the Government should not benefit from charities having to pay more VAT? If the big society is to mean anything, how can charities be expected to bear an additional financial burden while being required to provide additional services?

I contacted local charities in the Wrexham area to try to assess the impact of the VAT rise on them, and a number came back to me with figures. Earlier I mentioned Nightingale House hospice—probably Wrexham’s best known local charity—which provides excellent care to local individuals suffering from cancer, many of whom end up dying. We all have hospices in our areas that provide excellent care, and the Nightingale House hospice told me that the increase in VAT would cost it around £10,000 a year—money going directly to the Government.

Hardest hit, however, will be those charities that provide goods and services for sale to vulnerable people. Vision Support is a charity that helps those across north Wales with a visual impairment. It has a large trading arm and supplies specialist equipment to the blind and partially sighted, such as phones and computer aids. Its VAT liability was £155,371 for the year ending 31 March 2010. The Government’s action means that the charity would have to pay an extra £22,195.86 in VAT—money that it cannot use to provide services to some of the most vulnerable in the community that I represent. Again, the money goes directly into the pockets of the Government. Can that approach really be justified?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman has clearly outlined the issue for charities, but along with charities, there are probably literally hundreds of thousands of volunteers who do great work in constituencies across the United Kingdom. Does he agree that the change will affect not only charities, but volunteers and the good work that they do, and that this underlines the need for a VAT exemption for charities?

[Ian Lucas]

Certainly. We want to encourage volunteers in our society. They contribute hugely to community spirit, but it must be demoralising for them to have the hard-earned funds that they have raised taken away from them.

The issue is one that the Government should try to confront and deal with. It has been dealt with in particular circumstances in the past; for example, it was recognised by the last Labour Government, in their listed places of worship grant scheme. This paid the equivalent of the VAT expended on repair projects for listed places of worship back to those organisations. I have received representations from the Church in Wales asking the Government to extend that scheme beyond its end date of March 2011. Will the Government commit to pay charities generally the extra VAT that they obtain from those charities as a consequence of their own decision to increase the level of VAT? If the Government do not do so, that will diminish the capacity of charities to carry out their work.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this Adjournment debate. I wrote to the Minister recently about the Yorkshire air ambulance service, which receives no direct Government funding but needs £7,200 a day to keep both its air ambulances in the air. It currently has no exemption from paying VAT on the aviation fuel that it uses, but another charity, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, is exempt from such charges on the fuel it buys for its lifeboats. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is yet another example of the inequality surrounding the payment of VAT by charities?

[Ian Lucas]

Indeed. I am sure that all Members of Parliament are aware of charities in our constituencies that work extremely hard to provide services that we all value. The hon. Gentleman has just ably demonstrated yet another contradiction that I cannot understand. The Government really need to address this issue as broadly as possible. If they do not do so, it will diminish the capacity of charities to carry out that valuable work in our communities.

I assume that this situation is directly contrary to the Prime Minister’s intentions. If the big society is to be anything more than a vacuous soundbite, its proponents should be extending the capacity of charities rather than reducing it. We need to discuss this complex issue. Irrecoverable VAT has existed for many years, but charities are now carrying out more work and local authorities are asking them to do more work on their behalf, and the time has come for the Government to assess their role and the tax that they pay, and particularly to examine the burdens that will be imposed by the increase in VAT. They must then take steps to address this anomaly.

23:12

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

May I first congratulate the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) on securing this debate? I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain and discuss the Government’s policy on VAT and charities. Charities, voluntary organisations and social enterprises do so much for our country, and the Government are grateful for the significant contributions that these organisations make to our communities. The Government continue to support charities in a number of ways, and I will talk about our direct support for the sector a little later, although Members will appreciate that there is a limit to what I can say about that, ahead of tomorrow’s spending review.

It might help if I first put on record something about the VAT system and charities. A basic feature of the VAT system is that if VAT is not charged on outputs, it cannot be recovered on inputs. The implication of this for charities is that when no charge is made, as is generally the case, any VAT that has been incurred will not be recoverable. Of course, when a charity is registered for VAT and engaged in taxable business activities, this will enable that charity to recover its VAT costs in the normal way. We are not in a position to change the structure of VAT to protect charities fully from its impact, but we provide support for charities through the tax system, including some VAT reliefs.

Existing VAT zero rates for charities, which were introduced at the start of VAT, and which successive Governments have maintained, provide a benefit of more than £150 million to the sector. They include VAT zero rating on sales of donated goods, on medical and scientific equipment and on goods for use by disabled people for qualifying charities. Charities are not charged VAT on the costs of advertising in public media. In addition, they qualify for zero rating on the construction of certain buildings to be used for charitable purposes. All those zero rates are derogations from the normal EU VAT rules and represent benefits not enjoyed by charities elsewhere in Europe.

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

Will the Minister comment on the issues faced by charities when they charge one another for back-office functions, when we are trying to encourage them to become more efficient and deliver services in the most entrepreneurial and efficient way possible?

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that specific point. I can assure her and other hon. Members that the Government will continue to look at options for cost sharing within the VAT system where these are available to us and where they represent an effective and efficient means of delivering support to the sector. We are currently looking at the implementation of the EU VAT exemption for cost sharing. The Government recognise efficiencies that can be achieved by organisations such as charities working together efficiently, but we also recognise the potential VAT barriers such organisations face when they share services in exactly the way the hon. Lady mentioned. We said in the Budget that we would work closely with charities and other affected sectors to consider options for implementing the exemption, which would help to remove some of the barriers ahead of a formal consultation that we will launch later in the autumn. I hope that that provides some reassurance to the hon. Lady.

Returning to the issue of zero rates, as the hon. Member for Wrexham will be aware it is not open to us under our European agreements to extend or amend the zero rates, but we recognise how valuable they are to charities, so we are committed to retaining the zero rates that we already have. Charities also benefit from certain specific VAT exemptions that apply to goods and services used in connection with fundraising events, providing further support for all charities.

VAT reliefs are just one element of the support that the Government provide through tax. Within the wider tax system, existing reliefs for charities are worth something like £3 billion a year, of which gift aid is the largest single relief. Gift aid is now worth nearly £1 billion a year to charities, and such payments to charities are increasing. Gross donations made under gift aid amounted to almost £4.6 billion in 2009-10—an increase of 6.5% over the previous year. We fully recognise the importance of improving gift aid. Charity representatives have been exploring proposals for reform with Treasury and HMRC officials on the gift aid forum. We will be exploring the forum’s recommendations before deciding on the best way forward.

The hon. Member for Wrexham wants us to go further and provide support for all charities to relieve them in respect of their irrecoverable VAT. As I have already explained, there is realistically very little that can be done within the VAT system itself. It is possible in principle to introduce a measure that would deliver refunds of VAT to charities in respect of their non-business activities. However, such refunds, which are a matter of Government expenditure rather than taxation, would represent a very significant cost to the Exchequer, especially given the current fiscal position.

We also have to consider that many charities are engaged in activities where they are in direct competition with private sector organisations, such as in the provision of care and welfare services, and it would be difficult to refund VAT that charities incurred in respect of those activities, as that would represent an unfair distortion of competition. Any scheme that could be devised might well be complex and administratively burdensome for charities to operate. In our view, it is far better for the Government, instead of introducing further complexities for charities, to focus on improving charities’ capabilities to improve their own affairs, and I will turn to this in more detail shortly.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

The charities that are engaged in competition with the private sector tend to be the larger ones, which go for contracts and are registered for VAT on their services It is the smaller charities which cannot get the VAT exemption that need the VAT to be paid back, because they are the ones that are suffering.

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady is right to suggest that the problem is most acute for the smaller charities, but I do not think that that entirely detracts from the fact that in some circumstances those charities may well be in competition with the private sector in the delivery of welfare and care services. There may be a distortion of competition, and we ought to examine that very closely.

We fully recognise that the increase in the rate of VAT is unwelcome, but it is necessary to sustain public finances and ensure long-term fiscal stability. The burden of deficit reduction must be shared. It simply would not be right to single out one sector over another for special treatment, especially in view of the generous tax reliefs that have already been provided.

The hon. Gentleman and his party oppose the increase in VAT to 20%—which will raise £13.5 billion—but want to do more to reduce the deficit by raising taxes, which leads to the question of how those taxes should be raised. The last Government’s proposed solution in the form of a tax rise—which has been reversed—was the increases in national insurance contributions, which would also have affected charities.

[Ian Lucas]

The last Government also raised £3.5 billion from a tax on bankers’ bonuses. That is an alternative way of raising tax. Let me, however, return to the issue of the additional burden of VAT that the Government have chosen to impose on charities. The Minister has listed a number of the tax exemptions that already apply to charities. Why are the Government refusing simply to pass back to charities the additional revenue that they are receiving from the tax hike that was imposed on them?

[Mr Gauke]

I return to the central point. A refund system, whether for the recently announced increase in VAT or the irrecoverable VAT across the board—which, as the hon. Gentleman fairly pointed out, is a long-standing issue—would involve a considerable cost to the Exchequer. We must consider both the public finances and the most effective way in which we can help charities.

I want to say something about the Government’s support for the voluntary and charitable sector in addition to the generous tax relief provided, especially through gift aid. However, Members will appreciate that much of the detail is a matter for tomorrow’s spending review statement. The Government are proceeding with a new programme of activity to build the big society. The big society agenda requires the state not only to pull back when services can be provided more cost-effectively and successfully by charities, mutual organisations and co-operatives, but to help social entrepreneurs and voluntary groups to work in partnership with the state and gain access to the support and finance they need in order to provide innovative, bottom-up solutions where expensive state provision has failed.

[Mrs Chapman]

I wholeheartedly support the notion of the big society and encouraging charities to provide services. Among the key sources of income for those charities are philanthropic donations. Does the Minister not agree that people wishing to make donations are sometimes put off by the thought that some of the money they are giving is not being spent on the charitable objectives of the organisation concerned, but is finding its way back to the Treasury?

[Mr Gauke]

I imagine that exactly the same argument could apply if we increased national insurance contributions, which I understand is Labour party policy.

Ahead of tomorrow’s spending review statement, it is not possible for me to say how much of the overall Government budget will go to the sector, but we are providing structural support designed to make it more efficient and resilient, and reforming commissioning and procurement, which currently hamper its involvement in public service delivery.

During the spending review 2010 period, we want there to be more opportunities for the sector to be involved. We want to help the sector to access a wider range of funding to increase its strength and independence. We are establishing a big society bank to lever additional social investment into the sector, and we are reviewing ways to incentivise further philanthropy and charitable giving. The Government are keen to progress this project as quickly as possible. Any progress will, however, be subject to the availability of dormant account funds.

In conclusion, the Government are committed to making it easier for the sector to work with the state and to strengthening relations between the two. That will not happen overnight, but a stable, strong and independent voluntary sector is needed if we are to deliver on the big society and give power back to citizens and communities.

Question put and agreed to.

23:25

House adjourned.

Petition

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Petitions

Tuesday 19 October 2010

Proposed Eviction (Dale Farm and Hovefields, Essex)

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Petitions

The Petition of families at Dale Farm and Hovefields to be evicted, their supporters and others,

Declares that roughly 100 families at Dale Farm and Hovefields are to be evicted by Basildon Council in Essex at a cost of over £2 million; that most of the families to be evicted by Basildon Council have lived on their own land for about seven years, and they include invalids who will be separated from their Carers and school children, some of whom have Special Needs, who on the roadside will be deprived of their Human Right to Education; that this mass eviction will be carried out by a firm of Bailiffs whose brutality was condemned by the High Court, and therefore breaks the solemn signed undertaking by Basildon Council to the High Court, to only use Bailiffs of previous good conduct;

Further declares that the Petitioners believe Basildon Council is also breaking the terms and the purpose of sections 225 and 226 of the 2004 Housing Act, which say that every local housing authority must “prepare a strategy” to meet the “accommodation needs” of the “gypsies and travellers residing in or resorting to their area”, whilst in fact Basildon Council says that any new pitches which it allows will not be reserved for local Travellers who are already residing in the area; that this contradicts their statement that the new pitches will be allocated by their housing policy as the 1996 Housing Act normally requires a “local connection”; that it also means that the local Travellers may have to live by the roadside although the 2004 Housing Act promised them legal pitches by 2011.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons debate this matter; and urge the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government: to exercise his powers under s225 and 226 of the 2004 Housing Act and s8 of the 1985 Housing Act (c. 68) to see that all local authorities, including Basildon, find enough affordable pitches for all their local Travellers; to urge all local authorities to show humanity by following the decision of the Court of Appeal in 2008 in the Wychavon case, by not evicting Travellers, especially those on their own land, until an alternative affordable site is available for them, as was intended by the 2004 Housing Act to happen by 2011; to ask local authorities to follow the High Court decisions v Basildon in 2000 and 2004 that even normal school children should not be evicted; to ask Basildon to follow the High Court in the Margaret Price case by not offering Homeless Travellers only bricks and mortar, but affordable pitches; and to ask Basildon not to evict the sick, or the elderly or break its undertaking to the High Court not to use Bailiffs of bad conduct.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Julie Morgan, Official Report, 30 March 2010; Vol. 508, c. 787.]

[P000803]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government:

The Courts have found that Basildon District Council is within its rights to evict travellers from unauthorised pitches at Dale Farm and Hovefields. The process of eviction is a matter for Basildon District Council.

The Government expect those carrying out the eviction to do so responsibly, calmly and lawfully, and for the Council to meet its responsibility to provide appropriate services for those who need them within its jurisdiction.

The Government understand that Basildon District Council has been working closely with the police, emergency services, local education authority, health authorities and social services to ensure that the likely impact of eviction on children, vulnerable adults, those with health conditions and other specific needs is taken into account.

Westminster Hall

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 19 October 2010

[Jim Dobbin in the Chair]

Railway Industry

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Mr Vara.)

09:30

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dobbin, and to have this opportunity to debate the future of the railways.

I want to set this debate in the context of the economic situation that we face and express the concern felt in many quarters that the policies we believe that the Government may pursue could make things worse. I hope that colleagues will join me in welcoming the thousands of trade unionists who are coming to the House today as part of the TUC lobby of Parliament. They include many rail workers. I hope that we will listen to what they say before tomorrow’s comprehensive spending review.

I pay tribute to the rail workers who work in all conditions to keep Britain moving. It is important that their voice is heard in this debate; I hope to discuss their concerns and those of service users. I declare an interest as a member of various parliamentary trade union groups organised by the railway trade unions. I have also worked closely on the issues with the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, the Transport Salaried Staffs Association and ASLEF.

It is important to remind ourselves of the three policy areas under consideration that involve the future of the railways. First, the previous Government, after the 2009 pre-Budget report, established a value-for-money review of our railways. According to the Government, the review, headed by Sir Roy McNulty, has no no-go areas; everything is up for grabs. The new Government have asked that the review be expedited. We understand that it will be published in March, but the Secretary of State has already been given the interim findings, which I am told are likely to be published in November. I also understand that Sir Roy told the Secretary of State that his interim report was not at a stage to be used to inform any decisions made in the comprehensive spending review, but will the Minister confirm that?

The second major policy context for this debate is the comprehensive spending review. Like other Departments, the Department for Transport will, we believe, be asked to make big cuts. There are understandable concerns that if we make cuts to our railways, we will damage the infrastructure needed to drive economic recovery and growth as well as to meet the ambitious targets that we set ourselves in the Climate Change Act 2008. There is also concern that the comprehensive spending review will punish UK passengers with even higher fares, although ours are already the highest in Europe.

The third major policy area is the Government’s review of rail franchising, which has generated headlines saying that the train operating companies are clubbing together to demand that the Government hand over longer franchises. The companies are also demanding more say in—and, we believe, eventual control over—our railways, including track, signals and stations. The suggestion seems to be that we should re-create the big, private, regional rail companies that the Labour Government eliminated in 1945 when we nationalised the railways.

Given those policy areas, I will use this debate to highlight some concerns raised by passengers and rail workers. We have read reports in the press that the protection afforded by regulated fares might be weakened, and that UK fares—already the most expensive in Europe—could rise by 30% or more. Passengers will find that hard to stomach, particularly as they know that senior directors of the big five transport companies that control most of the railways are still paying themselves salaries that most people, frankly, consider obscene. We know that the railways depend almost entirely on annual public subsidies and the revenues generated by fares. In effect, by awarding themselves such large salaries, railway executives are forcing taxpayers and fare payers to subsidise their excess.

The trade union RMT has researched the matter and provided me with some shocking figures. RMT says that Moir Lockhead—recently of FirstGroup, which runs First Capital Connect, First Great Western, Hull Trains, First TransPennine and ScotRail—was paid more than £500,000 last year, as was Ray O’Toole, recently of National Express, which runs c2c Railways. David Martin of Arriva, the highest-paid director, was paid almost £750,000, and Brian Souter of Stagecoach Group is paid more than that for running South West Trains and East Midlands Trains, but top of the tree is Keith Ludeman of Go-Ahead Group, who was paid a salary of £916,000 last year and whose salary has since increased by 35% to £1.2 million.

Will the Minister comment on those salaries and join me in agreeing that passengers, who face big fare increases and are likely to suffer the consequences of cuts in the subsidies provided to our railways, will find such salaries unacceptable? Those salaries are paid, in effect, by the taxpayer and fare payer. I hope that she will agree that transport bosses should be exercising pay restraint, particularly at a time when the Government are asking everybody else to tighten their belts. I also hope that she will agree to write to the transport companies asking them to exercise restraint.

My second point is about the behaviour of the privatised transport companies and the profits that they have made from privatisation. Over the past 10 years, the biggest five transport companies have paid dividends of more than £2 billion to shareholders. Over the past seven years, the three rolling stock leasing companies that own the trains have paid dividends of more than £1 billion. Professor Jean Shaoul of Manchester university estimates that since privatisation, dividends of more than £10 billion have been paid.

As colleagues will know, windfall taxes on utilities have been levied successfully in the past. The Government are also considering a levy on bankers. Will the Minister agree to consider imposing a windfall tax on the profits of the privatised railway system instead of penalising passengers with fare increases? At the very least, does she agree that instead of paying huge dividends, railway companies should be helping protect passengers and taxpayers at this time by agreeing to freeze dividend payments and invest all profits back into our railways instead?

Will the Minister consider the work of Richard Murphy of the Tax Justice Network? He undertook a study, a copy of which has been submitted to the value-for- money review, that considered the available sets of accounts for the six railway operating companies and three railway leasing companies operating in the UK between 2002 and 2006. He found that during that period alone, those companies owed £1.3 billion in unpaid tax that the Government had not chased. Will she read a copy of that study and examine its conclusions?

My third point relates to the future of Network Rail. The Minister will be aware from the McNulty review of the railways that the same companies paying their top directors such handsome salaries and making massive profits now hope also to profit by taking over the tracks and signals currently owned and operated by Network Rail. Although Network Rail is a private company, it is a not-for-dividend company. That means the £4 billion or £5 billion annual subsidy does not leak out of the industry in dividend payment; instead, any profits are reinvested in the railways. Whatever faults Network Rail may have, taking railway maintenance back in-house has clearly had the effect of reintegrating much of our railways. Indeed, I believe that that has been responsible for the significant improvements in punctuality since the Hatfield disaster.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important and timely debate. When the track renewals company Jarvis went belly up earlier this year, some 1,200 employees were made redundant and only about a quarter of them have so far got another job in the railway industry. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government will need the skills of skilled track-laying workers, if they build the new north-south high-speed railway that will run from London to Birmingham and on to Yorkshire and the north-west? I regret that I must attend another meeting at 10.30 am, but will my hon. Friend press the Minister on what the Government can do to secure jobs for those redundant workers who have not yet got jobs themselves, so that their skills can be retained in the railway industry and used to build new railways?

[Katy Clark]

My hon. Friend makes some powerful points, to which I will return later in my contribution. The privatised rail companies propose to threaten the progress that has been made in the railways in recent years. They want their companies to take over the infrastructure, perhaps on leases that would coincide with the length of the franchises. There is talk of trialling such arrangements in Merseyside or Scotland. The train operating companies have promised that that will incentivise them to invest in the railways, but they have provided absolutely no evidence to support that submission. Indeed, the evidence of the past and of their tenure with the railway passenger services shows that they simply seek to maximise profit and boardroom pay, as I have already mentioned. In fact, the Government’s own consultation document, “Reforming Rail Franchising,” states:

“European procurement law makes clear that contracts over 15 years require significant investment to be provided by the franchisee. Therefore, our starting proposition is that 12 - 15 years should be the standard length of franchises”.

That seems to say that we should extend franchises to the maximum length at which franchise holders have no legal obligation to invest significantly and leave investment completely at the discretion of the franchise holder.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

I assure the hon. Lady that, whatever the length of the franchise, we will be pressing for the best deal for the taxpayer, including investment with longer franchises—whether they are for 10, 15 or 22.5 years.

[Katy Clark]

I am very pleased to hear the Minister say that. However, if we are going for franchises of approximately 12 to 15 years, there will not be that legal obligation, which must have a consequence for the decision that companies make.

[Mrs Villiers]

I am sure that the hon. Lady will appreciate that franchise documents impose significant legal obligations, and we expect those to include investment in the railways, particularly where a longer franchise is granted.

[Katy Clark]

I am pleased to hear the Minister say that. If the Government decide to go down the path of franchises of such a length, we will be actively scrutinising the situation to ensure that the contracts in place not only are legally binding but are enforced and deliver for the taxpayer and those who use the railways.

We know that the train operating companies are demanding further fragmentation and privatisation of our national railway structure. The former Network Rail chief executive talked about simply sweating the assets of the railway infrastructure. If franchises were coming to an end and existing operators were either not going to bid again or were not shortlisted for replacement, there is a great deal of concern that there would be little pressure on them to invest.

I also ask the Minister to consider carefully concerns that breaking up Network Rail would have a negative impact on rail freight. There is a real fear that passenger operators will be tempted to fill any spaces in the timetable with their own revenue-raising services, which would push freight to one side. Freight trains are often heavier than their transport equivalents and can do much damage to the track, which raises the possibility that the private operator could limit free access or leverage high track access charges on the movement of freight. That would force freight from the railway to the road, which would have a series of unhelpful environmental consequences.

Many people in the industry and in the rail trade unions are also concerned about the arguments of those who are making the case for breaking up Network Rail. In particular, they are concerned about the report of the Office of Rail Regulation, which is quoted again and again as stating that, compared with other European railways, Network Rail is up to 40% less efficient. I say to the Minister that hon. Members may make such points today because they have read articles in the press, but many in the industry, the RMT and the other railway unions have a great deal of concern about that report’s methodology. They believe it is flawed and that it has cherry-picked different aspects of rail infrastructure efficiency from abroad to paint our railways in a more unfavourable light. The report does not seem to take into account factors that determine efficiency, such as adequate investment over long periods, the need for a unified command structure and, most importantly, the continued fragmentation of our infrastructure compared with European railways.

We need to consider the benefits of having an integrated, publicly owned railway. I therefore hope that the Minister will ensure that those conducting the rail review—and the Government themselves—do not just look at the issue on an ideological basis, but consider the comparisons with other European railways. There has been some concern about the ORR’s report and I suggest to the Minister that she should be willing to receive more detailed representation from those who are concerned about that issue. It is obviously vital that we make the right choices for our railways.

In June, the Secretary of State said:

“Passengers and taxpayers will rightly ask why it is that our railways in the UK are so much more expensive than those in the rest of Europe.”

I believe that the answer is already there for him to see. For example, the 2009 European Commission report into the rail market made it clear that the structure of UK railways is radically different from that of railways in the rest of Europe. In terms of passenger operation and infrastructure, most of the railways in Europe are publicly owned and accountable, whereas in the UK they are not.

Compared with other railways in Europe, the organisation and structure of our railways is horrifically complex—they are fragmented and have numerous interfaces. We have 24 operating companies, three freight operators, three rolling stock leasing companies, two infrastructure controllers—Network Rail and Eurotunnel —and seven major infrastructure renewal companies. That must lead to huge inefficiencies. There is a duplication of function and a loss of economy of scale. In addition, the fact that there are so many individual companies means that there are increased profit margins and transaction costs—even the legal and consultancy fees are duplicated again and again. Skilled personnel validate and monitor contracts instead of getting on with the job and, perhaps most damaging, there has been a loss of a rail culture that focused on getting the job done, with one company and one stakeholder blaming the other when things go wrong. I understand that the rail review has already indicated that the railways could save hundreds of millions of pounds a year by reducing that fragmentation and the number of different organisations involved with them.

I hope that the Minister will look at what is happening to railways across Europe, which are overwhelmingly publicly owned and far more integrated than those in the UK. I believe that that would provide a better service and cheaper fares for the public, that it would be better for the environment and that it would lead to more high-speed rail and more electrification. Will she give an undertaking that there will be a transparent consideration of an integrated and publicly owned railway and that the methodology used to consider those matters will be made public?

I pay tribute to those who work on the railways. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) mentioned the Jarvis workers who have already lost their jobs. Thousands of Network Rail workers have been asked to make efficiency savings and many have already lost their jobs. I hope that we are now moving towards a period of stability and consolidation. We know, as he indicated, that many of the Jarvis workers are still without work and have lost their pensions. Given his comments, I suggest that it would be helpful if the Minister met me, him and other interested colleagues to discuss the plight of those workers and whether the Government can do more to ensure that alternative employment is available for them in these difficult economic times. Thousands of jobs have already been lost on our railways, on both the passenger and freight sides, and we are also seeing a gradual attack on train guards as companies try to introduce driver-only operations, which will reduce staffing levels even further and, I believe, raise significant safety concerns.

In Scotland, the Scottish National party Administration have taken advantage of the clause included in all railway franchises that allows railway companies to ask the Government to make good the loss of revenue caused by strike action. The Labour party in Scotland says that it will remove that clause from ScotRail franchises if it is successful in next year’s elections. Does the Minister agree that the current review of railway franchises should look at that matter and remove that provision from all franchises?

Many people who work in ticket offices are losing their jobs, with implications not only for them but for safety. We know that there is some protection for ticket offices, as train operators are required to consult passengers and Passenger Focus if they wish to shut offices or change their opening hours. Does the Minister agree that those protections must remain in place and should not be removed as a result of the review? Thousands of jobs are under threat in London Underground, many in ticket offices, as a result of the Mayor’s decision to renege on his election promise on staffing levels. Cuts will also fall elsewhere, including safety-critical railway maintenance jobs. As a result, there has been strike action on the Underground, as the Minister is aware. Indeed, the workers who were hailed as heroes after the London bombings in 2005 are now often vilified in the press as enemies of the state. I hope that there is a negotiated settlement to the dispute, and I pay tribute to those members of the RMT and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association who are taking a stand on behalf of passengers and rail safety.

I have put several questions to the Minister and am most anxious that she respond to them either today or, if she is unable to do so, in writing at a later date. I will mention those questions again, because they can often be lost in Adjournment debates. Will she clarify whether the McNulty review will inform the transport decisions in the comprehensive spending review set out tomorrow? Will she write to the executives of the big transport companies and ask that they practise pay restraint in the boardroom? Will she agree to a levy on the profits of the privatised rail industry or, at the very least, tell the companies to freeze their profits and invest them back into the railways? Will she meet me and other interested parties to discuss the continuing plight of the former Jarvis workers? Will she ensure that the franchising review results in the removal of clauses that allow taxpayers’ money to be used to indemnify train operating companies against losses incurred during industrial action? Will she ensure that the Government transparently consider the benefits of an integrated and publicly owned railway network and publish the methodology that they will use to consider the matter?

09:55

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this important matter, and I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) for securing the debate. Railways are a key part of our infrastructure, and if we are serious about global warming, investment in them is key. Today, however, I would like to focus on the challenge I face in my constituency. We have a delightful coastal railway—it starts in Exeter and terminates in Plymouth—running through Starcross, Dawlish, Teignmouth and Newton Abbot in my constituency. It is probably one of the most beautiful parts of the railway network and has been photographed countless times. More importantly, it is a lifeline for my local community, providing jobs and transport.

The records that I have been able to review show that 2 million people used that part of the network in the past 12 months. The local economy is heavily dependent on tourism. Devon as a whole had 5.3 million visitors in the past year, and those tourists are responsible for 7% of Devon’s economy. My constituency is in the district of Teignbridge, where tourism is critically important; it is the second most visited district in Devon. A third of the workers in Teignbridge—16,000 people—depend on tourism for their jobs. I urge the Minister to consider how important that stretch of railway is, not only because it is beautiful, but because it really matters to the economic viability of that part of the country.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady outlines accurately some of the benefits that railway provision can bring, particularly to areas that require tourism infrastructure, such as my constituency and hers. Does she agree that simple investment in railways, such as the passing loop system, which does not exist on single-lane tracks in my constituency and might not in hers, can help to build the tourist infrastructure to which she alluded and make the switch from private cars to railways so much easier?

[Anne Marie Morris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I do not claim to be an expert in railway loops, but the most important thing is to ensure that we have viable railway networks at an appropriate and affordable cost, which is something the Minister is best placed to look at.

My concern about the stretch of the railway network in my constituency is that there were suggestions during the last Parliament that it is not worth maintaining it and that we should instead consider an inland route. That proposal was made because the line, which is on the coast, is subject to coastal erosion. Clearly that is a concern, but given the work that was done during the last Parliament, I think that we all agree that maintaining the existing line was economically the right answer, despite the coastal erosion.

The House of Commons inquiry came up with the figure of £100 million to put in a new line. By comparison, I have been able to unearth a figure of £200,000 to maintain that stretch of railway. On the concern about erosion, the latest studies show that we are looking at a relatively safe period over the next 50 years. The expectation is that there will be a 0.3 metre rise in sea levels in the next 100 years which, while important, should not detract from the viability of maintaining this piece of track.

I would also draw to the Minister’s attention the fact that usage of this railway line is one of the fastest growing in the country; it is anticipated that it will grow by 19% over this and next year. It is obvious that the more we invest in maintaining pieces of railway, the less dependence there will be on cars. In rural parts of the country such as mine, there is already significant dependence on cars, so this line makes an important contribution. I urge the Minister to look carefully at the line and at continuing investment in it. The last conversations that I had with First Great Western and Network Rail indicated that there was no intention of reducing investment, but I would be grateful if the Minister looked into that.

My final question, which is related but of more national import, is about rolling stock. The trains that come down my piece of railway line are very full. I understand that, under the previous Government, obtaining new rolling stock was very much down to the Government, who controlled what rolling stock train operating companies could acquire. That put a straitjacket on the proper commercial operation of those businesses, and I would be grateful if the Minister looked at loosening that stranglehold so that companies can make sensible commercial decisions. Hopefully there will be sensible use of rolling stock down the line.

10:02

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I shall make several brief points. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I chair the RMT parliamentary group, as the Minister will know. We are hoping that through the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, the Transport Salaried Staffs Association and ASLEF, we can have a dialogue with the Government during this key period when critical decisions are being made about the future of rail. I would welcome an early ministerial meeting to discuss the interim McNulty report when it is published in November. It is a pity that it was not published before the comprehensive spending review, because it would have been helpful to see whether it influenced some of the decisions that will be announced tomorrow.

The RMT group met with Roy McNulty last week for an informal discussion of some of its concerns about what happened in the past and what seems to be occurring under this Government. We were hoping that there would be a more objective discussion about the future structure of rail in this country, but it appears that any prospect of looking at an integrated railway system under public ownership—even some element of public ownership in the structure which would enable a public sector comparator—has been ignored again.

I still cannot comprehend why we cannot at least consider using one of the franchises as a public sector comparator. We know from the experience in the south-east that when Connex was brought back into public ownership for a period, it ran more efficiently, more effectively and more profitably than most other franchises across the country. We hoped that the previous Government would at least maintain it in public ownership so that there could be a public sector comparator.

If Members trawl through Hansard, they will see question after question over past years in which Ministers were asked why we cannot have a public sector comparator. They were also asked what calculations and assessments had been made in respect of other systems across Europe that are under integrated public ownership, so that we could at least make some judgment of the private franchising system that has been in operation in this country for the past two decades.

Several lessons have come out of independent comparisons. It has been found that integrated systems under public ownership, without a panoply and multiplicity of various agencies—my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) listed 24 different companies and four or five regulatory bodies or Government decision-making bodies—are more efficient as well as more cost-effective. I am concerned that in Mr Roy McNulty’s review there is still a prejudice even against examination of a public sector option or role in any part of our system beyond Network Rail.

Briefly, on investment, the rail industry overall, including management and unions, hopes that commitments will be given by the Government in the comprehensive spending review statement to high-speed rail—we look forward to the consultation starting in January—and to Crossrail. That would at least allow us to see a longer-term future for investment in the infrastructure that we so desperately need.

I compliment the previous Government, who at least committed themselves to Crossrail and to bringing forward high-speed rail, although I was critical of some of the delays in investment. We need this Minister to tell us that that long-term programme is secure.

The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) discussed rolling stock. Even under this Government, we need a discussion about investment in rolling stock, which would stimulate British industry rather than the import market. With a limited amount of investment and a commitment to the purchase of rolling stock, there is potential to rebuild the rail manufacturing base in Britain. This relates largely to what my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) said about the loss of skills over years if we do not invest in the rolling stock manufacturing base of our country.

Any lifting of the cap on protected fares will fly in the face of everything that the Government, when they were in opposition, said about their commitment to the development of rail as one of the key transport mechanisms that will help us to protect our environment. The threatened increases of anything up to 37% to rail fares on some routes, and now the threat of increased fares on London underground, undermine the Government’s green credentials from the outset. I hope that there will be some acknowledgment in the comprehensive spending review of the role that rail plays in tackling climate change, and therefore the importance of maintaining fares at a reasonable level.

Passenger numbers have increased dramatically over the past 13 years, largely as a result of the increase in economic activity. As we go into recession, there will inevitably be a reduction of passenger usage, and there will be a temptation to make up the funding gap by increasing fares. That would be completely counter-productive: it would push more people off public transport and, as a result, have a dramatic impact on our policies to tackle climate change and our environmental policies overall.

Finally, let me raise a staffing issue. The treatment of the Jarvis workers was a disgrace. The way in which they were notified of the loss of their jobs was appalling. They have almost been turned into roaming serfs looking for work. We hear stories of people having to move around the country on zero-hour contracts, and even of people putting up camps near to where they can bid for work the following day.

I raised the matter with the previous Government and said that there should have been an intervention by the Government and Network Rail, and that the contracts and staffing levels could have been maintained. Things were badly handled then, and there is a need for this Government to intervene now, because this is not just about how individual staff are treated; it is also about the expertise that we need for the future.

Surely to God we have learned lessons in the past that if we do not maintain expertise, and therefore do not maintain the track effectively, there will inevitably be accidents, loss of life and serious injury. We have had so many inquiries—surely we have learned the lessons. I urge this Government to intervene, to look at what happened in the displacement of ex-Jarvis workers and their expertise, and to see what can be done to secure not just their jobs but also their expertise for the long term.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I declare an interest in the debate, as I have a constituency development plan with the TSSA.

On the staffing point, does my hon. Friend agree that if we break up Network Rail, we will create not only more insecurity for workers, but a bidding structure for them? When rail was first privatised, the bidding war for drivers made the cost much more expensive because each franchise then bid for certain expertise.

A more important issue is safety. Already there is erosion of track inspection and other safety elements. If we fragment the industry further, especially track control, we will certainly make accidents, such as those at Grayrigg, Hatfield and so on, more likely.

[John McDonnell]

I could not have said that more eloquently. My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. I urge the Government to tread carefully when making decisions on franchising and the integration of track with operations, because we have seen what has happened elsewhere. Mr Armitt said that when companies have gained franchises in other sectors, they seek to “sweat the assets” to maximise their profits. That eventually has an implication for safety. Having a nationally integrated system would overcome those issues.

My hon. Friend also referred to the transaction costs involved both in that sort of breaking up and in individual franchising. The Government should carefully examine Roy McNulty’s work and the transaction costs that will result. On London Underground, I was assured by the previous Government that Metronet was a one-off failure and that Tube Lines would be secure, but we then had the failure of Tube Lines. The estimated cost of those franchises and setting up the public-private partnership was £400 million on consultancies, accountants and lawyers alone. The Government should learn lessons from the past.

On London Underground staffing, despite what people read in newspapers, RMT and TSSA have taken industrial action because 800 jobs will go if London Underground does not reconsider its position. Those 800 staff are based at stations including Hayes and Harlington in my constituency. If we lose those staff, we lose security and safety at those stations in the lead-up to the London Olympics. We are trying to put on a display for the world so that when people come here to enjoy the Olympics, they can travel in comfort and absolute safety. It would be a retrograde, short-sighted step to lay off those 800 staff, particularly at this key time.

I urge London Underground to return to the negotiating table and to seek a settlement with the two unions. Otherwise, there may be a long, bitter and protracted dispute that will affect the travelling public in a way that will jeopardise their safety in the long term. The dispute is a principled one. It is not about wages, but about looking after the safety of the travelling public. That is why I support it and have appeared on picket lines. There may be a role for the Government. If London Underground remains intransigent, the Government should intervene, because the matter is important.

I welcome this important debate engendered by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. I urge the Minister to meet the union groups, to discuss the McNulty report on the long-term future, and perhaps to return to the matter in six months to monitor progress on the Government’s initial decisions.

10:09

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I welcome this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on securing it and on making a wide-ranging and knowledgeable speech about the railways, despite her inability to avoid a quick stab at the Scottish Government.

I want to concentrate on two areas that concern my constituency—the future of the east coast rail line and the plan for the high-speed rail network, both of which are vital to our economic future. The east coast line is vital to the north-east of Scotland because it provides the major cities of the north of England direct access to London and, importantly, to the cross-channel network through the Eurostar and Eurotunnel and, I hope, to Germany if the proposed connections to German cities come to pass. The line provides an important link for business and tourism and is a vital economic asset.

I have had serious concerns for some time about the future of services on the line, especially north of Edinburgh. I raised those concerns as far back as July 2009, and when the franchise went from National Express to East Coast. The line north of Edinburgh has long been a problem because it is not electrified, so it has been difficult to reduce journey times from Aberdeen to Edinburgh. When the previous Government committed themselves to purchase new dual electric-diesel trains to run the whole length of the line, there was considerable hope that that would lead to a reduction in journey times.

When the franchise was transferred, Lord Adonis, the then Secretary of State for Transport, assured me and others that there was no danger of cutting services north of Edinburgh. Unfortunately, shortly before the general election, he postponed the purchase of the new trains and left the decision until after the election. I thought at the time that that was an ominous sign, and so it has proved to be. The new Government have twice postponed the decision, more recently until the comprehensive spending review, which is due tomorrow. That has the ring of a death knell for the contract to purchase those trains.

I appreciate that the Minister will not tell us today, before the Chancellor’s announcement, what will happen, but I remain gloomy about the prospect for those trains. The matter is important, and I asked her a written question about the services north of Edinburgh. She replied:

“The current level of direct services between London and Aberdeen and Inverness will continue to be provided when the new East coast line timetable is introduced in May 2011.”

So far, so good, but unfortunately, she continued:

“The longer term future of direct services between London and Inverness and Aberdeen will be determined by forthcoming decisions on replacement of the current rolling stock.”—[Official Report, 16 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 1244W.]

The Minister may say that I am wrong, but alarm bells rang because she seemed to be specifically linking the services to the rolling stock and, by implication at least, if the rolling stock is not purchased, long-term services are at risk. If I am correct, that is a short-sighted way of looking at the future of this important line because its importance is not only economic.

The coalition Government claim to be the greenest ever, but that seems to be a pretty shaky claim if they do not consider the need to reduce carbon emissions by providing more rail than air transport. Failure to provide regular services from the north-east of Scotland will seriously impact on that. I have used the line many times to travel down to London. I take the train from Montrose in my constituency, and it takes around six and a half hours to get to King’s Cross. From Aberdeen, the journey is around seven hours. Clearly, that is a long train journey, and business men coming from Aberdeen, which is Europe’s oil capital, are faced with the option of taking a plane from Aberdeen airport, which takes approximately one and a half hours to London. Even taking into account the time taken to check in and to get in from Heathrow, it is clearly quicker to go by air. However, even with the existing service, for someone travelling from Edinburgh the decision to travel by air or train is much more marginal.

The point is that if we are serious about moving travellers, particularly domestic business travellers, from air to rail, the issue that must be addressed is not just price, but time. We must ensure that there is a realistic alternative, and that can be provided only by speeding up journey times. I appreciate that the proposed new trains are not a magic bullet for the problem, and that the decrease in journey time provided by the trains alone might not be all that significant. The line has various other problems, not least the physical restraints at Montrose in my constituency, where part of the line is single track and the geography of the area makes it difficult for it to be dualled. However, the proposed dual fuel trains would send a clear signal that the Government are serious about investment in the railways, and in ensuring that we continue with the regular and worthwhile service that links Aberdeen directly with London and through to the continental mainland. Unless we look at such proposals, we will undoubtedly fail to persuade people to switch from air travel to rail, even if the Government use taxation to push up the price of flying.

[Julie Hilling]

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s point about trains and the green economy. Does he agree that electrification pushes all the buttons for the green economy? Electrification makes trains greener, it is better for the environment, it increases the speed of the train and reduces the wear on the track. We must continue with electrification, particularly in my constituency where the previous Government were committed to the electrification of the lines between Liverpool and Manchester, and Manchester and Preston. Electrification speeds up journeys; today, a person would be crazy to take an aeroplane from Manchester to London, although that option was frequently used in the past. Electrification is a key part of the argument.

[Mr Weir]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. Whether electrification is greener than its alternative depends on how the electricity is generated, but that is an associated issue. However, she is right that the faster train journeys can be made, the more likely it is that people will use the train rather than travel by air. That is my point. Flying to London from Manchester or Birmingham no longer makes sense, but it does make sense to travel from Aberdeen by air unless something is done to speed up the train line. I appreciate that that is not easy to do, but the Government must look at the issue seriously.

My other point is about the high-speed rail network. The Government have announced their proposal to go with the Y route, which would run up the centre of England to the north-east and the west coast. It will speed up journey times and, if I understand it correctly, link up with the east coast line and provide a slightly faster journey time at least as far as Edinburgh. As it stands, however, although the proposal will considerably speed up rail travel to the north of England, it does not address the central problem of taking the line further north into Scotland. If the Government are serious about the issue, we must look at an extension of the line to ensure faster travel times from Scotland and encourage people away from the longer domestic flight routes. Unless we do that—and the same argument goes for the east coast—we will not get the green benefits that we hope for. As it stands, if I were to use the high-speed line to get home, I would probably have to change train twice to get to Montrose, and that will not significantly reduce the journey time.

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Gentleman may recall from the coalition’s programme for government that we want a genuinely national network. Experience tells us that that must be delivered in phases as it takes some time. The ultimate goal, of course, is to take high-speed rail to Scotland. It would be interesting to hear whether the Scottish Government are willing to devote resources to that programme in the future. I have discussed the issue with them, and I hope that in the future they will consider whether they can devote some of their resources to aiding such a project.

[Mr Weir]

I am sure that the Scottish Government will do that. However, there is not much point in building a high-speed line if it does not link up with the rest of the network. At the moment, the high-speed line will run nowhere near Scotland. I understand that Network Rail had a proposal that would have taken the line into central Scotland. That would have made more sense, it would have linked central Scotland with the main high-speed network running south, and it would have provided the basis for an extension of the network further north. At the moment, as the Minister knows, the high-speed network comes nowhere near Scotland, and it will be many years before it gets as far as Edinburgh. The Government seem to take a London-centric view of the matter. If we were to tip things the other way so that the line ran south, the speed of journeys would increase faster and the green objectives of the Government and the Scottish Government would be met.

The Scottish Government have invested a lot in the railway in Scotland. I accept that that is their responsibility and that some of the work must be done in Scotland—there is no argument about that. For example, the Scottish Government opened a new station at Laurencekirk on the east coast line, although strangely enough the direct mainline services will not stop there, so people still have to get a train to another station to get on those direct services. ScotRail runs a good service to Edinburgh and Glasgow, but again, people have to change trains to get on to the direct line to travel further south. People going on business trips look for a direct service. New lines have been opened from Stirling and Alloa; there is a new line from the border and considerable improvements along the Paisley corridor. All those things have improved rail travel in Scotland, but we still need links to the lines that will take us to continental Europe through the Eurostar network. To do that, unfortunately we need to rely on the Government in this place taking action on the east coast line and the high-speed line.

My main point is to ask the Minister about the rolling stock for the east coast line, which is the responsibility of her Department. As the hon. Members for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) pointed out, the new trains are vital to show that the Government are serious about investment in our railways and in the important economic asset of the east coast line. I appreciate that the comprehensive spending review is tomorrow, but I urge the Minister to ensure that the rolling stock is purchased and that a clear signal is given about the future of the line.

10:27

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

I am pleased to contribute to this important debate about the future of the rail industry, particularly as this is my first official outing as a member of the Opposition Front-Bench transport team. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on securing the debate today.

In recent years, a welcome consensus has developed around the importance of support for the railways, both the conventional and high-speed varieties. All parties recognise the important role that the rail industry must play in reducing the environmental impact of travel, and welcome the growth in passenger numbers that we have seen in recent years, to the point where more people travel by train today than at any point since the 1940s.

We need a system that works effectively and puts the needs of passengers, and indeed freight, at its core. We all want a clean, safe and efficient train network in the future, and one that is fit for purpose. The previous Labour Government were committed to providing that and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, we hope that the current Government recognise the need to continue the investment in the railways that our country so desperately needs. Given the comprehensive spending review tomorrow, we may well soon see how committed the Government are to the future of the railway industry. Like my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, I also welcome the lobby today by trade unionists and the TUC. We should remember that everyone is rightly concerned about the cuts that might be announced in the near future.

I would like to look at fares. The coalition’s programme for government stated that they were

“committed to fair pricing for rail travel.”

Will the Minister comment on reports from Channel 4 News over the weekend which speculated that we could face double-digit rises in train fares over each year of the spending review? It was reported that train fares are expected to be more than 30% higher by 2015, and industry sources pointed to a possible 40% hike in prices by 2015.

Media reports also suggested that the cost of a typical commuter season ticket between Brighton and London could increase from £3,104 a year to £4,260 by 2015, and between Swindon and London from £6,640 to £9,130. Does the Minister think that long-suffering train users will be willing to accept that?

[Mrs Villiers]

I would be grateful if the shadow Minister answered a question. Is he saying that if Labour had been re-elected, it would have cut rail fares?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am very grateful to the Transport Minister for that, but of course it is my job to ask her questions. Labour is in opposition and I am asking whether she thinks that those kinds of speculative rail increases are fair on passengers.

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Gentleman should not believe all he reads in the papers. The coalition is committed to fairness on rail fares. The announcement on the fares formula for the next few years will be made on Wednesday in the comprehensive spending review.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I appreciate that, but it could well mean that some lines end up with a pricing of RPI—the retail prices index—plus 5%. That is particularly ironic, as the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who is now a Transport Minister, was elected on a pledge in the Liberal Democrat manifesto on train fares for RPI minus 1%; and the Secretary of State, as the Minister has reiterated today, has previously said that he has made a commitment to fair fares.

Passengers will not pay more for less. If they see increasing fares alongside cuts to plans for new capacity and infrastructure, that could mean fewer people travelling by rail. What guarantees do we have that fare rises will be matched by infrastructure and capacity improvements? I appreciate that the Minister will be reluctant—perhaps unable—to add much today and we shall have to wait to see what the Chancellor of the Exchequer says in tomorrow’s comprehensive spending review.

Franchising was mentioned. The Government’s consultation includes an intention to impose a far more relaxed and flexible specification. Flexibility can be a good thing, but there is a worry that a hands-off approach could allow train companies to become too focused on short-term profit and cost cutting, rather than delivering the best service for passengers and encouraging greater use of the railway. Will the Minister give me assurances that that will not be the case and that sufficient specification to guarantee socially important services will remain?

It is encouraging that there is interest in rail franchise bids from not-for-profit, mutual or co-operative franchise enterprises. Indeed, I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) has secured a debate on that topic in Westminster Hall tomorrow. However, there are still unfair barriers that prevent such bids from benefiting passengers and taxpayers, as we saw recently with the attempt by the Co-op through its Go! Co-operative initiative, which would have been the UK’s first co-operative train operating company.

I shall refer briefly to some recent investments in rail. It is important to acknowledge, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and others did, the significant progress that the previous Labour Government made in the past decade in rebuilding the country’s transport infrastructure after many decades of under-investment, which happened, to be fair, under Governments of all political persuasions.

We have completed the £9 billion programme to modernise the west coast main line, resulting in massive reductions in journey times, as I thankfully know from experience. It is now less than two hours from Stockport to London and, more importantly for me on a Thursday, from London back to Stockport.

Performance, capacity, reliability and safety levels throughout the rail network have improved significantly. High Speed 1 was up and running ahead of schedule, and the stunning redevelopment of St Pancras station proved to be a fitting terminal for high-speed trains to and from the continent. We delivered Britain’s first high-speed rail line and set out plans for a new north-south high-speed rail network—points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir).

We more than doubled investment in local transport from 1997, improving accessibility and helping to tackle social exclusion in local communities. By May 2010, investment in transport had reached its highest level as a proportion of national income for 30 years. In addition, Labour finally achieved what previous Governments had tried but failed to do, in securing a funding deal for Crossrail. That is one of the most ambitious transport projects of recent years and will add 30,000 high-value jobs to London in the first 10 years and add an estimated £20 billion to the UK’s gross domestic product. We also set in place the £5.5 billion upgrading of Thameslink, which will introduce new cross-London routes and, with longer, more frequent trains, will allow for much-needed capacity, more seats and less crowding on key routes in the capital.

The northern hub made it an ambition over the next 20 years to increase the number of train services in the north, including cities such as Newcastle, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield, by 40%—700 more trains a day—making it possible for 3.5 million more passengers to travel by train every year. Those innovative and challenging projects were either delivered or planned. We need to continue that long-term focus on infrastructure and service if we are to provide Britain with the transport system that it needs to compete in the new global economy.

I wish to raise some specific issues with the Government. Transport cuts so far have totalled £683 million. That includes £108 million coming from Transport for London and £50 million from the better stations programme. I declare an interest, as that had a particular effect on Stockport station, which affects some of my constituents. The plans for hundreds of extra carriages to ease overcrowding have been put on hold.

In opposition, the Conservatives criticised the Labour Government in their 2009 rail review document, which recognised the need for extra capacity but accused us of not taking the problem seriously. There is a need for more trains, and I ask the Minister to tell us what the Government will do to alleviate that problem.

Can the Minister give me an assurance on electrification—an issue mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling)—both of the north-west routes and the great western main line, which are important projects to both regions? Likewise, can the Minister confirm that the Thameslink replacement of rolling stock will go ahead, which would in turn lead to the cascading of trains to the great western main line and the north-west routes?

The Government owe it to London’s business community and the travelling public to be open about their plans for Crossrail. Will the Crossrail project be delivered in full, as proposed by the previous Labour Government? Will there be any cost cutting in areas such as engineering, which could lead to shorter platforms and less capacity? Will the number of stations on Crossrail remain unchanged?

May I ask also about the bonfire of the quangos that we saw last week? What plans does the Minister have for Passenger Focus and what will its functions be now? How will disabled passengers be heard effectively now that the present Government have abolished the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee? The input of disabled passengers should be important, and that body provided a unique opportunity for both disabled people and industry to represent their case to Government.

The Government need to look beyond the period of the comprehensive spending review. We need a long-term vision for rail and we need to deliver these projects to build on our ambition for a world-class rail service in this country. The previous Labour Government left the rail network in a far better condition than we found it in. Rail passenger numbers increased by 40% in the past 10 years, and punctuality and quality of service improved steadily over that time, too. That is not an inheritance that the current Government should squander.

10:38

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on securing the debate, and congratulate the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), on his recent appointment and his first address from the Front Bench.

I thought that it would be useful to consider the questions that the hon. Lady helpfully repeated at the end of her speech. First, she asked whether Sir Roy McNulty’s work is informing the comprehensive spending review. Neither his interim report nor his final report have yet been published or finalised, but I can assure the hon. Lady that Sir Roy has kept my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and officials at the Department for Transport informed of his work, so that is feeding into the decisions being made on the comprehensive spending review. The early draft work, as it has been going ahead, has helped us to feed into the Treasury process and the CSR.

The hon. Lady also asked whether I would write to the executives of the rail operating companies about remuneration.

[John McDonnell]

Before the Minister moves on from the McNulty report, I point out that I asked whether she would meet the rail unions to discuss the McNulty report when the interim report is published in November.

[Mrs Villiers]

I was going to come on to that, but I am happy to answer it now. I have slight qualms about this while the industrial action is continuing on the London underground, because I am concerned about the huge inconvenience that that is causing passengers. As the hon. Gentleman is keen for me to meet the unions, I am happy to do that, but I would still urge them to find an alternative way to resolve their dispute on the London underground.

[John McDonnell]

The two issues are unconnected. We will make sure that the right hon. Lady can travel on a non-strike day.

[Mrs Villiers]

I suppose that I am particularly sensitive about the issue because the day on which I was due to meet the Transport Salaried Staffs Association coincided with a strike day so, for all sorts of reasons, it seemed inappropriate to go ahead with the meeting.

Turning to remuneration in the rail industry, the level of pay across the industry clearly needs looking at in the context of the McNulty review. I have discussed remuneration levels with the train operators, and I expect that dialogue to continue.

The hon. Lady’s third question was about introducing a windfall levy for the train operators. The Government have no plans to do that. Her fourth question was whether I would meet her and colleagues to discuss those who—tragically for them—were made redundant by Jarvis. Yes, I would be happy to do that.

On the franchising review, the hon. Lady asked specifically about a clause on ScotRail and she will appreciate that that is a matter for the Scottish Government, but she also asked a wider question about the approach that the UK Government will take in relation to the franchises for which we are responsible. I am not convinced that we should have a blanket withdrawal of that type of indemnity clause; there is a place for such clauses in appropriate circumstances. She then asked whether the McNulty review, and the Government considerations flowing from it, would look at an expanded role for the public sector and additional nationalisation. That is certainly one of the options that Sir Roy will consider.

The hon. Lady also asked about ticket offices and the loss of guards. In many cases those are matters for those operating services, but the overall approach in relation to the franchises is governed by the ticketing settlement agreement. We need to look at reforming that, to ensure that we get it right, but it is obviously important to consult properly with the communities affected by the decisions.

The hon. Lady also talked about the strike action on the London underground and the loss of guards. I am convinced that we need to modernise working practices in the rail industry. I am concerned, as I already said to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), about the damage to the London economy caused by the strike action that is taking place. We have to recognise that the way in which people buy tickets has changed, and that rightly will impact on London Underground’s decisions about the deployment of its staff.

[Julie Hilling]

Does the Minister consider important the feeling of safety of passengers travelling on the underground, and on the rail network generally? Stations can often be very lonely, scary places for all rail users but particularly for women travelling alone. The fact that we have staff in ticket offices and on platforms increases both the feeling of safety and the actual safety.

[Mrs Villiers]

Forgive me; I am probably trespassing on devolved matters because the relationship between London Underground and its employees is of course a matter for which the Mayor is politically accountable. I have to say, however, that of course I am concerned about security for women using public transport—I am a woman myself—but there is a real argument for saying that staff deployed on platforms are more valuable to passenger security than those stuck behind ticket office windows. I am not sure, therefore, that the security issue can justify the retention of ticket offices. Security focuses on whether people have access to staff in stations, which is not the same as whether a ticket office is open.

I shall go on to some of the wider issues addressed by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. I would like to assure the House that the coalition has put rail at the heart of its strategy for transport, in terms of re-energising our economy, reducing carbon emissions and addressing congestion on our roads. I welcome the support shown today for taking into account the concerns of both passengers and rail freight—a point rightly made by the shadow Minister. Much will depend on the announcements made tomorrow in the spending review. It is clear that transport will not escape the pain that is the unfortunate consequence of the deficit that we have inherited from the previous Government, but I emphasise that the Chancellor has made it clear that he recognises the economic benefits of investment in infrastructure to support economic growth, and that he recognises in particular the importance of investment in transport infrastructure.

The shadow Minister asked me about Crossrail. I am sure that he welcomed, as I did, the support expressed by the Chancellor at the weekend for the Crossrail project. We have also expressed clear support for Birmingham New Street, we are taking forward plans on high-speed rail and we are working very hard on Thameslink. Our focus in all those projects is to ensure that we value-engineer costs down to keep the projects affordable and deliverable within the spending envelope that is now available.

[John McDonnell]

I emphasise that, although there is a commitment to the Crossrail project overall, people are concerned about the paring down of the project and the missed opportunities that might result from that. For example, in my own constituency, Hayes and Harlington station is to be redeveloped. If there is any paring down in the investment of such station projects, we will miss the chance to include modal transfer opportunities and to ensure the integration of our local transport network.

[Mrs Villiers]

Both the Secretary of State and I have repeatedly talked about our support for delivering the whole project, and it is worth bearing in mind the excellent work done by the team behind Crossrail to find lower-cost ways to deliver the same transport benefits, and to deliver the whole project.

It is true that there has been significant good news on the railways in recent years. Since privatisation there have been some striking successes, with train punctuality now at record levels and a significant increase in the number of passenger journeys. Also, the number of miles travelled on the railways has gone up by 75%. Since privatisation, therefore, a story of managed decline has been transformed into one of significant growth. Although the recession has subdued that trend to a degree, we expect it to resume once the economy recovers.

So, that is some of the good news about the UK’s railways. But the downside is that the cost of running the railways did rise dramatically under our Labour predecessors. If we are to deliver the improvements to services and capacity that hon. Members have called for today, and that passengers want, we have to find a way to get costs down. The disastrous deficit left for us by our predecessors makes it essential that we drive out cost inefficiencies on the railways, and we owe it to passengers to do our very best to get costs down.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Does the Minister not also recognise that it was the investment by the previous Labour Government that led to the very improvements that she has just championed as a cause of privatisation?

[Mrs Villiers]

I certainly recognise that the previous Government invested in the railways, and we would expect investment to continue under the current Government, given the huge importance of the railways to our economy and to our climate change ambitions. I covered the fares issue briefly in response to the shadow Minister, but I shall repeat my comments on it. The coalition is committed to fairness in rail fares, but the reality is that the crisis in the public finances means that we might have to take some difficult decisions on fares, as in other areas. As I have said, I am unable to give further details on the fares formula until it is announced for the coming years in the CSR on Wednesday.

There has been much discussion about the McNulty process, which is focused on trying to understand why the cost of the railways is higher in this country than in other parts of Europe, and I am sure that today’s discussion will contribute to and inform that process. It is important that a range of options be considered, and as part of our drive to deliver high-quality rail services at an affordable cost we need to consider how we reform Network Rail. Not even the levels of taxpayer support over recent years have succeeded in turning the company into the customer-oriented organisation that train and freight operators want. That fact was driven home when the rail regulator published the figures, to which the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran referred: the potential 40% efficiency gap between Network Rail and European comparators. I acknowledge that there are always problems comparing Network Rail precisely with different railways in the rest of Europe, but these things should sound a warning bell that there is an issue to be addressed. If we are to be fair to passengers and the taxpayer, we need to find a way to make Network Rail more efficient.

[Katy Clark]

I think that it is accepted on all sides that there are issues to be addressed; indeed, that was why the previous Government set up the review in the first place. However, the Minister will have listened to what I said about the concern about the methodology used in the ORR report. Is she willing to hear further representations about that from those in the industry who have concerns? Given the publicity that the issue has had in the press, there is clearly a view that the Government will listen to the ORR report rather than taking a more forensic look at how other European railways operate.

[Mrs Villiers]

Of course I would be happy to accept further representations. One reason why we have continued with the McNulty study, which was set up by our predecessors, is precisely to find the true picture of the cost of Network Rail. The work done by the ORR is valuable, but it is just one point of view. Sir Roy is drawing on views and research from across the rail industry, including internationally, to find out what the facts really are.

Whatever reform we ultimately select, we will need to stress-test it in relation to the interests of freight operators. It is vital that we get the right balance between the interests of the railways’ passengers and freight customers.

In looking at the options for reforming Network Rail, it is interesting to look at what has been done north of the border. Network Rail has decentralised its Scottish operations, and accounting separation has been introduced. We need to look carefully at whether such decentralisation might improve Network Rail efficiency in other parts of the UK.

My officials are working with Merseytravel, the passenger transport executive for Merseyside, to explore whether to devolve the running of the track used by the Merseyrail franchise so that it is wholly governed by local decision making. That project could help to provide an important benchmark against which to measure Network Rail’s performance.

Another key issue is whether further contestability could be introduced for some of the work now carried out exclusively by Network Rail. Again, there is a Scottish example that is worth considering. In 2006, for example, Transport Scotland opened up about £20 million of rail funding for smaller-scale enhancements at stations and asked for offers from Network Rail and the train operators. By the end of the bidding process—if I recall correctly, this was under the Labour Administration— £19 million of the £20 million available was allocated directly to the passenger operators because their bids were judged to be better than Network Rail’s. A similar approach has been used for the national stations improvement plan in England.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran talked at length about franchise reform, which is the second limb of our work to improve the railways’ performance for passengers and to get better value for money. The Department for Transport has recently concluded a consultation, and we are considering the responses. As I assured the hon. Lady during her speech, we want to encourage greater private sector investment in return for potentially longer franchises. We would continue to impose legally binding contractual obligations in franchises, including on the scale of the investment promised. We hope and believe that longer franchises will help us to deliver the investment and improvements that passengers want, including better stations. Longer franchises should also make it easier for train operators to invest in long-term relationships with Network Rail and their work force, which are crucial to running the railways efficiently.

We want to move to a system in which franchises are less heavily specified. In response to the shadow Minister’s questions, however, I can assure him that we will continue to set demanding outcomes for train operators to achieve in terms of the quality of service that they deliver. We will have demanding and legally binding requirements to protect the interests of the passenger and the taxpayer. The difference is that in setting those outcomes, we propose to give the people running the railway more flexibility over how they deliver them.

[Katy Clark]

The Minister will recall that, in my initial contribution, I quoted the Government’s consultation document, which said that European procurement law referred to 15 years and that that was why a starting point of 12 to 15 years should be the standard length of franchises. Does she not accept that that rings alarm bells? Will she explain why there is a link between European procurement law and her starting point?

[Mrs Villiers]

Obviously, the UK Government are bound by European procurement law to procure public contracts in a fair and objective way. In the context of rail franchises, it sets a top limit of 22 and a half years for contracts that involve investment. The reference to European procurement law was included in the consultation document because it governs the maximum that we can deliver in terms of rail franchises. Throughout the process of negotiating franchises, however, we will look to secure the best deal possible for the taxpayer, and we will ensure that we continue to protect the passenger interest. Train operators that do not comply with the obligations we impose on them will face sanctions, which, in extreme cases, could include removing the franchise.

In the few minutes that I have available, I want to talk a little about the inter-city express programme in response to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir). I can assure him that we have no plans to scrap through services to destinations such as Aberdeen and Inverness, which he mentioned. As he said, the report produced by Sir Andrew Foster referred to one of the alternative strategies for the IEP, which involved ending those through services. As I said, however, we have no plans to do that. We recognise the economic value of such services, and we have certainly received strong representations from the Scottish Government and Scottish colleagues about the importance of retaining them.

[Mr Weir]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Villiers]

I am sorry, but I have only two or three minutes, and I want to respond to an awful lot of points.

The hon. Gentleman and others talked about the electrification of the railways. We included our support for electrification in our programme for government and we recognise its benefits. It will support our sustainability objectives and improve services for passengers. It will become more and more of a greener option as we decarbonise the electricity-generating network. The pace at which we can deliver electrification will obviously depend on affordability and the priority of tackling the deficit. Much will depend on the comprehensive spending review announcement tomorrow. Of course, these decisions are also linked with the work on the high-level output specification rolling stock programme, Thameslink and the future of the IEP. An announcement will be made on those in due course.

Lastly, in the brief time that I have, I want to reiterate the Government’s support for high-speed rail, which is a vital upgrade for our transport network. We recently announced our support for a Y-shaped network, with a line to Manchester and trains running on from there to the west coast main line and Scotland, and another line splitting off at Birmingham and going through the east midlands and South Yorkshire to Leeds, with trains, again, running on to the existing network and destinations further north. We will consult on that shortly. We will also have regard to the communities affected by the line’s local impact before taking final decisions on whether to go ahead and what route to take. We appreciate that realistically these lines can be delivered only in phases, but our ultimate goal is to deliver the national network, for which I am sure there will be cross-party support.

Much has been achieved since privatisation, but we need a fresh focus on reducing costs in the railways that we already have. We need a drive to deliver high-speed rail because of the huge benefits that it can provide. The coalition is determined to meet both those challenges, and I welcome the representations that I have received on them today.

Historic Towns and Cities

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity for this debate on historic towns. I understand from some hon. Members that there is debate about what constitutes an historic town—I see my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) is present; but definitions are definitions.

I spoke in a previous Westminster Hall debate about the economic development of seaside towns, and that enabled me to discuss some of the problems of the town of Fleetwood, in my constituency. Today’s debate gives me the opportunity to raise the issues that face another large part of my constituency—the city of Lancaster—and especially the issues concerning its economy and future growth prospects. The debate will also give others a chance to talk about the economies of their constituencies, and to raise areas of concern with the Minister.

I want to cover four main themes in my speech: heritage versus development; transport; tourism; and more general support for business and economic regeneration in Lancaster and the surrounding area. I am well aware that some of those issues are not the direct responsibility of the Minister, but they are all cross-cutting subjects that will ultimately affect the future of Lancaster, and I hope that you will give us some latitude, Mr Dobbin.

Lancaster’s heritage is what makes it unique. It has an ancient history, which is glaringly obvious in the fabric of its buildings and the layout of its roads. That is an economic strength, because it feeds tourism, but it can also prove a drawback when it comes to developing the city. There is an obvious tension between preserving the ancient and historic elements that give the city its character and soul, and allowing much-needed development to take place, so that residents can have access to 21st-century facilities and business can expand and create jobs. Often, those tensions can be resolved easily, but equally often positive proposals for change can be stymied. I want to focus on one example.

Lancaster lacks a large-scale department store development, which means that local people and outside custom must travel to Preston, Manchester or, increasingly, Kendal, to obtain access to the types of stores that residents of other cities take for granted. That means that we do not have the trade that other cities have. We pride ourselves on the individuality of our small and family-owned shops, which is one of the strengths of the Lancaster shopping experience, but there is a lack of balance in the retail offer that is available to attract outside custom. Accordingly, proposals were put forward, by a company called Centros, to develop land owned by Lancaster city council and Mitchell’s brewery, Lancaster’s own brewery, for the creation of a new shopping complex. The complex would include a 97,500 square feet Debenhams store, a residential area, improvements to local theatres and an enhancement of the canal-side environment. That represents an investment of £150 million, and the possibility of 1,000 extra jobs for the area.

There has been opposition to the scheme, as will always happen. It is mainly co-ordinated through the campaign group Save Our City, but in general Mr and Mrs Lancaster have the feeling that something needs to happen. The developer took two years to consult extensively on the project. I understand that English Heritage was difficult to contact and that it did not engage with the consultation until the end of the process was at hand. However, it submitted its views, and at the end of the developer’s consultation the plans were redesigned, to take account of concerns that were raised, including initial concerns that English Heritage had highlighted.

After that redesign stage English Heritage seemed happy, and accordingly decreed that the plans could be dealt with at the local level. The council then set aside two whole days for the planning application to be considered, at the end of which, in October 2008, the plans were passed, with a large majority—15 to four. Lancaster city council has continued to support the project since. I should point out that there is no overall control on the council. In fact, there are six political groups, and five in the cabinet, so it may be imagined how difficult it is to reach any kind of agreement at any time.

Most of the site that is due to be developed is flat already. Almost half the land that is designated for development is currently car parking space. However, part of the Mitchell’s brewery site is very old. It has 18th-century buildings, which would, at one point, have been of significance. However, the decision of the Secretary of State, on the initial advice of English Heritage, was not to list any of the buildings. It was considered that Mitchell’s brewery was “too altered” and not of sufficient architectural significance

“to merit listing in a national context.”

Moreover, the adviser’s report continued:

“Mitchell’s brewery has been assessed for listing on two previous occasions and was found to be not of sufficient quality or historic interest to merit addition to the statutory list.”

It added:

“The recent application for listing contains no new information, and thus there is no justification for revising the earlier assessments that the site was not listable.”

However, at the last minute—and hon. Members may see where I am going with this—at the end of that drawn-out process, almost five years after the plans were first conceived and after the local council had approved the development, English Heritage performed a U-turn. That seems to have been on the basis of a new concern lodged by a member of the campaign group Save Our City and evidence submitted by regional advisory staff at English Heritage. English Heritage subsequently submitted a new report to the then responsible Minister, who ruled that the plans must be put on hold.

What precisely had changed? The developers have been trying to establish the exact reasons for the U-turn ever since and are seeking a way forward. My predecessor as Member of Parliament for Lancaster, who is now my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), sought information from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport through the Freedom of Information Act. However, the Department has been less than forthcoming. The information released, especially the report to the Minister, is heavily redacted, which provides us with little opportunity to understand what actually went on.

To be fair, I understand that English Heritage is now engaging with the developers again, but also that it is undertaking a new analysis of the site, brick by brick, with no end to the process in sight. I sometimes wonder whether, if English Heritage had existed in 1945, every bomb site in Britain would have been declared an historic site. Obviously, genuine heritage needs to be protected. It is not in the interest of the city council to do anything to detract significantly from the beauty and history of its built environment. That would only lessen the tourism economy and detract from the character of a beautiful city. However, when a local council and local businesses come up with a sensible scheme that would retain the character of a city but also give residents access to better, modern facilities, and provide regeneration and jobs, surely it goes against the grain of our new localism agenda to allow central Government to veto those plans. Moreover, if English Heritage has the power to interrupt the plans at the last minute, surely it must have a responsibility to be open about why it has made such decisions and to complete whatever other surveys it feels are necessary as quickly as possible, so as not to delay further such an important scheme.

I have one other point to make on the matter before I move on. If English Heritage is to have resources pared back as part of the comprehensive spending review, will the already slow, drawn-out out process of its involvement slow down similar applications in future? This is a time when we need private investment and jobs, not least in the north-west of England and certainly in Lancaster.

I have mentioned the obvious benefit that tourism brings to historic cities. Lancaster is no different. According to the council’s website, the visitor economy is worth some £260 million a year to the area within the city council boundary. Many other cities have a focal point for their tourism industry: for Chester, its Roman history and walls; for York, the minster; and for Ludlow, its castle. Lancaster, too, has a castle, which is historically significant and contains the only remaining part of a building that was constructed by Henry IV; it is still owned by the Duke of Lancaster, Her Majesty the Queen.

However, the castle is not as big a tourist attraction as it could be. Large parts of it are still used as part of the oldest functioning prison in the world, leased by the Ministry of Justice from the Duchy of Lancaster. Courts also still operate inside the castle. The Prisons Minister has recently announced his Department’s wish to terminate its lease of the castle and it is suggested that the Duchy, together with the local council and other interested parties, can operate it as a more highly specialised tourist attraction. The council is certainly keen that that should happen, having sought such an outcome for several years and having included the possibility in its tourism strategy document of a few years ago.

Once again, we can see the problem of tension between the old and the new, although in this instance both the status quo and a change of use for the building have economic consequences for the city. If the prison is closed, many prison staff will lose their jobs or have to relocate. The Prison Service will lose one of its best performing prisons, despite the ancient nature of the building. At the same time, there is a degree of scepticism about where the funding will come from to remove a prison from an ancient castle and to terminate a lease—a lease from the duchy—and, in the present financial climate, about whether the county or the city council will have the wherewithal then to convert it into a major tourist attraction. We await events, but that is why I am trying to talk to the duchy, the Ministry of Justice, the council, prison employees and others to find the best way forward. I hope I am wished some luck.

Transportation, too, affects a lot of historic cities, and has a role to play in economic development. The narrow lay-out of streets in historic towns was often planned centuries ago, with little regard for modern modes of transport. Accordingly, transport links and road congestion are other problems faced by places such as Lancaster.

Often transport patterns have changed. New towns and cities have sprung up in recent decades, and new housing estates or industrial sites have been built, meaning that journeys are being made to places to which there was no need to travel in the past. Lancaster suffers particularly badly from traffic congestion.

One of the main contributors to the problem is the heavy vehicles travelling to Morecambe and the port of Heysham, because there is no link between the port and the M6. Traffic comes off the motorway and through Lancaster city, forcing queues to form as traffic waits to get over the only two bridges linking Lancaster and Morecambe en route to the port of Heysham. Plans for a link road have lain on the drawing board for some 50 years—but there has been no action. Now the plans for the link road are part of the proposals put on hold by the Department for Transport in the run-up to the spending review.

The link road has the support of the vast majority of businesses in the area and is championed by Lancaster chamber of commerce. I support the road, as does my next-door neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris), through whose constituency the road would run. The road is important for future growth in Lancaster and, without it, links to the city are poor and businesses will continue to suffer. Moreover, the port of Heysham is to be improved, with its connections to the Isle of Man and Northern Ireland, and there is the possibility of a new nuclear power station being built at Heysham, so we need the road to help such expansions take place. Those expansions should lead to new jobs for the area. I also hope that in the not-too-distant future the scheme will be approved and we will get our link road, after such a long wait.

However, the link road would not be a panacea for traffic congestion. Local transport movements of smaller vehicles would still mean congestion, especially at the choke points approaching the bridges. Local transport schemes need to be funded to allow better car movements—again, there will be tension between planning and keeping the character of the city centre. We need to encourage a modal shift to buses and other forms of sustainable transport. Once again, reduced congestion can only help local business.

I turn now to specific regeneration and business support measures. I welcome those Government decisions that are likely to help small businesses, such as a further extension to small business rate relief and a tapered drop in corporation tax over the next few years. They are welcome and will encourage growth across the city.

Lancaster has one of the highest proportions of public sector workers in the country, and the announcement on the comprehensive spending review tomorrow will lead to a reduction in the public sector work force. So, I am pleased that the Government have established the regional growth fund, which will create a £1 billion pot to help the transition from dependence on public sector jobs to the private sector. The fund will be vital in supporting private enterprise outside London and the south-east. I hope that Lancaster and Fleetwood, and the surrounding area, will get their fair share of the support package.

That leads me to my final point. I am pleased that the Government have stuck to their promise to abolish regional development agencies. Those bodies were bureaucratic and, in the north-west, a great deal of their funds ended up in the big city conurbations of Manchester and Liverpool. With respect to those cities, it too often seems to us in Lancaster that, for many people in London, the north-west seems to end on the outskirts of Manchester and Liverpool.

The new local enterprise partnerships, therefore, should allow smaller, more focused efforts at development, designed around the needs of more homogeneous communities. I know that there are a number of bids in Lancashire at the moment and I hope that we will end up with an LEP model that achieves the aim of bringing adequate, properly targeted investment into our area while providing suitable economies of scale.

In conclusion, Lancaster knows, as does the rest of the country, that it must face up to the deficit legacy of the previous Government. It knows that Government support, in terms of investment, will be tight. So please allow Lancaster, when it believes it has the local wherewithal, to encourage new investment and to protect what is best in its historical heritage. Please do not allow Government agencies and quangos to get in the way.

11:14

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) on securing this important debate. I listened with care to what he said.

Striking a balance between preserving heritage and generating jobs for people in the present day is important. However, I do not take the view that heritage is an obstacle to development. If I look at my own constituency, the city of York, I see the valuable built heritage as an enormous economic asset.

York is especially rich in built heritage. The Multangular tower is, I think, the only extant Roman building in Britain that still rises 10 metres above the ground. The minster and city walls were mentioned by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood. York has mediaeval streets such as Shambles and Georgian streets such as St Leonard’s place, as well as Victorian architecture. Great museums, such as the National Railway museum, the Jorvik Viking centre, the Castle museum and the Yorkshire museum, and the race course all attract visitors to York in their millions. In the last year for which I have figures, 2008, 7.1 million tourists visited York—2009 figures will be out soon—and they spent £450 million in the city, creating thousands of jobs for local people.

Those historic assets, when combined with extremely good schools, two excellent universities and York college, in a brand-new building, have made the city of York a magnet for investment. There are new industries such as those based on bioscience, which have grown out of expertise at the university of York campus. Engineering, which still employs thousands of people in York, draws on the city’s long railway heritage, and there are, as I mentioned, thousands of jobs in tourism and retail.

The York economy performs particularly well. Almost 80% of the working-age population in York is in employment, compared with less than 75% nationally. Only 6.8% of people in the city of York have no qualifications at all, compared with more than 12% nationally. More than a third of the population in York—36%—have a national vocational qualification of level 4 or above, compared with only 29% nationally. Only 4% of young people in York are not in education, employment or training, compared with some 14% nationally.

In terms of business growth, York again does well. Between 2000 and last year, the number of businesses in York grew from 4,645 to 5,820. No one could possibly say that York’s exceptionally rich heritage is an obstacle to economic activity or development. In fact, it is an asset.

There is a citizen-led campaign in York for the city to gain UNESCO world heritage status, which I support. There is no evidence that Edinburgh castle and the Royal Mile have suffered as a result of the city obtaining UNESCO world heritage status. I hope that the York bid will get support from York city council and from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It would in no way interfere with development, because York and its planning authorities have to safeguard the heritage whether or not we have UNESCO world heritage status.

When the developers were digging the foundations of the Coppergate site 30 years ago, they uncovered Viking Jorvik. Far from demanding money from the Government to dig the site, the York Archaelogical Trust made the dig a commercial success, in the same way in which the Jorvik museum is now a commercial asset to York as well as an important guardian of the city’s rich historical heritage. The site draws visitors to the Coppergate area, which is a shopping centre as well, so it is good for business, too. The same is happening in Hungate. The Archaeological Trust is currently digging the site in a way that is compatible with development.

York’s historic assets, such as the minster and the National Railway Museum, are treasures of national and international importance. As such, they need support from national Government. I welcome the decisions that were taken in the Government’s quango cull this week not to get rid of the independent status of the National Railway Museum and, particularly, not to merge English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund, which are two bodies with separate roles. English Heritage has a regulatory role and makes grants available from public funds, whereas the Heritage Lottery Fund makes grants available from lottery receipts, and we need both bodies. I warmly welcome confirmation of the Heritage Lottery Fund’s grant of £9.7 million towards the restoration of York minster’s great east window, which is the largest mediaeval work of art anywhere in the world. It is a Yorkshire icon and has been for centuries. It will cost some £25 million to restore, and our generation must not fail to maintain an international treasure with the status of York minster.

Yorkshire Forward had promised two substantial grants to heritage bodies in York. Some £5 million had been pledged towards the cost of re-displaying the exhibition in the National Railway Museum’s great hall—which has not been re-displayed since the museum was first built—and £1 million was to go towards restoring the minster’s great east window. As a result of the Government’s decision to abolish regional development agencies, those grants were withdrawn. Although I do not want to get into an argument now about the benefits of regional development agencies today, I do want to say to the Minister that if a vehicle for distributing resources to generate employment is going to change, which it is, it is important that the new mechanisms recognise the importance of heritage as a generator of employment, and that there are times when grants need to be made to support heritage because of the economic and employment consequences of so doing.

I know that we live in straitened economic times, but there is much that the Government can do to support the valuable heritage of historic towns and cities such as York that does not necessarily cost a fortune. Sir Ron Cooke, a former vice-chancellor of the university of York and a fellow of the Royal Geographical Society, recently wrote the interesting document, “Downtown York: a practical manifesto”. Although I do not expect the Minister to read it because I know that mountains of paper go across ministerial desks, I commend it both to his officials and to officials in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. There are some big ticket items such as major economic developments to which the Government would have to make a contribution. The York central site, for instance, is a large one—it is probably two thirds of the size of the area within York’s city walls—behind York station, bounded by railway lines with difficult access. It is a huge development site adjacent to the city walls, which provides enormous opportunities for York’s continued economic development. Without some Government funding for access roads, for instance, that development will not take place.

In his paper, Sir Ron Cooke says:

“York’s inner-city streetscape, its ambience and public realm, are unique and spectacular resources that are fundamental to the city’s present and future prosperity. They are amongst the city’s special selling points, not just for visitors, but also for residents, entrepreneurs, investors, job creators, employees on the move, and students.”

He says that those streets are the stage on which everyone plays. He makes the point that through planning decisions, we sometimes undermine or wreck that very special ambience. In the 1960s for example, some concrete and glass buildings—thankfully, only a few—were built in the centre of York. We recently gave permission for a rail engineering firm to build a block that overshadows the city walls. Those planning mistakes should not be repeated, as they undermine what is special about York and what draws investment to York.

Sir Ron Cooke also mentions signage. We litter everywhere with street signs. Sometimes, a big illuminated concrete or stainless steel monstrosity is erected in the wrong place. There is one such sign at the end of Shambles, which is the prettiest mediaeval street anywhere in Britain. The signs can be taken down; they are not needed. The streets of York were not built for motor cars, and most of them are pedestrianised anyway, so cars do not go up and down them. If a bollard is really needed, we could put up something appropriate that is made of cast iron rather than concrete. Such things do not cost a fortune. We could set up a committee to plan in a different way. Given that York and other historic cities are such valuable places for running businesses, developers tend to want erect buildings that are in keeping with the surroundings.

I know that many other hon. Members want to speak, so I will conclude. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood for obtaining this debate and giving me the opportunity to say a few words.

11:27

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) on calling this debate. However, my sentiments and sympathies are more with the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), which is perhaps not surprising, given that I represent Britain’s oldest recorded town. For the record, it was the first capital of Roman Britain when London was just a few huts on the mud banks of the River Thames.

When we talk about historic towns and cities, we must recognise the need for central Government. They cannot be left to the local council of the day. We are, after all, today’s custodians of yesterday for tomorrow. Short-term, quick decisions that are made can have a lasting legacy of the wrong sort. I say thank goodness for English Heritage. None the less, I wish that it had more powers in the decision-making process rather than had its powers weakened. Often, it takes a wider view. Is it right that a local authority should, to all intents and purposes, be lumbered with the financial consequences of maintaining national heritage? Colchester has the largest surviving Roman walls of any town or city in this country. They go back some 2,000 years, and they desperately need £500,000 to maintain them.

Colchester has applied for world heritage site status. It deserves such recognition not only in view of its status as the first capital of Roman Britain but because, in December 2004, the remains of the only Roman chariot-racing circus, or stadium, were discovered. The circus would have been a massive structure, accommodating 16,000 people in an all-seater stadium. We are lucky that the Victorians who designed the Colchester garrison in the mid-1850s left a huge expanse of greenery between the barracks to the east and the barracks to the west without even realising that they were doing so. The barracks have now moved out to the new barracks site and the standing requirement in Colchester for planning is that there must be an archaeological dig. In the dig at that site, the circus was discovered.

Colchester has a pre-Roman history. It was the home of the Trinovantes, the local Celtic tribe. The Romans invaded in 43AD and it was in the ancient British settlement that was located two miles to the south of modern Colchester—if we can call a Roman town “modern”—that eight Celtic kings offered their surrender to the Romans.

In 60AD, Colchester had a visit from Queen Boudicca, ruler of the Iceni tribe in Norfolk, who destroyed the town. In those days, the town, which subsequently became a Roman city, had a population of 10,000, a huge figure for that time. Remarkably, Colchester is the only Roman city that today does not have city status. When I queried that at the time of the millennium city appeal and the golden jubilee city appeal, I was advised that the only person who could remove city status once it had been granted was the head of state. The head of state who granted city status to Colchester was the Roman emperor. There is no record from the subsequent 2,000 years of the head of state ever withdrawing the title of “city” from Colchester and I put it to you, Mr Dobbin, that justice demands that we should have that city status reinstated.

We have to be careful with our historic towns and cities. I can show people around my town and show them that the Roman street grid pattern still exists today. The high street is the Roman road—people can see that it is still straight. Unfortunately, in the early 1970s in a street parallel to the high street, the “experts” said that the street pattern ought to be broken up. Consequently, a street that had stood for nearly 2,000 years—or rather the line of that street—has now been obliterated by a new shopping precinct, because that is what the “experts” said should happen in the early 1970s. However, about 10 years ago other “experts” said that that was the worst thing that had ever happened to Colchester, so we have to be careful with “experts”.

We are also a Saxon town. In fact, the tower of Holy Trinity church was built by the Saxons before the Normans came and it was built out of Roman remains. Furthermore, the Norman castle, which is vastly superior to any other castle that still remains in Britain and indeed is the largest Norman castle in Europe, was also built largely out of Roman remains.

I mention the Norman castle because it also needs loving and regular care and attention, as do the Roman walls, the Roman circus and Gosbecks archaeological park—or rather, Gosbecks would be an archaeological park if the Heritage Lottery Fund had coughed up the money that was sought in the park’s application to achieve such status.

We cannot expect a local authority to fund nationally acclaimed historic tourist attractions. So I am making a special plea that we need to provide national funding for such attractions. However, it is quite interesting that the last Government recognised that tourism had an important role and it provided millions of pounds, through the Arts Council and urban regeneration funding, for the arts. In the case of Colchester, what they thought would make a great tourist attraction was not all that Roman or Norman heritage, nor the fact that Colchester was one of the last major scenes of the English civil war—during the siege of Colchester, Colchester lost more lives within the Roman walls than it did during the two world wars. No, it was decided that what Colchester needed was not something to do with history but rather a visual arts facility to promote contemporary Latin American art. Such art is a subject that the people of Colchester constantly talk about—actually, I think not.

The original project price of that facility was £16 million. Today, the construction of the facility is running approximately four years late and £8.5 million over budget. I recognise that that money came from different pots, but I am criticising the previous Government for channelling it through “culture” when, in the case of Britain’s oldest recorded town, it should have been channelled through “history” and gone into the town’s history. If that £25 million had been spent on the various Roman and Norman sites that I have mentioned, it would have been far better spent.

So that is where we are. I want to conclude by referring to a relatively small part of the history of Britain’s oldest recorded town. The world’s most popular nursery rhyme was composed in Colchester in 1805. That nursery rhyme is “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star”. I will not recite all of it. However, the house where the Taylor sisters wrote it, which is in West Stockwell street, is currently on the market. I believe that the purchase of that building and its promotion as the place where the world’s most popular nursery rhyme was composed would draw in more visitors than the visual arts facility, which will also require an annual subsidy from the public purse of £600,000. So, on top of the £25 million that it cost to build an arts facility that most people in Colchester did not want but that was dumped on them, taxpayers will have to find £600,000 a year to subsidise the facility. As I have already indicated, if we had national financial support for our national heritage—whether that heritage is Roman settlements or “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star”—that money would be better invested and it would bring in the tourists.

11:36

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

I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) on securing this debate, which is of the utmost importance to his constituents and mine. Like Lancaster, York and Colchester, Chester is a beautiful historic city that has been economically successful for almost 2,000 years. As with many historic towns and cities, Chester was traditionally a county and market town, and the modern Chester still has a very important sub-regional role, providing jobs, shops and entertainment for a huge area that stretches across north Wales, Cheshire, the Wirral and north Shropshire.

As a result of their history, culture and pleasant surroundings, historic towns have tended to be very popular and desirable residential locations. However, such popularity and desirability bring about their own problems, in terms of high house prices and the difficulty that many local people face in affording housing in towns such as Chester. In the 21st century, we also face a threat to our traditional economy, which is based on being a retail and tourism centre, from increased competition, internet shopping, out-of-town retail parks and cheap foreign travel.

In Chester, we also have a problem that other historic towns and cities have not had to deal with so much. That problem is that we have not always taken advantage of our historic assets; we have not looked after them and we have not maximised their potential for economic advantage. We look to places such as York and see what has been done there, and we in Chester want to follow in the footsteps of the people of York and ensure that we are as successful as York has been.

There are a few challenges and opportunities that I would like to discuss. First, we must ensure that we all make maximum use and take maximum advantage of the assets that we already have. In Chester, we have a thriving shopping centre and we are already a world-renowned visitor destination. We also have the most successful zoo in the UK, the Roman walls and amphitheatre, and the Chester Rows, a site that is another applicant for UNESCO world heritage status. Furthermore, Chester Races draws tens of thousands of people to our city.

However, we need to do more to ensure that we continue to prosper in the 21st century. In the future, we need to give the people who come to Chester more. When people go shopping in Chester, we need to ensure that they get more than just the shops. We have to ensure that we entertain them and inform them as well. People have to know that if they come shopping in one of our historic towns there will be things happening—street entertainment, museums, galleries, theatre, a wide range of restaurants, interesting historic sites, and parks and open spaces in which they can relax. The same is true with tourism.

In Chester, we have been successful in getting people to come to our city on day trips, but we are aware that day-trippers do not spend huge amounts of money in the city; they tend to come in on the coach, spend a day there, have a look around and disappear again, without putting their hands in their pockets. We have to ensure that we start selling our historic towns and cities as a package. We want to encourage people to come to Chester and not only come for the day but spend a couple of nights. They could see the zoo one day or go to the races, then spend a day in the city centre going shopping or walking the walls and seeing some of our historic sites, such as the cathedral, and perhaps on a third day they could go to north Wales, into Snowdonia, or to Liverpool for the day. People need to know that if they come to Chester or one of our other historic towns or cities, there will be something going on regardless of the day, week or time of year. We need to start marketing our towns and cities as a package—a mix of history, culture, entertainment and shopping. That total mix is important.

Out-of-town shopping centres may have shops and the cinema, but do they have the culture and the history? A day trip to a theme park may be fun, but does it educate someone or allow them to shop in high-quality high street shops? It is only by maximising, and making the best use of, all our assets that we can work towards delivering our goal, which is to have a vibrant and busy local economy and for our historic towns and cities to thrive, compete and prosper in the 21st century.

Like the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood, transport and local transport infrastructure is one of the biggest problems we face. Historic towns tend to have been built before the invention of the motor car, and the Romans did not think of the needs of the car when they were building the city and laying out Chester’s street network. We also have the problem of being unable to adapt our local transport infrastructure due to our historic heritage. No one would seriously suggest blasting a hole in our city walls these days to build a new road or tramway, and, similarly, no one would consider knocking down a row of listed buildings to widen a narrow road.

Historic towns tend to be restricted by their geography. Chester, like many historic towns and cities, is built on the lowest fording point of the River Dee, and consequently faces huge problems getting people from one side of the city to the other, when the river is running through the middle. In Chester, we also have only two bridges crossing the river, so road traffic faces severe difficulties getting from one side of the city into the city and out. That is exacerbated by the fact that, like Lancaster, people have to travel through the city centre to get from one side of Chester to the other. We have to get away from through traffic being funnelled through city centres. Suitable bypasses that allow traffic to avoid the centre are, in many cases, a desperate requirement, and, to that end, like my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood, I would like to highlight the long-standing and desperate need for a Chester western relief road, which would not only relieve congestion within the city centre but open up a large area on the English-Welsh border for economic redevelopment in future.

When people get in to the city centre, they still face problems. Car parks are often worth more as development sites than car parks, which leads either to sky-high car parking charges or to a shortage of parking spaces in the city centre. We all want a reduction in unnecessary car travel, but for many historic towns, especially those with a large travel-to-work or travel-to-shop catchment area, car travel is necessary. Over-expensive parking or a lack of parking has only one effect: it discourages people from visiting the city centre and encourages them to travel to out-of-town locations instead. To combat that, local authorities have to ensure that there is adequate low-cost car parking. New and novel pricing structures need to be introduced as well. For instance, Chester has a free-after-three scheme, which allows and encourages local residents into the town in late afternoons and early evenings—traditionally quiet periods for the city centre shops—while ensuring that all-day parkers, who tend to have to go to the city centre to work, are encouraged out of their cars and into the park-and-ride scheme. It is more cost-effective to use the park-and-ride scheme for the day than use the car parks and fill up space needed for shoppers and visitors. Of course, such schemes also reduce rush-hour congestion.

We cannot forget the importance of the railways. Many historic towns and cities were key link points during the expansion of the railways in the 19th century. Typically, historic towns have very good rail links, which provide some strange ties—for instance, Chester has good rail connections with London, but the direct train to London stops at Milton Keynes. Chester has advertised in Milton Keynes, and we have had a huge number of people coming from Milton Keynes to Chester, because it is just as easy to get to Chester as it is to get to London for the day. We are encouraging people from Milton Keynes to come. I did not think that Milton Keynes was in a suitable catchment area for Chester, but it is, due to those rail links. Virgin Trains said that the Chester-London line has been its best performing line over the past year, so more people have been encouraged into the city, encouraging more improvements in our local economy.

We are lucky that our historic towns and cities provide a desirable environment; people want to live in and visit them. Companies want to be based in them and bring their customers to them. Consequently, we are seeing huge demand, even in these straitened times, for high-quality, modern business locations. However, there is a problem in historic towns in that it can be difficult to find room to accommodate that new business growth. We cannot easily clear large sections of an historic city centre for redevelopment without destroying our historic heritage. The city centre of Chester, like Colchester, is surrounded by walls, so there is a natural limit on growth in the city centre. Consequently, there are huge pressures to develop outside the town in the neighbouring green belt. Historic towns must be allowed to develop organically, and, sometimes, some green belt development may be necessary, but that should be only when there is no alternative. In the meantime, we must maximise redevelopment opportunities and take maximum advantage of opportunities as they arise.

The current economic situation and the proposed downsizing of all levels of government have a silver lining, in that they provide a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for historic towns and cities to release land in town centres for new development opportunities. The abolition of Cheshire county council last year led to the sale of the old county hall in Chester to Chester university for the development of a new riverside campus. The gradual downsizing of Lloyds Banking Group, following its creation through the merger of HBOS and Lloyds TSB last year, has led to a huge tract of land becoming available between Chester station and the canal in Boughton, which, I hope, will be redeveloped as a new business district in the heart of the city. Recent school closures have provided land for new retail development, new care facilities and new affordable housing for local residents. Therefore, there is a sliver lining to the reductions in Government expenditure and the release of properties in our historic cities for economic purposes.

Our historic towns and cities have, by nature, tended to be successful and prosperous towns. By selling our historic towns as a package, improving their transport infrastructure and allowing organic growth, we can help them to become even more successful in future.

11:49

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

This has been a good-natured debate, but I am afraid that I am going to introduce an element of controversy: I yield to no one in my belief that Bury St Edmunds, which I have the honour to represent, is the best historic town in these isles. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) on securing this important debate.

My constituency is truly historic. Its famous abbey ruins were central to the initiation of Magna Carta, and St Edmund, the patron saint of England, is buried there. It has a terrific cathedral whose tower was recently finished using millennium money. That is the true ship of the fens; forget about Ely cathedral. The town centre has magnificent Georgian streets and a marvellously restored Georgian theatre, the Theatre Royal. An important and traditional brewing business, Greene King, now one of the biggest brewers in western Europe, is located right in the centre of town, providing jobs and a focal point for community activity.

As many speakers in this debate have said, however, historic towns cannot stand still. If they are imaginative and have intelligent leadership, they must combine the best of the past and the future. For that reason, I wish to draw attention to the biggest retail development that Bury St Edmunds has ever seen: the Arc development, built on the old cattle market in the town centre. I pay tribute to St Edmundsbury borough council, under the excellent leadership of Councillor John Griffiths and his deputy, Councillor Sara Mildmay-White, for being an example of localism at its best. Such an important development would not have occurred without their vision and practical ability to drive it through.

Importantly to me and many of my constituents, the development, although modern, is architecturally in tune and in sympathy with the great historic core of my town. It was designed by Sir Michael Hopkins, whom architecture buffs will know as the architect behind Portcullis House and the auditorium at Glyndebourne. Anyone who looks at the design—thousands upon thousands of people from across East Anglia shop there, particularly at weekends—can appreciate what a fine piece of work it is.

The Arc has 370,000 square feet of retail, a 40,000 square foot public building—I will speak more about that in a minute—and 62 residential units. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) drew attention to the importance of car parking. That was a controversial issue during the development, but the Arc has 850 car parking spaces, including a particularly fine and distinguished underground parking facility.

The total cost of the scheme was approximately £136 million. The developers, Centros, assembled much of the finance, but St Edmundsbury borough council ensured that money was stumped up for the public venue, which cost about £16.5 million, including a modest contribution of about £1.5 million from the East of England Development Agency, which will soon be late and lamented, as it did its bit for my town while it existed.

The economic rationale for the development was clear. Several years ago, the town leaders—I played a modest part—understood that a new and more acquisitive society had been created by the boom years. Sadly, the boom years turned to a bust, but they will return under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. People want better retail and more of it. We realised that unless we moved with the times, Bury St Edmunds might keep its history, but it would not keep its retail sector running at the level necessary for the market town to remain vibrant.

We commissioned a study that showed that people in the Bury St Edmunds catchment area were spending about £700 million on what is called in the jargon “comparison goods”. The analysis stated that without the new development, the amount spent in the town would be only £263 million. In short, we were competing with the much bigger retail centres of Cambridge, Ipswich, Norwich and Colchester. We are now back in the game. Some of the early benefits and signs of the Arc’s importance can be seen in the figures produced by Experian, the financial analysts, for Bury St Edmunds since the opening of the development at the start of 2009.

Bury St Edmunds has moved from 161st in the country’s retail rankings to 145th. Some 300 new long-term jobs have been created on the site, and an unquantifiable but significant number of additional jobs have been created as a result of the development. Nine companies based in and around the town were involved in the building, which also boasts a timber-frame aspect and waste disposal facilities, all drawing on local business.

The main indicator of footfall in Bury St Edmunds is car parking. The number of cars parked in the town has risen by 8%, while centres in other parts of East Anglia have experienced a typical decrease of about 10% in the past two years. It is estimated that the development generates £500,000 a year in business rates. Not all the units have been let, so we expect that number to grow. The commercial property vacancy rate since the development opened has been about 8.5% , while the average throughout England and Wales at the start of 2010 was 12.4%.

Meanwhile—other hon. Members may have noted this phenomenon with regard to new developments in their constituency—outside businesses have come in to get a bit of the action. Where such businesses see more footfall, they see an opportunity to grow. Existing and long-established shops in Bury St Edmunds, such as Palmers, were initially concerned that they might be crowded out or that the new development might take away their custom. In fact, I am told, Palmers reports increased turnover since the Arc opened.

One significant entry into the town has been a high-quality, brand-new, badly needed Asda superstore west of Bury St Edmunds town centre, where it now serves a huge part of the population that felt disenfranchised in retail terms. That is one development for which the borough council cannot claim credit; it is all down to the doughty campaigners of the Howard estate, their unofficial leader Mr Ernie Broom and the redoubtable men and women, mainly pensioners, of the over-60s club on that fine estate. If I may be party political for a moment, they are an example of the big society in action. They assembled public meetings and persuaded Asda that a shop was needed there. We got the shop, and it has been a huge success. That ties in with the redevelopment of Western Way, where the borough council has moved its offices to a modern site.

I hope my few brief remarks have reflected what other colleagues have also said this morning: that history can, indeed, be combined with the best of the future. If towns have good leadership and individuals who want to participate to build a stronger community—a stronger business community—that will welcome tourists and shoppers from outside the area, there is a way forward. It is not always big Government who can make big developments happen. Like so many other historic towns, Bury St Edmunds does not need a handout; all it needs is a hand up from good leadership at the head of its communities. As I reflect on what has been achieved in the past two years, I am proud to have been the Member of Parliament for somewhere that is very fine and is, dare I say it, the best historic constituency.

[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I think I am right in saying that we may be about to have a debut performance from the Member speaking for Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition—Mr Gordon Marsden.

12:01

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

It is a great delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw)—a fellow Lancastrian MP—on his presentation and on securing the debate. In that welcome, I embrace all hon. Members who have contributed. If I were a tourist buff visiting from the United States or Japan, I would be absolutely gobsmacked at the cornucopia of opportunities that all hon. Members have talked about—many congratulations to all who have spoken.

I want to highlight what the hon. Gentleman said. In his typically robust and common-sense way, he laid out some of the key issues and challenges not just for Lancaster, but for many of the towns and cities that have been mentioned. Of course, Lancaster is a very fine city. Its distinctiveness reflects that of the county palatine, which was created in the 14th century and is directly linked to the royal family. That is why at dinners in the historical county, which includes Blackpool, we still end our toasts to the Queen with the words, “The Queen, the Duke of Lancaster.” In the inclusion of those words, we tend to gloss over the fact that the building up of his power by Richard II did not exactly have the results that Richard II anticipated.

In talking about the issues surrounding the shortage of retail shopping, the hon. Gentleman rightly illuminated challenges and tensions, particularly in relation to Lancaster castle, between current usage and possible future heritage usage. We must also consider the specific issue of transport access—narrow city streets—to which I will return. All those topics are very important, and he presented his case very well indeed.

There was a common theme to all today’s presentations. My colleague and hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) talked about how strongly heritage has driven economic success and growth. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) discussed the very interesting issue—although it is not necessarily one for this debate—of the extent to which local authorities should be held responsible for historic assets. In respect of cathedrals, the Church of England has, of course, argued the toss with English Heritage on that for a number of years with some success.

I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) said about sub-regional roles and the total mix. We cannot keep heritage in aspic or have retail that ignores the historic context in which it is delivered. That total mix is extremely important. The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley) gave a bravura performance in demonstrating that we can actually have a connection between the past and the future. He also made an important point about the role that local people, groups and associations play in that rich mix of regeneration. It is not just a question of top-down government. As I say, in that respect, it has been a good and enlightened debate.

The Government can play a key role, which does not have to be overbearing, in the economic development of our historic towns and cities. The previous Government had a decent track record on the matter, and many of our historic towns and cities, whether it is Liverpool in the north-west or Hastings in the south-east, have experienced a renaissance in recent years. Much of that was helped by targeted support from the previous Government, which meant that existing buildings were preserved and adapted to become cutting-edge new venues. That has often been linked to the economic renewal of many historic cities and initiatives—none more so than the recent initiatives in Liverpool, when it was the city of culture. I want to mention briefly the Bluecoat theatre in Liverpool, which was first built in 1708 as a charity school. It was reopened in March 2008 after a £14 million redevelopment in which Arts Council England, the Heritage Lottery Fund, the regional development agency, the European regional development fund, trusts, foundations and private donors all played a part.

I would like to add a couple of points about that project that are relevant to this morning’s discussion. The project involved adapting a traditional building to 21st-century local economy needs to showcase visual art, music, live art and literature. Incidentally, the project built on a tradition that has ranged from showing the post-modernists in 1911 to Yoko Ono in 1967—she came back in 2008 for a reunion. The project was completed with a mixture of private funding and public funding from the Government and other bodies.

Looking around the Chamber, it is interesting to note that the contributions have not come from Members representing major cities; they have come from what I describe—I do not do so in a disparaging way because I include my own town of Blackpool—as second-level towns and cities. Those towns and cities are just as key to economic development and renewal as big cities and rural areas. Many second-level towns and cities are also seaside and coastal towns.

The Sea Change programme was and continues to be delivered through the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I had a modest role in encouraging the programme when it was set up under the previous Government. It has helped to boost the economic development of a number of historic coastal towns and cities. A series of grants in excess of £38 million have helped to fund regeneration projects in some 32 resorts. In passing, I would like to mention the town of Blackpool in my constituency. Under that funding, Blackpool tower will benefit from a tower headland—a major new space stretching out into the Irish sea. It will be themed according to the rich history of variety in Blackpool, with a so-called comedy carpet and all sorts of pyrotechnic wonders.

It is not just seaside towns that have benefited from the programme. Coastal towns have also benefited. For example, Dover received £4 million, which allowed the restoration and enhancement of the great tower, which has resulted in a surge in visitor numbers. The remainder of the money is helping with Dover’s ambitious regeneration plans, including a sea-front development and a cable car project linking the town centre to the castle.

It is not just seaside towns that have an historic aspect to them; historic cities that attract large numbers of tourists are also important. Norwich is good example, as a private charitable trust has been set up to help develop 12 iconic buildings into an integrated group of heritage attractions. The overarching framework means that Norwich’s unique assessment of its heritage buildings can function as a catalyst for wider economic regeneration across the area.

The work of non-governmental organisations, such as the Heritage Lottery Fund, must be recognised as helping to develop many of our historic towns and cities. For example, the Townscape Heritage initiative provided £7.5 million of funding, which was matched by the same amount from the European regional development fund, to help redevelop the Ropewalks area of Liverpool. The scheme has also provided money for projects in my constituency of Blackpool, including the revitalisation of St John’s square.

English Heritage has been mentioned in the debate by hon. Members—although not always with approval for what it has done. Nevertheless, it has done some very good things, particularly in the north-west. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood might wish to discuss that at another time and place. In particular, in Blackpool it helped to alert us all to the importance of a major regeneration of the winter gardens and the tower, which was a catalyst for the £40 million package of support that was put together earlier this year and which has enabled Blackpool council to take control and offer direction, along with Merlin Entertainments, in those areas. I pay tribute to all those involved, because it provides a strong business case for us in Blackpool. I could cite many other examples, such as the restoration of the traditional covered market in Stockport, the town I grew up in, which has brought an important part of the town centre back to life.

The balance to be struck between conservation and development and regeneration is a subtle one, and it requires the input of statutory bodies, regional and European funding, heritage bodies such as the National Trust and English Heritage and, often, the initiatives of locally based heritage and environmental development groups. How, then, can heritage create the sort of economic activity to which my hon. Friend the Member for York Central referred? English Heritage’s report, “Heritage Counts 2010”, which was published last week, demonstrates in part how that works. New research, commissioned by English Heritage and the National Trust, has looked at the economic impact of investments totalling £23 million at five heritage tourist attractions across the country. Interestingly, half of all jobs generated by such attractions were in the wider community, in local bars, restaurants, hotels and shops. In fact, it was found that every pound invested generated an additional £1.70 for the local economy.

Regional development agencies were mentioned in the debate, not always supportively, but as my hon. Friend said, they provided significant funds for the development of our historic towns and cities in recent years. The East of England Development Agency invested more than £86 million in areas such as Great Yarmouth, Lowestoft and Southend, and I have already referred to the key role of the RDA in regeneration in Blackpool. Incidentally, Blackpool is also on the list for a world heritage bid, and English Heritage has been playing a key role in that.

The Opposition are concerned about the impact that the abolition of the RDAs might have on the future economic development of historic towns and cities, given the strong role that they have played in the past 10 years. The regional growth fund, which will total only £1 billion over two years, is not a substitute for the budgets that RDAs had for leading regeneration projects in many of our historic towns and cities. As Members will know, some of the funding we are talking about was dependent on match funding from the European regional development fund. That has been put on ice until the status and role of the new local enterprise partnerships are decided. There are real concerns that if that is not done quickly the money will go out the window. I know that that is not the Minister’s direct responsibility, but I ask him to urge his colleagues in the Departments for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Communities and Local Government to come to some conclusion on that matter as quickly as possible.

Governments must recognise that there should be no doctrinaire approach on public and private initiatives in that area, and that cuts both ways. I cite the famous words of Deng Xiaoping, who is not necessarily the greatest advocate for regenerating democracy, but who did lay the foundations of China’s economic success in the 1980s. He is supposed to have said, “It does not matter whether the cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice.” My assertion is that the cat has caught a significant number of mice over recent years, largely because public, private and local groups have worked together.

Transport is of key importance in balancing conservation and development. I ask the Minister gently, where is the strategy for including transport planning in any successor bodies to the RDAs, particularly local enterprise partnerships? We have seen the development of light rail and tram systems in many of our historic towns and cities; Manchester is a particularly good example of where that has enabled the local council to free up, develop and sustain tight historic areas, such as those around the canal and the village, and to link up with towns and areas outside.

The Government are abolishing the Government office network, which will inevitably remove a key repository of knowledge and, to some extent, a co-ordinating body. Will big infrastructure projects, which could be catalysts for economic growth in historic towns and cities, get the same level of support and co-ordination from civil servants based in Whitehall? That is an important matter in areas where the travel-to-work area is larger than the area of the local authority that controls an historic town or city.

In conclusion, although it was inevitable that public sector-led projects for boosting the economic development of our historic places would be squeezed in difficult times, some of the proposed changes and the way in which the Government are pushing ahead with them could make it harder for major projects to get off the ground. Many of the projects that I and other Members have mentioned today have been multi-agency and have needed considerable co-ordination between national and local statutory organisations and third sector and local groups. I urge the Government merely to recognise that as they develop their policies, because the successes in historic renewal and economic regeneration that we have heard about today must not be stymied by that process.

12:16

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

The pleasure in serving under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, is matched by the pleasure of facing the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) for the first time in his new Opposition role. We are old friends, and I am delighted that he has been able to contribute to the debate. I am conscious that I am here with an enormous task; I gather from the debate so far that I must draw together Government policies on cities, towns, growth, planning, historic buildings, transport, Anglo-Saxon, Norman and Roman history, tourism, Victorian architecture, prisons and nursery rhymes. Ever mindful of the fate of the three blind mice, Humpty Dumpty and the cat in the well, here is my best shot.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) has done the House a service in securing the debate. He made a powerful case for the balance, as the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) put it, between the historic character of his constituency and the need for change, a point to which I will return later. He is right that economic development is of central importance in ensuring the future well-being of our historic towns and cities across the country, including those in his fine constituency.

The coalition Government inherited a record public sector deficit—you would expect me to say that the day before the comprehensive spending review, Mr Hollobone, but it is relevant to the debate because, as well as being about history, the debate is about economic growth, regeneration and the opportunities that come from investment in the towns and cities that have been so well represented by those who have spoken in the debate.

The hon. Member for York Central, an old friend and sparring partner, spoke with typical eloquence and passion about York. I know what a dedicated servant of that great city he is, and he will know that I holidayed there recently and so can give testament to all that he says about the balance between a modern, thriving York, and its rich architectural and other history. He was right to say that heritage generates employment. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), whom I shall ever after think of as twinkling like a diamond in the Essex sky, made a strong case for both the history and modern profile of his town, which I also know well. Like York, it is a diverse place with a rich history, but one with modern challenges, and he articulated them today, as he always does, with commitment.

Chester is another city that I know well. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) spoke about holistically integrating the needs of local businesses, infrastructure requirements for transport and issues around planning. He spoke about the threat of out-of-town development, and I shall try to cover that in the brief time that I have to contribute to the debate.

In essence, my hon. Friend showed a humility in recognising that Chester can do more, be better and learn from other examples. Sometimes in drawing together the outcomes of these debates, what we can glean from them is as much about sharing good practice drawn from our constituency experience as anything that the Minister or shadow Minister can say, and my hon. Friend did a service to the House in that regard.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley), whom I am delighted to see—I have welcomed him twice, now in Westminster Hall and previously on the Floor of the House—also made a point about holistic development. I was interested particularly in what he said about Sir Michael Hopkins’s mixed development, which combines residential provision, retail business and transport. The assumption that those things should be separated has done immense damage to many of our towns and cities, for the idea that one can compartmentalise those requirements is unhelpful. His example was of the opposite, of how those things can be drawn together in a development which delivers aesthetically as well as in terms of its utility. Again, I shall say more about that.

The hon. Member for Blackpool South spoke of the need for co-ordination. He is right to say that the Government should play a role, but sometimes the Government need to step back as well as forward. This is about getting the Government off people’s backs and on their side. It is about understanding that what the Government do matters, but that what we do not do matters, too; about the balance between local action and Government intervention, and understanding the advantages of the discretion which should and could be exercised by local people and the diversity that springs from that; and about the need to ensure that where co-ordination is required, where some overarching view is needed to pull together transport investment or direct economic activity, the Government should play a part. All this is at the heart of this debate. Let me try in the time I have available to outline how we think that can work.

I mentioned that the CSR will come to its exciting culmination tomorrow. Essential to developing our town and cities and to promoting economic growth is economic well-being. The Chancellor will set out in the spending review detailed policy proposals to promote economic development and spread economic opportunity.

The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has made it clear that we believe that functions such as inward investment, sector leadership, innovation, responsibility for business support and access to finance are best led nationally, but that much is best decided locally: for example, planning and housing policies, creating the right local environment for business to grow, and tackling issues such as employment and enterprise.

[Mr Marsden]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way—I know that he does not have a great deal of time. He and others spoke about transport. Is he able to confirm that it remains the view of Ministers in his Department that, in some cases, transport needs infrastructure planning over and above sub-regional planning?

[Mr Hayes]

It is true that the Government need to set national priorities for transport infrastructure, but if those priorities are set outside the assumptions and wishes of local communities at sub-regional or local level, they will be frustrated. They will be unpopular at best, and undeliverable at worst, so getting a better balance between local wishes, sensitivities and understanding of economic need, and Government priorities, is at the heart of what we hope to do.

[Bob Russell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hayes]

I will do so briefly, but I want to have time to make more points of substance.

[Bob Russell]

Of course localism is crucial, but does the Minister agree that if a local council has responsibility for buildings or structures that are, in effect, of national or international significance, there has to be financial support from the centre? It cannot be left to the local authority to pick up the bill.

[Mr Hayes]

Yes, that is a fair point. Where there are, for example, buildings of national significance, it is right that we take a bigger view about the contribution that they make to their locality, but also to what we are as a people. In those cases, there must be an overarching view. Indeed, the hon. Member for York Central made it clear that the Government’s approach to English Heritage reflects exactly that view.

Let me briefly describe how I think the marriage of local decision making and national priorities can be made. The approach that we seek is one that distinguishes between strategic national needs and local economic priorities. A distinction must be made between what is best determined at national level—for example, innovation and sector leadership—and specifically local issues such as transport, planning and housing, notwithstanding the point that I made in response to the hon. Member for Blackpool South. We will publish a White Paper on sub-national economic growth outlining the way forward in those terms.

Our approach is that we can promote growth by freeing enterprise and innovation, and that it is vital to do so. Business confidence depends on sound finances and a Government who are there when they are needed, and who offer support that does not get in the way. Our growth White Paper will set out a new relationship between business and the state.

Our approach will empower local civic and business leaders to determine how to enable their community to create wealth and jobs. If we want to build a bigger, better society, we must bring forward and make real new forms of community engagement. In the strategy that we are putting together, the tension—I believe that was how it was described by one speaker—between the local and the national must be embraced, as must the marriage between the strategic and the tactical. We must find a happy solution to that and I am not sure that that has always happened in the past. I do not want to be excessively party political—this debate is not about that—but I am not sure that previous Governments got that marriage right.

That was well illustrated by some of the points that were made about what was described as the tension between the old and the new. I do not think it is necessary to have tension between the old and the new. It is only through a symbiotic relationship between the two that we can accommodate the familiar touchstones of enduring certainty which make all that is disturbing and surprising in life tolerable, and the constant need for change. The hon. Member for Blackpool South quoted Deng Xiaoping, but I prefer to quote Disraeli, who said:

“Change is inevitable. Change is constant.”

However, change is dependent on seeding an acceptance of it in people’s hearts, and, to some degree at least, that is about local decision making, and local people taking ownership of change.

Governments have been insensitive to that symbiosis. It is true that York, Chester, Colchester and Bury St Edmunds are fine places, but much damage has been done at street level—at human level—in many towns. As well as the scars of much of the building that has emerged since the war, there is also the pain of what has gone. I am sure that that has happened because of an insensitivity to beauty; the triumph of soulless utility over all that elevates and provides our sense of pride and purpose.

The issues that were listed at the beginning of this debate are too numerous for me to cover in detail, but if I had the time, I would be delighted to do so, Mr Hollobone, as you know. In drawing them together, we must take a view about what we see—the buildings, townscapes and landscapes; what we feel—the values and ideas that permeate the towns and cities that we have heard about today and the whole of the nation; and what we do—what workplaces look like, and how our communities are shaped. What we see, feel and do add up to what we are as individuals, as communities, as a people and as a nation.

I am grateful for the opportunity in this all too brief time to congratulate again my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood, and to thank all those who contributed and also you, Mr Hollobone, for it is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. I thank all those who attended the debate, and ask them to leave quickly and quietly. We must go on to the next debate.

Child Trust Fund (Looked-after Children)

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Westminster Hall

12:30

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I refer hon. Members to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which notes that I donate 50% of my Scottish Parliament salary to the charity, Who Cares? Scotland, to which I shall refer.

The abolition of child trust funds was announced earlier this year and will have far-reaching effects. We are all aware that they were set up in 2002 by the Labour Government, and that additional payments for looked-after children were introduced in 2008. That was welcomed at the time by a significant number of children’s groups as a positive step in what had hitherto been a fairly neglected area of social policy.

Like others, I have concerns about the wider proposal to end child trust funds, but I want to focus today on its impact on looked-after children. The matter seems to have stayed below the radar because, sadly, the needs of young people in care are often not high on the political agenda, despite the best efforts of organisations such as the Who Cares Trust and Who Cares? Scotland, which represent the views and needs of young people who are looked after and accommodated.

Under the scheme, the UK Government provide £100 a year to put into a child trust fund for every child who is looked after away from home, including those who are in foster care, residential care and kinship care. Some of those young people have spent all or the majority of their life in care, and the money is paid when they have spent part of a year in the care system. The amount of money is not a lot per child, but it helps young people to build up a personal fund that will become available when they move on from care to post-school education or employment training. Its purpose is to help young people move on to independent living. It also offers useful educational opportunities for learning how to manage money, and the discipline of developing a saving habit. That is important.

Research on young people in the care system shows that access even to a modest level of savings at the age of 18 makes a real difference to the decisions that young people can make about their future, as well as encouraging investment. Many of the things that we take for granted and that have been put in place for us and that we put in place for our children are simply not there for young people who are brought up in the care system. We must also remember that young people in care often move on to an independent lifestyle much earlier than other young people. They are often expected to take on the tenancy of their own home, and to manage a household budget when they are entering further or higher education, or the world of work. That is a time when, as those of us who are parents or have had teenagers know, young people are vulnerable. Young people in the care system are expected to make adult decisions and to move quickly into the adult world.

As corporate parents, the Government at any level have responsibility for children in care. The purpose of the child trust fund scheme, especially for looked-after children, was to help to improve outcomes for those children, and we should find a way of continuing it. Sadly, it is being abandoned just as we have begun to unearth more efficient ways of operating it.

The concept of asset building for young people in the care system is not well developed. Having access to individual asset accounts can make an important contribution to the well-being of children in care by providing a sense of security and encouraging planning for the future. It can help the local authorities that are looking after children to work with them to strengthen their saving habit, and to ensure that they have something for their future needs. It would also send positive messages to parents of looked-after children about the need to become involved in the process of saving for their children’s future, and encourage them, when possible, to take on some responsibility for supporting their children.

I realise that the Minister is not responsible for the actions of the Scottish Government, but I want to place on record my belief that the Scottish Government and Scottish local authorities should also give more consideration to future financial planning for looked-after children. That would be entirely consistent with the recommendations of the 2009 national residential child care review for developing corporate parent responsibilities. Again, those recommendations attracted widespread support.

The Minister should take an interest in the funding that was provided to the Scottish Government specifically to benefit looked-after children but did not go to those children. Back in July, in response to a series of questions in the Scottish Parliament, it was revealed that the Scottish Government had no idea whether looked-after children had received the payments. That was incredibly disappointing and worrying. Under pressure following those revelations, most Scottish local authorities have now ensured that the payments have been made, but it was worrying that the Scottish Government had not been monitoring the payments, so not only did they not know what was happening to the money but they were unlikely to be able to assess any outcomes of what that money had gone towards. Will the Minister tell us what evidence the Treasury has of the outcomes of that initiative throughout the UK, and how it was taken into account before the decision to scrap child trust fund payments?

The Conservatives’ commitment before the election was to end Government payments to child trust funds, except for children in the poorest third of families and children with disabilities. Many young people who are looked after and accommodated will fall into those categories because of the difficulties in their background. When the Bill that introduced child trust funds was going through Parliament, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), who is now Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that

“we greatly support the principle that the Bill is designed to promote…We think that having savings…gives people a stake in society, gives them independence, encourages self-reliance and bolsters the freedom of the individual against the overbearing state.”—[Official Report, 15 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1345.]

Apart from the remark about the overbearing state, that was one of the few occasions on which I agreed with the now Chancellor.

As recently as September, Phillip Blond—the same Phillip Blond who has emerged as one of the Prime Minister’s policy gurus—in his role as director of ResPublica launched a report entitled “Asset Building for Children—Creating a new civic savings platform for young people”. It called on the Government to tackle social mobility by adopting a savings policy that builds assets for all children’s futures. The key recommendations included a new type of asset building for children—an ABC account—based on retaining the infrastructure of the child trust fund that the new Government scrapped; a reward scheme to encourage saving with money off, for example, leisure facilities; new private sector incentives offered by banks and savings providers; and a financial capability programme with the voluntary sector to improve financial literacy. All those suggestions would benefit young people who are looked after and accommodated.

The Save Child Savings Alliance—that is a bit of a mouthful—consists of academics, charities, think-tanks and members of the financial industry. It welcomed the report, and the recommendation

“to maintain, extend and improve the infrastructure of the Child Trust Fund”

as part of any asset-building agenda to boost savings. It argued that the child trust fund was one of the most successful saving schemes ever, and that the framework could be retained for a small administrative cost. The alliance acknowledged that even if the Government were unable to make contributions to the scheme in the current economic climate, keeping the structure in place would at least ensure that all newborn children have a chance of having a savings account opened for them at birth that would improve the life chances of future generations.

Julian Le Grand, founder member of the Save Child Savings Alliance and professor of social policy at the London School of Economics said:

“When it comes to social mobility, a lump sum asset is a lot more powerful than income in unlocking opportunities for youngsters as they enter adulthood. This is particularly vital for less well-off families to help give their children the best start to their adult lives. We must not allow what has been a successful start in fostering a savings culture for all to fall away from the most vulnerable in society.”

Those comments were echoed by Dr Katherine Rake, the chief executive of the Family and Parenting Institute, who said:

“The last two years of economic strife have reminded British society of the importance of personal savings. It’s imperative that we help ordinary families put money away for a child’s future. The Child Trust Fund offers a proven structure for this.”

Of course, many looked-after children do not have that family support.

David White, chief executive of the Children’s Mutual, said:

“The Child Trust Fund ensured that every single newborn child in the UK had a savings account opened for them which they, and only they, could access at the age of 18. With ever increasing day-to-day demands on family savings and reports that university students face debts of £25,000 on graduation, it is critical that we explore ways to protect savings for our children. Whatever their background, the next generation should not be forced to start adulthood saddled with debt or as a dependent drain on their parents.”

Again, many looked-after children do not have that parental background to provide support. The arguments are particularly valid and resonant for those in local authority care.

According to figures from HM Treasury, on 5 April 2009, the total number of children in local authority care for whom a child trust fund had been opened was 33,158. Figures from the Department for Education reveal that the cost of the £100 top-up for looked-after children paid to local authorities in England and in the devolved Assemblies was £1,039,833 in 2008-09, and £1,502,786 in 2009-10. That is a relatively small amount of money per young person, but it has the potential to make a big difference. If asset building and financial education for the next generation are to be tackled, in light of current personal debt levels, I believe that that would be money well spent.

I appreciate that policy decisions can often have unintended consequences, and it is the mark of a compassionate and caring Government that they can admit when things are wrong and take steps to correct errors. My preference would be for the Government to revisit the whole policy on child trust funds and keep the scheme intact. I realise, however, that that plea may fall on stony ground.

For a relatively small amount of Government investment, the child trust fund system could be maintained for our most vulnerable children, who are surely those who are looked after and accommodated. Young people in care often feel isolated with little control over their lives. They feel that few people speak out on their behalf and that no one listens to them. I am speaking out on their behalf today, and I hope that the Government will not only listen, but act to ensure that the term “looked after” actually means something for those young people.

12:44

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Hollobone, and it is nice to see you in your place today. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) on securing this debate. As she points out, it is an important topic. She is right to say that perhaps more than many other communities in our country, looked-after children need people who will stand up and speak on their behalf about some of the challenges that they and their families face.

The context for today’s debate is unfortunate—it is the day before tomorrow’s spending review. I suppose that that is either good or bad, depending on how one looks at it. I will respond to the hon. Lady in detail, and I will also try to address the important questions that she has raised. In the time available, I will set out the overall context of the changes and explain why they are taking place. I will go on to talk in more detail about the specific issues that she raised regarding looked-after children. The devolved Assemblies are an added aspect. As the hon. Lady said, responsibility for the delivery of services and support for looked-after children lies with the Scottish Government.

I agree that looked-after children face greater challenges than other children, and that they need and deserve greater support. In England, we are looking at ways to improve that support, alongside other measures taken in the spending review. I understand the hon. Lady’s disappointment at the changes that we have to make to the child trust fund. Unfortunately, those changes are necessary. This week in particular, with the spending review happening tomorrow, hon. Members will be aware of the unprecedented budget deficit that the Government inherited. That is not a position that we wanted to be in, but it is a grave situation.

At the moment, we currently borrow £1 of every £4 that we spend. The hon. Lady mentioned financial literacy, and that is a broader issue that we as the UK Government are trying to tackle for our country as a whole. Because of the problems that we face with the deficit, our level of debt and the interest that we have to pay, the amount left for public service support is being squeezed. It is simply not affordable to spend over £0.5 billion a year on the child trust fund. The children concerned cannot use that money for 18 years, and we cannot afford to spend it when we have limited resources that are under pressure to provide support and services for people now, including looked-after children. As I said, I will come on to the more specific issues, but it is important to drill down into the wider context for those who may read the debate later.

As the hon. Lady knows, we have already reduced Government payments into child trust funds, and we have introduced a Bill to end eligibility to child trust funds for children born from next January onwards. In other words, most women who were pregnant when we made our initial announcement will have access to the child trust fund; the Bill will affect children born from next January onwards.

I confirm that the top-up payments to the child trust funds of looked-after children will stop. Those changes will save £320 million this year, and over £500 million a year in the future. That is £0.5 billion that we do not have to find through spending cuts—perhaps in important areas such as education or children’s social services—increasing taxes further, or borrowing, which would mean that our deficit was higher and that even more taxpayers’ money was going to fund debt interest instead of public services.

We are talking about a legacy. The hon. Lady rightly made the point about looking ahead, but we are concerned about the legacy that all children will inherit if we do not tackle the debt that we face now and the deficit; the country’s level of debt would be eye watering, even compared with today. During this Parliament, spending on our debt interest could rise from £43 billion—a huge figure compared with what we spend on transport, prisons or justice, for example—to £60 billion. That is a rise of £17 billion over the next few years and shows what a challenge we face. We must try to work together to balance our priorities. If we do not address the debt, it will only increase further and put even more pressure on the vital public services that we want to support.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I appreciate that the Minister is trying to be helpful and I look forward to what she has to say, particularly on support for looked-after children, but could she answer the question that I raised? What assessment was made of the effectiveness of the outcomes of the child trust fund for looked-after children before it was decided to scrap this particular scheme?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Lady will be aware that a key aspect of the emergency Budget was to examine the distributional analysis of how people would be affected, but also to consider key issues in relation to children, such as child poverty. We were very careful to consider those issues. Indeed, given the problem that we were having to start to solve, the fact that we were able to introduce an emergency Budget that still managed to see child poverty not rising is a measure not only, we hope, of its effectiveness, but of our desire as a Government to see that whole issue as important. We are trying to balance protecting things today with, as the hon. Lady points out, the need to look more long term.

I can reassure the hon. Lady that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is examining ways in which we can encourage saving and children’s saving. We recognise that that is an issue and my hon. Friend is considering it. He is very interested on a personal level, and has been for many years, in how we can improve financial literacy—the other key issue that the hon. Lady raised—and ensure that people take good decisions.

The hon. Lady said that the Scottish Government had not always ensured that money got to where it was meant to go. She is right to raise that as a concern. In England and in Scotland, local authorities have a statutory obligation to report to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs all children who come into their care who are of child trust fund age, precisely so that HMRC can ensure that all children who were due to get a child trust fund got an account and received the payments to which they were entitled at birth and at age seven. In fact, they are meant to report monthly to HMRC so that that can be followed up. There are very clear guidelines from the Department for Education requiring local authorities to make those payments, so the hon. Lady is right to raise her concerns in relation to the Scottish Government. I shall take this opportunity to say to her what she has probably already said to the Scottish Government. As a devolved Administration, they, too, can take decisions about whether they want to see this area as a priority for children in Scotland and for looked-after children—the group about which the hon. Lady is particularly concerned.

The hon. Lady talked about keeping the top-ups for looked-after children in place, despite the difficult decisions that we are having to take about child trust funds. We examined some of the challenges in relation to doing that. We recognise that looked-after children need to have additional support, and certainly in England we will be looking at how we can ensure that that happens. Ultimately, however, we just did not believe that continuing to pay the £100 top-ups to looked-after children would be the most effective way of providing that support, given the broader pressures that we faced in relation to public services and ensuring that we tackled the deficit. That is why we took the difficult decision that the top-ups would be stopped in due course.

One issue that we examined was that when local authorities make those £100 payments, it costs them £122. Part of the challenge that we face now is that that extra £22 spent on administration would be much better put into front-line services. When we considered that, it just did not make sense to continue those £100 payments, especially given the impact that that would have had on the broader budget and the fact that the £100 payments would be locked away until the children reached 18. They were not going to get the benefit from them for many years, and our concern was that we want them to reach that age in a country that is not paying hand over fist for debt interest and that does have money to pump into public services in a sustainable way. That was not the situation that we found ourselves in when we came into office.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I absolutely understand the issue about value for money and ensuring efficiency. It certainly does not seem to make sense that it costs £122 to make a payment of £100. However, does the Minister agree that looked-after children do not have a parent putting money aside for the future or putting money literally in trust for the future, as we would all do for our kids, so that when they get to the age of 18, they have some money, however small the amount, and that someone has to take responsibility for that? In those circumstances, is there anything that she can say today about ensuring that young people, when they leave care at the age of 18 to go into further or higher education or into the world of work, will have some money behind them to allow them to move on into adult life?

[Justine Greening]

I talked briefly about the fact that we recognise that financial literacy and encouraging saving for children are important. She knows that we have a broader problem with saving in Britain. The savings ratio had really fallen. It was not just the Government who had unsustainable finances; many households did as well. As I said, we are considering how we can nevertheless encourage saving and encourage children to save. Obviously, we have to work within the constraints of the public finances, but that work will explore the idea of allowing parents potentially to open a tax-free account for children born after child trust fund eligibility ends. I am sure that, as part of that, we would look at the group of looked-after children, in the same way that they were part of the child trust fund scheme. For most children in Britain, the account was triggered and opened by the parents, but for looked-after children, it was the local authority that took that approach.

Any such account would not have Government contributions going into it, but potentially could have some of the other features of child trust funds. Clearly, however, if we go down that road, we need to consider the design of any account carefully. It is clear that it would not be exactly the same as the child trust fund. However, I can reassure the hon. Lady that we are trying to find our way through the problems that we face today, which are grave and must be tackled, while at the same time ensuring that on these important issues, for the longer term, we still do what we can to support these children and address the issues.

Time is moving on. I shall try to ensure that I have covered the other issues that the hon. Lady raised. She talks about social mobility and she is absolutely right. I passionately believe in social mobility. She is right to talk about ensuring that we support looked-after children and that particularly when they leave care and face all the challenges that she referred to, they get support. Certainly in England, we are very keen to consider the overall package of support for these children, and I know that my colleagues in the Department for Education are doing that.

I am certain, given the hon. Lady’s clear interest in the issue, that she will follow it up in the Scottish Parliament. Indeed, she has a long track record not just of expressing an interest, but of being involved in direct policy making in this area. It is great that that experience has been brought into the UK Parliament.

I can see time ticking on. To conclude, I again congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate and on her eloquent and passionate description of the needs of looked-after children. As I have explained, I agree that these children, alongside other disadvantaged children, need more support than many children. Only last week, the Deputy Prime Minister was talking about the fairness premium to ensure that we can target and help those children growing up who perhaps need the most support to make sure that they can get the opportunities that many children in this country have, but too many do not.

We are passionate about tackling disadvantage, including for looked-after children, and we want to provide that support, but as a Government—a coalition Government—we just do not think that the child trust fund is the best way to do that. Those children, including looked-after children, need support now, rather than having it locked away until they are 18. It would not have been the best use of our limited money, either for looked-after children or for others—

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. I thank both hon. Ladies for taking part in the debate. We now move on to the next debate.

School Funding (Wyre Forest)

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Westminster Hall

12:59

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for coming along this afternoon to listen to what I believe is a very special case for Wyre Forest: its school building programme.

I am very pleased to have secured this debate, as it gives me an excellent opportunity to put on record the case for the funding of school building in Wyre Forest. However, before I get to the main thrust of my argument, I want also to put on record how incredibly grateful I am to Lord Hill, the Under-Secretary of State for Education with responsibility for the Building Schools for the Future programme, who agreed to meet last week with seven of my local school heads, the chief executive of Worcestershire county council and the officer in charge of the council’s estates. It was an incredibly helpful meeting and, I believe, very constructive, and I hope that it bears dividends.

To underscore the argument, it would help if I gave the history behind what is going on in Wyre Forest. Wyre Forest is—or was—part of the wave 6a tranche of the Building Schools for the Future programme. As a result of the cancellation of some 700 BSF projects across the country, Wyre Forest has now lost the rebuild or partial rebuild of five secondary schools. I am certainly not here to argue in favour of the BSF programme. My constituents, particularly those who have had a lot to do with the programme, think that BSF was an overly bureaucratic and unnecessarily expensive way to deliver what is otherwise a very good outcome: new schools fit for the 21st century. Indeed, Worcestershire county council was encouraged by the previous Government to spend about £3 million on the programme, on what have amounted to largely unnecessarily bureaucratic measures. However, in Wyre Forest we are just part way through a major schools reorganisation, and the implications of the BSF cancellation are widespread. It is not just that five schools have had their rebuilds cancelled; as a direct result of the decision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, a total of 11 schools in Wyre Forest face an uncertain future regarding their accommodation, and a special school has failed to take advantage of a unique opportunity.

About 10 years ago, Worcestershire county council was instructed by the Department for Education to look into a number of local education issues that were causing concern. In very simple terms, there were three key issues: failing standards and lower-than-average pupil retention into the sixth form; a very small surplus of accommodation; and Wyre Forest’s adoption of a three-tier system of education as opposed to the two-tier one, which was, I believe, used in more than 90% of the country at the time. The county council undertook not one but two consultations among parents, pupils and staff across the whole district, and in April 2005 the county council cabinet took the bold decision to implement what is now widely known as the Wyre Forest schools review. That incredibly bold decision introduced the biggest school changes ever undertaken in this country, and culminated in moving 45 three-tier schools into just 30 two-tier ones.

In August 2007, all 45 first, middle and high schools were closed, and just 30 primary and secondary schools were opened in September. All middle schools and a handful of primary schools were closed for ever. It is important to underscore the enormity of that undertaking. Every child, parent and teacher, as well as all the support staff, were involved in this colossal local change. A third of the education estate in Wyre Forest was closed, never to be reopened. Every member of staff had to reapply for their job, many children were moved from one school to another, and parents had to adapt to changes that they were not expecting. Importantly, accommodation became very cramped across the whole Wyre Forest school system. But my constituents, in a manner that I am finding is typical of them, knuckled down as a group to deal with the disruption, and teachers and other staff made huge efforts to ensure that standards were kept as high as possible and that no child was at any time disadvantaged by the process of change. The past five years have been very traumatic in Wyre Forest, but the light at the end of the tunnel has always been that in the end the district would have education facilities fit for the 21st century—until, of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education made his decision to cancel BSF in Wyre Forest.

The knock-on effect of the BSF cancellation has been immense. As I have mentioned, five secondary schools have been cancelled. As I have said, I am not here to argue for BSF, but the vision for the district was far greater. Because of the building programme, the county council made what I believe was a wise decision—that economies of scale could be introduced. Accordingly, three of the secondary schools were to have primary schools located on their sites. Stourport high school, a school rated as excellent, was to have Burlish Park primary school built on its single site. Stourport was built for about 900 pupils, but now accommodates about 1,400 on a split site, with significant numbers of pupils in temporary classrooms. I shall refer to Burlish Park primary school a little later, because it is important in its own right.

Kidderminster’s King Charles I school now has 1,300 pupils on two sites that are 10 minutes apart and separated by a main road. There are 880 pupils on one site and 420 on the other. Only recently, a child was involved in a road accident there, but I am happy to say that it was not serious. King Charles I was to have a complete rebuild, and was to accommodate Comberton primary school on its new single site. Comberton was built as a one-form entry school, but is now struggling as one-and-a-half-form entry and is being asked to become two-form entry this year, accommodating half its pupils in temporary classrooms.

The most visionary development was to have been the learning village at Baxter college. There was to have been a major rebuild, alongside St John’s primary school, of the 70-year-old building, which accommodates just under 1,100 pupils.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this excellent debate. I attended St John’s first school and middle school, and Baxter college, so I know first hand the importance of delivering improvements and investing in schools. I would, however, politely request that, should my hon. Friend secure any investment, he insist that Baxter college revert to its original name of Harry Cheshire high school.

[Mark Garnier]

I am very grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend is an example of just how good the education system in Wyre Forest can be: he has come from Kidderminster to Westminster and has done very well as a newly elected Member of Parliament. He raises a very interesting point. The school was initially endowed by Harry Cheshire, a local philanthropist, and due to changes over the past few years it is now called Baxter college. I shall certainly take up that issue with the headmaster; I know that my hon. Friend is very keen on this campaign.

The idea was to have a learning village that contained not just Baxter college and St John’s primary, but Wyre Forest special school. That school would have accommodated, on the same site, the unusually large number of special needs children that, for historic reasons, we have in Wyre Forest, alongside regular pupils.

The three linked proposals that I have described demonstrate an economy of scale that I hope the Minister would welcome, but the vision of the Baxter learning village not only encompasses value for money, but just as significantly teaches the importance of inclusion to all pupils on the site. The special needs school must go ahead irrespective of BSF or any other building programmes for the more regular schools in Wyre Forest, and the county council has therefore had to divert funds to that important resource. That has had knock-on effects elsewhere in the Wyre Forest school building programme. The council has found money from its own resources to build a number of schools, but has had to cancel the rebuild of a further three primary schools: Franche primary school is suffering a split site and the significant dilapidation of its estate; St Oswald’s has manageable problems but is facing a bulge in entry and desperately needs two new classrooms; and Cookley primary is in a class of its own.

I would like to talk about Burlish Park and Cookley primary schools together. These two schools, for me, epitomise all that is good and all that is bad about the primary schools in Wyre Forest. That we are asking teachers and staff to work in these conditions is appalling. That they are doing so, and doing as good a job as they can, is a testament to the incredible dedication of the teaching staff whom I have met both at these and at other schools across Wyre Forest. The two schools highlight the appalling problems that we face locally.

Burlish Park was built as a first school, but it is now taking children from nursery to year 6. Some 470 children have to take lunch in not one, or two, but three sittings. There is nowhere to accommodate children on wet playtimes. Classes are taken in a corridor alongside gym and dance lessons. The school’s pupils cannot congregate together in one go. The staff room is too small to accommodate even a small proportion of the staff, who have to prepare for lessons at home using their own IT equipment. Seventy female staff have just two lavatories between them. We always say that it is not buildings that teach, but teachers. However, if a teacher has to queue for 20 minutes to use the bathroom, that causes classes significant problems. When looking through the school’s 20-page urgent maintenance schedule, the head teacher and I totted up more than £1 million of urgent maintenance work in just three or four pages. The school is derelict.

Cookley has similar problems. The school is based in a Victorian school block and so is arguably better built than the 1960s block at Burlish Park, but its accommodation problems are just as bad. A series of classes in corridors and the building’s antiquated layout meant that the school only just received a provisional pass from Ofsted. That was because the safeguarding provisions were far below standard, but Ofsted was prepared to pass the school because it was due for a rebuild. We can only assume that it will be very unhappy if the situation is not resolved.

These two schools illustrate how the good-will elastic band can be stretched only so far. Staff and parents have had their good will stretched just about as far as it will go. With the cancellation of the rebuilding programme, the light at the end of the tunnel has been extinguished, and that is unfair.

In Bewdley, the high school has had a partial rebuild, but there are dilapidation issues, as well as safeguarding issues where the school grounds back unguarded on to the fast-flowing River Severn. Wolverley high school has its own portakabin village, but these temporary classrooms are rotting and need replacing imminently.

The schools that I have described make up the 11 schools that have been hit by the BSF cancellation. However, Wyre Forest is even unluckier than that. The five secondary schools are part of a wider consortium of schools known as the ContinU Trust, a collegiate trust comprising Wyre Forest’s five secondary schools, two secondary schools from Bromsgrove and Kidderminster college. At this point, I must declare an interest as I sit as a governor at Kidderminster college. Through the college, the trust was to have built a new learning centre on one of the redundant middle school sites, but the project was cancelled in the past 18 months or so as a result of the Learning and Skills Council funding fiasco, in which 144 colleges across the country lost their funding. That loss only adds to the accommodation problems in Wyre Forest.

I am here to plead Wyre Forest’s case on two principal issues: capacity and dilapidation. Across Wyre Forest, 23%—nearly a quarter—of pupils are in temporary accommodation, and that rises to 50% in some of the schools that I have mentioned. Teachers do not have basic needs met to allow them to prepare for classes. They do not have sufficient IT provision or quiet work areas and resource rooms where they can gather their thoughts. They are not given sufficient space to be able to rest in staff rooms, where staff can outnumber available chairs by 10 to one. There are not enough bathroom facilities for female staff, although male staff seem to be doing very well, because there are fewer men, and there is at least one lavatory per man.

Pupils are taught in corridors in many schools. There is little or no storage space for equipment. Many pupils lack sufficient, safeguarded outside spaces. The wider estate is dilapidated. Given where Wyre Forest featured on the priority list—it was part of wave 6a of BSF—the school buildings have generally not been maintained. That was done on the instructions of the county council and, ultimately, the Department for Education, to save resources for the new rebuild. The dilapidation is quite acute, and the cost of carrying out essential maintenance work is immense.

The economies of scale in the building programme still to be carried out are a huge incentive to undertake all the remaining building works in quick succession and to use joint sites, as I described earlier. The plans put forward for Wyre Forest are exciting and incredibly well thought through. Failing to deliver at this late stage would be to lose an incredible opportunity for a comprehensive, district-wide schools building programme.

Officers at Worcestershire county council will work with civil servants at the Department for Education, and they will put a comprehensive and excellent case for Wyre Forest. As I said, I am incredibly grateful to Lord Hill for his meeting last week, but, in my closing words, I ask the Minster to reinforce the message that we are trying to deliver. There is acute dilapidation in the estate and a severe lack of space for staff and pupils. We want the opportunity to deliver excellent value for money through economies of scale by completing the work started almost a decade ago and delivering 21st-century schools for Wyre Forest.

13:14

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) on securing this important debate. I thank him for his strong support for the coalition’s education reforms and his kind words about Lord Hill. My hon. Friend is an exceptionally committed campaigner on behalf of his constituency’s schools. As he has just proved in his speech, he is also a strong advocate of improving provision for all pupils, teachers and parents across the country.

As my hon. Friend knows, the coalition Government very much share that priority. That is why we have made it our mission from day one to make this country’s education system among the very best in the world by restoring confidence in our qualifications and exam system and by ensuring that school prepares every pupil for success. That ambition is based on the simple but profoundly important principles of giving teachers and heads greater freedom, giving parents greater choice, providing higher standards for pupils and reducing the amount of red tape in the system.

As I hope my hon. Friend will agree, the coalition Government have already taken important steps to achieve those aims in their first few months. We have, for instance, expanded the academies programme so that all schools can enjoy the greater freedoms that academy status brings. We are looking at the national curriculum, with the intention of restoring it to its intended purpose of setting out a minimum core entitlement beyond which teachers can tailor their tuition to meet the particular needs of their pupils. We are also allowing parents, teachers and other groups to set up free schools so that each local area has a good mix of provision, feels the responsibility to raise standards in every school and offers parents real choice for their children.

As my hon. Friend argued so persuasively, school buildings, teaching staff and pupils are also important as part of the continuing investment in our school system. The coalition Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that that remains the case, but it is nevertheless critical that future spending in Wyre Forest, and indeed the rest of the country, represent the best possible value for money during these exceptionally difficult economic times.

Building Schools for the Future was, of course, an important programme for the previous Government, who aimed to rebuild or refurbish every one of our 3,500 secondary schools by 2023. That was undoubtedly a bold and impressive ambition, but unfortunately it failed to live up to the hype. During the five years of the BSF programme, just 265 schools benefited. The figure for schools that were completely rebuilt was just 146.

Where BSF has delivered, it has been at an exorbitant cost. As has been pointed out, rebuilding a school under BSF has turned out to be three times more expensive than constructing a commercial building and twice as expensive as building a school in Ireland. While the BSF budget grew from £45 billion to £55 billion, the time scale also grew, from 10 years to a projected 18 years.

Some of the reasons behind that additional cost and delay were understandable, but the fact remains that BSF had become a vast and confusing morass of process and cost upon cost by the time that it was ended, representing extremely poor value for money, as my hon. Friend acknowledged. Indeed, £60 million of the £250 million spent on BSF was frittered away on consultants and advisory costs before a brick was even laid.

Nobody comes into politics to cut funding, least of all a new Government who have inherited a school system that has desperately short-changed so many of its students, and particularly those from poorer communities. We recognise that these things can be extremely frustrating for areas close to the cut-off point for BSF, of which my hon. Friend’s constituency was one. Five schools in his constituency have had to have their BSF programmes stopped, and that has understandably caused real dismay among students, teachers and parents. As my hon. Friend has said, things do not stop there; 11 schools in the area have been affected by the decision.

I am also aware that my hon. Friend has raised the issue of Wyre Forest Building Schools for the Future projects directly with the Department, pointing out the difficulty of operating primary and secondary schools in buildings that were designed for the three-tier system of first, middle and upper schools. He has been and remains a powerful and assiduous advocate of his constituency in the House. However, it is important to stress from the outset that every area in the country has been treated consistently and fairly, with no one authority or community singled out for cuts. In deciding which projects would be taken forward and which would end we developed a single set of criteria and applied it uniformly across the country. Those school projects that were part of their area’s initial BSF schemes and which had reached financial close were allowed to continue, as were the sample projects that were part of their area’s initial BSF schemes, where financial close had not been reached but where a preferred bidder had been appointed at the close of dialogue. Thirdly, a number of planned school projects, in addition to a local authority’s initial scheme, were allowed to continue.

As we have heard today, the BSF projects in my hon. Friend’s constituency were not, unfortunately, additional projects; nor had they appointed a preferred bidder, and therefore they had not reached financial close either. As none of the criteria applied, they could not go ahead, apart from the Tudor Grange academy, which will be unaffected.

I listened carefully to my hon. Friend’s excellent speech and one cannot help but be moved on hearing of the state of the fabric in some of the buildings, where a quarter of the pupils—in some schools half the pupils—are having lessons in temporary accommodation. I have seen the photographs that my hon. Friend brought to the meeting with Lord Hill and I share his concern about the state of the fabric of some buildings. My hon. Friend talked ably about Burlish Park primary school, where there is no accommodation for children on wet playtimes, and where classes are sometimes taken in the corridor, alongside gym and dance lessons. He also discussed Cookley primary school where, because classes are taking place in corridors, there was a risk that Ofsted would fail it on well-being grounds. He makes a powerful case about need in his area.

The end of BSF, however, does not mean the end of capital spending on schools. Money will be spent on school buildings in future, but it is imperative that it be spent on school infrastructure and the buildings themselves, and not on process, as my hon. Friend pointed out—particularly if we are to meet the increasing demand for school places in the coming years as the birth rate rises. That is why we appointed the group headed by Sebastian James, the group operations director of DSG International, to conduct a root and branch review of all capital investment in schools, sixth form colleges and other services for which the Department is responsible. The group is due to report back to us at the end of December, and will be looking at how best to meet parental demand; make design and procurement cost-effective and efficient; and overhaul the allocation and targeting of capital.

That will give us the means to ensure that future decisions on capital spending are based on actual need, which I know is one of my hon. Friend’s chief concerns, and on ensuring that all schools provide an environment that supports high-quality education. However, given the fact that the review is still in progress, I am sure my hon. Friend will forgive me and understand that I cannot make any specific commitments today about how much money will be allocated, or exactly when. I am sure that that will disappoint students at Stourport high school, and other young people who have campaigned so hard for their schools in his constituency. I would at least like to assure my hon. Friend, as well as parents, staff and students in Wyre Forest, that the Department will continue to make capital allocations on the basis of need—particularly dilapidation and deprivation—and that the end of BSF does not mean the end of school rebuilding.

I know that my hon. Friend is worried about the fairness of per pupil funding in Wyre Forest and Worcestershire, as well as about capital expenditure. I can assure him that we share those concerns. We recognise that the spend-plus methodology has provided some stability and predictability, which many schools and local authorities have welcomed, but we nevertheless intend to undertake a thorough review of the current system, which will consider how to fund schools for 2012 and beyond, and look at how we can ensure that each and every school in the country is fairly funded. In addition, I am sure that my hon. Friend welcomes the Deputy Prime Minister’s announcement last week on the fairness premium, which will help disadvantaged students to receive the support they need to reach their potential. That is intended to tackle one of the failings of the past decade in schools, when the achievement gap between the richest and poorest children actually grew. The odds of a pupil on free school meals achieving five or more GCSEs at A to C, including English and maths, currently stand at less than one third of those for a pupil who is not on free school meals doing so.

In conclusion, I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind the economic background to the matters that we are considering. No one comes into politics to cut public spending, but the Government face a £156 billion deficit—the largest among all the G20 countries—and it is our responsibility, difficult and painful as it may be, to do something about it. In the current financial climate, and with the announcement of the comprehensive spending review tomorrow, we have a particular duty to ensure that we continue to invest where investment is needed, to get the best possible value for taxpayers’ money, and to achieve the right balance between spending and other means of school improvement.

Change will not be effected just through spending decisions, but by the creation of a system that puts more trust in the professionals who work in it. The Government believe that head teachers should have more of a say in how money is spent, and that teachers should have more say in what and how they teach their students. We believe that parents should have a real choice about what school to send their child to. Future spending must support those aims and ensure that money is directed where it is really needed, to pupils, school and staff. Finally, I congratulate my hon. Friend on drawing the matters in question to the attention of the House, and on the conscientiousness with which he has pursued his constituents’ matters with the Department.

Wedgwood Museum

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Westminster Hall

13:27

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

It is a great pleasure to raise the future of the Wedgwood museum. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) for joining me here, as well as the Minister, who has proved generous with his time and attention in this matter.

We are here to highlight one of the greatest cultural collections in England, and the threat to its future. On the southern edge of Stoke-on-Trent, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), stands a museum dedicated to

“The People Who Have Made Objects of Great Beauty from the Soils of Staffordshire.”

In 2009, it won the £100,000 Art Fund prize for museums and galleries, and the judges praised it as a “brilliant snapshot”, highlighting the marriage of art, design, manufacturing and commerce. However, today the museum is under threat from a legal quagmire more akin to Jarndyce v. Jarndyce than any rational museums policy. What is more, the principle at stake in the dissolution of the collection could have major, damaging repercussions for museums across the UK.

The origins of the Wedgwood museum can be traced to Josiah Wedgwood himself—a former resident of what is now the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North. In 1774 he wrote:

“I have often wish’d I had saved a single specimen of all the new articles I have made, & would now give twenty times the original value for such a collection. I am now, from thinking, and talking a little more upon this subject...resolv’d to make a beginning.”

And so resolved, Wedgwood made a beginning on what is undoubtedly among the finest ceramics collections in the world, with some 8,000 objects on display, from black jasper Portland designs to bone china tea sets and Robert Adam-designed vases. The collection testifies both to Wedgwood’s genius and the company’s productivity.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree, given the context of the debate and his reference to Josiah Wedgwood, that this debate is part of a wider debate about ceramics and the culture of the Potteries, and about the importance of finding a long-term solution for the Wedgwood institute in Burslem?

[Tristram Hunt]

I absolutely agree. As I hope to point out, the interrelationship between the past and the present is enormously important, drawing on history not simply for archaic reasons but as an economic and cultural motor for the city of Stoke-on-Trent and the county of Staffordshire. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the collection is as much commercial as aesthetic. We see in the museum guides to earthenware and creamware, and to jasper and basalt production.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has only half an hour but, as I said in a message I left in his office, I would be grateful for the opportunity to make a short intervention on the subject. As he well knows, the museum, because of the configuration of boundaries, is actually in my constituency. I just wanted to say a few words.

[Tristram Hunt]

I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to say a few words, and I will canter through the outlines.

Wedgwood died in 1795, but his descendants, the Wedgwood family, dedicated their collections to the museum right through the 19th and 20th centuries. Indeed, collections from the Wedgwood family were donated right up to the last few years. It was always done as an act of social philanthropy, in the belief that the collection would be preserved for all future generations, in perpetuity. Wedgwood stands very much in line with the thinking of the Secretary of State, who recently announced:

“Philanthropy is central to our vision of a thriving cultural sector”,

and called for

“more individual acts of social responsibility”.

However, the museum goes far beyond telling the extraordinary life of Wedgwood, the manufacturer, agitator, internationalist and salesman. It describes the advent of industrialisation, the nature of the English enlightenment and how the French revolution and the struggle against slavery reverberated throughout the UK. For me and some of my colleagues, one of the most inspiring parts of the collection is the series of medallions stating:

“Am I not a man and a brother”,

celebrating Wedgwood’s involvement with the abolitionist cause.

The Wedgwood family and business have always had a keen sense of their place in history. The firm opened its first museum in 1906. By 1909, the museum catalogue was packed full of artefacts. In 1962 the family, with great prescience, aware that the Wedgwood family business was likely to go public, decided formally to separate the museum from the factory, specifically to prevent the museum from being used as a realisable asset by any future predator. Whatever financial difficulties were encountered by Wedgwood, any corporate owners could not sell the collection. Even in 2009, when Waterford Wedgwood entered administration, Deloitte, the administrator, could not touch the collection and sell it off to pay the many creditors.

The museum became a charitable trust in 1998, in order to secure funding for a new building to house the collection. The Heritage Lottery Fund generously contributed £5.86 million, resulting in a magnificent new museum which opened to the public in 2008, confident in the status of a charitable trust. Since then, unfortunately, an Alice in Wonderland legal situation of such absurdity has developed that it barely seems credible. In January 2009, Waterford Wedgwood, the pottery giant, went into administration. The company was bought by KPS, an American private equity firm, which managed to purchase the prize assets of Wedgwood, Royal Doulton and Waterford without taking on board any of the £134 million pension liability of the Wedgwood group pension fund. This was the initial cause of the problem.

Pensions legislation, introduced initially in 2005 and amended in April 2008, now means that the museum, a small charitable trust, is being held responsible for the £134 million shortfall in the Wedgwood companies’ pension plan, because five of the museum’s staff are among the Wedgwood group pension fund’s 7,000 members. We have the madness of a £60,000 pension liability being liable for £134 million of debts, with a priceless collection at risk. How can this be?

The museum staff are not employed by the insolvent Wedgwood firm, but by the entirely independent Wedgwood Museum Trust Ltd, a completely separate charitable company. The brand new museum, housing a 250-year-old collection, has not gone bankrupt, but it has gone into administration, because the Pension Protection Fund has made a claim on every penny of its assets.

To be fair to the PPF, it has acted intelligently through the process, as it seeks to find a solution. However, under the “last man standing” principle, the Wedgwood museum is still a solvent company: it is the last man standing, because five of its employees are in the same pension fund. The legislation might have had laudable aims in preventing large multinationals from hiding assets to reduce pension payouts, but somehow charities and trusts have fallen foul of its far-reaching tentacles.

In such a context, it is important to make it absolutely clear that even if the whole collection were sold, it would not meet even half the pension debt, and the 7,000 ex-employees would not receive any more pension income. The money would simply be swallowed up by the Pension Protection Fund. Loyal ex-Wedgwood employees know this and support our campaign to save the historic collection. They know from experience the hard work, craftsmanship and sheer excellence of design that went into producing many of the pieces in the collection. All the citizens of Stoke are immeasurably proud of the Wedgwood museum and will be devastated if it becomes a victim of poorly applied legislation and a pensions crisis.

[Joan Walley]

I simply want to put on record my thanks, and that of my constituents, to all those Wedgwood employees who, over the years, have made the collection what it is. It is absolutely essential that, when the Minister replies, he assures the people of Stoke-on-Trent that he will look at a plan B or at whatever is needed to ensure that we do not end up losing this most precious of museums.

[Tristram Hunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and wholly concur with her.

The future of the Wedgwood museum collection now rests on a court decision expected in January—though it would be good to have some clarity on dates from the Minister—as to whether the collection is alienable. Former Wedgwood employees, local Stoke and Staffordshire enthusiasts, Wedgwood family members and leading historians, curators, artists and ceramicists are appalled by the situation. Sir Neil Cossons, chairman of the Royal College of Art, puts it well:

“If the court case goes against the museum it will not only be catastrophic for one of the finest museums in the country but blow a hole through all our assumptions about the inalienability of collections held by trusts.”

The case could have major implications for other museum trusts across the UK. Which museum linked to a pension deficit of a local authority, university or company might be in difficulties after a poor judgment?

[Mr Cash]

rose—

[Tristram Hunt]

I ought to give way to the hon. Gentleman, if he wants to intervene.

[Mr Cash]

If the hon. Gentleman finishes his speech, perhaps I could give a short speech after him.

[Tristram Hunt]

If that is the format, that is okay.

As ever, the Minister has listened attentively. We seek some commitment from the Government that they are doing more than simply watching this car crash take place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North asked, what are the Government’s plans for the Wedgwood museum if the case goes against it? Do the Government have plans to amend legislation, to ensure that such a crazy outcome never befalls another museum? Will they put pressure on the Pension Protection Fund so that if the case goes against the museum, there will not be a quick-fire sale of historic assets?

The pottery industry of Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent is far more than a museum piece, as last week’s Ceramics 2010 exhibition proved. However, the industry values its heritage and continues to draw inspiration from the designs and craftsmanship that the Wedgwood museum embodies. It would be a monstrous act of cultural self-destruction and a betrayal of those very people who have made objects of great beauty from the soils of Staffordshire if the museum was allowed to collapse, and with it a vital component of the meaning and memory of the potteries.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this extremely important debate. It is important not only to the people of north Staffordshire but to people across the globe. This is an industry that is at the heart of the beauty and craftsmanship that goes on around the world. Does he think that it would be appropriate for the Minister to furnish the House of Commons Library with details of museums that may be in a similar position in future given that they, too, may have links with pension funds? That would enable us to know as soon as possible what other collections around the country may be at similar risk.

[Tristram Hunt]

That is a very good point. It would be interesting to know what other museums could be at the same risk as the Wedgwood museum. Some people believe that this is a one-off case, but knowing lawyers and judges as I do, that is rarely the case.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not just a parochial issue for north Staffordshire? The Wedgwood museum is iconic for the whole industrial and cultural heritage of the country. Indeed, Wedgwood was one of the first global brands and is still one of our best-known names. Does he agree, therefore, that it would be sacrilege if it were forced to be sold or broken up as an unintended consequence of insolvency regulations relating to pension funds? If the case were to go against it in court—courts are bound by the law—it is vital that legislation be pushed through to tidy up these loose ends, because, at the end of the day, that is what the House of Commons is for.

[Tristram Hunt]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is crazy for legislation to be applied in this context. It is right that this museum should be able to provide encouragement to the pottery industry in Stoke-on-Trent, which is beginning to export and innovate more and to return to health, and that we have a Government who believe in manufacturing and growth outside the south-east. The museum is a good symbol of their commitment to a broader vision of a regional economy.

13:42

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) for allowing me to speak. The previous Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central was Mr Mark Fisher, who was a great friend of mine.

I should like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the way in which he has conducted himself in this debate because the issue relates not only to the museum itself but to the whole question of how we address the anomalies that can arise when a piece of legislation unexpectedly hits a museum and our artistic heritage in such an unpredictable and, I believe, unintended manner. It almost provides a reason for contemplating the idea of retrospective legislation. It would be extremely rare to do that, but there are circumstances that can arise, such as money not being available. A court judgment, which no doubt follows the letter of the law, may have an unpredictable result, such as the destruction of something as important as this museum, in my constituency. I should like to pay tribute not only to the hon. Gentleman but to all the other hon. Members here. This is a very important debate, and I want to give the Minister plenty of time in which to reply.

I received a letter from the chairman of the trust a few days ago, for which I am grateful, expressing his concern and saying that the question of future legislation must be discussed with the Government, which we shall do. Let me add that the reference to the anti-slavery movement by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, who is a distinguished historian, touched me because members of my own family were involved. In fact, Samuel Lucas and John Bright no doubt had meetings with the family over it all.

As for the future, we must resolve this matter. This is not just an aberration; it is something that must be resolved. I know from the useful letter that I received from the Minister only a few weeks ago that he himself is well apprised of that. He said:

“I too am concerned to protect the Wedgwood Collection and the award-winning Wedgwood Museum.”

I know that he means what he says. I am quite sure that some means will be found to deal with the matter, perhaps using the National Heritage Memorial Fund. I drew up the first draft of the Bill in the 1970s for Denis Mahon and Arthur Jones when we had had an historic houses meeting. I drafted the Bill and, to all intents and purposes, that is the basis on which that fund now exists. It was to deal with war surplus and it is now being topped up. Before, it was just being allowed to become a wasting asset. I know that the Government now are committed to that fund and that there are also the lottery funds as well. There are all kinds of ways and means to address the matter. There is the prospect of legislation—perhaps even a private Member’s Bill. I hesitate to suggest anything that has a “Downton Abbey” look about it, but to save the entail of Staffordshire, perhaps a private Member’s Bill is appropriate.

I should also like to pay tribute to at least one member of the family who is here today. I pay tribute to the family and to the whole tradition of Wedgwood, including its employees and others, such as Christopher Johnson, who have taken an active part and an intelligent interest in the manner in which a resolution can be achieved. Given the fact that the organisation is in a legal situation, the most that we can do is to find a way out of this impasse.

I should also like to pay tribute to Neil Cossons, who is a distinguished expert in heritage and who also worked with me in the Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust in the 1970s. He has now gone on to so many great things. To have his support is tremendously important.

In conclusion, we must find a solution. The Government, I believe, are determined to do so. I wait to hear what our distinguished Minister has to say.

13:47

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Hollobone. I know that you will go on to have a distinguished career as a Chairman of these kinds of debates, and in many other areas of the parliamentary process. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) on calling this debate to highlight the plight of the Wedgwood museum. It has been very enjoyable—I hesitate to use that word—to hear him set out the case for the Wedgwood museum in the forceful style to which many millions of television viewers have become accustomed. I also express my gratitude to the number of hon. Members who have attended and spoken in this debate. I refer to the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) and for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) for his presence and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), who intervened. I pay tribute to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash). We had not only a deep historical analysis of the importance of the Wedgwood collection, but, through my hon. Friend —he is one of our foremost and most distinguished constitutional lawyers—we were able to have a tour d’horizon of the legislative or constitutional solutions that might pertain to the future of the Wedgwood collection.

As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central made clear, the Wedgwood collection is part of this country’s history. I make no bones about that; it is probably one of the most important crafts collections and one of the most important historic collections in the country. It is an integral collection and, as the hon. Gentleman indicated in his speech, it has been more than 250 years in the making. It stands, as it were, at one end of the spectrum of the craft in which this country continues to thrive, a spectrum that ranges from the Wedgwood collection to the creation of the Victoria and Albert Museum, which is the foremost museum of crafts in the world. Two years ago, the Wedgwood museum won the prestigious Art Fund prize and the Victoria & Albert Museum of course reopened its crafts galleries to huge acclaim.

It is absolutely clear from the remarks of hon. Members that have already been made during this debate and I hope that it will be absolutely clear from the remarks that I will make in concluding the debate that none of us would like to be in this position. We are almost, as it were, walk-on parts in an obscure Dickensian novel, in which a complicated piece of legislation has the most dramatic and unintended consequences. Potentially, those consequences put one of the great cultural jewels of the nation under threat.

Nevertheless, as a Minister I cannot circumvent the law. At this stage, I must simply report to hon. Members what I believe to be the current position and then I can perhaps extrapolate from that position where we might go with a plan A, or indeed a plan B. So I want to update hon. Members on the progress on the case; I want to outline the Government’s position; I want to set out what I believe could be the next steps to protect the museum and avoid the loss of the collection; and, as hon. Members have suggested, I also want to consider what we can learn from this case to ensure that other museums do not find themselves in a similar position in the future.

First, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the Wedgwood museum went into administration in April this year after it was served with a substantial pension debt by the company that was set up to manage the Wedgwood Group pension plan. The trustees of the museum firmly believe that the museum’s collection is held in special trust and should not be available to pay that debt. Therefore the administrator, together with the trustees of the museum, is preparing to make an application to court to clarify the status of the collection. That application will be made when certain administrative matters have been settled, which we are informed should be by the end of November. Then the administrator will be able to make a formal application to court. Although that application to court will be made as soon as is possible, the timing of the court hearing is not within the control of the museum or the administrator.

As the hon. Gentleman also indicated in his opening remarks, the museum is in the unfortunate position that it finds itself in because of its participation in a multi-employer pension scheme covering a number of employers in the Waterford Wedgwood Group. When the group went into administration in 2009, the museum found itself as the last remaining employer in that scheme. Therefore, the museum technically became responsible for a pension debt that, as the hon. Gentleman indicated, is in the region of £134 million. That pension debt or shortfall affects some 7,000 members of that pension scheme, including former employees of Wedgwood Ltd, Josiah Wedgwood & Sons Ltd and Stuart and Sons Ltd.

Due processes now need to be followed to establish what assets are potentially available, and the Wedgwood museum is not exempt from those processes. The pension scheme has now entered an assessment period for the Pension Protection Fund, the body that was put in place to ensure that pension scheme members receive a meaningful income in place of their pension, where an employer has become insolvent or where there are insufficient assets. However, the PPF has no control over the sale of the museum’s assets.

We must follow the correct processes. If schemes such as the Wedgwood Group pension plan were to be admitted to the PPF without pursuing the debts owed to them, a greater burden would fall on pension schemes that pay the pension protection levy. That would then undermine the financial sustainability of the system and its ability to serve its purpose. Unfortunately, as I have already indicated, in this case there is a view that the Wedgwood collection could be a potential asset.

The Charity Commission was asked to provide a view on whether the collection is held in permanent endowment or whether it is part of the charity’s corporate property, which is available to creditors. The issue was considered at the very highest level by the Charity Commission. Despite the commission’s sympathy for the museum and its recognition of the importance of the collection, it reached the conclusion that the museum’s collection was not protected.

The commission cannot exercise any discretion in that decision and it must reach a conclusion based on the facts of the case and the law. However, it is a regulator and it can only reach a view on whether the collection is held in permanent endowment. The only body able to give a definitive ruling remains a court of law.

Given what is at stake here and the need for absolute certainty, the commission has confirmed that it would give consent for the museum to take court proceedings. The process of administration intervened before those court proceedings could commence.

The Government have not ignored this situation and fully recognise the implications for the people of Stoke-on-Trent and the potential loss of their heritage and indeed the nation’s heritage.

[Mr Cash]

I just want to raise the question of equitable relief. I hope that the court, in its generosity, might be able to take account of matters of that kind, because of course this issue affects trusts.

[Mr Vaizey]

It has been a while since I studied trust law, but I am not quite sure on what grounds equitable relief would be available in these cases. However, I would defer to more senior counsel on that point.

I would like to return to what I was discussing before my hon. Friend’s intervention, which is my Department’s involvement in the issue of the future of the Wedgwood collection. The Department has worked closely with the museum’s director and trustees, their legal advisers and the Charity Commission to assist in this matter. Under the last Government, the Department provided assistance to the Wedgwood museum, and since I have been in office I have also given as much assistance as I have been able to.

I will recap on the Department’s involvement so far. First, the chairman of the museum approached the Department in October 2009 to ask for help in clarifying the status of the collection. Department officials set up a meeting with the Charity Commission, in which the commission agreed to review the museum’s evidence. That led to the commission taking the view about the collection that it did.

More important, in January of this year the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council awarded a grant of £200,000 to the museum to support its legal costs. I know that hon. Members will agree with me, particularly as it happened under the previous Government, that that was an important injection of financial support given the situation that the museum finds itself in. The Department also gave a one-off grant of £25,000 to support the museum’s operational commitments.

As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central pointed out, the Heritage Lottery Fund had already generously funded a substantial proportion of the new museum, but since January of this year it has awarded a grant of £50,000 towards the museum’s educational work with schools, its volunteers’ programme and staff training, to enable the museum to meet the new challenges that it faces.

In July, I wrote to the new owners of the Wedgwood company to alert them to the museum’s predicament and to emphasise the importance of the museum’s collection. I am pleased to say that the museum now has a good relationship with the new owners of the Wedgwood company.

Throughout this time, my Department, the Heritage Lottery Fund, the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council and the Charity Commission have all worked as closely as possible to support and advise the Wedgwood museum, and to try to plot a way forward. As a result of that work and the efforts of the museum’s director and its excellent staff, the museum is still open to the public and receiving a steady flow of visitors. It has made strong partnerships with the local cultural and tourist industries, and it has a business plan in place to ensure that it can continue to operate if the courts should rule in its favour.

To sum up, I believe that my Department and its sponsored bodies have acted quickly and effectively to support the Wedgwood museum during the past year, when there have been two different Governments.

[Tristram Hunt]

I just want to ask whether the Minister will be having talks with the PPF. In particular, if the judgment goes against the museum and therefore its assets are considered liable, what is the space that the PPF has, in terms of giving time for raising money and for appeals, so that we do not have Sotheby’s and Christie’s crawling all over the collection on a Tuesday morning and so that we can work to save it?

[Mr Vaizey]

Let me continue with what I was going to say, because some of my points may address that issue. As I was going to say, we must await the outcome of the court case. However, I will happily discuss with the PPF what more needs to be done. In terms of a plan B, we have had discussions with two national museums about what should happen if there is a problem, and we will work for a solution that way—

14:00

Sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(11)).

Written Ministerial Statements

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Written Statements

Tuesday 19 October 2010

Agency Workers Regulations 2010

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)]

The Agency Workers Regulations 2010, implementing the European Agency Workers Directive, were made by the previous Administration in January 2010 and are due to come into force in October 2011. The Government are aware of the different points of view that have been expressed by various stakeholders about certain aspects of these regulations and have been considering the way forward.

The directive sets out the principle of equal treatment—that

“the basic working and employment conditions of temporary agency workers shall be, for the duration of their assignment at a user undertaking, at least those that would apply if they had been recruited directly by that undertaking to occupy the same job”.

The default position in the directive is that this principle should apply from day one of an agency worker’s assignment. However, the directive also allows member states some flexibility as to how this principle is applied, including the possibility of a qualifying period before the right to equal treatment arises, as long as this is based on an agreement reached by “national level” social partners. Such an agreement was reached by the CBI and TUC, with the support of the previous Administration, in May 2008 and provides the legal basis for the legislation subsequently put in place, including its provision for a qualifying period of 12 weeks.

Since the formation of the coalition, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and I have discussed the way forward on this issue with a wide range of stakeholders. Employers and their representatives have expressed a range of concerns regarding the regulations, arguing for amendments before their entry into force that might reduce the burden they place on business. The Secretary of State and I have both had considerable sympathy for some of the arguments we have heard, particularly proposals to simplify the definition of “pay” under the regulations (especially as far as the administration of performance-related bonuses are concerned) and the administrative requirements around the application of the qualifying period to patterns of infrequent, short-term assignments.

However, the Government’s ability to make changes to address such matters is constrained by the fact that the regulations are based to a significant degree on the agreement brokered by the previous Administration between the CBI and TUC. Due to this unique legal situation, any amendments proposed to the regulations touching upon the subject matter of the CBI and TUC agreement, which did not have the agreement of those parties, would face the risk of being set aside in the courts in the event of a legal challenge.

Were that to happen, the effect could be to call into question the very foundation for the fundamentals of the implementing legislation, crucially including the 12-week qualifying period itself.

The Secretary of State and I have therefore discussed this matter on a number of occasions with both the CBI and the TUC, seeking agreement on changes that we consider would have improved the implementation regime, to the potential benefit of both employers and agency workers. Unfortunately it has not been possible to find a way forward that would be acceptable to both parties.

This outcome is clearly disappointing. However, the Government have taken the view that the absolute priority must be not to take any steps that could put at risk the 12-week qualifying period, which significantly mitigates the burdens the legislation will place on employers. The Government will not therefore be proceeding with any amendment of the regulations themselves. We will instead now use the time that is still available before the regulations’ entry into force to develop the best possible guidance to help employers comply with their new obligations.

Defence Training

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)]

The defence training rationalisation project (DTR) was designed to collocate technical training on a single site at MOD St Athan in south Wales, thereby providing improved, more efficient services’ aeronautical, electro-mechanical and communication and information systems specialist training and to deliver it from new facilities.

The Metrix consortium was appointed as preferred bidder in January 2007 subject to it developing an affordable and value-for-money contract proposal. Given the significance of this project and the opportunity to provide a world-class training facility, the Ministry of Defence has worked tirelessly to deliver this project. However, it is now clear that Metrix cannot deliver an affordable, commercially robust proposal within the prescribed period and it has therefore been necessary to terminate the DTR procurement and Metrix’s appointment as preferred bidder.

Technical training, collocated on as few sites as possible, remains in our view the best solution for our armed forces. Equally, St Athan was previously chosen as the best location on which to collocate that training for good reasons, and we still hope to base our future defence training solution there. We will however now carry out some work before finalising the best way ahead; including to confirm both our training and estates requirement, and the best way to structure the solution that will meet them.

To ensure momentum is not lost, work on the alternative options will begin as soon as possible and we hope to be able to announce our future plans in the spring.

Veterinary Products Committee

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

I have received the annual report of the Veterinary Products Committee and its sub-committees 2009, which has been published today.

Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

I am pleased to acknowledge the valuable work done by the distinguished members of the Veterinary Products Committee and its sub-committees and thank them for the time and effort dedicated in the public interest to this important work.

Court of Justice of the European Union (Greek Judge)

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

At a conference of representatives of Governments of member states on 20 October 2010 the appointment of a Greek judge to the General Court is to be considered.

The nomination is in respect of Dimitrios Gratsias.

Having consulted with the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice and the Attorney-General, I agree to the appointment.

NHS Organ Donor Register

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Written Statements

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

I am today publishing the report of an independent review of the NHS organ donor register (ODR) by Professor Sir Gordon Duff. The review, announced on 11 April, was prompted by an error in the recording of the donation wishes of a number of registrants.

I am extremely grateful to Sir Gordon for establishing so clearly the circumstances surrounding this serious error, for his recommendations on how to ensure it does not happen again, and for his wider review of the ODR.

Organ donation relies on the generosity of people who are willing to donate organs after their death to help change or save the lives of others. If organ donation is to help the many people in need of a transplant, it is essential that people who join the ODR have confidence that their wishes are accurately recorded. It is extremely regrettable that as a result of this error donation decisions were influenced by incorrect information in 25 cases. NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) has rightly apologised to the affected families. I would like to offer my condolences to the families concerned for their loss and to express gratitude to their late relative for agreeing to be a donor.

Sir Gordon’s review found that the error originated in 1999 when faulty data conversion software was used by UK Transplant (now part of NHSBT) to upload data on individuals’ organ donation wishes from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, when moving to a new computer system. These individuals had elected, when completing their driving licence application form, to donate some, but not all of their organs. In 25 cases the decision by the donor’s relatives to agree to the donation of a particular organ was made using inaccurate information about the donor’s wishes as a result of the error. Sir Gordon concluded that the error was avoidable if systematic data verification procedures had been in place in 1999.

The report provides a detailed explanation of how the error occurred, how it came to light, and why it was not uncovered sooner. It also outlines the remedial action taken by NHSBT and the actions taken to prevent a recurrence. Sir Gordon concludes that once the error was identified and brought to the attention of NHSBT’s senior managers it was handled efficiently and sensitively.

Sir Gordon has also concluded that the ODR is now expected to fulfil functions for which it was not originally designed. He believes that a new interactive ODR based on 21st century technology would help to reduce the scope for human error inherent in the current system. He recommends that a new ODR should be designed and commissioned as soon as resources allow. We will discuss this recommendation with NHSBT, once it has completed its planned scoping and costing of a future operating model.

Sir Gordon has made a number of other recommendations addressed to NHSBT which are designed to ensure that the register reflects more clearly the wishes of those registered, and that confidence in the system is maintained. We look to NHSBT to consider those recommendations carefully and to respond accordingly.

Sir Gordon’s report has been placed in the Library and copies are available for hon. Members in the Vote Office.