House of Commons

Thursday 18th November 2010 Commons Chamber

Thursday 18 November 2010

The House met at half-past Ten o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 18th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 18th November 2010 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

1. What assessment he has made of the likely effects on the economy of maintaining his Department’s science and research budget at present levels.

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)]

Investment in science and research attracts inward investment, drives innovation and delivers highly skilled people to the economy, which is why we are protecting the cash budget for science and research at £4.6 billion and ring-fencing it.

[Graham Evans]

The Government are right to protect the science budget in cash terms, which is a decision that will reap dividends for our economy in the future. Does the Minister agree that the world-leading Daresbury science and innovation campus in my constituency should continue to receive the funding it needs so that it may play an important role in future economic growth?

[Mr Willetts]

My hon. Friend has campaigned effectively for Daresbury, and I can tell the House today that we have agreed that the public sector bodies can sign the joint venture agreement with their preferred private sector partner. That means that Daresbury now has excellent prospects as a national science and innovation campus, and I look forward to visiting in the new year.

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

If the science budget is to be protected in the way the Minister describes, it is important that the right people are taking the right decisions. Since 1993, the post of the director general responsible for the science budget has been occupied by a senior scientist. Lord Krebs and I, in our respective roles as Chairs of the two Science and Technology Select Committees, have written to the Secretary of State asking for a guarantee that that will be maintained. Will the Minister give that guarantee now?

[Mr Willetts]

The Secretary of State and I have seen this correspondence, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman, whose close interest in these matters I recognise, that a very satisfactory solution can be found.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

The Government speak of their support for science—support that has seen the science budget cut by 10% in real terms, stripped away the £400 million of annual science spend by the regional development agencies and exposed science capital expenditure to cuts of up to one third. Now the Minister is abolishing the top scientific post in his Department without even discussing it with the scientific community, which is a move that the former chief scientific adviser, Lord May, described as

“stupid, ignorant and politically foolish”.

So the science community has neither proper funding nor real influence. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s support for science is only skin deep?

[Mr Willetts]

We believe that it is possible to deliver the efficiency savings that mean that the science budget will be protected in real terms, and we are also, of course, committed to making efficiency savings within the Department. We make no apologies, therefore, for reducing the number of civil service posts in the Department. That is the right way to save money. However, as I said in answer to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), I am confident that the specific concerns raised by the science community about that post can be addressed.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

2. What his Department’s policy is on the future of the post office network.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)]

The Government set out their policy for the future of the post office network in a statement entitled “Securing the Post Office Network in the Digital Age” published on 9 November. Copies of the statement are available in the Libraries of the House and are accessible on the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills website.

[Bob Blackman]

I am sure that the whole House will welcome the arrangements between the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Post Office to enhance the capability of post offices, the vast majority of which, of course, are run by individuals as part of a wider business. What further plans does my hon. Friend have to enhance the post office network, rather than close it, as the Labour party did when in government?

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend is right to welcome the deal between RBS and the post office network. It means that nearly 80% of current accounts from the bank can now be accessed through the network, and we hope that that will be increased in due course. That is just one of the many policies set out in our policy framework so that we can ensure that the post office network does not suffer the major closure programmes we saw under the Labour party. I am sure that he will welcome the statement we made.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister understand people’s concern that he has not chosen to go ahead with a separate Post Office bank? Will he say how he intends to ensure that small sub-post offices in villages will be able to offer a wider range of services to our constituents?

[Mr Davey]

We looked in some detail at the case for a state-backed Post Office bank. The cost of a banking licence would have been in the realms of the amount of money we are putting into the post office network to modernise it and to prevent a closure programme. I am sure that the hon. Lady welcomes the £1.34 billion of investment in the post office network. That, along with the policies we set out in our policy statement to get more Government revenue through the post office network, and to tie up arrangements with banks such as RBS and the post office network, is the surest way to ensure that the post offices in the villages she talked about have a long-term viable future.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

The Government are keen to promote closer working between post offices and credit unions. Will the Minister seek ways to facilitate robust back-office arrangements between the two, which would be a good and cost-effective way of improving financial inclusion?

[Mr Davey]

I think the hon. Gentleman is quite right to point to the important role that credit unions can play and the potential for work between them and the post office network. As we said in our statement, there are already initiatives and pilots to see whether there is room for expanding the role of partnership work between the post office network and credit unions. I look forward to seeing the results of those pilots. The points made about a longer-term relationship are well made, and we are certainly looking at that.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

There is real disappointment in small rural communities such as the ones that I serve at the Government’s announcement on the Post Office bank. What reassurance can the Minister give me that services through small local post offices will be maintained, or preferably improved?

[Mr Davey]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has read our Post Office policy statement. I would have thought that he welcomed the fact that the measures we are taking are encouraging banks such as RBS to make their accounts available through the post office network in the towns and villages that he represents. I think that there is a much more positive future than under the previous Government and that is implicit in his question.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

3. What recent discussions he has had on the future of local enterprise partnerships; and if he will make a statement.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

12. What recent discussions he has had on the future of local enterprise partnerships; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)]

On 28 October the Government announced that 24 of the proposed local enterprise partnerships were cleared to progress, and they are currently preparing their governance arrangements. We continue to engage with other proposed partnerships, and we will report back to the House in due course.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The local enterprise partnership for Kent covers the varying concerns of the Thames Gateway as well as disgracefully neglected coastal towns such as Dover. Will the Minister take on board the idea of more localisation in the governance of LEPs, to ensure that they focus on particular concerns?

[Mr Prisk]

My hon. Friend is a great champion of local businesses, and he knows, and is right to say, that the great benefit of such partnerships is that they are local and can deal with local economic priorities, rather than with the national priorities of Ministers. That is the benefit of such partnerships; that is why we are progressing with them.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer. Although I am pleased that Advantage West Midlands is being replaced by a more business-friendly, accountable and flexible LEP, can he tell us what steps he will take to ensure that the hiatus between the wind-down of the regional development agency and the ramp-up of the LEP does not adversely affect businesses in Tamworth?

[Mr Prisk]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the need to avoid a hiatus. That is why we are already actively engaged in enabling LEPs to begin their work long before the RDAs finally close in 2012.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

As the Minister said, 24 bids were approved, but bids for many areas of the country, including for the black country, were not approved. Local enterprise partnerships will not have the same resources as the RDAs, which are currently spending about £1.5 billion a year in England. How are local enterprise partnerships supposed to help to rebalance the economy if they do not have the resources? Surely setting up these organisations and asking business to lead them is letting those business people down if the Government do not play their part and give them the resources they need to do the job.

[Mr Prisk]

We are in negotiations with the black country, and I hope that there will be a positive outcome, but the point of the partnerships is to remove the local barriers to growth and ensure that planning in local areas is addressed, that red tape is tackled and that local transport projects are dealt with jointly by business and civic leaders. That is what LEPs can do. It is not all about subsidies; it is about real action on the ground.

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

But the director general of the CBI described local economic partnerships as

“a bit of a shambles”.

Indeed, the Minister himself wrote to the Business Secretary, who is sitting next to him, to say that many LEPs were

“undermining our agenda for growth,”

and now the Business Secretary has told people in Birmingham that the abolition of RDAs is

“a little Maoist and chaotic”.

Can the Minister now tell the House: is he responsible for the Maoism or just for the chaos?

[Mr Prisk]

This is a great leap forward.

[Mr Denham]

Yesterday, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister told you and the House that whatever the Business Secretary had said, it was not what he believed. I know that Ministers have just come back from China, but I thought that public humiliation for incorrect thought went out with the cultural revolution.

Nissan told the Select Committee that the now abolished grant for business investment was vital to bring new investment and highly skilled jobs to the north-east. Was Nissan not right to say:

“The UK has a clear choice of whether it chooses to fight for new business, new jobs, and rebalance the economy or allow the opportunity of this business to go elsewhere”?

Does that not show that the Government have no plan for growth?

[Mr Prisk]

No, it does not. We are investing £1.4 billion in the regional growth fund, £10 billion in roads, and £14 billion in the railways, and we are ensuring that Nissan and others have the support that they need. That is why I shall be meeting Nissan on Monday.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

4. How much money the regional growth fund will distribute to enterprises in Yorkshire in (a) 2010-11 and (b) 2011-12.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)]

The regional growth fund is a challenge fund for England and is not ring-fenced or pre-allocated, including in terms of location. The fund will run for three years from 2011 to 2014, and the first round of bidding is now open for receipt of project proposals. It will close on 21 January 2011.

[Hugh Bayley]

As investment in jobs, Yorkshire Forward offered the National Railway museum £5 million towards the cost of redisplaying the exhibition in its great hall, but was forced to withdraw the money because of the Government’s withdrawal of support for regional development agencies. Does the Minister agree with his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), who suggested at a meeting with me and his hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) that the regional growth fund could be used to fund the National Railway museum to pick up where Yorkshire Forward was forced to leave off? Will he consider that proposal, and get back to me to talk about how that could be taken forward?

[Mr Prisk]

I have been to the National Railway museum, which is an excellent part of Yorkshire’s tourism and industrial heritage. There are clear rules about the regional growth fund, and they could well include the opportunity for a bid from the National Railway museum. If the hon. Gentleman or his local partners wish to proceed with that, they should look at the White Paper, and if there are any problems, I am happy to help.

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

5. Whether his Department intends to sell assets in its ownership to provide finance for the proposed green investment bank.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

The Chancellor announced in the spending review that the green investment bank will be funded with £1 billion from departmental budgets, and significant additional proceeds from asset sales. I will provide further information on which assets will be used to fund the institution in due course.

[Luciana Berger]

What funding will the Government make available to support renewable projects in the interim period before the green investment bank is established, which current estimates suggest is four years away?

[Vince Cable]

No, it is not four years away. The intention is that investments will be made in 2012, and that asset sales will be used for that purpose. We are in the process of establishing the bank, and the hon. Lady knows that a substantial number of renewable projects are being supported under the spending review.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

6. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the future of intra-company transfers following the introduction of the proposed immigration cap.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

Ministers, officials and I are in regular contact with the Home Secretary and other Ministers and officials in the Home Office to discuss the implementation of the commitment to limit non-EU economic migration. That includes discussions on intra-company transfers.

[Ian Swales]

That answer will be of interest to companies from Canada, the USA, Korea, India, Israel and Saudi Arabia that are already in the Tees valley. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the Thai company SSI is able to bring in the executives that it needs to make a success of its forthcoming purchase of the Redcar steelworks?

[Vince Cable]

The answer is yes. I pay tribute to the role that my hon. Friend has played in ensuring that SSI was able to come to the UK and transform the prospects of the Redcar plant. I can give him that assurance. Indeed, The Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions that in terms of the overall cap on migration,

“things such as inter-company transfers should not be included in what we are looking at.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 920.]

[Ian Lucas]

But companies such as Nissan, Toyota and Sharp Electronics in my constituency are investing in the UK and bringing teams to train British workers in new green technologies. The prevention of inter-company transfers is stopping them investing in British business, so why is the Business Secretary supporting the Tory immigration cap that he opposed at the general election?

[Vince Cable]

The hon. Gentleman did not listen to my previous answer. The Prime Minister was quite explicit on this, and I will repeat what he said:

“things such as inter-company transfers should not be included”

in our proposal for the immigration cap. I have spoken to Nissan and other companies, and the Government are well aware of the needs of business. We are open to business and we welcome foreign investors. The proposal on the immigration cap will be pursued, but not in ways that damage those companies.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

7. What plans he has to provide support for small and medium-sized enterprises in the next 12 months.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)]

Among other actions, the Government are cutting corporation tax for small businesses, tackling red tape, helping home-based businesses and ensuring that small firms secure a greater proportion of Government contracts.

[David Rutley]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the recent Barclays business regional impact index shows that the majority of small and medium-sized enterprises in the north-west are looking to expand in the year ahead? Will he tell the House what steps he is taking to help those vitally important SMEs in regions such as the north-west?

[Mr Prisk]

As my hon. Friend will know from his own business experience, one of the best forms of help is business-to-business mentoring. That is why on Monday, to launch global entrepreneurship week, we announced a new national network of more than 40,000 experienced business mentors. That will make a real difference in Macclesfield and across the country.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

8. What proportion of the population of the south-west is not covered by local enterprise partnerships.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)]

To date, in the south-west two partnerships have been asked to progress—namely, the West of England partnership and the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly partnership. They cover approximately 30% of the population of the south-west. The Government are engaged in further productive discussions with other proposed partnerships, which we hope will be concluded successfully.

[Mr Bradshaw]

That is a pitiful record. It is no wonder that the Secretary of State described this as a Maoist and chaotic process. May I urge the Minister and the Secretary of State to deploy some Stalinism, and to get those council leaders in a room and tell them to get their act together and stop excluding Exeter, the main economic driver in the region, from the process? If they will not do that urgently, will they just let the business community get on with it themselves?

[Mr Prisk]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman used to be part of Stalin’s last Government, but the most important thing is that he and I, and others, encourage those businesses and local partners that are not engaging in the process. We are making progress, and I hope that we can do that. The prospects are good, and I hope that he will engage with the process in a positive way.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

It seems that the bid for a local enterprise partnership including Wiltshire involved such a great leap forward that it has not even landed yet. Will the Minister please tell the House which of his requirements for these bids it has yet to meet?

[Mr Prisk]

Without wishing to stretch the metaphor too far, this involves quite a long march for some. The key is business engagement; that is the crucial part. That is what we are looking for, and I am sure that that will be achieved shortly.

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

My constituency, like that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), is currently sitting in one of the Maoist black holes for local enterprise partnerships. The Department’s new skills strategy says that local enterprise partnerships will lead the transformation of their local economies, yet the Minister is so embarrassed by them that he failed to mention them once when he wound up the debate on growth last Thursday. If he really wants to help local enterprise partnerships, why will he not allow them to retain the assets of the regional development authorities?

[Mr Prisk]

As the hon. Gentleman knows all too well, the White Paper sets out a clear, sensible path for the transfer of assets, and liabilities, from the RDAs. Such transfers might in part be to the local enterprise partnerships, where they exist, and in other parts they might not. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman needs to look more closely at the White Paper; the process is crystal clear.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

9. What steps he is taking to increase lending to small businesses.

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

13. What steps he is taking to increase lending to small businesses.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)]

The latest official information shows that more than two thirds of loan applications from small firms are approved. However, the Government are determined to press the banks to ensure that creditworthy businesses have the finance that they need. Among the actions that we are taking are enforcing lending codes, improving customer information and extending the enterprise finance guarantee.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the Minister for his response. Last week I met the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Federation of Small Businesses, which was extremely disappointed that the Government had ditched our plans for a Post Office bank. That would not only have provided small businesses with an alternative source of lending, but helped to sustain the post office network that so many of them rely on. I heard what the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), said earlier in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), but will Ministers think again?

[Mr Prisk]

With due respect, the hon. Lady forgets that the banks and the community development finance institutions are a crucial part of this discussion. If the FSB in her area wishes to make representations, I would encourage it, with her support, to do so.

[Natascha Engel]

In spite of what the Minister says, what is he doing to allay the concerns of eBay, which says that banks are still not lending to businesses? His Government did have lending targets for financing small businesses—what happened to them?

[Mr Prisk]

We still have the lending targets. The key thing is enforcement, which, despite the chuntering from those on the Opposition Front Bench, the last Government failed to do. What is important is that we now have a new lending code. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that businesses—whether they be eBay-based or real rather than virtual or online businesses—want a lending code and a proper appeal process. We have those, and I am determined to make sure that we enforce them.

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

A firm in my constituency cannot get money from the banks, which, if they do lend, do so at a 25% interest rate. It is a very successful company, but the banks, in order to gain liquidity, are stopping lending. We really must put more pressure on them.

[Mr Prisk]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Let me make it very clear again that when right hon. and hon. Members find unreasonable behaviour from the banks, they should ensure that it is raised with them and they should copy me in. When we find that evidence, we will challenge the banks vigorously.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

As I know the Minister is aware, the highest of the high-technology growth businesses tend to rely for their early-stage finance not on banks but on early-stage investors, angels and family. Will he agree to make representations to the Treasury to look at anything we can do to incentivise such sources of finance?

[Mr Prisk]

I and my Treasury colleagues are already looking at how to improve business angel finance, not least at how the enterprise investment scheme works. We are also looking to extend a further £200 million in equity funds to the capital enterprise fund.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Dave Watts. Not here.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

11. How many apprenticeship starts there were in the academic year 2009-10; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

Final data for apprenticeship starts in the 2009-10 year are not yet available. Provisional data published on Tuesday showed that there were 273,900 apprenticeship starts in that academic year.

[Pamela Nash]

I thank the Minister for that answer. The leader of the Scottish Labour party has assured every young person in Scotland that if he becomes First Minister in May, they will receive an apprenticeship if they so wish. Can the Minister also provide that reassurance to the rest of the young people in this country?

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Lady is the youngest Member in the House. It was Swift who said:

“Invention is the talent of youth, as judgment is of age”,

and it is my judgment that much of the Opposition’s position on apprenticeships is indeed invention. We will put £250 million more into apprenticeships to create more than ever before.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not only the start-ups but completions that are important to apprenticeships? Does he further agree that in order to achieve completion, we need to increase the prestige of apprenticeships? Will he thus support the establishment of a Royal Society of Apprentices?

[Mr Hayes]

My hon. Friend has already established a reputation for championing vocational learning. We will commit to improving completions. I am prepared to say that the last Government made some progress there. I have already had discussions with a distinguished personage about exactly the idea that my hon. Friend proposes.

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

The Government are setting great store by providing more apprenticeships to replace the work that used to be done under the future jobs fund. What discussions is the Minister having with employers to make sure that sufficient apprenticeship places are available so that these youngsters can take up the offers that the Government say they want them to do?

[Mr Hayes]

As has already been said, we launched our skills strategy just this week, and I have a copy here for you, Mr Speaker. It has been welcomed by small businesses, the CBI, the Institute of Directors and the Trades Union Congress. The only people who have not welcomed it are Opposition Members, which says more about them than us.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

14. What recent steps his Department has taken to increase the number of student places at universities.

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)]

Despite the need to address the deficit, we have enabled universities to recruit an additional 10,000 students in 2010-11. Had we not done so, the number of university places in England would have fallen this year. Our proposals for a fairer and more progressive system of university funding mean that we can maintain student numbers in the future.

[Mr Wilson]

Lord Browne’s review made it clear that the artificial cap on the number of students attending individual universities should be removed to improve market efficiency. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will implement that important recommendation in full?

[Mr Willetts]

My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate of the cause of liberalising universities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are determined to ensure that they have a freer system, and we will set out proposals to that effect in our forthcoming White Paper.

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

Is the Minister aware that the Government have just asked the British Council not to recruit before 2011-12 for its English language assistant placement scheme? The scheme is vital to many language students, and cancelling it next year would cause a great deal of disruption. Will the Minister reconsider? If he does not, he will remove a valuable scheme that is important to many language students in this country.

[Mr Willetts]

We are discussing the issue with language schools, and I met some of their representatives at the Department recently.

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

Will the Minister acknowledge that even before Lord Browne’s review, many universities—the university of Glasgow being a case in point—were finding that because of the purely artificial 50% figure that had been arrived at years ago, they were having to up their criteria for entry for, say, next autumn? Students who thought that they would be given a place are now finding that they are unlikely to be given one. How will the Government’s interpretation of Lord Browne’s recommendations deal with that fundamental problem?

[Mr Willetts]

While university places remain publicly funded, there has to be some sort of control. However, because of the proposals that we implemented in England this year, there were more places for British students in England. I hope that I am not being too chauvinistic when I say that, in the absence of similar policies in Scotland and Wales, the number of student places fell in both countries.

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

As the Minister knows full well, there is mounting concern about the damage that will be done by the Government’s unprecedented 80% cut in funds for our universities. The Institute For Fiscal Studies, which Ministers used as a crutch, is busy revising its assessment of the Government’s plans; there is increasing evidence that poorer students will be deterred from going to university; and the Higher Education Policy Institute says that fees of £9,000 a year will be the norm rather than, as the Minister has claimed, the exception.

Is it not now clear that, rather than arranging a quick vote to end the Deputy Prime Minister’s embarrassment on the issue, the Government should publish their plans in full—including their plans for student numbers—so that they can be properly scrutinised in the House and the full facts can be considered by all Members before the House votes on increasing fees?

[Mr Willetts]

We are, of course committed to publishing a White Paper on our proposals, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that they will ensure that power in our higher education system resides with the student, which is where it should reside. Universities will have to respond to the choices and preferences of students, and we believe that about a quarter of graduates will contribute less under our proposals than they do under the system left to us by the last Government.

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

Methwold high school in my constituency is developing a pioneering plan to offer university of London degrees. It will be a first, particularly in a rural community. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a great way of increasing participation and aspiration, and would he be willing to meet me along with a delegation from Methwold high school?

[Mr Willetts]

I think I read an interesting article about that important initiative in Times Higher Education the other day. I congratulate my hon. Friend on drawing the House’s attention to it.

We are committed to broadening participation in higher education. That is what our £150 million scholarship scheme is all about, and initiatives such as the one described by my hon. Friend are very valuable.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

15. What assessment he has made of the effects of the abolition of regional development agencies on access to unspent funding from the European regional development fund.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

My Department is working with the Department for Communities and Local Government to develop new delivery structures for the European regional development fund to replace the RDAs. We aim to ensure that the programmes continue to be implemented with minimal disruption.

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the Minister for his reply. In the west midlands, £113 million of ERDF money is still as yet unallocated. About 40% has historically been allocated to projects through the regional development agency, but the RDA is now to go, and there is no sign on the horizon of an alternative delivery mechanism. Can the Minister assure us that mechanisms will be found to spend that money before 2013, or will it go to the Treasury?

[Mr Vaizey]

That money will be spent. Local enterprise partnerships and local authorities can apply for it, and we intend to announce a new delivery mechanism next spring.

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

16. Whether the proceeds from the sale of High Speed 1 will be added to the start-up capital for the green investment bank.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

I am unable to provide commercially sensitive information on individual asset sales, but I can say that I do not expect the proceeds of the sale of HS 1 to be used for the green investment bank. Instead, they will make a contribution to reducing the stock of national debt.

[Gregg McClymont]

The Secretary of State has referred to his own policies as Maoist, but may I suggest that he is more like Chiang Kai-shek? He is losing the war, he has retreated to his own little island, and he is increasingly cut adrift from the mainland of this Tory Government.

[Vince Cable]

That blizzard of rhetoric rather disguises the fact that in setting up the green investment bank we are making a very real commitment to investment in a green economy, and a substantial Government financial commitment has been made to it.

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

17. What plans he has for the future provision of offender learning and training.

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

This is an issue that I think unites the whole House. Earlier this year I commissioned a far-reaching review of offender learning, because we know that getting people into jobs by improving their skills so that they can play their part in society reduces reoffending and makes communities safer.

[Tracey Crouch]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Royal British Legion Industries, based in Aylesford, runs a project aimed at providing tailored support, employment and training for ex-service personnel with a criminal record. Will the Minister meet with representatives from RBLI to discuss what opportunities are available to them to expand this project, which is often run by ex-offenders, and thereby to assist the Government in improving provision of offender and ex-offender learning and training?

[Mr Hayes]

I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend, and the House, that I have already had discussions with RBLI; indeed, I am planning a further meeting to ensure that the excellent work being done is in line with our plans to take action on this issue, which, as I have said, unites the whole House.

[Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)]

18. What assessment he has made of the prospects for private sector job creation in Halifax; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

In the recent spending review, the Government set out their framework for fostering private sector growth both by ensuring macro-economic stability and efficient and dynamic markets and by prioritising Government activity to support growth. The White Paper on local growth also sets out the actions that the Government are taking to foster private sector growth, and Halifax is covered by the Leeds city region local enterprise partnership, which is currently being taken forward.

[Mrs Riordan]

I thank the Minister for his reply. A very high proportion of my Halifax constituents are employed in the public sector, and job losses in that sector would devastate the local economy. I fight for every job in Halifax. Will the Minister outline what his Department is doing to increase investment and encourage job creation in northern towns like Halifax?

[Mr Vaizey]

I hear what the hon. Lady has to say, and I have no doubt that she fights hard for her constituents. I hope that she will therefore support not only the Leeds city region LEP but the regional growth fund, which exists to promote private sector growth, as well as a whole host of other measures such as the reduction in corporation tax, the national insurance holiday and the sustained investment in transport infrastructure, all of which will also help to create jobs.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

19. What his Department’s policy is on the future of the post office network.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)]

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) earlier.

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful to the Minister. Earlier this summer, the sub-postmaster at Quedgeley in my constituency of Gloucester decided to close his franchise because he could not see enough ways of making the business profitable. Can the Minister confirm that his plans for increased access to Government services, banking services and credit unions will help reverse the disastrous trend under the last Government of spiralling decline and closure, and instead enable sub-postmasters to make their businesses profitable again?

[Mr Davey]

That is exactly right, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend both for his work as secretary to the all-party group on post offices and for his work in finding a new sub-postmaster for Quedgeley. Our policies include not only our £1.34 billion of investment in the post office network, but our efforts to ensure that, through the pilots that we have announced, Government services provided through the post office network will increase, rather than decline.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

20. What estimate he has made of the number of people and businesses in (a) the north-east, (b) the south-west and (c) Lancashire which will not be covered by local enterprise partnerships following the implementation of his proposals for such partnerships.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)]

Overall, the 24 partnerships agreed to date cover the majority of businesses and the economy of England. In Lancashire, local disagreements have prevented a credible proposal from being made. As I mentioned in my response to an earlier question, 30% of the population is covered at the moment in the south-west, but I can now confirm to the House that we expect full coverage in the north-east.

[Graham Jones]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he accept that Lancashire county council’s LEP proposal is not a pan-Lancashire proposal, but a Swiss cheese proposal, designed to annex east Lancashire? The war of words, to which he has alluded, between the east and the west is extremely divisive. Will he come to a decision that reflects local interests, rather than those of what I see as the gang of six? The gang of four Maoists seemed to resolve such things rather more quickly, so will he come to a quick resolution regarding the east and west?

[Mr Prisk]

I am not sure that either the Swiss cheese metaphor or the Maoist metaphor worked well, but let me deal with the reality of the situation. Three conflicting proposals were made in Lancashire. At the moment, positive discussions are taking place about how those can be rationalised, and officials will continue to work with both business and civic leaders to find a sensible arrangement. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will play a positive role in that, so that we can move on.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

21. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the effect of implementation of the immigration cap on recruitment and retention in small businesses.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

Ministers and officials in my Department, and I, are in regular contact with the Home Secretary and other Ministers and officials in the Home Office to discuss the implementation of the commitment to limit non-EU economic migration. Those discussions have, of course, considered all types of business across the economy.

[Keith Vaz]

I welcome the fact that 12 hours after the publication of the Home Affairs Committee’s report on immigration the Government accepted our recommendation on the immigration cap with regard to intra-company transfers. However, there is a problem, in that the Home Secretary qualified this by reference to a minimum salary of £40,000. Will the Business Secretary continue with the representations that I know he is making to the Home Office that these salary positions make it extremely difficult, especially for small businesses, to be flexible in their recruitment of people from overseas?

[Vince Cable]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution to that valuable report, whose conclusions the Home Secretary has endorsed. Our overall approach to this is reflected in the answer that the Prime Minister gave in Parliament yesterday. He said that he wanted our policy to be

“business-friendly and helpful to the economy.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 885.]

Skilled, entrepreneurial and talented people will be welcome under the immigration policy.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I am sure that Government Members entirely welcome the Government’s cap on immigration. Obviously we will be having a debate on immigration later today, which has been put on by the Backbench Business Committee. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the immigration cap does not apply to EU citizens, so they represent a big pool for small businesses to attract?

[Vince Cable]

The hon. Gentleman is right on a matter of fact: this is a cap on non-EU migration, not on migration from the EU.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

23. What plans he has for the future of the regional growth fund.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)]

As I said earlier, the regional growth fund is a challenge fund for the whole of England and it should not have any ring-fencing or pre-allocations. We expect a number of very positive applications, and the first opening round of those will conclude on 21 January 2011.

[Julian Sturdy]

Businesses in my constituency often impress on me how important reliable modern infrastructure is to their success. Can the Minister confirm that bids to the regional growth fund for capital funding will be considered if they meet the objectives set out in the growth White Paper?

[Mr Prisk]

I can confirm that all bids that meet the criteria of the fund, including bids for projects such as those that my hon. Friend mentioned, will, of course, be considered on their merits.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister two weeks ago supported the idea of a new silicon valley in east London. Is that an initiative that the regional growth fund could be used to support? What else will the Minister’s Department do to support the Prime Minister’s proposal?

[Mr Prisk]

The point of the proposal, and the regional growth fund, is to ensure that in areas where there is a particular reliance on the public sector, or on any other single sector, there will be a diversity of job opportunities. I am sure that the opportunity for a new silicon valley will be an excellent project, and one that will be considered carefully by the independent panel advising Ministers.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

In the past, regional development funds have ignored areas of deprivation in some parts of the country—for instance, those in West Suffolk—because they are surrounded by areas of comparative wealth. Will the Minister confirm that any area of the country can apply for funding under the new regional growth fund, no matter how small the area of comparative deprivation might be?

[Mr Prisk]

All bids will be considered fairly and on merit. That means that when there is an opportunity to transform the economy so that it is less reliant on the public sector, irrespective of location, those applications will be considered with due care and consideration.

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

Now that we have a local enterprise partnership in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire, will the Minister assure me that we will be able to bid for regional growth funding for applications in respect of ceramics in Stoke-on-Trent and in respect of the new environmental technologies? Will he keep a close watch on ensuring that our deprived area gets that Government funding?

[Mr Prisk]

That is an excellent question, and I shall keep a close eye on the proposals—and, indeed, on the future of the economy in Stoke-on-Trent.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Colleagues are to be congratulated on their succinctness.

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

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

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

My Department has an important role in delivering growth and the coalition’s commitment to building a new and more responsible economic model while rebalancing the economy and bringing enterprise, manufacturing, training, learning and research closer together.

[Caroline Lucas]

As the Lib-Dem Treasury spokesman in the last Parliament, the Secretary of State strongly criticised the Labour Government’s handling of the Lloyds TSB merger with HBOS, saying that the Lloyds shareholders had been sold a lemon. What does he say now to the 800,000 small Lloyds shareholders who have lost up to seven eighths of their investment, some of whom I have met in my constituency? What support will he give those who are now trying to win compensation?

[Vince Cable]

First, I congratulate the hon. Lady, as I believe that last night she received the newcomer of the year award from The Spectator. On her specific question, she will be aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I established the banking commission specifically to consider the structure of banking and how competition can be improved. It will undoubtedly take into account the particular position of that bank.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

T3. I recently visited the Abington pharmacy in my constituency, where I switched on a robotic dispenser—[Laughter.] It delivers pharmaceutical products, and I switched it on rather than turned it on. Many successful small businesses such as that pharmacy struggle to get the banks to give them loans, and small and medium-sized businesses are suffering as a consequence. What can my hon. Friend do to encourage the banks to lend to small businesses?

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)]

No. 1: ensure that we enforce the lending commitments. No. 2: extend the enterprise finance guarantee—and the third action that I would encourage would probably be to leave those buttons alone!

[Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)]

T2. Thousands of medical students will be crippled by the increased tuition fees, and the submission by the British Medical Association to Lord Browne’s review appears to have been ignored. Does the Minister agree that those increases will deter young people from undertaking medical training?

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)]

We do not believe that our proposals will have any such effect. Obviously, I am in close contact with the Secretary of State for Health, and we are confident that we can continue to support medical training in a way that will provide the doctors that we need.

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

T4. Does the Minister agree that the true test of any education or training system is that the person concerned comes out better qualified and better equipped to be an active and employable member of society than they were before they went into it? Does he agree that the 50% target for universities did not work and was not right, and that we now need to value vocational training and apprenticeship schemes better?

[Mr Willetts]

My hon. Friend is right. That is why, as well as maintaining student numbers this year with 10,000 extra places, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning have committed us to 75,000 extra apprenticeship places.

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

T5. Nissan is an important local employer in Sunderland and it has rightly said that “relatively modest” Government investment can rebalance the economy. That is crucial in regions such as the north-east. Does the Secretary of State agree with Nissan that if the Government do not fight for new business, it will simply go elsewhere?

[Vince Cable]

One of the first decisions that this incoming Government made was to confirm support for the Nissan Leaf project. We continue to be in close contact with that company, which makes a valuable contribution to the economy in this country and the north-east, and we will maintain close relations with it.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

T6. Students who complete degrees are rightly lauded as graduates at elaborate ceremonies that are all too often unlike those for people who learn valuable crafts. Does the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning agree that we must do more to recognise the value and status of those who complete apprenticeships?

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

For too long we have conned ourselves that the only form of prowess that matters is academic accomplishment. We need, in the spirit of Ruskin and Morris, to recognise that practical skills matter too. I recommend that my hon. Friend read my speech to the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce on that subject. Signed copies are available, but I am told it is the unsigned copies that will be clamoured for in years to come.

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

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Secretary of State gave vague assurances on intra-company transfers, particularly those that are vital to the future of Toyota on Deeside. When will he finally end the uncertainty that still hangs over this issue?

[Vince Cable]

The Home Secretary will announce the results of the consultation very soon, and I am sure that it will give the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he wants on inter-company transfers.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

T7. Will the Minister agree to meet a social enterprise in my constituency whose future is threatened by the draconian attitude of RBS, which seeks nearly £400,000 in penalties for a minor breach, even though a non-nationalised bank is willing to refinance its loan fully?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)]

The Government are keen that banks should behave responsibly towards businesses, charities and social enterprises, and we continue to work with the banks to achieve that. For example, we are working with them to revise the lending code for micro-enterprises and we are publishing lending principles for medium-sized and larger businesses. We will continue to hold banks to account when they act unreasonably, and my officials will raise this matter with RBS.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

In a letter that I received this morning from the Secretary of State, I was told that the funding for AgustaWestland

“has been provisionally allocated under the capital budget of the department over the Spending Review period”,

whereas the Sheffield Forgemasters loan was cancelled in June because its funding had been allocated during the current financial year. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the speediness of his response, but as the Forgemasters loan was the only BIS investment that was dropped in June, why can it not be picked up again and allocated in the period of the forthcoming spending review?

[Vince Cable]

Because those two projects have wholly different origins and outcomes. We have not made any commitment on the AgustaWestland project, which will be evaluated and negotiated in the proper way. As for Sheffield Forgemasters, the hon. Lady has been told on several occasions that if it and its supporters put in a bid to the regional growth fund, it will be considered alongside other projects.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

T8. One in five lip-reading classes in England and Wales are threatened with closure next year. Will the Minister reclassify lip-reading as an essential skill rather than a leisure activity, making sure that the classes are accessible to the hearing-impaired and continue to protect their ability to communicate?

[Mr Hayes]

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady, who will know that I have been a champion of the disability lobby for many years, as the chairman of the all-party group on disability. I shall certainly look into this matter. She will know that we have protected adult and community learning in the Budget. Some £210 million has been protected because we know the difference it makes in changing lives and life chances.

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

R3, an insolvency body, recently indicated that one in 10 companies are not prepared for the VAT increase in January. The Federation of Small Businesses in the north-east has highlighted a Kingston university study finding that small and medium-sized companies in the north-east will shed jobs. What action will Ministers take to deal with the VAT increase in January?

[Mr Prisk]

The whole point of making sure that the increase does not come during the Christmas period is that that is the most difficult period for most businesses. The increase is being made at the end of that period so that businesses can make the adjustment. Unlike what happened with the VAT change under the previous Government, we have given businesses a full six months and more to prepare. If there are particular cases to discuss, I am happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

T9. It is not too early to say that the ability of further education colleges to innovate has been strangled by targets and the dead hand of bureaucracy. Does the Minister plan to free colleges and make them more responsive to student and employer demands?

[Mr Hayes]

I have already mentioned our schools strategy, and we will free colleges for the first time from the hoop-jumping, bean-counting, form-filling, byzantine regime that the previous Government imposed upon them. They will be free to serve their learners, free to do their best and free to be their best.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

According to the Government’s new skills strategy, local enterprise partnerships will have no powers over skills. Our people’s skills are the biggest factor in holding back economic development, and Professor David Bailey says:

“Make no mistake, this is a big blow”.

What will the Minister do to give powers over skills back to LEPs?

[Mr Hayes]

I think that the hon. Lady needs to read the document more closely, although I appreciate that she might not have had time to do so. We are very clear that colleges should work with local communities, engage with employers through local enterprise partnerships and react to their learners’ needs. The system will be driven by the needs of learners, framed by the needs of our employers and engaged with the local community in a way that the previous Government could not even have dreamed of.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

The Secretary of State mentions that one of his key responsibilities is growth. North Lincolnshire council in my constituency recently gave planning permission for a major development that offers an opportunity for a renewable energy cluster. Will he visit the area in the near future so as to understand the full potential that it offers?

[Vince Cable]

I have a long queue of engagements, but I shall add that to the list. It sounds a very promising opportunity.

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

Based on the equality impact assessment that I am sure the coalition Government have carried out on their higher education proposals, what will the impact of cutting the higher education teaching grant by 80% be on women?

[Mr Willetts]

Many part-time students are female, and it is already clear that our proposals to give a proper student loan entitlement to part-time students for the first time, in order to help with their fees, will particularly benefit women. We will publish the full impact assessment alongside our White Paper.

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

I welcome the steps that my right hon. Friend is taking to increase the number of student places at universities. He mentions increasing the number of part-time courses, and that is vital, but will he urge institutions to be more innovative in their approach to study?

[Mr Willetts]

My hon. Friend is right. One of the main objectives of our reforms is to allow greater diversity of provision, which means more short two-year courses and more part-time opportunities. We want to see a new freedom for universities to innovate, and those possibilities will arise as a part of our reforms.

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

The £1.4 billion regional growth fund is clearly grossly underfunded, and if we had taken the advice of Ministers today we would have spent it 10 times over already. Did the Prime Minister give my constituents false hope yesterday, when he suggested to me that they should go to that fund for housing regeneration?

[Mr Prisk]

rose—

[Vince Cable]

rose—

[Mr Prisk]

As you can see, Mr Speaker, we are very keen to answer this question.

Absolutely not. Every area can bid, and the opportunities are clear for every constituency. There are also opportunities for the private sector, but the key point is that when funds are tight, we have to remind ourselves that the reason why is sitting on the Opposition Benches.

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

May I plead with the employment Minister and his boss to delay the implementation of flexible working, shared parental leave and the expansion of legislation on the right to request training, in order to give British business a holiday from new employment legislation in 2011, and allow it to focus on job creation and growth?

[Mr Davey]

I may be about to disappoint my hon. Friend, because he will know that the coalition has some very expansive plans to promote the right to request flexible working for all employees, and to develop a new system of flexible shared parental leave. We believe that when we publish our plans and consult on them in the new year, he, and many businesses, will see that they are actually ways to promote business growth and enterprise.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

We have learned this week from the papers that the Secretary of State is participating in the “Strictly Come Dancing” Christmas special. [Hon. Members: “Hurrah!”] Does that mean that his policy towards business and the economy is “Slow, slow, quick, quick, slow”?

[Vince Cable]

I have been taught to dance “Quick, quick, quick, quick, quick”, and that is what I will be doing, both in my Department and on the Christmas show.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

I understand that Lord Young is examining the impact of employment law on the growth of small business. Will my hon. Friend work with Lord Young to identify whether there are ways of modifying employment law for small businesses, particularly those that are family owned, and employ small numbers of people?

[Mr Davey]

I have already met Lord Young to discuss his review, and I will be working with him. The House will want to pay tribute to Lord Young for his award yesterday as peer of the year.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the commitment, given by the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), in response to my first question, to setting up structures to access European regional development funding. Will the Minister confirm that money will be available to get the projects together to do that?

[Mr Prisk]

The officials are dealing with that issue at this precise moment. Once we have an answer, I will come straight back to the hon. Gentleman.

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

In my constituency, small businesses have historically been able to visit our local Crown post office to collect their mail early in the morning. Now the Post Office has informed those businesses that in future they will have to pay £225 per month if they want to collect their post before 8.30 in the morning. Will my hon. Friend encourage the Post Office to drop that additional burden on small business?

[Mr Davey]

As my hon. Friend knows, such issues are operational matters for the management of Royal Mail, but I will certainly raise that matter with them.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

May I press the Minister on when exactly he spoke to the Department of Health about forgivable loans for medical students?

[Mr Willetts]

I have had several discussions with the Secretary of State for Health, and our proposals will ensure that we continue to be able to fund medical students in Britain.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Demand has exceeded supply, as usual.

Socio-economic Equality Duty

Thursday 18th November 2010 Commons Chamber

11:32

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister to make a statement on the announcement yesterday outside Parliament that the Government intend to drop section 1 of the Equality Act 2010, which places duties on public bodies to act in respect of socio-economic disadvantage.

[The Minister for Equalities (Lynne Featherstone)]

Equality is at the heart of what this coalition Government are all about. We have come together as a coalition to govern on the principles of freedom, fairness and responsibility.

In Britain today, those growing up in households that have fallen too far behind still have fewer opportunities available to them and they are still less able to take the opportunities that are available. We need to design intelligent policies that give those at the bottom real opportunities to make a better life for themselves. That is why we are devoting all our efforts and energies to policies that can give people real opportunities to make life better for themselves, and not just to new and unnecessary legislation.

We do not need new laws to come up with policies that open up opportunities, and we do not need new laws to come up with policies that support and protect the most vulnerable. We have already begun to implement them. That is why over the course of the spending review, we will spend over £7 billion on a new fairness premium. That will give all disadvantaged two-year-olds an entitlement to 15 hours a week of pre-school education, in addition to the free entitlement that all three and four-year-olds already receive. It also includes a £2.5 billion per year pupil premium to support disadvantaged children.

Those measures, combined with our plans for extra health visitors and a more focused Sure Start, will give children the best possible start in life. That is why we are extending the right to request flexible working to all, helping to shift behaviour away from the traditional nine-to-five model of work, which can act as a barrier to so many people and often does not make sense for many modern businesses, and why we will implement a new system of flexible parental leave, which will end the state-endorsed stereotype of women doing the caring and men earning the money when a couple start a family.

We do not need laws to make choices that protect the most vulnerable. When we have had to make difficult choices about how to deal with the record budget deficit left by Labour, we have done so in a way that protects the most vulnerable. We will increase child tax credits for the poorest families, protecting against rises in child poverty; we will increase spending on the NHS and schools in real terms every year; we will lift 880,000 of the lowest-paid workers out of income tax altogether; and we will protect the lowest-paid public sector workers from the public sector pay freeze.

All those policies were designed by the coalition to protect those most at risk and to give opportunities to those most in need. They are real action, not unnecessary empty gestures. That is why we are scrapping the socio-economic duty. I said during the passage of the Bill that this was a weak measure, that it was gesture politics, and that it would not have achieved anything concrete. The policy would only have been a bureaucratic box to tick—another form to fill in. It would have distracted hard-pressed council staff and other public sector workers away from coming up with the right policies that will make a real difference to people’s chances in life.

We cannot solve a problem as complex as inequality in one weak legal clause, and we cannot make people’s lives better by simply passing a law saying that they should be made better. We believe that real action should be taken to address the root causes of disadvantage and inequality. We do not need empty gestures, and we do not need the socio-economic duty, to do that.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

It is very disappointing that I had to ask the Minister to come here. I would have expected at least a written ministerial statement or a statement to the House on a decision of this nature.

Dropping the socio-economic duty was not in the coalition agreement. It was a major part of the Equality Act 2010, which Parliament passed only this year. While we know that the Conservatives have never wanted Government to take responsibility for building a more equal society, that is not the view that the hon. Lady herself has previously taken. In fact, despite her words just now, on Second Reading of the Equality Bill she called for more legislation:

“The Government should have made legislative proposals to tackle socio-economic inequality in a Bill of its own”.—[Official Report, 11 May 2009; Vol. 492, c. 579.]

Given the importance of narrowing the equality gap, does she still think this?

What proposals will the Minister now bring forward to assess the impact of Government policies on the most disadvantaged? Despite her fine words, is it not true that this Government simply do not care about socio-economic inequality? The Institute for Fiscal Studies has proved that the Government are hitting the poorest hardest. If there is no duty, how will people know about the impact of Government decisions on the most disadvantaged?

With this duty in place, public bodies would have had to think about what they should be doing to improve life chances. We all know about Sure Start; indeed, the Minister referred to it. We know its fantastic work, and how its impact is greatest on the most disadvantaged children. Councils would have had a duty to take that into account if they were thinking of closing children’s centres, but she is now saying that they will not. Does she think that is right?

The hon. Lady said that the duty is bureaucratic, but the truth is that the Government have the power to decide how it is implemented. Did the Government even attempt to draw up a flexible way of introducing it?

The Minister said that we cannot deliver equality by legislation, but the simple truth is that the Government do not believe that they have any responsibility to deliver a fairer society. Of course, legislation does not work like magic, but it is a key way that Government can change things. Road safety legislation does not stop all accidents, but it does make our roads safer and it does save children’s lives. This duty would have helped to make our society fairer, and it would have given poorer people a fair chance, so why is she scrapping it?

[Lynne Featherstone]

After 13 years of a Labour Government who left behind them a more unequal society with a widening gap between rich and poor, the idea that an exceptionally weak clause in an Act that has not been enacted or implemented was major legislation, when it contained only a duty to consider, is everything that is bad about politics. [Interruption.] It has not been implemented.

The public sector equality duty that will be introduced in the spring is the strongest measure possible. It will allow for transparency, and it will allow people to hold the authority to account in their locality. What the Government are doing is far more important than the duty the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) mentions. We are taking 880,000 lower-paid people out of tax, and spending £7 billion on the fairness premium and £2.5 billion on the pupil premium, which is additional money and the single most important measure for changing children’s life chances.

What is more, let me read to the hon. Lady what the last Government’s social mobility tsar Alan Milburn said:

“The challenges of the future call for a different relationship between the state and the citizen…It will mean…not just passing laws.”

But that was all the Labour party did—pass laws. What we are doing is about outcomes, not ticking boxes.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

The most disadvantaged children, like all children, need time with their parents to thrive and prosper. Does the Minister think that flexible parental leave and the right to request flexible working are a more progressive concept than equality by diktat?

[Lynne Featherstone]

Of course, the right for all employees to request flexible working is a hugely important step and extremely progressive. It is about shifting the stigma that has always appertained to women requesting flexible working, and accepting that in whole-life journeys we all have caring responsibilities, including men, who were part of the equation last time I looked.

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

If the hon. Lady is so dismissive of legislation, one wonders why she is sitting where she is. May I point out to her that it was legislation that afforded women the right to vote, quite apart from other legislation that has been transformative not only for our society but for societies around the world?

If the hon. Lady is genuinely concerned that children in deprived situations should be taken out of that deprivation, why have her Government introduced a cap on housing benefit that will make thousands of children homeless?

[Lynne Featherstone]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Minister really cannot go into the subject of housing benefit caps. She can give a reply on equality if she wants, but she cannot talk about that, I am afraid.

[Lynne Featherstone]

That is such a shame, Mr Speaker, but I will restrain myself.

Of course legislation is important, but it must be effective legislation, not gesture legislation.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Is the Minister as surprised as I am to hear what is being said by Opposition Members who, in debates on previous legislation, have argued against equally weighted votes for men and women in equally sized constituencies?

[Lynne Featherstone]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. It is very surprising.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just say gently that people are perfectly entitled to vent their views, but questions must relate to the socio-economic duty? That is the matter that we are discussing.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

The Government’s dilution of the previous Government’s equality legislation is just one of a series of betrayals of women. They failed to undertake a gender impact assessment of the emergency Budget—[Interruption.] Maybe the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice would like to take this seriously, because it is a serious matter. The Government have failed to sign up to new measures to combat human trafficking of women and children, and they have frozen the pay of the lowest-paid public sector workers, whose actual salaries are less than £21,000 and many of whom are women. When exactly will they stop taking measures that have a disproportionately negative impact on women?

[Lynne Featherstone]

As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, the Treasury did an envelope impact assessment on the comprehensive spending review, and each Department will undertake an extensive impact assessment as the spending review plays out. The Government are absolutely committed to equality and fairness—not just saying that we are doing it, but actually doing it.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I do not know what a socio-economic equality duty is, and nor do the people of Wellingborough. May I suggest that it is left-wing tosh and should be scrapped?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s direct approach. I probably would not put it in quite such pejorative terms. If the Government are interested in delivering fairness and equality, that has to be done through measures that actually deliver them, rather than just talking about them.

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

Perhaps I can help the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). In the poorest wards in my constituency, my local authority—Tory-controlled Trafford—has repeatedly under-invested in public services, from addressing health inequalities to sweeping snow from the streets. In the absence of the socio-economic duty, how can my poor constituents be sure that they will not continue to lose out?

[Lynne Featherstone]

All councils up and down the country that are worth their salt will already be considering the socio-economic duty in terms of all the money they spend. That is the point. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but Opposition Members can jump up and down as much as they like—a duty to consider is not action at all.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend recall that I, too, was a member of the Committee that considered the Equalities Bill? Does she agree that the then Minister’s enthusiasm for this duty was utterly unconvincing in Committee? Does she agree that it detracted from the seriousness of the other duties in the Bill and that there was no idea what the impact would be?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I agree. That is the whole point. That is why I called the duty weak and why Lord Lester from the other place called it watery. It would not deliver what it said it would. Other proposals in the Bill were more important, but this duty distracted from their importance.

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

I am rather pleased by what the Minister has said, because it demonstrates beyond any shadow of a doubt that she, like other Liberal Democrats in the Government, is simply a mouthpiece of the Tories.

[Lynne Featherstone]

That is a charming, but inaccurate description.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

The Bill’s provisions have been described as “socialism in one clause”. Does the Minister agree that we cannot solve a problem such as inequality in one clause, whether by socialism or any other means?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I agree. Delivering equality and fairness is a serious matter, and the idea that one clause would make a significant difference is wrong, particularly as it was a tick-box exercise. If it had delivered a measured outcome, I am sure we would be implementing it; as it did not, we are not.

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

For decades, disabled people were told that equality would come through education and changing attitudes, but it did not. It was not until the introduction of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—an imperfect Act it was, too—that we began to see equality. The Equalities Act 2010 would have done the same for poor people, and it does them and the hon. Lady a disservice when she says that the Government will scrap this duty. That is a mistake.

[Lynne Featherstone]

The hon. Lady makes my point for me. Substantive legislation is extremely important; this was not substantive legislation.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition’s fixation on socio-economic equality rather than equality of opportunity is the reason why, sadly, during 13 years of Labour, our young people’s chances were determined by how much their parents earned. That brings shame on Opposition Members.

[Lynne Featherstone]

I could not agree more. It is to the shame of the Labour Government that, after 13 years, they left this country more unequal than ever before.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am sorry, but it is rather incredible that the Minister has come here to try to defend the indefensible and that she has done it so poorly. Surely, if the legislation is put in place, it is up to the Minister to ensure that it is not simply a tick-box exercise. What message does it send to people on lower incomes in poor communities when the Government do not feel that they are worth legislating for?

[Lynne Featherstone]

It is totally defensible. Listening to Opposition Members, I must say that they are re-enacting what is in the Act: they are talking about things, not delivering them.

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

I welcome the Minister’s reply, but will she go further? The Government are consulting on related regulations to force up to 27,000 councils, schools, police forces and other bodies annually to audit their work force on age, disability, sexuality, sex changes, religion and other beliefs. Can she explain how, according to the departmental answer I received this week, those requirements will not cost public—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That question suffers from the disadvantage that it has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the socio-economic duty.

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

The Minister came to the Chamber and said that the duty was “weak” and a “gesture”, and that substantive legislation is required. When will she introduce that legislation?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I think the hon. Lady misheard. I did not say that. I said that if we want to make a difference with substantive legislation, we should introduce it. I have already said that the Equality Act 2010 is substantive legislation, but that duty is a little bit of it that is not substantive.

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

My hon. Friend is right to focus on specific measures. Does she therefore agree that it would be better to enact practical measures such as the right to request flexible working?

[Lynne Featherstone]

Yes, obviously.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

All hon. Members are in a position of immense privilege, and it is generally the case that laws and regulations are made by the privileged and imposed on the disadvantaged. Therefore, how can the Minister argue against a requirement to consider the interests of those in our society who do not have a voice?

[Lynne Featherstone]

Because it is meaningless. If I thought that the requirement would deliver anything, I would implement it. As it does not, I will not.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we heard from the Opposition spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), the pure nanny-state politics that was rejected so decisively by the British people at the last election?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting a little carried away, which is not an uncommon phenomenon in the House. He has resumed his seat and we are grateful to him. He knows, because he has been in the House for, I believe, 18 years, that he should not ask a Minister about the policies of the Opposition.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must contain himself. We will leave it there, and we are grateful to him.

Business of the House

Thursday 18th November 2010 Commons Chamber

11:51

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?

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

The business for the week commencing 22 November will include:

Monday 22 November—Remaining stages of the Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill.

Tuesday 23 November—Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions Bill.

Wednesday 24 November—Consideration in Committee of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill (day 2), followed by motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2010.

Thursday 25 November—Remaining stages of the Local Government Bill [Lords].

The provisional business for the week commencing 29 November will include:

Monday 29 November—Opposition Day (7th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Tuesday 30 November—A debate on banking reform followed by a general debate on regulation of independent financial advisers. The subject for both debates was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee. That will be followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) (Amendment) Order 2010.

Wednesday 1 December— Remaining stages of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill.

Thursday 2 December—A debate on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. The subject for debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 3 December—Private Members’ Bills.

Colleagues will also wish to know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make his statement on the autumn forecast on Monday 29 November 2010.

[Hilary Benn]

I thank the Leader of the House for his statement.

There were two statements on day one of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill Committee. The first was not time critical and the second was self-inflicted because of a leak—yet another failure to tell Parliament first. Members were somewhat puzzled by the argument used by the Leader of the House on Tuesday in refusing extra time, given that the Government granted extra time for the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. If extra time was good enough for that constitutional bill, why is it not good enough for the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill?

Following the point of order made yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), can the Leader of the House explain why, notwithstanding the resolution of the House of 19 March 1997, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), did not tell the House until the very end of Tuesday’s debate, rather than at the beginning, of his intention to write to the devolved Administrations to ask them whether they would like a new power on combining polls?

Yesterday, we had an urgent question from the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) on the Republic of Ireland’s finances, in reply to which the Minister obviously could not say a great deal. Will the Leader of the House assure us that the Government will make an oral statement in the event that a bail-out that involves the United Kingdom is agreed?

On private Members’ Bills, Mr Speaker, you have had on a number of occasions recently to remind Members about sticking to the subject. Last Friday it seems that one Member treated the House to a poetry reading while allegedly debating the Sustainable Livestock Bill. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on how we deal with private Members’ Bills and the Standing Orders relating to their consideration, because it is pretty frustrating when filibustering gets in the way of proper debate and votes?

Last week, I asked the right hon. Gentleman for a pledge that there would be no vote on lifting the cap on tuition fees before the White Paper on higher education is published. He said that he would get back to me. Has he any news? Meanwhile, we learn that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) is so worried about having a vote on the Lib Dems’ broken pledge that he sent a rather frantic private e-mail to the Deputy Prime Minister, thoughtfully copying it to The Guardian in the process, in which he said:

“We really need to get it out of the way ASAP.?? The sooner this is over the better!!!”

I would say just this to the right hon. Member for Yeovil and his colleagues: I do not think that it will get any better, because a betrayal is still a betrayal, regardless of when it happens.

The Prime Minister was asked yesterday about yet another broken promise: namely the pledge to increase the number of midwives by 3,000, which he made in The Sun in January of this year. We are told that that promise was not included in the coalition agreement because of a change in the birth rate predictions. May we have a statement on what new predictions were published—presumably by the Office for National Statistics—between the pledge in January and the signing of the coalition agreement on 12 May?

The House will have noted that notwithstanding the Leader of the House’s sterling defence in the past two weeks of the Prime Minister’s decision to put his personal photographer on the civil service payroll, the Prime Minister has now decided that perhaps after all that was not a very good idea. May we have statement on how much it cost first to recruit and then to sack Mr Parsons, and will the Conservative party refund the cost of his salary for the time when he was a very temporary civil servant?

Finally, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House whether they are happy? I inquire only because it seems that the Government are planning to publish a happiness index. Apparently, we will be asked questions such as, “How satisfied are you with your life on a scale of nought to 10?” As Sir Humphrey might have said, that is a brave thing for Ministers to do, but I feel honour bound to point out that happiness can go down as well as up.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. On injury time, I gently remind him that when we debated the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—an important constitutional Bill that was taken on the Floor of the House—there was no question of injury time being allowed by the previous Government, of whom he was a member. Before Second Reading, we had a statement, but there was no injury time; on Committee day one, we had two statements, but no injury time; on Committee day two, we had one statement, but no injury time; and in carry-over, there was one statement on each day of Committee days five and six, but no injury time. I am therefore not sure why a new principle has suddenly been discovered now that the Labour party is in opposition.

There is another reason for not having injury time for debate on the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill: there is adequate time to debate the Bill without injury time. It is a five-clause Bill with a majority of, I believe, more than 300 on Second Reading. Any sympathy I had for the right hon. Gentleman’s request dissipated when I followed the proceedings on Tuesday evening and saw—frankly—that the Opposition did not make the best use of the time available. Members who were not that familiar with the proceedings were asked to speak at short notice and at great length.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about something else that happened that day. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who is in charge of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, made an announcement to the House, which is entirely what the Government ought to do. He communicated to the House from the Dispatch Box a decision of the Government. We would have been criticised had we done it by written ministerial statement, and I find it astonishing that, when we actually come to the Dispatch Box and make an announcement, we are criticised for it.

On Ireland, as the right hon. Gentleman said, a statement was made yesterday by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. This country has close economic ties with Ireland and we want Ireland to prosper. What we do will be in Britain’s national interest and we have an interest in a stable and prosperous Ireland, so we stand ready to help if requested.

On private Members’ Bills, I am sure that if anyone had filibustered, you, Mr Speaker, or the person in the Chair, would have rightly brought that person to order. On the serious issue about private Members’ Bills, however, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Procedure Committee is conducting an inquiry into the sittings of the House, subsumed into which will be the question about Fridays and whether the House should sit on them, and if not, what should happen to the business discussed on Fridays. It would be wholly within the Committee’s remit to take on board the serious issue that he raised about how we process private Members’ Bills.

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science has written to the right hon. Gentleman— I have the letter, dated 17 November, in front of me—responding to the issues he asked me about, and I am sorry if the letter has not reached him yet.

On midwives, the House will have heard yesterday’s exchange. We made it clear in a recent meeting with the Royal College of Midwives that the Government will continue to train midwives at current rates, and we are considering ways of helping to improve midwife recruitment and retention, given the increased number and complexity of births in recent years. The planned number of trainees next year will be higher than the number this year.

On the photographer, I would say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that the last Government spent £500 million on communications. We are cutting that by two thirds, and the Downing street budget will fall by £6 million over the next four years—from £23 million to £17 million.

On happiness, my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House and I are visibly, demonstrably happy, and we were made even happier by Tuesday’s announcement of the royal wedding.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House kindly answer the question put by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), and assure the House that there will certainly be a full oral statement, but preferably a debate, on any bail-out to the Irish, because the British people want to be assured that, at a time of painful cuts here, good money is not being thrown after bad, in driving the Irish further into the sclerotic arms of the euro, which caused the problems in the first place?

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will want to keep the House informed of any changes in the position between this country and Ireland.

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

Today, Age UK published a report showing that the Government’s changes to housing benefit will mean a reduction of £12 a week for at least 80,000 pensioners. We know that the loss of £12 a week to a Cabinet of millionaires means nothing, but to my constituents it can mean the difference between eating and heating. May we have a debate in Government time, therefore, with a substantive motion, on the Government’s failure to meet their much-vaunted promise to protect the most vulnerable in a time of severe economic hardship, in the hope that perhaps they will begin to reconsider some of these vicious policies?

[Sir George Young]

I announced that there would be an Opposition day—subject to be announced—and it is perfectly open to the hon. Lady’s right hon. Friends on the Front Bench to choose housing benefit as a subject. The policy we are introducing on housing benefit resembles very closely the commitment in the Labour party manifesto and the commitment supported by James Purnell. The hon. Lady might have heard the exchange on the “Today” programme, when the Minister for Housing and Local Government referred to the discretionary fund available to those who, for whatever reason, cannot move and are in hardship. That sum is now £140 million, compared with the £10 million it was initially, and my right hon. Friend has indicated that he is prepared to top that up. I hope that the hon. Lady will not cause alarm unnecessarily.

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

May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that it would appear that this year’s annual fisheries debate, which takes place in December, precedes the Council of Fisheries Ministers and has been handed by the Executive into the bailiwick of the Backbench Business Committee? I have no objections to that Committee, but I think, as do many of the 80 or so members of the all-party fisheries group, that this debate should, as is traditional, be held in Government time. Will the Leader of the House do something about that please?

[Sir George Young]

My right hon. Friend said that the Executive has handed this responsibility to the Backbench Business Committee, but it was the House of Commons that handed it to the Committee. We have implemented the Wright Committee’s recommendations in full. Paragraph 145 of the Wright Committee report makes it clear that the debate to which he referred is one of those that has now been transferred to the Backbench Business Committee. It is up to that Committee to schedule all debates in the 35 days we have transferred to it. The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, will have heard my right hon. Friend’s plea, and it is now up to her and her Committee to see whether, out of the days we are allocating to it, the fisheries debate qualifies for consideration.

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

Following on from that point, I note that the usual debate ahead of the European Council is now said also to fall within the remit of the Backbench Business Committee. May I gently suggest that that means a complete and utter abdication of the responsibility to discuss matters European on the Floor of the House at the initiation of the Government, and not Back-Bench Members?

[Sir George Young]

I hate to disagree with the hon. Lady, whom I congratulate on winning The Spectator award last night at a very moving ceremony. It was richly deserved. I say to her gently that paragraph 145 on “Set piece debates” in “Rebuilding the House”—the report by the Wright Committee—mentions

“two days for pre-European Council debates”.

It makes it clear that those debates transfer to the Backbench Business Committee. This is not the Government imposing something on the House; it is the House taking away from the Government responsibility for fixing its own agenda. I support that, and I hope that she does too.

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

Will the Leader of the House consider a debate in Government time on concessionary bus fares? The reorganised system—with the removing of grants and the transfer to county councils—has become exceptionally bureaucratic and means that shire and district councils lose out disproportionately. The all-party group on rural services is raising this matter with Ministers, and I am sure that many other colleagues would wish to participate in such a debate.

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. She will know that we are implementing the policy initiated by the outgoing Government of transferring responsibility from the lower tier to the top tier. The Department for Communities and Local Government recently consulted on how that transfer will be taken into account in authorities’ funding allocations from 2011-12. The formula grant is allocated on the basis that the level provided overall is sufficient to enable local authorities to deliver effective local services, and we will shortly publish the details on the outcome of the formula grant consultation and on how the overall funding pot will be distributed among authorities.

[Sir Peter Soulsby (Leicester South) (Lab)]

In view of the discussions about the future of our national forestry taking place in the other place as part of the Public Bodies Bill, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been asked to produce a list of Forestry Commission land by constituency. She has so far failed to provide that list. Hon. Members have a right to know which land in their constituencies will be affected by this fire sale. Can the Leader of the House produce such a list for Members, and can we have an urgent debate on the future of this precious national forestry heritage?

[Sir George Young]

I am not sure whether it is the Forestry Commission or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who has the data on which forests are in whose constituencies. However, it is important that this information is put into the public domain, and I will pursue with my right hon. Friend the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised and ensure that Parliament has access to the information to which it is entitled.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

The Leader of the House will be aware of the situation in Cornwall yesterday and today. Obviously the emergency services, the Environment Agency and the local authority are working hard to address the issues, and there will undoubtedly be lessons to be learned, as there are from all such incidents. I hope that the Leader of the House will have the opportunity to reflect on the difficulties, which may involve, for example, early-warning systems, or the cost of clean-up and reopening transport corridors.

[Sir George Young]

I understand the concern that my hon. Friend has raised on behalf of his constituents. He may know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is visiting the affected area today. Many of my hon. Friends are in their constituencies doing what they can to help. My right hon. Friend plans to make a written statement to the House tomorrow, following her visit to Cornwall today, and will keep the House updated. The Government will do all that we can to help the businesses, families and communities that have been affected by the flooding, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday.

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

May we have a debate on the ever-increasing cost of energy for consumers? Energy Action Scotland has just announced that 5.5 million homes in the UK are now living in fuel poverty. Centrica has just announced a 7% increase, despite a higher rise in profits than was expected. A debate would give us the opportunity to say that we really are all in this together and that there should be no exemptions.

[Sir George Young]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. He will know that we plan to introduce a green deal, which will help households to keep down their energy costs, albeit without having to fund that themselves. There will be an opportunity on 16 December to raise the matter at Energy questions, or he might like to apply for an Adjournment debate to express his concerns more fully.

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

Given the decision to jeopardise the future of the nuclear deterrent by putting off the main gate contract decisions until the other side of the general election, may we have a debate in Government time, and with a vote, so that hon. Members from the Conservative and Labour parties can register publicly their support for the next generation of the Trident deterrent, in what might be called a coalition for Trident replacement?

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern, but I have to say that the Government did provide time for a debate on the strategic defence and security review, which took place at the end of last month, and we have no plans to revisit the issue in the near future.

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

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should have a debate on bowling greens? There are many crown green bowlers in my constituency—and, I think, across the country, particularly in the north of England—who are concerned at the rate at which their greens, when attached to pubs, are being sold off for building purposes, never to return. Can we have a debate on how we encourage pubs to retain what are important community facilities?

[Sir George Young]

No one is keener on bowling greens than I am, and I understand the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. Listening to his question, I would have thought that if a pub wanted to convert a bowling green into a development, that would require planning consent from the local authority, which should be a precaution against the trend that he has outlined. However, may I suggest that he apply for a debate on bowling greens in Westminster Hall, so that all who share his enthusiasm for the sport can join him in expressing their concern?

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

May I repeat the request for a debate on Ireland? My grandfather served in the Dail for Fianna Fail, and if he could see it now, he would be turning in his grave. Surely the message from this House to those politicians must be that we will not vote for a penny to bail out their euro, whereas the message to the Irish people must be that we will give whatever support is necessary to support an orderly return to sterling.

[Sir George Young]

I understand where my hon. Friend is coming from. I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh). The Chancellor of the Exchequer will want to keep the House informed in the light of the discussions that are taking place in Dublin about the support that may be needed, but which, as I understand it, has not so far been requested by the Irish Government. This country has an interest in a stable and prosperous Ireland and, as I have said, we stand ready to do what we can to secure that objective.

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

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on in-service support for those members of our armed forces who are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder? Last week I had a visit from the father of Lance Corporal Darren Gregory, who was cited in the case of two actions in Basra in June 2007 for

“conspicuous gallantry, ferocious determination and inspiring leadership”

of the highest order. His actions were utterly decisive, and he single-handedly inspired the defence to beat off two heavy attacks by a superior force; and yet this person, in 2 Royal Welsh, was let down when he most needed support. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate, so that we can ensure that we have that support in place for our courageous armed forces?

[Sir George Young]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, and the House will have every sympathy. We will be introducing the armed forces Bill quite soon, which may be an opportunity for him to share his concern. However, I would just say that we have doubled the operational allowances paid to our armed forces and announced changes to rest and recuperation. We have announced improvements in the area of mental health, but if we can do better, we should.

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

Since the launch of the “Make it Marham” campaign last week, we have collected more than 10,000 signatures in Norfolk to ask the Prime Minister to ensure that the Tornado base continues at RAF Marham, where it is most economically efficient. Will my right hon. Friend join me in recognising the strength of feeling in Norfolk and East Anglia in support of the base, and will he consider a debate on the issue?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend expresses the concern of her constituents very well. She asks for a debate on the issue, but I should point out that she was successful in securing a debate on 4 November, and I wonder whether we could have too much of a good thing. I congratulate her on the case that she has made. The decisions to which she has referred mean that Kinloss and two other bases will not be required by the RAF, but no decisions have been made on which bases they should be or on any future use for them. It will take some time to work out the implications for our basing policy, but of course we take on board the strong case that she has made on behalf of her constituents.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

Can we please have a debate about the potential impact of proposed changes to the benefits system on the job security of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs employees? I put that question to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on Tuesday. At best, he completely misunderstood the question; at worst, he completely evaded it. Such a debate would allow me to offer some guidance to my constituents, many of whom express concern that as many as 700 jobs could be lost in Dundee because of the changes—unless, of course, the Leader of House can provide me with an answer on behalf of his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary.

[Sir George Young]

Of course I understand the concern of those who work for HMRC about the future of their jobs. I would gently point out that even if the hon. Gentleman’s Government had been returned, there would have been reductions in public sector employment. I will pursue the specific issue that he raised with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, and if the answer that he gave on Tuesday was not full—which I am sure it was—I will ask him to amplify it in a letter.

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

May we have a statement following the important talks taking place in New York today between the UN Secretary-General and the leaders of the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot communities? Will the Leader of the House join me in expressing his support for a just and lasting settlement that will reunite the island of Cyprus, which for so many years has been blighted by occupation and division?

[Sir George Young]

This is an issue of great concern to my hon. Friend’s constituents in Southgate, and he has raised it on several occasions. There was a debate on 16 November, which was replied to by my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe. The Government support a just and lasting settlement. That was an important manifesto commitment and a priority recognised in the coalition’s programme for government. Only a united island, within the European Union, will provide the long-term peace and security that all Cypriots deserve.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Under pressure, the Prime Minister has got rid of his vanity snapper, but we still need that debate on cronyism and appointments to the civil service. Did the Leader of the House see the letter to The Times on Monday from Sir Robin Mountfield, the former permanent secrecy to the Cabinet Office, in which he said:

“These provisions were intended to meet genuine and exceptional management needs, not to accommodate political and personal friends or associates”?

Finally, he said that

“the…principle of appointment on merit by fair and open competition…should not be allowed to be eroded, whether at these or…senior levels.”

Does the Leader of the House agree with Sir Robin?

[Mr Speaker]

It is not agreement or disagreement that is at the heart of business questions; what is at the heart of business questions is the request for a statement, and we will operate on the basis of that request having been made.

[Sir George Young]

I would just say to the hon. Gentleman that his party made dozens of short-term appointments in government and had more than 700 exceptions to civil service appointment rules signed off. Against that background, the actions of this Government are very modest.

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

As we approach the festive season of Christmas, an unholy price war has broken out in the supermarkets over the sale of alcohol. Tesco is offering two 70 cl bottles of top brand spirits for just £20, Asda is selling 1 litre bottles of spirits for just £15, and Sainsbury’s and Morrisons are selling Baileys at half price.

The all-party save the pub group warmly welcomes the Government’s intention to introduce a ban on below-cost selling, but will the Leader of the House make a statement on when that will happen, and whether it will cover irresponsible promotions that do nothing to encourage responsible drinking, and damage the pub industry?

[Sir George Young]

I confirm that the Government will shortly introduce relevant legislation to address the issues that my hon. Friend touched on. It will set a framework to enable licensing authorities properly to address the pressures caused by excessive late-night drinking in the 24-hour licensing culture. It is also our policy to ban the sale of alcohol at below cost in supermarkets.

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

In the light of the dreadful floods in Cornwall, the Prime Minister said yesterday that spending on flood protection would be protected in the comprehensive spending review. I understand that there will be cuts of up to 28% in the flood protection budget. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate in Government time on flood defences, so that the Prime Minister’s statement can be corrected and so that Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs can come to the House to update us on the plans for a local levy for communities that suffer from flooding, such as mine in Hull?

[Sir George Young]

The statistics that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave yesterday were correct. If the hon. Lady was listening to the “Today” programme, she will have heard the chairman of the Environment Agency confirm that those were indeed the figures for the four-year period concerned. She will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will make a written ministerial statement on the position in Cornwall in due course, and there will be opportunities to question her about the issues that the hon. Lady raised about future funding of flood prevention measures.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

Given the high level of concern among my constituents in York Outer and those of hon. Members on both sides of the House, which was highlighted in earlier questions today, does the Leader of the House have any plans for a debate on bank lending and its effect on small and medium-sized businesses?

[Sir George Young]

I announced to the House at the beginning of this exchange that the Backbench Business Committee had selected a debate on banking, so there will be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to make his point. We had a Back-Bench debate last Thursday on growth, when that important issue was raised. Ensuring the flow of credit to viable small and medium-sized enterprises is essential for supporting growth, and is a core priority of the coalition Government.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

The Deputy Prime Minister is fond of rushed constitutional change. Will the Leader of the House encourage him to introduce legislation on the power of recall, so that students up and down the land may use it to recall those hon. Members who break their pledge on tuition fees?

[Sir George Young]

There will be legislation on the power of recall, but if the hon. Gentleman reads the coalition document, he will see that it says that the power relates to serious wrongdoing, so it would not cover the issue that he has raised. Even if it did, I suspect that some Labour Members might find themselves equally vulnerable.

[Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend may not be aware that the villages of Wombourne, Great Wyrley, Huntington, Calf Heath and Coven Heath in my constituency are facing the imposition of Traveller sites on green belt land. Will my right hon. Friend make time for a proper debate on the dreadful planning legislation left by the previous Government?

[Sir George Young]

The Government will shortly introduce a localism Bill, and it may be appropriate for my hon. Friend to raise that matter then. Local authorities will be responsible for determining the right level of Traveller site provision in their area in consultation with local communities.

Picking up my hon. Friend’s point, we will strengthen councils’ powers to take enforcement action against breaches of planning control, and will tackle abuse of the planning system. Many hon. Members will have shared in their constituencies the problems that my hon. Friend mentions.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Crown Currency Exchange was trading while insolvent, despite being registered by the Financial Services Authority. My constituent, Miss Patel, and 8,000 other people have lost a lot of money. May we have an urgent statement on a review of the legislation on companies that are registered and authorised by the FSA so that consumers are still protected?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, because I am sure that many colleagues have constituents who have been caught by the collapse of Crown Currency Exchange. I have announced that there will be a debate on independent financial advisers, a subject chosen by the Backbench Business Committee, and it would be wholly appropriate for the subject to be raised then. I will ensure that whichever Minister responds to that debate brings with them the latest information on the position of Crown Currency Exchange.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend may not recall that 1897 was Queen Victoria’s diamond jubilee. On that occasion the House of Commons presented a Loyal Address. Will the Leader of the House meet me to discuss the possibility of a similar process for the forthcoming diamond jubilee of Her present Majesty?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I gather that he is chairman of the new all-party group on the Queen’s diamond jubilee. I would welcome the opportunity to meet him to discuss how the House might celebrate the diamond jubilee in 2012, a subject on which you, Mr Speaker, and I am sure the House authorities, will also wish to engage.

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

For the past six months, the coalition has let no opportunity pass to tell us that the British economy is similar to that of the Irish. Now, it cannot tell us fast enough that Britain possesses a series of macro-economic tools that the Irish sadly do not possess. May we have a debate on why the Government have unnecessarily talked down the British economy for the past six months for naked political advantage?

[Sir George Young]

One or two Labour Members tried that argument yesterday during the statement by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I wholly reject the premise on which hon. Gentleman based his question. We have taken firm action to deal with the deficit, which is far lower than that in the Irish Republic, so I reject entirely his comparison.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall try not to test your patience this time. Earlier this week, you launched an important survey of Members’ services in the House. That is important because it will indicate which Members give priority to which service, and which services should be provided in future. Will my right thon. Friend do all he can to encourage every hon. and right hon. Member to participate in that survey so that it provides as complete a result as possible?

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was asking either for a statement or for a debate, but just forgot to do so.

[Sir George Young]

I grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. It is important that hon. Members find time to complete the survey that was sent out a few days ago so that the House can gauge the support for existing services, and get ideas for how to improve them even more. All my work as Leader of the House was immediately put to one side when I received the survey, and I responded within 10 minutes of it arriving.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend agree to an urgent debate on extreme Islamists in the United Kingdom? As action was taken against Gareth Compton for his alleged threat to public disorder, does he agree that action should also be taken against the extreme Islamists who disrupted Remembrance Sunday last week because of their threat to public disorder?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but the specific incident that he mentioned is a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. I think we all have a role in challenging extremism. We should all stand up for our shared British values and against extremists and their bigoted, racist and false ideology.

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

The Leader of the House will have seen reports earlier this week that the internet is running out of space. Can we have a debate on that to ask Members how they can do their bit to help? I note that the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) still has a live website, edballs4labour.org, and a Twitter account for his leadership bid, @TeamEdB. Perhaps he has plans to reactivate those in the near future, but in the meantime will the Leader of the House call on all hon. Members to remove needless clutter from the internet?

[Sir George Young]

We would all endorse that, and I am sure that no one would be happier than the Leader of the Opposition if the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) withdrew those websites.

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

NHS Yorkshire and the Humber, and North Yorkshire and York primary care trust have given many charities in Yorkshire only 28 days’ notice of decisions to cut their contracts in breach of the voluntary compact that they had agreed with them. Can we have a debate on how the voluntary compact is being applied nationally and locally by public bodies throughout the UK?

[Sir George Young]

I am sorry to hear about the specific incident that my hon. Friend has mentioned. Work is ongoing with Compact Voice to renew the document, and to ensure that it is shortened, sharpened and attuned to our priorities for the big society. The renewed compact will be published shortly, which I hope answers his question.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be saddened and shocked to learn that Darwen’s iconic and historic Jubilee tower, which was erected for Queen Victoria’s jubilee in 1897, lost its roof during recent storms. Will he join me in congratulating local businesses that have volunteered to repair the tower, in some cases free of charge? Will he find time for a debate on this example of the big society in action?

[Sir George Young]

I am delighted to hear about what has happened in Darwen. It is a good example of local people coming together to solve problems without necessarily looking to the public purse for a solution. Whether I can find time for a debate I am less certain, but the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who chairs the Backbench Business Committee, was listening with interest to my hon. Friend’s plea.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Further to yesterday’s urgent question, the governor of the Irish central bank has said today that Ireland will require a substantial loan as part of an EU bail-out. May I ask for an emergency debate next week on this subject, so that the House can express its support for the Irish people alongside its concern at spending more money via the European Union?

[Sir George Young]

As I said earlier, I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will want to keep the House in the picture regarding any UK involvement in the measures to help Ireland. I cannot make a specific commitment on an emergency debate, but I will pass to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed, which I know is shared by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Points of Order

Thursday 18th November 2010 Commons Chamber

12:31

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any way in which, within the rules of order, I can place on record the fact that a request for a debate with a vote on the nuclear deterrent should not really be referred back to a debate on the strategic defence and security review, from which the deterrent was excluded and on which there was no vote at all?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is no, there is not, but the hon. Gentleman has naughtily done it anyway—a fact of which I think he is intimately conscious.

[Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Notwithstanding what the Leader of the House said earlier, the Prime Minister said yesterday that the Government had maintained the previous Government’s spending on flood defences. As I understand it, however, that expenditure will be made over four years and not three years, as the previous Government had planned. That will mean important schemes being delayed, which will give great cause for concern, particularly in areas such as Cornwall and Cumbria, and this is the anniversary of the floods in Cumbria. Can you give me some idea of how I can correct the record?

[Mr Speaker]

I sense that the hon. Gentleman has already done so. I further sense that that is something he might want to share with the masses of his constituency and with the media in his area, but I might be wrong.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I have your advice on the courtesies that should be extended to Members when other hon. Members invite large numbers of their constituents to events in the House? I have given notice of this to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), who organised an event in the House yesterday that large numbers of people from all the Cardiff constituencies attended. It was a non-political meeting, but hon. Members representing constituencies in and around Cardiff were neither notified of it in advance nor invited to it. Is there any guidance that you can issue on the normal courtesies and privileges involved? I am not alleging any wrongdoing—it might have been an oversight—but what are the arrangements, and what is your view, Mr Speaker?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that there is nothing in the Standing Orders on the matter, but this is really a matter of courtesy and, as he knows, I am in favour of unfailing courtesy. I do not think that I can rule beyond that, but if he feels that there has been a breach of that dictum, I dare say that he will want to pursue it with the people whom he thinks are guilty of the breach. He can always keep me notified; I have a sense that he will probably do that anyway.

Backbench Business

Thursday 18th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[9th allotted day]

Immigration

Thursday 18th November 2010 Commons Chamber

12:34

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls on Her Majesty’s Government to act on the overwhelming public concern about the present scale of immigration by taking firm measures to reduce immigration without excluding those individuals who are genuinely essential to economic recovery, on which so much else depends.

It is with pleasure that I move the motion tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames)—[Interruption.] I will move so that my hon. Friends can continue their conversation by themselves, Mr Speaker. I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex, but I think that he informed Front Benchers that he is attending a family funeral in Scotland today. The good news is that I am able to thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel)—who is in her place as usual, gracing this place as she does the Backbench Business Committee—and her colleagues for choosing this debate today.

I shall briefly say something about the cross-party group on balanced migration before I outline some of the themes I would like to touch on in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex established the group in September 2008, with the clear intent of bringing into the House the debate on immigration that was going on in the country at large, but to which the House wished to appear deaf, to a large extent. We already have a number of distinguished supporters across Parliament, including a former Speaker, Lady Boothroyd, a former Archbishop of Canterbury, a former Leader of the Opposition, a former field marshal and several former Cabinet members. Perhaps more importantly, there is growing support in this House and the other Chamber for a clear and dispassionate discussion of this issue. Above all, we have the support of the electorate, who have been unfailing in their wish that immigration be debated carefully and without rancour in this Chamber.

When we first established the cross-party group, I was, needless to say, accused of being racist in wanting to raise the topic. It is therefore with pleasure that I put on record the fact that two previous Home Secretaries—my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and my noble Friend Lord Reid—stamped on that absurd suggestion and welcomed a more rational debate in this place and beyond the walls of this Chamber.

I shall briefly summarise the group’s aims. They are to stop the population of this country being grown by immigration, and, secondly, to support the forces within the House and, now, the Government to move towards a balance between the number of people coming into the country and the number of people leaving it. Thirdly, given the concern about people coming here to work and about population growth, we would like the Government seriously to consider breaking the link between people coming here to work and almost automatically getting the right to citizenship. That is largely the route by which the population is being grown at present. If the Government were to take that action, they would certainly convince the electorate that they were delivering the coalition’s pledge. They might also get a bit more breathing space in which to find effective ways of reducing the numbers wishing to come here to work.

The themes that I want to touch on include the progress that has been made in recent years on this topic. I also want to look at some of the special pleading that has been going on, and I shall cite the position of the Mayor of London in that regard. I want to look at the immediate steps that the Government could further take to reduce the numbers coming here to work, at a time when we have not a rising but a very significant number of constituents who are unemployed.

I also want to broaden the debate by saying that, in the longer run, we cannot make sense of addressing the question of reducing the numbers coming here to work unless we are prepared to link that debate with the debates on welfare reform and education.

Finally, I want to touch on the electorate’s anxiety about this whole area and to voice their views about the nature of place and national identity, which they might well want to change but until recently they have had no ability to influence the debate.

Let me provide a progress report on how the debate is changing. Indeed, the Backbench Business Committee granting this day’s debate is itself a sign of that change. No Member will have memories of this issue being debated on the Floor of the House. We would have to go back to past Members, long since dead, to find people who participated in such a debate. Of course, we have had debates in Westminster Hall, but not in the main Chamber, where the principal debates take place. Today’s debate provides a really good sign of how the political climate is changing. We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire, who chairs the Backbench Business Committee, for this opportunity.

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

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and on raising the issue sensitively and responsibly. I would like to challenge one of the assertions in his opening comments—the idea that this nation’s population is rising. Scotland is experiencing structural depopulation, and I would like him to acknowledge that. If he does, does he not think the best way to address it would be to give some of the UK nations the devolution of these powers, as in Australia, so that we can address the demographic issues of our population?

[Mr Field]

I was too good-mannered to touch on that topic. We have open borders in this country, so it is interesting to note that those coming here largely to work do not wish to go to Scotland. We may grieve that fact, but it is an open market and people seem to be expressing a preference. We may deplore it, and if one were a resident in London, one might wish that many coming here to work took a different view. The plain fact is that they do not, and I cannot believe that changing the devolution settlement would affect the balance of immigration between the constituent countries of the UK.

[Pete Wishart]

It happens in Australia—a nation where immigration powers have been devolved to the individual states to address the very issues that we have in Scotland. Surely if it works in Australia, it could work in the UK. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right that people do not choose to go to Scotland, so let us give them extra points in the points-based system to encourage them to think about coming to Scotland. There are solutions, so surely we should acknowledge them and try to implement them. [Interruption.]

[Mr Field]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who chairs the Home Affairs Select Committee, laughed, as I did, at that suggestion, but I think it is a rather good one. I shall touch on the Migration Advisory Committee report later. The Government might wish to refer to it; it would solve some of our difficulties. It is an intriguing idea and I hope that it will be developed in the debate.

We were talking about how the debate has changed. Perhaps the best way of showing that is to look at the stance of the Institute for Public Policy Research. In the past, no organisation was more adamant that we should have open borders and less prepared to consider the downside of such a policy. It is very significant that, this week, the IPPR has moved into the mainstream of the debate by saying that this country benefits from immigration—I doubt whether anyone would wish to express a contrary view in this House, which is important on account of our teaching role in the country at large—but that the debate is about the numbers, not about the principle.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that during my 23 years in this House and during his time here, there has been a shift in the tone of the debate. There is agreement that immigration has to be controlled, but can we be clear that we are talking about non-EU immigration? Does he accept that we cannot do anything about 80% of the people who come into this country?

[Mr Field]

A number of hon. Members might wish to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, to dispute that fact. Just as some might wish to stretch your tolerance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by going down the road of the devolution settlement, others might want to open up the issue of the European settlement. The numbers coming here to work from the European Union represent a minority. I do not dispute the fact that this is an important issue, but it is not one of the dimension my right hon. Friend describes. I see in his place the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who might want to deal with the issue later.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Before ending his speech, will the right hon. Gentleman deal with arranged marriages? Does he agree that people who want to marry and settle here must do so on the basis that they are of mature years, that they speak English and that they want to marry an English person because of a settled romantic attachment, not as a pawn in marriage negotiations?

[Mr Field]

I wish that the hon. Gentleman had put the full stop a little earlier in his intervention. I do not think it is for the Government to lay down the emotional or other circumstances in which people should marry. Given the success rate of marriages based on emotion, I do not think this country is in any position to lay down the rule that arranged marriages are a bad thing! I have not seen the figures, but I doubt whether we come off better in that respect. I will touch on the point later, as it is one area where I hope the Government will give us more idea about what they are thinking.

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

I disagree with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh). I came to this country 42 years ago for an arranged marriage. I am still married to the same lady and still have my children, who are contributing to this country’s welfare.

[Mr Field]

I could not agree more. That is a valuable intervention. I would hope that in those 40-odd years, the sense of the community has developed. Although I think we should not put our sticky fingers into issues such as whether arranged marriages are suitable, quite a large number of people here are, in a sense, in the arranged marriage market. Much of the tension might dissipate if there were more arranged marriages from communities in this country rather than between people brought in from the Indian sub-continent. Unless those people have the ability to speak English, they might find that they are not treated in this country as we would wish them to be treated.

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

I always listen to the right hon. Gentleman with the greatest respect. I understand that he has concentrated his remarks on the factor of numbers, but will he also say something about the attitudes of the people who come into this country in the hope of finding a better life? My grandparents were immigrants and wanted to come here because they preferred life as they imagined it here and wanted to be part of this country. Is not the real problem not so much one of numbers, but of people coming here who do not like and might even hate the methods we have of governing ourselves and living in this country? What can we do about that?

[Mr Field]

The issue is about numbers and I do not want people to move away from it, because that is where the growing sense of agreement across the Chamber and in the country at large now lies. I would have put the intervention the other way round, if I had dared to make it. I would have asked why this country has had a political elite that has paid so little attention to our open borders for so long that they did not think it suitable to suggest that people coming here should develop a primary sense of loyalty to this country. I do not think we are in any position to moan when we were so careless that we did not have the confidence to lay down what citizenship in this country was about. I am against anyone trying to turn the debate against those who came here under those conditions by saying that we do not approve of their behaviour. Not only new arrivals but others, including many people in my constituency, feel disaffected, and of course we need to find ways of affirming their citizenship.

[Dr Lewis]

I will not try the House’s patience for too long, but I must tell the right hon. Gentleman, with respect, that I cannot quite accept what he has said. It is not necessarily the responsibility of the receiving country to lay down in advance something as basic as the fact that someone who moves to a country must have some respect and regard for the norms, customs and standards of that country. People who come here knowing what this country is like, and then proceed to dislike it and try to undermine its ways, have a degree of responsibility themselves. It cannot all be put down to the conditions on which they were admitted.

[Mr Field]

The hon. Gentleman changed his line during his intervention. He ended his intervention by saying that such people could not be wholly responsible, whereas he said at the beginning that they were wholly responsible. I do not think that we should duck the political failure of this place and of successive Governments who have not had their wits about them, and have not recognised that a country is in a new ballgame when it opens its doors to mass immigration. We were negligent, and that applies to both sides of the House of Commons.

Let me emphasise that I do not want the debate to turn against people on whom we placed no duties when they came here. We did not bother to teach the meaning of citizenship to people who have been based here for generations, including many in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman has touched on what is, in fact, a much wider question.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Field]

I fear that interventions may take up the entire time allotted for the debate, but I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Brazier]

I am sorry, but I am so filled with admiration for the right hon. Gentleman that, while endorsing what he has said, I would go a little further. Surely the key point is that the political elite across the board had lost confidence in the very British institutions that we should have been supporting and identifying as beacons for newcomers to the country.

[Mr Field]

I think it is worse than that. I think that those people had lost confidence in their role as politicians. They had lost sight of the fact that the issue was one that should be dealt with, and ideas about national identity, citizenship and protecting the country fell away from what should have been their main charge.

As you may remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, about 10 minutes ago I was talking about the progress that had been made. The fact that we can now raise points such as this in a friendly way without disputing others’ motives is a sign of the extent to which we, as a group of parliamentarians, have progressed. As for the progress being made in the public debate, let us consider some of the public statements that have been made since the Government announced a temporary cap on the number of people coming here to work. In its submission to the Government, the City of London said that the Government had every right to pursue their policy, but expressed concern about the way in which it might work in practice. The City certainly does not think that the Government should not discuss this topic, or that they should ignore what the electorate were saying during the election, but it would like to enter into detailed conversations.

We have all recently experienced what our electorates think, and none of us enters the Chamber now without being fully aware of the way in which voters in each of our constituencies view the issue of immigration.

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

I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the City of London and other global businesses feel some concern about the way in which the policy is applied? Will he say a little about that? While we agree with the moves that he has been sponsoring, we need to ensure that British business is globally competitive.

[Mr Field]

I am immensely grateful for that intervention. Although I intended to stress that point, I did not wish to labour it. I do not think that there is any disagreement between Members, who, while seeing the advantages of immigration, consider that the argument is essentially about numbers, but who do not wish to control those numbers in a way that would harm any economic recovery. If I ever manage to make progress, I shall say more about that.

I think that the electorate managed to convey to us during the three or so weeks of the general election campaign that their concern extended beyond that which had previously been expressed in the House. In their view, the numbers debate was about the growth of population. We see that all around us. According to the most recent data from the Government, 25% of all babies—50% in London—are now born to women who were not themselves born here. There are regular reports of overcrowding in maternity units. In a number of areas, there is real pressure on many primary schools. At a time when our waiting list for housing is growing, 40% of new households consist of immigrants.

As the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) just said, we must not shoot ourselves in the foot, or, even worse, in the head, by calling for further controls and restrictions that would result in an impairment of the necessary recovery on which many of our constituents depend. The Mayor of London is always the most interesting of political characters in the country, but in this context he has held a position, changed his position, and then changed it again. I hope that he will shortly change it for the fourth time, and take a more rounded view of the issue.

The statement issued by the Mayor for today’s debate has three misleading comments—I will not call them longitudinal inexactitudes. First, it is not true that the figure for the number of people coming here last year would suit the Government’s cap. The 2009 figure for net migration is 196,000. If that is a cap, it may be one that the Mayor of London wishes to wear, but it is not one that I would encourage the Government to wear.

Secondly, the Mayor said that if we restrict immigration, there is a danger that our gross national product will fall. That is based on years when the economy was thriving and growing at a record rate. It is impossible to interpret past data in that way when a huge number of our constituents are unemployed—not long-term unemployed but recently unemployed, and anxious to return to work. Any restriction in the numbers might well help them rather than impeding the growth of GDP.

Thirdly, it is wrong to say that 80% of students leave within five years. It is true that 80% are lost in the system within five years, but we have absolutely no idea whether they leave or not.

The Government recently asked the Migration Advisory Committee to report both on the cap and on how, in the longer term, they could best achieve their goal of reducing the net migration figure, which currently stands at hundreds of thousands, to tens of thousands. It is with pleasure that I record my gratitude—as, I am sure, will other speakers—to David Metcalf, whom I knew long before I came to the House of Commons, for the distinguished and intelligent way in which he has chaired the committee, and for his willingness to engage in debate. I know that he has appeared before the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East, but his door is open to others who wish to talk to him about this issue.

The report published by the MAC just before we began our debate is helpful. David Metcalf says that the Government are proceeding in the right direction, and suggests that the reduction should be split—20% among those coming here to work and 80% among non-economic migrants. I think we should debate that. We might ask, for instance, whether we should increase the proportion of non-economic migrants within the cap. He did not say—because he did not have the authority to do so—how important it is to take the heat out of the debate. Perhaps we can move the debate on, by being more relaxed about people coming here to work while also being more concerned about that becoming a route which automatically leads to citizenship.

In the spirit of a constructive debate, may I suggest four ways in which the Government might seek to meet their coalition pledge to reduce net migration significantly? First, I do not see how the Government can make sense of this debate—on which they have, thank goodness, now embarked—unless they look at student numbers. To June this year, those numbers are up 26% on last year, at 362,000. When I make the plea for the Government to look at this area, I am not talking about what most of us would regard as universities. I am asking the Government to focus on what are clearly bogus colleges that have realised that they can sell courses by implying, “Entry to the UK, and from here you can disappear into the UK labour market.”

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of the people who enrol on those courses do so in the belief that they are signing up for a proper education? Does he agree that they are victims of exploitation by these colleges, rather than people trying to suborn our immigration system?

[Mr Field]

I would rephrase that slightly. My hon. Friend makes the absolutely valid point that large numbers of people who want to get on in their lives come here and believe the prospectuses of such colleges, but my worry is that increasingly the news has gone round the traps, so to speak, that such courses are one way in—a bogus route. That is deeply cruel to those who have paid to enrol because they wish to build a more constructive life for themselves by getting an education; I could not agree more about that.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Following on from the previous intervention, I personally know someone who went to one of these English language schools with the intention of getting a proper grounding in the English language, but when she wanted her certificate, she was threatened—unless she gave extra money she would not get her certificate. That institution had all the qualification documents hanging on the wall saying that it was regulated and licensed by the Home Office, so is the real issue not how these organisations are licensed and regulated?

[Mr Field]

May I cap that helpful intervention? In order to satisfy the Home Office, constituents of mine wished to pay more, because all they wanted were the certificates for the courses they had undertaken. I hope the Minister will comment on this issue, if not today then on another occasion. I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). The last two constituents who came to me about this point had paid the full sum and were willing to shovel out even more money, but the wretched college would not produce certificates of the relevant qualifications.

Secondly, I hope that the Government will look at tier 1. Under the existing points system, people can come here and look for work—I assume the details of the MAC report will not suggest otherwise. That they can do so is totally unsatisfactory given our current unemployment level, and I would like the Government to close that route immediately.

I also want the Government to look at intra-company transfers. The Prime Minister has recently been making statements on this issue. May I delicately suggest that he could dig himself out of the hole he has dug himself into by raising the sum of money required for a person on an intra-company transfer from the low £20,000s to about £50,000? That would sort out the problem of those who are using such transfers as a way of importing IT workers. It would also offer some hope to those of our constituents who are unemployed IT workers and who would love the chance to bid for some of those jobs.

I also hope the Government will close the post-study route. Those who come to this country to study for degrees are given two years after graduation to search for work. That is wonderful if the economy is booming and there are difficulties in recruiting people to posts, but we now have an unemployment rate among recent graduates of 9% or 10%. It seems totally appropriate that at this time—not for ever—that route should be closed. In reading for the debate, I was shocked to discover that 600 institutions in this country award degrees. That is a highly significant route into the British labour market.

The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) made the point that the Government need to look at the marriage route. I do not in any way want to clamp down on genuine marriages, but if we implement the English test and other measures effectively we will find that the numbers presenting themselves to immigrate will fall substantially.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Will my right hon. Friend support my campaign to ensure that education in the English language is available in the places from which spouses come? The current proposals are unfair, particularly on women on the Indian subcontinent who are unable to get access to good-quality English language teaching and are therefore doomed to fail the test.

[Mr Field]

I have never underestimated the entrepreneurial skills on the subcontinent, and I am disappointed to hear my hon. Friend report back in those terms. When I crossed swords on this matter with the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East, I thought that in no time English language schools would be established to ensure that people could speak English before arriving. It is very important that that rule is maintained, and I hope the Government will look at the point I have raised.

[Mr Leigh]

People are terrified about speaking out on this very sensitive issue, but it is not widely appreciated that it is better for the bride or groom in an arranged marriage not to be brought from the Indian subcontinent but to come from the community in this country, as that makes learning the language and overcoming cultural differences much less difficult.

[Mr Field]

Yes, I made that point earlier.

[Mr Virendra Sharma]

A person who understands how arranged marriages are organised would not raise these questions. Does my right hon. Friend have any figures for the rate of unsuccessful arranged marriages, and what evidence does he have that bogus marriages are taking place in this country?

[Mr Field]

I do not have figures on that and, as my hon. Friend knows, that is a difficult set of data to get hold of, because those who have come here in an arranged marriage and who cannot speak English will find it difficult to register the fact that they might not be happy with the arrangements that they find here.

In no way do I want to give the impression that the way marriages have commonly been governed in this country comes down from Mount Sinai and is a proven recipe for success. We have only to look at the figures to see that that is not so. We ought to have a little charity when viewing other forms of contract which might well have equal, if not better, rates of success than our own established institutions.

Finally on this area of debate, I want to stress how important it is that the Government address where the electorate are on the issue. In their mind’s eye, they see people coming here to work then automatically getting the right to citizenship. That is the factor which is growing our population and that is the issue that people wish the Government to deal with. The more effectively they do so, the less heat there will be in the number of arrivals in any one year.

I wish to discuss two final things. First, and importantly, we cannot make sense of this debate without thinking about the programmes of Governments past and current on welfare reform and education. Under the stewardship of the previous Government, whom I was proud to support, more than 3 million jobs were created, largely in the private sector, but also in the public sector. Yet the number of men and women of working age claiming benefit during that period, when there was record growth in the economy and jobs, fell from 5.6 million to 5.2 million. So there was clearly a dysfunction between what we said we wanted to do on welfare reform and ensuring that those who benefited from those programmes were actually available for work.

Let us examine the latest figures. I know that the Government might say that they have been elected only recently and thus want to wash their hands of this, but they will not be able to continue to do that. The latest data show that we have had 126,000 new workers and the number of immigrant workers in this country now stands at 3.8 million, which is a record level. That has occurred while the number of British workers in work has fallen by 180,000. Clearly there is something wrong with our education system if we are still producing a large number of people who do not aspire or cannot aspire to the jobs that are so willingly taken by immigrants, who teach many of the host community what we used to mean by “the work ethic”. This is a chilling reminder. It is important for the Government not only to respond today on the numbers front, in which we are all interested, but to see the issue in the much wider context of welfare and educational reform.

We should rejoice in this debate, the nature of it and the number who wish to participate in it. However, until recently most of our electorate felt that we let them down and that an extraordinary change had been occurring in this country over the past 15 years. We had an open borders policy and a large number of people came into our community without our laying down any conditions about how they should perform and what sort of citizens they should be. That is why I am so anxious that nobody uses this debate to clobber people who came here, found that we were not terribly interested in how they got on in their lives and just conducted their lives as they wished, nobody having told them otherwise. There was a growing sense among people who felt part of this country, perhaps over some generations and not many, that the place they thought they were joining or growing up in was changing in a way that disturbed them. That sense of disturbance could have been put to one side had we had a debate.

However, what really galls my constituents is that something so fundamental as an open borders policy was conducted without any consultation of those on the receiving end: my constituents, those of my hon. Friends and those of Government Members. I am pleased that we are now able to have a rational debate and that all the interventions have been technical ones; none has disputed motives, as in previous attempts to conduct a debate. The debate has moved from one about principle—whether we oppose or wish to continue open borders—to one in which we all agree that it is about numbers and the rate of immigration. For that, I can say on behalf of my constituency, thank God.

13:14

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

It is a huge pleasure and an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). May I start with a word of tribute to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), who sadly is at a family funeral and very much regrets being unable to be with us? The way in which they have taken this issue of huge concern to people up and down the country, including many who are themselves of immigrant stock, detoxified it, moved us away from the old debates of the past and brought the real concerns of millions of ordinary people into this Chamber and the public domain cannot be commended too highly.

So many immigrants have made such a huge contribution to British life, economically as well as socially. Examples abound: the impact on manufacturing and culture of the influx of Huguenots, which was largely in response to the horrid repression under the Louis in the 17th century; the contribution of Jewish immigrants to banking and the rise of the supermarkets; and, post-war, the last-ditch rescue and transformation of so many small community shops, including my local village shop, by Indian families—it was just about to go bust, but is now a thriving venture.

Most debates have all too often focused on matters relating to assimilation. There are some issues to be raised in that regard but, like the right hon. Gentleman, I wish to focus almost exclusively on issues associated with numbers. Before doing so, I wish to make two wider points. The first is that I am extremely proud that my grandfather served in the Indian army. He did so in the first world war, but it is worth remembering that in the second world war, under the British Crown, the largest volunteer army in the history of mankind assembled, fought against the unspeakable evil of the Japanese army and prevented it from repeating the massacres of millions of people that had occurred in neighbouring China. This volunteer army was an organisation that brought together people from a wide range of ethnic groups and religions, and that has some lessons for us in terms of the importance of institutions and so on.

My second observation is that much of the current debate on immigration is poisoned by the fact that we have a legal culture in our courts which makes it very difficult to deport the small number of people who come here and grossly abuse the system. Every time a judge produces a fatuous ruling—I am not going to get into whether that is the fault of the judge or of the human rights legislation; it is a combination of both—that enables somebody who clearly should be deported to stay in this country, it builds up the far right, the extremists, and helps to build the tensions that it is so important for this country to move away from.

I wish to focus on four key issues relating to numbers and population density: the impact on our green footprint; the impact on housing; the impact on employment; and, finally, universities and English language schools. On the first, when I was the Opposition spokesman on aviation and shipping, I discovered a set of facts that, as far as I know, have not been in the public domain and which left me staggered. The right hon. Gentleman focused, as I shall for most of my speech, on net immigration, but this is a problem not only with immigration, but with emigration. By far the fastest growing category of flights in this country was not business flights, which had peaked when the recession came as socially conscious businesses moved towards video conferencing and so on, or holiday flights, which were still increasing, although not very quickly. The vast majority of the growth in aviation over the few years leading up to the recession was in a third category— the so-called visits to family and friends. The truth is that every time an individual moves here from a distant part of the world, or a British citizen leaves this country to go to all-too-often distant parts of the world, it creates a huge number of flights between family members.

In the last year for which I have seen figures, 32% of all flights from Heathrow reunited families and friends. It was a case of relatives visiting people who had come here, in almost all cases, completely legitimately, and those people living here visiting residents of the countries from which they originated, or of indigenous British people going off to visit granny in Sydney, for instance. We must recognise that the churn of population and the huge turnovers in it are having a huge effect on the growth of aviation. That factor has been left out of the debate.

[Mr Virendra Sharma]

Is the hon. Gentleman advocating that there should be no migration, no travelling and that people should not move from one place to another?

[Mr Brazier]

I have huge respect for the hon. Gentleman’s reputation. He was an active member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs for a long time and participated in a couple of interesting reports on this subject. He knows, of course, that that is not what I am recommending. Like the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, I am trying to say that numbers are critical. The heavy rates of churn that have taken place between countries over the past few years are among the key drivers in greenhouse emissions, but they are also a factor that has notably been left out of this debate.

[Mr Sharma]

I just want to correct the hon. Gentleman. I am neither a member of nor the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee—that is my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz).

[Mr Brazier]

I believed that the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Committee and I apologise if I am incorrect. I have certainly heard him talk sense on this subject in the past.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I have a brother and a sister, both of whom have migrated to America, and I am rather concerned. When the hon. Gentleman says it is about numbers, whose brother and sister should not be allowed to travel? That is what the question boils down to when we say it is about numbers. Whose relatives are to be debarred from engaging in family visits if we are trying to reduce the carbon footprint of migration?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I think we are straying off the debate somewhat, into climate change and aviation. The debate is on immigration, so perhaps we can focus on that.

[Mr Brazier]

Indeed I shall, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let me make a general point, if I may. When we discuss immigration and the pressures that it creates on housing, nobody is suggesting that any immigrant should be denied the right to buy or rent a house. When we discuss the pressure on jobs, we do not mean that anybody legitimately coming into this country should be refused such opportunities. The point we are trying to make is that large movements of people create pressures on all those areas. I am simply making the point that the green footprint is one factor that we must take into account in deciding what level of immigration we allow into this country.

Let me move to a second such factor, which is housing. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead observed that it is estimated that approximately 40% of housing need in this country is accounted for by net immigration. In fact, eight years ago the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimated that Britain would need 4 million new houses by 2022. If we rework the calculations based on how the numbers have moved on since then, we can see that that was almost certainly a substantial underestimate. In an area such as mine, where there are extreme housing shortages, that should give us all pause for thought.

Forty per cent. of housing need is accounted for by net immigration, but we easily forget that one of the most common reasons given by people for leaving this country—it is second or third in most of the recent surveys—is that they feel that it is overcrowded. In many cases, they want to move to places that are less congested. Ironically, even by balancing the numbers we are keeping up levels of pressure that are already felt.

The problem in a county such as Kent is not just that we have a large number of people on housing waiting lists. The need for more housing has a range of pernicious side effects. Almost 90% of all the land in Kent that is either not grade 1 agricultural land or protected as an area of outstanding natural beauty now lies on floodplains, and we are also short of water. In fact, as one engineer pointed out to me the other day, the new building work in east Kent, particularly around Ashford—much of which has been built on floodplains—has managed simultaneously to add substantially to the flooding risks in winter, and many hundreds of my constituents have had their housing wrecked by flooding, and to contribute to shortages of water in summer in a county that has had repeated hosepipe bans over the past 10 years.

[Pete Wishart]

In Scotland we are facing for the first time in 100 years the prospect of our population falling below the iconic 5 million mark. Surely we require international solutions throughout the UK as well as regional solutions, or we will all experience difficult problems.

[Mr Brazier]

I heard the hon. Gentleman’s intervention on the right hon. Member for Birkenhead and I do not want to go too far down that route, but I do not believe that it is practical. I know that the Australians have done it, and the hon. Gentleman made that point vigorously. I am familiar with the Australian system, but there are two big differences between the six states that make up Australia and the four nations that make up Britain. The first difference is that the entities in Australia are very large and the population centres—most of the population of each of the six states lives in one part of that state, except in Queensland—are a very long way apart, so it is easier to see that people are fulfilling their obligations. The second key difference between Australia and Britain is that Australia has a legal system that works, so if people break the rules, they get deported, but we do not. Trying to provide people with permission to come as long as they settle in Scotland is not practical. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not go further down that route.

Although the cost of housing has come back a little from its recent gross peak, it is still very expensive compared with housing in the majority of other countries, especially for first-time buyers. The primary effect of unaffordable housing is that vast numbers of young families either cannot get housing or work very long hours to pay their mortgages. Even nine years ago—the situation has worsened since then—a huge one-off survey by the OECD discovered some very sad facts about Britain. Some 63% of UK families thought that they only just managed on their household incomes and a higher proportion of Britons than inhabitants of any other major EU nation felt that they had to work more hours than was good for their family life.

Apart from a couple of small countries, we have almost the highest proportion of working mothers in the world. Of course mothers should be able to work—my wife worked when she was a mother—but mothers, including some who work as staff in the House of Commons, are being driven into working much longer hours than they necessarily want to when their children are small because they are paying mortgages for overpriced houses in an overcrowded country.

Along with housing, other relevant issues include health care, social housing and the cost of providing infrastructure. I have mentioned water shortages in Kent; huge costs are associated with the next dam that we are going to need. Those things all cost money and all have to be brought into the balance when we decide whether we want a population of 70 million in a generation’s time.

The third area that I want to discuss is employment. Let me reassure hon. Members that I do not suggest that anyone who is here legitimately, whether as a successful asylum seeker or through a legitimate marriage, should ever be disadvantaged in the job market. I do not suggest there should be discrimination, but we must do what the right hon. Gentleman did in his speech and examine the impact of allowing heavy net immigration, as has happened in the past few years, on the employment of our population. That immigration has not been overwhelmingly from Europe: in the past decade, about two thirds has been from outside Europe.

Interestingly, the employment of UK-born people averaged about 64% in the latest figures available, having fallen by half a per cent. The corresponding employment rate is slightly higher for non-UK-born people at 66.5%, so the right hon. Gentleman’s point about many of the incoming groups teaching us a lesson about the work ethic is true. However, that is not the whole story: we have one of the highest rates of workless households in the developed world. Nearly 4.8 million people of working age are not working and 1.9 million children are living in households in which no one works, many of them households in which no one has ever worked.

Government figures show that 1.4 million people in the UK have been on out-of-work benefits for nine or more of the past 10 years. As John Hutton said in 2006, when he was the Work and Pensions Secretary,

“if people have been on incapacity benefit for more than two years, they are more likely to retire or to die than ever to get another job.”—[Official Report, 24 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 1305.]

It has already been observed but is worth repeating that, although the previous Government can take credit for creating more than 2 million jobs, almost three quarters of those were accounted for by people coming from outside the country. The previous Government effectively had a policy of replacement migration. I am a huge admirer and supporter of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pension’s shake-up of the welfare system, but, as he has hinted in his speeches, it can work only with diligent application of the Government’s plans on immigration, because if large numbers of people are encouraged to get back into the work force—there are some expensive carrots as well as sticks in that regard—they will not have a great deal of luck, as we pull very slowly out of a very difficult recession, if there is a steady stream of young economic migrants to take their place. We cannot do anything about people coming from eastern Europe, but we can do something about those coming from other parts of the world.

The fourth issue I want to address is the student system. I am very proud to represent the largest number of students in any constituency. I have two excellent universities in my patch and a number of highly valued English language schools that act as feeders to those universities and others. However, we must recognise that the problems in the student system that the right hon. Gentleman hinted at are very real. Unlike him, I do not believe that they are confined to a number of bogus colleges, but it is good that the Government are clamping down on them.

I know two people who regularly go to other parts of the world to market their organisations, both of which are legitimate—a Russell group university and an English language school with a very good record in the field—and they both say that the first thing they are asked in many countries is, “Once you get a foot in the door, can you stay?” All too often, people from even the most respectable institutions are tempted to say, “Well, yes, in practice, that almost always follows if that is what you want.” As the universities come under pressure, with the new funding regime starting in 2012, the temptation for those organisations, particularly those that are struggling economically and cannot fill their books, to take people who can pay the money but do not necessarily have the right academic qualifications will be huge. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, the largest single route for entry into this country is the student system.

We have to strike a balance, but that will be difficult. It is essential that the best lecturers have the opportunity to come if they want to spend part of their career here and we must have a system in which the brightest and best students see Britain as a place to come. That will be good not only for the countries they come from and the universities that receive them: a key third benefit is that, a generation on, Britain will have friends, potentially in high places. In striking the balance, we have to make sure that perfectly legitimate organisations at the lower end of the economic scale do not pad their numbers out with people who are willing to pay a year’s fees up front and then disappear into the system.

I conclude by drawing attention to an absolutely extraordinary hole in the immigration system that came to my attention at my constituency surgery on Saturday. My constituent, Mr Spence, is happy for me to share his experience with the House. He had a suitcase containing all his personal documents stolen. He has never had a passport, but it included his birth certificate. He was born in Rutland and he was told that to get another birth certificate from Rutland county council, he needed to fill in a form online and send a cheque for £9. He asked what verification was needed and was assured that there was none. Let me inform the House that Government guidelines to anyone applying for a job—I have seen a string of these from various organisations—say that someone who has either a passport or a birth certificate and a letter from a Department, which could be anything and does not require any identity checks, can come into this country.

[Robert Halfon]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the great author, Mr Frederick Forsyth, identified this problem a long time ago in his book “The Day of the Jackal”?

[Mr Brazier]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was wholly unaware of that and must reread the book.

Mr Spence’s story gets better—or worse if one is being serious about it. When he was five, his mother remarried and changed his name by deed poll. He contacted Rutland council and said, “There is just one problem: I need to change my details because my name was changed a long time ago.” “Ah,” said the council, “That is no problem.” He had only to fill in another online form and send a cheque for £40 for it all to be fixed.

Unlike the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, I am not going to end with a shopping list of firm recommendations, although I have hinted at a number already. I simply end by observing that we cannot continue to have an open-door policy. I welcome the steps that the incoming coalition Government have already taken, but I firmly believe that they must go further, as we have inherited a system that certainly is not fit for purpose. I congratulate the co-sponsors of the motion and the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the opportunity to discuss this subject.

13:40

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

I shall briefly address two issues, tier 1 workers and intra-company transfers, and following your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker, will give climate change and air travel a wide berth.

It is already clear that the Government’s cap, as originally formulated, does not fit, and once again a headline-grabbing policy that went down very well with the tabloid press has turned out to be far from straightforward. As many Governments have found in the past and will no doubt find in the future, ill-thought-out policies have a habit of unravelling, and the cap is a perfect example. To be fair, some members of the Government, in particular the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, made it clear some time ago that the cap would be unworkable and dangerous to business in its original form. He said:

“A lot of damage is being done to British industry”

and the quota was wrongly fixed.

Unfortunately, those warnings went unheeded, and only yesterday—at the eleventh hour—did the Prime Minister lay the ground for a muddled retreat. How far that retreat will go remains unclear, but recent announcements suggest that some areas are finally being looked at. The problem is that the Government just do not want to admit that their policy is wrong, and badly wrong. I am sure that many hon. Members will have been lobbied by local businesses that are concerned about how the policy—in respect of tier 1 workers, in particular—will impact on them.

The popular press would like us to believe that workers who come to the UK are largely unskilled and easily replaceable with unemployed UK workers—presumably ending unemployment overnight. If only the situation were so straightforward, because the truth is very different. Tier 1 workers, in particular, are important, highly skilled individuals who are key to the well-being and growth of many businesses.

Many employers tell me that, despite advertising vacancies nationally as well as locally, they are unable to recruit people with the required skills. Indeed, in some cases, despite advertising nationally, they have not received any applications at all. I shall cite one example that illustrates the issue perfectly. Comtek is a high-end, knowledge-based company located on Deeside, and Mr Sheibani, who owns the company, wrote to me saying that he has found it impossible to recruit well-trained, qualified and skilled engineers. He said:

“We have been trying very hard to recruit engineers locally and from other parts of the UK. The vast majority of highly skilled people are reluctant to relocate. In July and September this year we did a presentation to 20 skilled telecoms engineers in Belfast who were about to be made redundant from their jobs. We offered all of them employment in Deeside with exactly the same salary as they were getting from their bankrupt employer plus free accommodation. None of them were prepared to move.”

He went on:

“In contrast Tier One skilled workers are very mobile and prepared to relocate, they are resourceful and enthusiastic”.

But Mr Sheibani’s key point was that

“for every tier 1 engineer we recruit we employ four trainee technicians or apprentices from the locality.”

He has made it very clear that, if he were unable to recruit those tier 1 workers, he would be unable to expand his business in the UK. Comtek’s work force has doubled in recent years, and the company pays many millions of pounds into the UK economy, but he would not be able to employ those local apprentices who, after training, attain the required skills.

By chance, just across the road from Comtek is the Toyota engine plant on Deeside. On that site and at Toyota’s car assembly plant in Burnaston, Derbyshire, the firm directly employs more than 3,500 people. It invests more than £1.85 billion and exports more than 85% of its production, and I am sure we all want to encourage such companies to grow and invest further in the UK. Toyota uses a small number of ICTs, mainly from Japan, who are vital to technology transfer and the development and implementation of new products.

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

Like the hon. Gentleman, we all want this country to accept the brightest and the best, but he has not referred to the fact that 29% of tier 1 entrants have been found to be working in jobs such as pizza deliverers or security guards. Will he comment on where tier 1 has gone wrong?

[Mark Tami]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that, in some aspects, tier 1 has gone wrong, but we should not put the whole thing in the bin and say, “We are going to introduce a blanket ban at some point when we reach some quota that is made up as we go along.” I accept that there are problems, but I am discussing a company that directly employs and pays such workers; they do not come to this country to look for work.

ICTs are not a substitute for trained local employees. In fact, they are quite the reverse, because the vast majority of ICTs are trainers themselves who train local employees. They have helped Toyota to improve the productivity of its UK plants, which have become some of the company’s leading plants throughout the world. I am sure that we all applaud that. The ICTs are paid by Toyota; they pay taxes locally and pay money into the local economy; and they have helped to create and maintain many thousands of jobs, as well as to help our export efforts.

I asked a question in Business, Innovation and Skills questions today, because, although I welcome the statement about ICTs, I know there is still a feeling that, given the levels being discussed, the policy is being made up as we go along. We have to clear up the situation as quickly as possible, because many companies are worried about exactly how it will work. Toyota employs 3,500 people in the UK, but throughout the entire business it employs on average only 50 ICTs each year.

I am concerned, because those ICTs are key workers, and if we say to Toyota and other companies, “At some point, you will not be able to site the key workers who do that very important work,” we will affect their decisions about whether to invest more money. I accept that it is probably a marginal decision, but if it is a close call, those companies might start to think, “Should we put our money here or somewhere else?” Somewhere else might mean somewhere prepared to make those guarantees.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the requirement for skilled workers from abroad reflects the failure of the previous Government’s education and training policies?

[Mark Tami]

I am about to move on to training, so if the hon. Gentleman waits a few moments he will hear what I have to say.

There is a concern, because we are introducing extra barriers, which, for international companies, might affect their decision about whether to invest in the UK. I have given examples of two companies with major concerns about the effects of the cap, illustrating the point that, if we apply the cap in a way that greatly concerns business, we could increase rather than reduce UK unemployment. It is simplistic to believe that, if we stop more people from coming in, UK workers will suddenly pick up all those jobs.

As the hon. Gentleman said, that prompts the question: why do we in this country not have the skills we need? The simple answer is: we have failed to train the people to meet our needs. Like the previous Government and the Government before them, the current Government are talking about more apprentices and more training; no doubt future Governments will do the same. The issue is a major problem, and we have not addressed it so far. It is all very well talking about a cap or whatever, but unless we really address the skill base and training need in this country, we will never solve the problem.

[Mr Brazier]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are addressing the issue by getting rid of the wasteful Train to Gain schemes, with all their phoney elements, and introducing proper apprenticeships. Does he accept that however hard we work at it, a man or woman in their late 40s or early 50s, who has come out of employment and is looking for a new job, is never going to be as attractive to an employer as a young incomer in their early 20s?

[Mark Tami]

The point that I am trying to make—and the hon. Gentleman’s point, I think—is that we have to address our training needs. Just stopping a person coming in does not address that problem. We still do not have the skill base. We lag behind other countries, and we have done so for many years. I am not saying that we got everything right, and I am certainly not saying that the current Government have got everything right. We will be having the same argument for many years to come.

We have to admit that some UK private industry has been reluctant to train people. Many companies see training as an avoidable cost rather than as an investment. For too long, rather than training people themselves, companies have preferred to poach a skilled employee who has been trained by another company. After a time, that becomes a bit of a vicious circle. Many people from companies, particularly smaller companies, have asked me what the point is of training somebody. They invest a lot of time and money in doing it, but then the bigger company down the road comes in, offers the employee more money and off that employee goes. Those companies say that they might as well not train anybody in the first place.

In the past, we had a number of nationalised industries; whatever their merits, most people will accept that they trained an awful lot of people to a very high standard. Many of those people drifted off to the private sector. After privatisation, one of the first things to suffer was the number of people being trained—numbers were cut and shareholders became the fundamental concern. We saw a big drop-off in the number of employees being trained by companies such as British Telecom, British Gas and the old electricity companies. People were not going from the public sector to the private sector in the same numbers to fill the gap that the private sector has always failed to fill.

I know that this will get absolutely no support from Government Members, but I support a training levy: a company of a certain size should have an obligation to train a certain number of people. That would mean a level playing field. It might address the problem of some companies not training people because they are worried—

[Andrew Bridgen]

Do we not already have a levy on companies? It is called corporation tax.

[Mark Tami]

The hon. Gentleman says that corporation tax is a levy, but does it address the training issue for companies? No, it does not.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman may have some support on this side of the House for the idea of a training levy. Certainly, engineering businesses in my constituency have strongly put the case to me that they bear a cost for training that ends up advantaging other companies that poach their employees. It would be a good idea to have some form of incentive to encourage training by those responsible companies and discourage that kind of poaching.

[Mark Tami]

That was the point that I was trying to make. Once again, we are seeing a split in the coalition on this issue.

I finish by saying that I suppose that there is some good news—the Government are recognising that the cap as originally put forward was not going to work and would be damaging. But we need to clear up where we are on this. There is the problem of this Government—and, okay, previous Governments as well—sometimes going for a cheap, headline-grabbing policy that sounds very good. People like the sound of it but then it really starts to unravel in the way that the policy on the cap is. It is creating a lot of uncertainty for business. Business is worried. At least the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills recognised that some time ago.

13:54

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

I start by thanking the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) for arranging this debate and the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it. For the first time, as Members of Parliament, we can have an open and frank discussion about the levels of immigration in this country, and that is long overdue.

During the general election and long before, the high levels of immigration allowed by the previous Government were—and they remain—one of the biggest issues for my constituents in Kingswood. Yet, as has been mentioned in the excellent contributions so far in this debate, people have been afraid to discuss this crucial issue, which, happily, we are now beginning to address. Why is that? It is because people have been concerned about being viewed as intolerant—as bigots, even—if they raise the issue of immigration publicly. We all know that Britain is not a bigoted nation. The British people are not and have never been bigots.

It is not bigoted to be genuinely concerned about how our local schools might cope with increasing school rolls or about how teachers can keep discipline with several different languages being spoken in the classroom. It is not bigoted to be genuinely concerned about the pressures being placed on the NHS by population expansion and how local hospital services will cope with the increased demands placed on them. Nor is it bigoted to be genuinely concerned about how all our local services—our infrastructure—might be able to cope with an increased population.

As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead illustrated well, that is where the heart of the debate lies. How can we as a nation cope with the additional pressures that mass immigration might bring? It is clear to me that we can no longer cope in the current financial circumstances.

[Andrew Selous]

I agree with every word that my hon. Friend has said, but will he add to the list of good reasons for having this debate? If the mainstream parties do not debate this issue in a sensible and moderate manner, we feed the extremists. If our constituents do not see us discussing the issue sensibly, they will go to the extreme parties that we all dislike.

[Chris Skidmore]

Absolutely. The lesson that all three parties learned from the general election was that the issue needed to be debated. Happily, it was debated at the end of the general election, although it should have been brought forward sooner. It is clear to me that it is only right and responsible for us to act now to protect our public services and local infrastructure. It is clear that we can no longer go on as we were, with a policy of uncontrolled immigration and net migration reaching almost 200,000.

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

My hon. Friend is entirely right that we need to look at limiting immigration. In my constituency, particularly in Goole, the biggest influx has come from eastern Europe. Does he agree that the failure of the previous Government to limit EU immigration, as they could and should have done, has helped to fuel national concerns about immigration?

[Chris Skidmore]

I certainly recognise that, back in 2004, the previous Government failed to address the problem of transitional controls when negotiating with the EU. If the EU is to expand, the current Government will ensure that those controls are put in place, as is absolutely necessary.

I certainly welcome the current plans to halve the net migration figure—currently 200,000—by 2015 and also the cap on annual non-EU immigration. We can have a debate today on what the figure for the cap should be, but I believe that it must be in the tens of thousands, drastically lower than the hundreds of thousands that we were witnessing until recently.

Above all, as a Government and a Parliament, we must send out a clear message. My constituents in Kingswood want a Government who are finally in control of their immigration policy—a Government who are policing their borders and standing up for the British people.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an argument for controlling immigration that would be obvious to anyone with a basic grasp of mathematics? It is that we are an island of limited resources. The more people there are in the country, the less, on average, every single one of us will get.

[Chris Skidmore]

I certainly agree that our circumstances as an island place us in an unusual situation compared with the rest of Europe.

[Martin Horwood]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Institute for Public Policy Research think-tank, which has said that

“what often gives the public the impression that immigration is out of control is politicians making promises to ‘clamp down’ on immigration that they then cannot deliver”?

Was not that the lesson of the whole era of new Labour? The Labour Government promised to be tough on immigration but, because they continually wanted to appease the Daily Mail, they had to keep on trying to produce different immigration and nationality Acts that damaged this country in terms of fairness and its sensitivity to people of different colours and different races?

[Chris Skidmore]

Absolutely. As individual Members of Parliament we each have a responsibility to our constituents to ensure that we have a fair but firm, and responsible, debate here and in the literature that we put out in our constituencies. I cannot comment on the recent case, but it obviously reflects that.

I talked about the British people, and I want to press this point. We must stand up for the interests of British people who have invested in this country—who have paid their taxes for years and funded our schools, our hospitals and our roads. We must fight on behalf of our constituents who go about their day-to-day business, getting on with their lives, and paying for our local services—indeed, paying for our salaries. That is our duty as legislators in this House and as constituency MPs.

[Mr Virendra Sharma]

The hon. Gentleman will no doubt agree that the migrant community has also contributed effectively for the past many years. I am not talking about general immigration, but people from the south-east Asian countries.

[Chris Skidmore]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, which the right hon. Member for Birkenhead made very effectively. We are not here to criticise what happened decades before. There are many people who have arrived in this country, paid their taxes and who are British citizens. We are also standing up for and defending their rights when we debate how to control immigration.

It is not bigoted to be genuinely concerned about the future of our nation and its future generation—those young people who are in desperate need of jobs and employment. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) raised the issue of business. We need to listen to the voice of business if we are to succeed in bringing about an economic recovery, especially those in international industries who choose Britain as their base. That is why, when a cap is placed on immigration next year, we must be sure that those who are allowed into this country are only those whom this country needs and who have expertise from which we will benefit.

[Andrew Percy]

Does my hon. Friend agree that through our membership of the European Union we are now in the strange position whereby we are putting limits on people coming here from nations such as Canada and Australia, where the skills base is the same and the qualifications are equally recognised, but we are completely unable to control immigration from countries across eastern Europe, where there are different cultures, skills bases and qualifications?

[Chris Skidmore]

We have certainly been left with a legacy, and we have to play the cards that we have been dealt. I might like things to have been different, if that were possible. However, we must accept that the European Union covers 47% of our trade and is therefore a major player that we have to deal with, and we need to operate within that framework in terms of border controls.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend talks about the future, but we also need to look at the existing system. Before coming to this place, I practised as a barrister and prosecuted cases for a number of years. An illegal immigrant or an immigrant who had committed an offence would be served with an IM3, an order for deportation, and a judge then made a recommendation. From that point to the point of deportation—and in the time it took to put that into practice—the left arm of the Home Office did not know what its right arm was doing, and in the meantime the taxpayer was paying for it. Before looking to the future, we need to ensure that the problems with the previous system, which has been in place for several years, are put right.

[Chris Skidmore]

I defer to my hon. Friend’s expertise on this matter, but thank him for raising that valuable point.

I want to return to the issue of employment. While hundreds of thousands of British citizens are still seeking a job, and when 10% of recent British graduates are still looking for jobs, the economic recovery must begin here. Although it is important that low-skilled jobs are filled in order to encourage growth in the economy, there are hundreds of thousands of British citizens who can fill them. If we are to build an economic recovery, it must be on the back of the talents of the British people.

[Martin Horwood]

One of the reasons the IPPR, which I quoted earlier, and others, such as the British Chambers of Commerce, are opposing the cap, or certainly opposing its being imposed too rigidly, is that they have identified that immigration is very good for the economy in many respects—that it is the source of great entrepreneurial spirit. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that immigrants have contributed a huge amount to this country, and specifically to its economy and prosperity?

[Chris Skidmore]

I would never deny that fact. However, the simple fact remains that we are not accountable to the IPPR, but to our constituents. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, and every Member here—not during the election but on every weekend when we are back in our constituencies knocking on doors—has found that this is the single biggest issue that is raised in the nation at large.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a very compelling argument. This goes back to a point that was made earlier. It does not matter what the ethnic background of people happens to be. I have found on the doorsteps of Crawley that, regardless of other people’s backgrounds, people are concerned about jobs, schools, and pressure on the health service. Those are universal concerns.

[Chris Skidmore]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which returns to the question of population pressure and infrastructure. That must be the crucial message of this debate.

I want to end by raising what is, for me, another vital concern—that we cannot begin to tackle immigration effectively without looking clearly at the process of integration. For too long, Government and local authorities have acquiesced in allowing parallel communities to exist—communities and neighbourhoods speaking different languages, yet never really speaking to each other. In every council, thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money, in some cases nearly half a million pounds, are spent on translators and interpreters, and on leaflets produced in every language imaginable. If we want to create an integrated society, this must change. We cannot allow any policy on immigration to be implemented without addressing what I believe to be the paramount concern: that the English language must be upheld, and that any person who enters this country must expect—indeed, be expected—to learn and speak English if they are to co-exist and play a responsible role in British society.

As I have said, the British people are not bigots. Britain is a tolerant nation that looks outwards rather than inwards, a nation that is proud of our international heritage and responsibilities. That, in part, is what made us great in the first place. But the time has now come, in this debate and moving on, for us to take a firm stance on immigration. I know for my constituents in Kingswood that this cannot come soon enough.

13:59

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I am very pleased to participate in this debate. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) for proposing it and to the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), who cannot be here today. I do not necessarily share all their views on this subject, but they are both entirely right to say that immigration is a matter of overwhelming concern to the public.

It is with a degree of trepidation that I speak on this topic. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, I have done comparatively little work on immigration. I do not pretend to have all the answers, and I certainly do not pretend that my remarks will please everyone, but as someone who represents a part of London that has benefited enormously from the flow of people from all over the world I feel compelled to say something about the conundrum in which we now find ourselves, where the Government’s desire to see the “brightest and best” come to the UK is contradicted by an artificial, policy-driven cap that prevents those very people from coming in the numbers our economy needs. It is a conundrum in which thousands of people, many of whom have families, have been told by the UK Border Agency that they face removal or deportation, yet for years have been left to get on with their lives in towns and cities up and down the country. It is a conundrum surprisingly summed up best by our tabloids. One day it is “Save Gamu Nhengu”, the next it is back to the old refrain of “Fewer immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers”. I meet people such as Gamu every week in my surgery, who have come to our country to make a better life for themselves and their families. Not everyone has been on “The X Factor”, but many have equally strong cases for staying in the UK.

Immigration was one of the top concerns raised by my constituents during the election, as it was for many other Members. In fact, I would say it was probably in the top three subjects of conversation on the doorstep, along with concerns about the economy and a general disillusionment with politics and politicians. Time and again, I spoke to people who believed that immigrants were taking their jobs and homes. The vast majority of those people were not racist and some were first or second-generation immigrants themselves, but they were often people who were struggling to make ends meet, had seen significant changes in their neighbourhood and were looking for someone to blame for their own hardship. Many held the belief that immigrants were jumping the queue for social housing, and others felt that eastern European construction workers were taking jobs from their sons and grandsons.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does the hon. Lady agree that those in our society who are the most vulnerable to the next wave of uncontrolled immigration are not her or Conservative Members but the previous wave of immigrants? They will have to compete for the scant resources in our inner-city areas.

[Heidi Alexander]

I do appreciate that recent waves of immigrants are sometimes the most deprived people in urban areas, and I understand their concerns, but I believe that a lot of them respect the contribution that former waves of immigrants have made, and they want to feel that society’s resources are shared fairly and that we take an appropriate, fair but firm approach to immigration.

I have talked a little about the stereotypes of the Daily Mail about why people are concerned about immigration. Those stereotypes have now taken root in many communities across the UK. I understand the concerns of my constituents. I understand that when a family from a different country who speak a different language move into a council house down the road, constituents might question why their daughter is still living at home with them and is number 4,323 on the housing waiting list. However, who is to say that their new neighbours are not renting that house privately? Who is to say that the house was not sold many years ago under the right to buy, or that the main breadwinner in the family is not a highly skilled hospital doctor who has come to the UK to fill a position in our NHS that desperately needed to be filled?

[Robert Halfon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her thoughtful opening remarks. Does she agree that the problem is not that bad people are hostile to immigrants, because there will always be bad people? The real problem is that so many good people have become hostile to immigrants, because, as was mentioned earlier, every time they raise the subject they are accused of being racist. The problems that she talks about occur because people are not allowed to discuss the matter openly without being accused of some ulterior motive.

[Heidi Alexander]

I agree that it is very important that we discuss the matter openly and rationally. I agree entirely with the comment made earlier by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) that if politicians from the mainstream parties do not discuss it, we leave a space for other parties. That is why I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead on securing the debate.

I also believe that people’s concerns about immigration are symptomatic of the other big challenges with which we are grappling, which some Members have mentioned. They include the availability of housing at a price that people can afford and of jobs that pay a salary that makes taking the work worth while. We need to address those fundamental problems at the same time as ensuring that our immigration system is, to coin a phrase, “fit for purpose”. It is to that issue that I now turn.

What frustrates me more than anything else about our immigration system is our failure—yes, I accept that it was a failure of the previous Government as much as it is of the current one—to enforce decisions in a fair and humane way. We need appropriate enforcement at the point at which decisions are taken. Given that 37% of immigration appeals are successful, there is also a problem with the right decision being made in the first place, but perhaps that is a discussion for another day. I simply say that we should learn from our mistakes and make better decisions at the outset.

I suspect that I have many constituents who were told years ago that they were liable to deportation or removal, but nothing has happened. Such people carry on their lives, which is understandable. Some might be working in the informal economy, and some will have hung on to jobs that they legally should not have done. They have started relationships and had children, and their children have started school. It is then, years down the line, that they get a visit from the enforcement officers. I do not know what it would feel like to be a six-year-old child and be taken out of school—often the only school they have ever known—and have to move to a country to which they have never been, but something tells me that it would not feel great. I accept that every case is different, and that people who have been convicted of crimes in the past should not be allowed to stay, but I question why we are so intent on causing such upheaval to families.

[Rehman Chishti]

The hon. Lady brings us back to the existing system being completely bizarre. For example, when immigration judges determine a case, they are not allowed to examine an applicant’s previous convictions because of a problem between the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Home Office. Does she agree that to improve the system immigration judges must be able to see an applicant’s previous convictions when determining whether they can stay in this country?

[Heidi Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman clearly has a degree of expertise in the matter, and his suggestion sounds sensible.

I was talking about the upheaval caused to families who have been in this country a long time who face removal or deportation proceedings, not all of them as a result of doing something that the vast majority of the population would think drastically wrong. We need a sensitive approach, and if we are to have fair immigration controls we need to deal humanely with the people who are in the country at the moment.

Enforcement is a case of needing to be firm to be fair—not aggressive, not rough, but firm, competent and timely. I do not underestimate the difficulty of getting the balance right, but I cannot help but worry that cuts in the number of UK Border Agency staff will make the problem even worse. Perhaps fewer staff will just mean fewer legacy cases being processed and more people hanging around the system waiting to get on with their lives. I do not know the answer to this question, but perhaps the Minister will enlighten us about why, at a time when his Government are talking tough on immigration, he is cutting the very staff who are needed to do the job.

My second main frustration about the cases that I see in my surgery relates to the poor quality of immigration advice that many of my constituents receive. Although many private and voluntary sector providers deliver an excellent service, there are also many so-called advisers who simply exploit vulnerable people who do not know which way to turn.

[Mark Tami]

My hon. Friend touches on a very important point. The sad thing is that by the time some people come to see us, they have already forked out hundreds or thousands of pounds to people for giving advice that they could either get off the internet or from our offices. Those people are like vultures.

[Heidi Alexander]

I agree entirely. Earlier this week, the Secretary of State for Justice himself admitted in the House that people are being taken advantage of. He said:

“We have all known for many years that some…advice, usually given by non-lawyers…is not very good and that the prices charged are rather unscrupulous.”—[Official Report, 15 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 671-72.]

I think “not very good” and “rather unscrupulous” are probably quite significant understatements. In my experience, some individuals dispense absolutely diabolical immigration advice, and something needs to be done to tackle that.

I fear that the challenges to legal aid will make the situation worse, and I understand that the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner will undergo a merger in the not-too-distant future. I ask the Minister to use this opportunity to look again at the accreditation process for immigration advisers and at the quality checks done on providers once accreditation has been obtained. I am told that the accreditation process for advisers without legal qualifications involves a simple online test, which seems somewhat open to abuse. Will the Minister speak with his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice about tightening that process?

Much of the debate has focused on the implications of the cap for top universities, but another part of the education sector could also be hit hard by changes to the immigration rules. Roughly half of international students in our universities have completed some form of foundation course in the UK. In my constituency, Twin Training International Ltd provides such courses, along with short English language courses. It makes an enormous contribution to the local economy; in fact, after Sainsbury and Tesco, it is the largest employer in the borough of Lewisham. However, it also puts money into the hands of many local families, who provide board to students. This is not some dodgy college set up to offer a way into the country, but a reputable business, which has the capacity to grow. However, it will not grow, and it will lose students to businesses in Canada and America, if the Government make it harder for those students to come here. Why would we encourage international students to learn English in Canada when they could learn it in England?

I accept that action needs to be taken against bogus colleges, and the previous Government started that process. However, it is important that we remind ourselves that only 12% of all migrants granted settlement last year originally entered the UK as students. Some 80% of all overseas students leave the UK within five years of entering. In taking action against fraudulent institutions, let us not throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

I accept that we need some form of control over the numbers of people coming to the UK and over the purposes for which they come here, but please let us acknowledge the way in which the flow of people from all over the world makes a positive difference to our economy and culture. Let us also acknowledge the benefits of international students going back to their own countries with links to the UK.

Let us also treat people who are here humanely. Let us think how we would feel if our children were being taken away from their school friends, our 17 or 18-year-old was being sent back to Afghanistan or our friends were being forced to live in limbo, as they waited for the Home Office to make a decision on their case.

[Mr Brazier]

The hon. Lady refers to Afghanistan. I am a strong supporter of a local charity that looks after unaccompanied asylum seekers, who are overwhelmingly from Afghanistan. Two of my wife’s relatives serve in the armed forces, so may I put it to the hon. Lady that when this country is committed to a policy of trying to turn Afghanistan round, and plenty of young British males and females are risking their lives to do that, it is not unreasonable, as the country stabilises, for people to return there when they reach adulthood?

[Heidi Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head when he says “as it stabilises”. My understanding is that although the security situation might be quite stable in parts of Kabul, it is not in other parts of the country.

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

It is probably all right as long as someone is not a British soldier. The bulk of the inhabitants of Afghanistan are living peacefully.

[Heidi Alexander]

I suspect that we are moving away from the subject of the debate.

One of my concerns about removing children or young adults to places such as Afghanistan relates to age disputes. It is difficult for us in this country accurately to determine the ages of young people, some of whom are forced to return.

In May, the Prime Minister welcomed the fact that the UK is more open at home and more compassionate abroad than it was a decade ago. I agree, but I would go further. I want us to be more open abroad and more compassionate at home. With every day that goes by, our world becomes smaller. If we are not open to the world, how do we expect to play our part in it? If we cannot be compassionate at home, this is not the sort of country I want to live in. I am not saying that any of this is easy, but a game of numbers alone hides the complexities of the issue, and it would be wrong for any of us to try to simplify it in that way.

14:25

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

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) on securing this important debate. He is right that this might be the first such debate in Parliament, but it was clear in the general election that the issue was being widely discussed. Indeed, I shared a number of platforms on immigration with the Minister. We attended some very lively, well-attended debates, where a wide range of quite colourful views were expressed. I welcome the fact that Parliament is able to debate this issue, and we should be able to do so openly and without running the risk of being accused of racism. Clearly, the subject is of great concern to all our constituents, so we need to be able to talk about it maturely and openly, which is what I think we are doing today.

I had wanted to tell the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) that he made a nice try of splitting the coalition, but he will have to try a little harder. [Interruption.] Oh, he is here, so he will hear this. It may be difficult for him to understand the concept of two political parties forming a coalition, working together on policies and improving them as a result, but he will have to get used to that over the next four and a half years.

All of us in the Chamber would agree that immigration needs to be more effectively managed. The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), who made a good contribution, talked about the need for policy to be firm, competent and timely. That is not an issue that previous Conservative and Labour Governments, and possibly the Lib-Lab pact Government, have addressed very successfully. Unfortunately, that has undermined public confidence, and the temperature of the issue has been raised by the lack of effective controls.

It is therefore right that our first focus should be on making the system work effectively and well. The coalition agreement is clear, for instance, about restoring exit controls. In recent years, the lack of such controls has meant that we have never had a real handle on immigration, because we simply have not known how many people have arrived in the UK and subsequently left. I hope that restoring those controls will give us greater clarity. Both Conservatives and Liberal Democrats argued for a UK border force to be brought into operation, which will have a major impact in that respect.

As the hon. Member for Lewisham East said, immigration does not lend itself to simple solutions, and there are difficult issues that we are not debating today that the Government must nevertheless address, including, for instance, the indefinite detention of people who cannot be deported from the UK, either because they would be deported to countries where there is a real risk, such as Somalia, or because they are dissembling about where they come from, and the country to which they want to be deported is unwilling to issue travel papers. The Government face and will need to address such difficult issues, but they are not the principal focus of the debate.

It is the view of all parties represented in the House that, fundamentally, immigration has benefited Britain. People coming to this country have given a very great deal to our economy, culture and society. We must make the immigration system more effective. Of course, that means that people who come to settle in Britain should learn the language, but it does not mean that we should pull up the drawbridge. We need to be careful about immigration measures to ensure that they do not damage the UK economy. We do not want people to be turned away from the UK if we know that they would make a substantial contribution to our economy.

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that successive Governments have followed a misguided policy of multiculturalism? Rather than helping to bring people of different cultures together, the policy has acted to divide them. Our approach should be to learn from that. We should emphasise the things that people who are settling in our country have in common with the people who are already here.

[Tom Brake]

I agree with some of what my hon. Friend says. I went to an international school in France from the age of eight to 18. All lessons apart from English language, history and literature were conducted in French. Other languages were used in other sections of the school for children from other countries around the world. The school ensured that all students were fully committed to French society and to learning about French history and culture, but at the same time, students could retain a stake in their countries of origin and study their history, language and literature. If the hon. Gentleman means that immigrants should integrate and absorb the basic principles of being British, I agree with him, but I hope that he can see the real value in those immigrants retaining their own culture and language, because that allows them to make a contribution to British society. I hope we agree on those points.

We need an immigration policy that is beneficial to the UK, and various organisations have raised questions about our policy. I am sure that the Minister has been on the receiving end of the briefing from Universities UK and the Association of Medical Research Charities, and that he is ready to respond positively to their concerns. The briefing concentrates quite heavily on controls that could stop researchers who could make a substantial contribution to medicine if they come to the UK under tier 1. They are worried about past salary being one of the principal considerations. Often, academics and researchers have not previously received salaries commensurate with those in the finance sector or law and so on. Therefore, some regard must be given to ensuring that people who will make a contribution will not be disallowed from coming in. We know that people make such contributions, and some have won Nobel prizes following their contributions to research. In addition, research developments very often lead to economic or business applications.

Universities UK and the Association of Medical Charities are also concerned about tier 2. Academics and researchers are not listed as shortage occupations, but they are often in specialised, niche markets, in which very few people have the same skills either in the UK or beyond.

The Minister will have seen the briefing from the British Chambers of Commerce, which is similarly concerned about tier 1. A point was made earlier about people who come to the UK under tier 1 and subsequently ended up working as pizza delivery drivers. Clearly, if that happens, something has gone dramatically wrong with the system. We need to ensure that we allow entrepreneurs, who we know will make a substantial contribution to the economy, to come to the UK, but at the same time we want to ensure that people with skills and flair come here to do the work that we expect them to do under tier 1. Ensuring that the system operates in that way is one of the challenges that the Government face.

In conclusion, the coalition agrees on the need to tackle the issues before us. Clearly, on some issues, businesses have lobbied all Members heavily with their concerns, and I know that the Government have listened carefully and will address them in their response.

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

In this spirit of consensus and the coalition agreement on what to do in the future and now, what is the coalition’s position on an amnesty for people already here who have no prospect of being sent back?

[Tom Brake]

When an intervention starts, “In the spirit of consensus”, I always start to panic. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was referring to a previous amnesty policy advocated during the general election campaign, but he will know that that was not one of the policies that moved into the coalition programme. I and my colleagues are comfortable with what the coalition Government are doing. All we want, and all Conservative Members are seeking to do, is to improve an outstanding policy proposal from the Government.

Clearly, we need to deal with problems in the immigration system and ensure that integration is promoted, but the coalition will not turn that message into one whereby we present immigration as always being a problem, or turn to measures that could do more harm than good to the UK economy.

14:36

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to take part in this debate, which is important to my constituents and the country as a whole. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) on securing it.

I want to make a couple of points absolutely clear. First, nobody on either side of the House or in our communities supports an open-door policy. As a community activist who served in local government for more than 28 years as an elected official, I can say with full confidence that nobody in this country supports that open-door policy. The second point concerns the fear of being accused of racism, from which this debate has grown. Everybody now wants to have a fair, mature and common-sense debate. I am sure that colleagues feel the same, and do not fear accusations of racism when they speak their minds. I do not think they will be so accused.

I state firmly and clearly that this country has benefited enormously from various waves of immigration over a very long time, and I was glad to hear, in this and previous debates, that everyone agrees. I am glad that nobody has contradicted that statement. My constituency is testament to the benefit of immigration. Over time, it has welcomed immigrants from all over the world—from Wales in the mid-19th century, Ireland at the turn of the century, the West Indies after world war two, and India, Pakistan and other south Asian countries in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s. More recently, people from Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Somalia and eastern Europe, including a large number of Poles, have joined the area. I am proud to represent such a rich and diverse constituency, with such an excellent record in economic entrepreneurship and business growth.

Before I discuss issues surrounding immigration and economic recovery, I would like to make some further, personal points about immigration. There are certain perceptions about the arranged marriage system. There are Members who feel that everybody who goes through the arranged marriage system uses it to enter a marriage of convenience. I have to say that all marriages are marriages of convenience, and not only for immigration.

I was born in a village called Mandhali, in the state of Punjab in India, and I came to this country 42 years ago, as a young man in an arranged marriage. I began my working life in this country as a bus conductor, and I have worked hard ever since, attending university on a trade union scholarship and eventually becoming a day centre manager for adults with learning disabilities, and entering this House three and a half years ago. My children were born and educated in this country, and along with their families they are now making a significant contribution to the communities where they live.

My experience is not atypical. Many of my contemporaries who arrived in this country at the same time I did took on jobs for which they were overqualified, but over the years they have built up businesses and advanced in their careers. Their children have succeeded in their education and are making major contributions in the professions and businesses of this country. That is the personal story of many of my constituents and many other immigrants to this country over many years, and it is a positive story. The House should not forget that.

I want to address a number of other issues that are relevant to both the country and my constituency. First, on border controls, the previous Government were moving in the right direction with the points-based system, but there were problems with that system and there still are. Restricting the numbers of specialist south Asian chefs to train people in this country is still a problem in my constituency and in many other parts of the country.

[Tom Brake]

I would like to draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the Federation of Bangladeshi Caterers, whose president runs a restaurant in my constituency and whose approach to the issue is to work with the community in this country to ensure that people who are not in work can acquire the skills to work in their restaurants.

[Mr Sharma]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving that information. Many businesses are trying hard, but that same Bangladeshi restaurant owner or the chef working at that restaurant must have told him that it is not an easy profession to teach. It takes a long time to do a chef’s job properly, starting from an apprenticeship. I am not a chef—I am not a cook in general—but I understand the process that people have to go through, because I have seen it. They need an apprenticeship, but many young people in this country are not taking up the profession. In the face of that disadvantage, restaurant owners have no choice but to recruit people from the Indian subcontinent.

On the other Government policy—a cap on highly skilled migrants—it makes no sense to stop entrepreneurs coming to this country when we desperately need their skills to get us out of recession. I know that the Business Secretary understands that problem, but has he spoken to the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister about it? He should do, and quickly.

I am fully in favour of the UK Border Agency enforcing on businesses a requirement not to employ illegal workers, but I ask that that enforcement is intelligence-led and not disruptive to legitimately operating businesses. Many businesses in my constituency complain about insensitive raids by the UK Border Agency that are fruitless and harmful.

On visas for students from non-EU countries, I welcome the Government’s move to face-to-face interviews for prospective students from south Asia. That is necessary to stop bogus applications, but we must not stop genuine students coming to this country. Colleges in my constituency, such as Ealing, Hammersmith and West London college, are making a tremendous contribution to the London economy with many non-EU students.

In my constituency we have strong business connections with the growing Indian economy. I am glad that the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and before them the previous Prime Minister, took a significant approach to build and to strengthen the relationship with India. That relationship should not be a one-way route. Investment and people are going not just from here to India; many investors from India are keen to come here and to invest. At present, Indian investors are the largest investors in this country. When we discuss immigration, we must also address those issues.

We act as an economic bridge to that rapidly growing world economic power. We must ensure that our immigration policies do not limit that huge economic opportunity by stopping highly skilled migrants from India working in the UK, or not allowing students from India and south-east Asia to come to this country on working holidays. The economic prize is great, and crucial for economic recovery. I urge the House to seize it.

14:48

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) on introducing it. Like him, I welcome the change in tone that has occurred in raising and debating the subject of immigration. In 2005, I wrote a pamphlet on the subject entitled “Too much of a good thing? Towards a balanced approach to immigration”. I was immediately assailed by my political opponents in my constituency and accused in the local press of being racist. That was before they had read anything that I had said. In those days, simply raising the subject was deemed to be racist, but I am happy to say that when they read what I had said they withdrew their remarks, because I was manifestly not racist. I am glad that we have moved on, and that we can now discuss such matters.

For much of my adult life—this is probably not true of most hon. Members in the Chamber—I have lived in parts of London that have strong immigrant populations, and cheek by jowl with people who had emigrated to this country. As a result, I knew from working with people of immigrant origin, and from knowing them as friends and neighbours and worshipping in the same churches, that the caricature of immigrants often portrayed in the media is often the very reverse of the truth. Far from being scroungers, criminals and a threat to society, the majority of them are decent, hard-working, law-abiding people who want to make a positive contribution to the community.

So I began with a bias in favour of immigration. I became involved in the subject and was prompted to write the pamphlet only because I was investigating the housing issue in Hertfordshire. I was intrigued as to why housing targets were constantly raised. When I inquired why, I was told by the great and the good and by the officials in local authorities and planning authorities that there were two reasons that we needed constantly to build more houses. The first was declining household size, and that was true. On average, if there were an unchanged population in Hertfordshire, we would need 0.5% more houses every year because household sizes are declining by 0.5% each year.

The second reason I was given was that there was an inflow into the south-east from the rest of the country. I looked into that, and I found it to be untrue. It was what we would call, in places other than this, a lie. In fact, there was a net outflow of people from the south-east of England to the rest of the United Kingdom. There was, however, a net inflow into London, particularly, from abroad. In 17 statements to the House on housing made by the previous Government, the impact of international migration on demand for housing was never once mentioned. That was the nature of our debate. We were pretending that the phenomenon was not happening, even though everyone could observe that it was.

As far as my constituency was concerned, people were moving to London from abroad and occupying houses—because they were allocated them, because they had bought them or because they had rented them—that would otherwise have been occupied by the people already resident in London. Those people therefore moved out to Hertfordshire and the rest of the home counties, and we had to build houses for them.

When I looked into the matter further, I found that 80% of the expected population growth and more than 40% of new household formation in this country was the result of net immigration from abroad. That is why we have a housing crisis in this country. That is why housing waiting lists have increased so dramatically over the past 10 or 15 years. That is also why so many of our constituents link housing with immigration. They do not dislike immigrants. Like me, they probably know them and live with them—we are all human beings; we are all children of the same God and I hope that we all get on with each other—but they know that if there is a net inflow into the country and we are not building as many houses as there are people coming in, that will result in a housing crisis and the people who are already here will have to bear the brunt of it in due course. I therefore wrote about that and thought about it purely in those terms.

I went on to look at the economic benefits that were alleged to result from large-scale immigration into this country. I found that the debate on those supposed benefits was depressingly superficial. It consisted of slogans rather than analysis. When I looked at the analysis that had been seriously carried out into the economic benefits that flow from immigration, I could find no major study that believed there to be any substantial net gain to an economy from large-scale net immigration. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who is no longer in his place, mentioned certain publications by the Institute for Public Policy Research that were in favour of immigration, but I shall quote from a document that the institute published entitled “The Politics of Migration”. It contains an essay by Mark Kleinman, in which he states:

“There is not a compelling long-term case for increased immigration purely in terms of economic benefits.”

I could quote from many other studies that reached the same conclusion. According to some, there might be a mild economic benefit if we ignore all the housing and infrastructure problems, or according to others, there might be a small net loss. The idea that we can substantially improve the well-being of this country through large-scale immigration is simply unsubstantiated by any major study.

This does not mean that we should have no immigration. My analogy is that immigration is much more like a lubricant than a fuel. Without lubrication, a car would suffer severe damage, but once it has enough lubrication, adding more will not make it go better; it might even cause problems. Likewise, stopping all immigration would damage the economy, but encouraging more immigration beyond a certain point will not make those already here any better off. I challenge anyone to rebut that basic thesis. We need a modest amount of to-and-fro among people, with some moving here, others returning or moving elsewhere, but we do not need a substantial net increase in our population through immigration.

I shall deal with just one economic argument—the issue of skilled workers. The debate in this area is particularly superficial. It is widely assumed that allowing any skilled workers into the country must always be beneficial to the well-being of those already here, but that is not necessarily so. The only way to raise the living standards of our existing population over time is to increase the level of skills and the proportion of our population that has those skills, expertise and experience. Importing skills from abroad is often a substitute for doing that and discourages it. This is not the only reason, but it has contributed to the fact that this country has a less skilled population than many of our competitors, including Germany, France, Japan and America. A smaller proportion of our population has qualifications below degree level than almost any of our competitors.

We pretend that we can make do by importing skilled people instead, thereby simply leaving large swathes of our population unskilled, with reduced incentives to acquire skills, depression of the wages of people with skills and reduction of the differentials that can be gained from acquiring a skill. That cannot be right. Employers might say, “Ah, I would like to employ some skilled workers from abroad,” but we should be wary of saying that this is a good thing. Employers always like to employ cheap labour. They would like to get cheaper accountants from abroad, cheaper lawyers from abroad, cheaper journalists from abroad—

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

Cheaper MPs!

[Mr Lilley]

And cheaper MPs, says the man from the Pound store. These professions tend to be somewhat immune, in that if one wants to be a journalist or a lawyer, it helps to be English, to understand English law and so forth.

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we have to bring in some skills from abroad? There are new technologies abroad, such as the electric cars being developed by Toyota in Japan. In those cases, do we not need to bring in the skills from abroad so that people can bring the technologies with them? Is that not necessary to keep this country’s skills up to date on technologies that are available abroad, but not available here?

[Mr Lilley]

Absolutely. I was coming on to that issue, which requires intelligent debate and recognition that it is not a matter of “all or nothing”. The absurd idea that we should allow anybody who can be labelled a skilled worker to come here is wrong.

[Mr Virendra Sharma]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lilley]

In a moment, as I want to finish answering the point that was raised.

I am not suggesting that certain categories of skilled workers could not be used during a temporary shortage while domestic employees were being trained, or that there could not be a skills transfer when the skills that were required could not, by their very nature, be acquired domestically or through training. We have traditionally allowed companies to import workers for the purposes of skills transfers when the skills concerned are company-specific.

Let us say that IBM is setting up a factory here. It has an IBM way of doing things. Initially, it will need to bring in the IBM accountant to show British accountants how to run the accounts and the financial system. Those running the production line may have to bring in IBM production engineers to train British engineers in their ways of doing things. It is not possible to buy such company-specific skills on the market; they must be imported temporarily. However, because the people who have transferred the skills invariably return, the transfer does not result in net migration. That is very different from allowing cheap skills into this country.

In a blog that is influential in the IT industry—here I declare an interest—the author of the Holway report constantly hammers home the fact that we are moving slowly towards circumstances in which fewer and fewer entry-level jobs are available in the industry. Last year 9,000 skilled IT workers were brought into the country by a handful of companies under the intra-company transfer scheme. That is not transferring skills from a company to domestic residents; it is importing cheap labour. However, we allow it, although as a result the IT sector has one of the highest rates of unemployment in industry. The Government must think seriously about the issue, and must not form policy on the basis of slogans such as “Skilled work is good” and “Open border to skilled workers”. That is not good in the long run if it means that fewer of those who are already here acquire skills, experience and expertise.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Using the analogy of the IT industry, my right hon. Friend has pointed out that unemployment exists, and that there is a demand from a small number of companies for a large number of people to come into the country. The corollary is that, in a process called outsourcing, we move jobs to other parts of the world. That is just part of being a free trade country. If we wish to position ourselves as leaders in terms of free trade, as the Prime Minister said 10 days ago, the corollary is a degree of freedom of movement. There has been a massive skills failure in the country over the past decade and a half. Most of the 180,000 entrants are for STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and mathematics. If we are unable to train people ourselves, it behoves us to allow them into the country in a way that benefits us.

[Mr Lilley]

My hon. Friend’s intervention prompts a number of questions. For instance, why do we not train people?

For a while I was chairman of a small German company as a result of a merger, and the first thing that we did was bring in British employees to train its employees. It is considered automatic: every company, even a small company with only 200 employees, trains people. Sadly, that culture does not exist in this country. All that we think of doing is importing people from abroad, or possibly stealing them from our competitors down the road. At least if we steal them from our competitors down the road, we have to bid up the salaries for the particular skill involved. We encourage more people to acquire that skill, and as a result increase the number of people with such skills in our economy. However, the idea that we should assume passively that this country alone in the world cannot train people to acquire skills that semi-developed countries seem to be able to train their people to acquire strikes me as a defeatism that is sad and deplorable.

I hope we will recognise that there are some skills that we should allow into the country: entrepreneurial skills, for example, I rather doubt whether entrepreneurship can be taught. Some people are natural entrepreneurs while others are not. That is fair enough: if someone has proven success as an entrepreneur abroad, we should let him in, with some of the capital that he has acquired. Only a small number of people will be involved, however. That is not mass immigration. It will generate a lot of jobs and it is a sensible thing to do, so let us do it. However, we must distinguish between those sorts of skills and the sorts of skills we can enable the existing population of all ethnic origins to acquire, so that the well-being of those already here improves.

[Mr Virendra Sharma]

First, let me say that I take the recent sedentary comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) as a compliment, rather than something negative. The right hon. Gentleman agrees that there is a skills gap within the work force at present, and to fill that gap we need workers coming from overseas because we cannot train people here overnight or in a short period. We need to address both ends of this issue by filling the gaps now from overseas while training the work force here for the future.

[Mr Lilley]

Yes, and that would imply the following policy: if a company says, “No one in this country yet has expertise in—”[Interruption.] Yes, in electric cars, as the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) suggests. I do not know whether that is the case, but if it is we might have to introduce that expertise from overseas in the short term, but the understanding should be that that is in order to transfer the expertise to the domestic population, rather than because we have given up on the domestic population ever learning the skills to make electric cars. It should be short-term immigration, not long-term immigration.

[Mr Sharma]

I do not think that anybody is advocating that the work force here should not be trained. However, there is a skills gap in the work force and we need to fill it otherwise we will suffer economically.

[Mr Lilley]

Yes, but above all we need to fill it by training people up. That is what countries that grow and prosper do, and we have got to learn to do it too.

[Mr Brazier]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Lilley]

May I make a little more progress?

The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) mentioned the skill of cooking Bangladeshi meals. There are a large number of unemployed Bangladeshi people in this country, and there are a large number of Bangladeshi restaurants. Why, therefore, do the restaurateurs not train up their staff to acquire these skills? I am afraid that the reason is because they can get staff with such skills more cheaply from the subcontinent. We must say that we want to have well-paid chefs in this country, not depress the pay by importing from abroad.

I want to refer to an aspect of the debate that none of us has mentioned, and that I suspect nobody except me will mention. Indeed, I would not have done so had I not acquired my copy of Prospect magazine yesterday. It is a left-wing magazine, but I am very open-minded so I read even left-wing monthly journals.

[Stephen Pound]

That’s more than we do.

[Mr Lilley]

The hon. Gentleman is one of the few Members of this House who admits to general illiteracy.

The magazine contains a very interesting article by Professor Coleman, a professor of demographics at Oxford university and former consultant to the Government. I have always dealt with immigration in terms of net immigration. I have been concerned about numbers and housing, and so forth. If 200,000 people come here and 100,000 people leave, that is a net change of 100,000. The professor’s article, however, looks at the impact of gross flows on the composition of this country’s population. He observes that projections carried out by the Government Actuary’s Department suggest that if the levels of immigration we inherited from the last Government and factors such as the birth rates of those who come from abroad, as against those of the domestic population, persist into future decades, in 50 years less than 50% of the population of this country will be ethnically British—ethnically English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish. That may not matter. If we reduce the level of net immigration into this country to 80,000 from the many tens of thousands, as we promised to do, it will take 70 years before less than half the population of this country are the original, indigenous, ethnic British. If we move towards a position of balanced migration, on which I have supported the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, it will take to the end of the century— 90 years—before the existing British ethnic population is a minority. If there is no immigration and no emigration—that is a rather unlikely eventuality—by the end of the century we will still be 75% ethnic British. All I ask of Members of this House is to consider whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. Does it matter if the indigenous population becomes a minority, as has happened in Fiji, where the Fijians now constitute less than half of their population? I do not expect to receive a reply, because that is the sort of question that polite people do not ask. But it is what our constituents are asking and we should face up to it.

15:11

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

I welcome this debate. As right hon. and hon. Members have said, this is the first time in this House that we have had the opportunity to look in detail at many of the questions that our constituents have put to us. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and his co-chair of the all-party group on balanced migration, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), on securing this debate through the Backbench Business Committee process. It gives Members the opportunity to examine these issues in a less partisan way. When I made the point about the amnesty to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), I was not trying to hoodwink him or catch him out; I had a genuine interest in many of the issues that we will have to face and address if we are serious about ensuring that immigration is addressed properly.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said that he was accused of being a racist when he first raised this issue, and the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) said something similar. Clearly they are not, and we should be able to discuss many of the issues maturely. We have to do so in a way that gets to the truth of the issues. This debate has given us that opportunity and perhaps we can do so in a non-partisan way.

I agreed with most of the comments that most of the contributors have made in raising issues of concern. As an MP representing the city of Bradford, I am aware of immigration issues because our city was built on immigration. Its history is that of a wool town that became a city that has been based on immigration throughout its existence.

Some hon. Members have rightly said that if we do not discuss this issue in a proper way, parties of the right and the extreme left will do that. In Bradford, we have had the experience of right-wing parties choosing not to see immigration as the benefit that most of us, with some notable exceptions, have seen it as. Instead, those parties have raised immigration alongside race issues and turned the debate into one that none of us believes is right. People come to this country to do positive things; there is an economic and employment benefit. As the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden implied, however marginal the effect might be, the positive impact is there.

I welcome the all-party group and its distinguished supporters, whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead talked about. Clearly it is right that we take a dispassionate view to make sure we get to the issues that really affect our constituents.

My right hon. Friend raised a number of interesting issues and he acknowledged that progress has been made. I know that it is the fashion for coalition Ministers— although I hope not this Minister, with whom I and my right hon. Friend’s have worked on previous occasions—to rubbish everything that the previous Government did, but I hope that he will accept that our Government did positive things. I accept that there are some political differences about the rate and the speed at which some things happen, but there has been progress over the past few years.

I was slightly startled by the intervention from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who talked about extra points going to the people who might want to go to Scotland. I do not want to get involved in that question, but the lack of population growth in Scotland is an issue.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and the all-party group have raised a number of issues, particularly that of student numbers and their effect. I certainly agree about bogus courses. The starting point for all of us is managed migration and we all oppose, and want to eradicate and deal with, illegal immigration. We want to ensure that the people who come to this country are entitled to be here. The use of bogus courses as a means to come here needs to be looked into, and the previous Government did that. We need to go further on some issues, and I am sure that the Minister will want to tell us what his Government are doing about bogus courses.

There is a point about student numbers and we have to be careful. We have heard from universities and further education colleges about the impact that the cap will have on student numbers and the possibility that it will have a damaging effect on the funding of our universities and colleges. We must consider that.

Tier 1 and the points-based system have also been mentioned and there are concerns. I was at Business, Innovation and Skills questions this morning when the question of the transfer of labour between companies was raised. The Business Secretary gave a commitment, and I ask the Minister to reinforce that commitment so that there is no confusion. As has been said, chambers of commerce, the CBI and a number of other important bodies to do with our economy are concerned about the position of tier 1 people and what the cap might or might not do.

It is important that we continue the debate. Clearly, today is the first opportunity that we have had to raise the issue in such a way and we can now take things forward. I was interested to hear the speech made by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who acknowledged the contribution that migrant workers make to our economy, employment, culture and way of life. He also talked about green issues. I know that he was not trying to stop people flying to see their family members, but he made an important point. Housing, health, education and the environment are all issues that we will have to consider in our new circumstances. The hon. Gentleman also referred to Mr Spence, and I thought at one point that the hon. Gentleman was about to make the case for identity cards, but clearly he was not.

My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) talked about the problems with engineering and cited a couple of constituency cases. They highlighted the confusion and perhaps the Minister will want to say more about that. We have the temporary cap in place, but clearly we expect the Government to make an announcement on the cap shortly and I hope that the Minister can give us more information. My hon. Friend attacked the Government for trying to grab headlines and although I would not accuse them of that in this instance, we need assurances that we will get detailed answers to some of the concerns shared by a range of people in business and education.

The hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) spoke about intolerance and the fact that we are not intolerant in this country. We are all proud of our ability to ensure that we have a system in place that protects genuine asylum seekers and that is quick, fair and meets people’s requirements. The previous Government sped up the process. We will all have had constituency cases in which asylum seekers were kept waiting for a long time for decisions, which caused problems for them and their families. The previous Government took steps to improve the situation.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that although the previous Government took those steps, we are not in anything like a perfect position at the moment? A number of my constituents are still waiting for decisions that predate 2007-08. I entirely acknowledge that some steps were taken but will he acknowledge that the problem has not yet been solved?

[Mr Sutcliffe]

I will, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that there has been progress even though there is some way to go.

That brings me to the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) made about the sensitive nature of these matters and how we should deal with people. The Government have come forward with cuts in the spending review of 20% for the Home Office, and the UK Border Agency also faces cuts of 20%. How does the Minister feel about those cuts when it comes to dealing with existing asylum and other legacy cases in the Home Office? What does he think will happen as a result of the 20% reduction? Will it help with enforcement and the ability to deal with illegal immigration?

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East talked about immigration advisers and the problems that some of her constituents have faced. A number of hon. Members agree that there are problems with the accreditation and registration of advisers. Some people are being exploited way beyond their means and we have to put that right.

I take the point made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) about the coalition agreement, but there are many outstanding issues that the Government have to face. If we are to have a fair immigration policy to which our constituents will respond, we need to discuss all the issues. Of course, the press will publicise the immigration cap, but other issues need to be addressed, and if we do not get them right and have a positive discussion, all the good that comes from this debate will be lost because people will lose confidence in what we are trying to achieve.

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned asylum, although the debate is about immigration. Will he join me in congratulating the Government on what they are doing to get rid of child detention in asylum cases in which families are to be deported?

[Mr Sutcliffe]

That is a laudable aspiration but it has not happened yet.

[Tom Brake]

The figure is zero at present.

[Mr Sutcliffe]

If that is the case, I am happy to acknowledge the work that has been done.

I have been in the House for 16 years, including three years in opposition, so I know that it is easy for the Opposition to ask why this or that has not been done and that things are not so easy when one becomes a Minister—one has to consider the expectations of a wider range of people. I hope, then, that the Minister will take my next comment as a positive criticism. A number of organisations and commentators have commented on the immigration cap. The Financial Times has said that the Prime Minister’s pledge to bring immigration down to 1990s levels will hit outputs by as much as 1% and cost the Exchequer £9 billion a year in forgone tax revenues by the end of the Parliament. What is the Minister’s view on that? Is there confusion in the Cabinet about the immigration cap? We keep hearing about different Ministers saying different things. It is important to get these things right to regain people’s confidence.

The previous Government made much progress with e-borders and the introduction of UKBA and the points-based system. I accept that some issues need to be put right, but there was a genuine intent to move forward. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has said, we have to act constructively. The job of the Opposition is to hold the Government to account. We will be considering how to recalibrate some of the ideas and issues that we think important concerning the next steps, but we want to work with the Government on getting this issue right and preventing extremists on either side from damaging the good that migrant workers have done for our country.

EU immigration is a major concern, and although the Minister will disagree with the previous Government about how the problem came about, he will not want to suggest that the immigration cap affects EU workers. We should get the issue out in the open, stop pandering to national newspapers and ensure that the education, housing and schools issues that we face—all the impacts that migrant workers can have on our communities—are dealt with properly.

The Opposition will be supportive where we can be, critical when we need to be and will try to work with the Government to ensure that our immigration policy is fit for the current economic climate.

15:25

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) and the cross-party group on balanced migration on securing the opportunity to discuss a very important issue. We have had thus far, and I am sure we will have for the rest of the debate, a measured discussion, which shows how much the issue has progressed. The nature of today’s contributions has been striking, and I welcome the Opposition’s suggestion that they will act constructively and examine proposals carefully. We will need to see how that progresses, but I hear what the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) says.

The Government fully recognise that there are, and have been, many economic and cultural benefits from immigration. Under this Government, Britain is, and will remain, open for business, and in today’s globalised economy we will ensure that we continue to attract the brightest and the best so that UK companies remain competitive and economic growth is supported. Several contributors have already highlighted that important point this afternoon.

We must also ensure, however, that migration is properly controlled, and we believe that we can reduce net migration without damaging our economy. We have committed to reduce the number of non-EU migrants, and we will shortly make our proposals, which will form a comprehensive package on all aspects of the immigration system, not only economic migration. This afternoon, I shall outline the challenges that we face and the context in which we will take those decisions.

Britain can continue to benefit from migration, provided it is controlled. That has been the broad tenor of this afternoon’s contributions. We must manage the pace of change in local communities and the pressure on our public services, while ensuring that those who come to work or to study are those who will really benefit from it and who, in turn, will benefit our economy. As well as controlling migration, we also need to secure the border, and that is why the coalition Government are committed to establishing a national crime agency, including a border police command, which will enhance security and improve policing at the border, supporting e-borders, reintroducing exit checks and cracking down on abuse and on human trafficking.

I turn to the central issue of net migration. In August, the Office for National Statistics published the 2009 statistics, which showed an increase in net migration from 163,000 in 2008 to 196,000 in 2009, the figure to which the right hon. Member for Birkenhead referred. That follows the pattern of recent times. Between 1997 and 2009, net migration to Britain totalled more than 2.2 million people, more than twice the population of Birmingham. Such migration is unsustainable in terms of population growth and the consequent pressures on services and community cohesion. We therefore aim to reduce net migration to the levels of the 1990s—tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands, each year by the end of this Parliament.

It has been suggested that we are wrong to focus on net migration figures because they contain the inward and outward flows of British and EU citizens, which we do not control. But, in recent years, those flows have largely cancelled each other out; the issue is that the number of non-EEA migrants arriving is exceeding the number leaving. In 2009, of the net migration of 196,000, about 184,000 were non-EEA migrants. Reducing non-EEA net numbers can therefore reduce net migration overall. That is why the coalition programme states specifically that we will introduce an annual cap on the number of non-EU economic migrants admitted into the UK and that we will introduce new measures to crack down on abuse of the immigration system.

We believe that the points-based system introduced by the previous Government provides a framework, but it evidently does not give us the control that we need to bring the annual net migration figure down to sustainable levels, as the 196,000 figure for net migration in 2009 illustrates. We need an approach that will not only get immigration down to sustainable levels, but protect those businesses and institutions that are vital to our economy. That will not be easy and we will not be able to achieve it by focusing on just one area of the system or on one route into Britain. As the Home Affairs Committee report recently illustrated, we will need to take action on students, families and settlement as well as on people coming here to work.

We are already taking action on the economic routes. As the House knows, interim limits on economic migrants using the highly skilled and skilled migration routes under tiers 1 and 2 of the points-based system were introduced on 19 July. As Members will know, tier 1 is for highly skilled migrants with sufficient skills and expertise to qualify to come here and seek employment, while tier 2 caters for skilled workers who already have a job offer from a sponsoring employer in the UK. The limits were introduced to prevent a surge in applications during our consultation before we introduce our permanent limits in April 2011. They also set a reduction in numbers of 5%—of 1,300—compared with the same period in the previous year. That has been achieved.

We are, of course, aware that employers, businesses, universities and research institutes have raised issues about the operation of the interim limits. I assure the House that we will take account of those concerns in designing the permanent limit. The interim limit on tier 2 is based mainly on past allocations to individual employers, with a reserve pool for new requests. In many cases, though, employers and institutions have not yet used their allocations, and intra-company transfers are excluded from the interim limit to give additional flexibility.

We have also recently revised the criteria for issuing additional certificates of sponsorship to respond more flexibly to employers’ needs. A particular concern that has been raised, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) this afternoon, is the position of scientists and researchers. We are confident that next year’s limit can be made to operate in a way that ensures that universities and research institutions are not prevented from recruiting top scientists and other workers with key skills.

[Mr Frank Field]

I apologise for not having been here for half an hour of the debate. I had a meeting that I wanted to keep, but I regret not having heard the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe); I shall read it with interest tomorrow.

Net migration is almost 200,000. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to cater for the legitimate demands expressed in the House today about industry’s legitimate needs while meeting the Government’s target of reducing the numbers to the ’teens of thousands?

[James Brokenshire]

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I have made it clear that we want to attract the brightest and the best to this country. We believe that it is possible to introduce limits and take account of the concerns of business and of the scientific institutions to which I referred.

We consulted business and other interested parties extensively on how the limit should work, and more than 3,000 responded. We also asked the Migration Advisory Committee—the well-respected and independent advisory body on migration policy—to consult on what the limit should be, taking into account the economic and social impacts of migration. The MAC report has been published today. I thank David Metcalf and the other members of the committee for their very full and helpful report, which we will continue to study in great detail. We will consider its findings alongside the responses to our own consultation on how the limit should operate, and we will announce how it will work in the near future. I will not comment this afternoon on the detail of the committee’s recommendations, as that would pre-empt the Government’s final announcement, which will be made in due course. However, this is a complex issue, and it is vital that we consider the best and broadest advice, including the responses made to the Home Office’s consultation on economic migration.

I now want to talk about the issue of intra-company transfers, which has been highlighted in the debate. Of course, we want companies to be able to transfer senior managers and specialists to enrich their UK operations. For that reason, the Prime Minister has already indicated that we have heard the concerns of business on this matter. However, in 2009 such transfers accounted for 22,000 migrants out of the 36,500 admitted through the tier 2 route, and about half of those 22,000 were in the IT sector—a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley). Given the numbers involved, we need to ensure that the ICT route is being used for its original purpose, and not to undercut regular jobs here, particularly in the IT sector. Last week, a study published by the Higher Education Careers Service Unit showed that graduate unemployment was highest among graduates in computer science, out of all the disciplines. We are therefore looking carefully at the rules on ICTs.

[Mr Brazier]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. Six years ago, a study showed that computer scientists and mathematicians enjoyed the greatest premium of all on graduating, so there has been an astonishing change in that sector of the market.

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes that point, and that is why we are considering these issues very carefully.

[Tom Brake]

The balance at which the Government must arrive is one whereby the IT sector is addressed as the Minister wants but the Japanese ambassador’s concerns that very senior engineers may not be able to come to the UK as part of an ICT arrangement, thereby stopping the creation of seven jobs in the UK, are taken into account.

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend speaks with experience of the IT industry. He was involved in that industry before coming to this House, so he offers a fair degree of knowledge on this point. We are examining these issues extremely carefully in the context of the reforms and changes that will be made.

Employers have indicated to us that they are mainly concerned about the tier 2 route, rather than the tier 1 route. We know from recent research that looked at a sample of highly skilled migrants that nearly a third of tier 1 migrants did not find highly skilled work. An example of that is the individual who was issued with a tier 1 visa and later became duty manager at a well-known high street chain of fried chicken restaurants. Perhaps that highlights some of the challenges involved in this matter. We cannot afford a mismatch between what employers need and the profile of those coming to this country. We will therefore have to ensure that those coming to do skilled work are undertaking a suitable job with a sponsoring employer.

At present, the minimum skills level for a job is a national vocational qualification level 3, and the English language requirements are at a basic level. In the shortage occupation list, some wage levels are as low as £7.80 an hour. The question that we need to consider carefully is whether that is really the right level of skilled migrant, when we have many unemployed people in this country. We believe that many employers are currently using migrant workers to fill vacancies because they cannot get the right people from the domestic or European labour market. That inability to recruit local talent is frustrating when we have people out of work in this country. That is why the Government are using their welfare reform policy to get people back to work. British employers need to be committed to developing a skills base here, and we need them to look first at people who are out of work and who are already in this country.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

In the job clubs that I have been running for some time in my constituency, countless people have said to me that it simply does not pay for them to get a part-time job of the sort that my hon. Friend talks about.

[James Brokenshire]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Before the Minister responds, may I very gently remind him and others that this is a Back-Bench debate, and that some nine Members who have been sitting patiently in the Chamber for quite a long time wish to participate? I think the Front Benchers need to take some notice of that.

[James Brokenshire]

I am very grateful for that reminder, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is certainly important that we have as many contributions on the subject as possible, so I will seek to be as quick as I can in addressing some of the points. However, I hope that you will appreciate that this is a debate of interest, and I will therefore seek to put it in context.

The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) mentioned talented individuals and entrepreneurs, and we want to make Britain a more attractive destination for those people. Last year the UK attracted only 275 high-value investors and entrepreneurs. As the Prime Minister said recently, we will reform the rules for entrepreneurs so that:

“If you have a great business idea, and you receive serious investment from a leading investor, you are welcome to set up your business in our country”.

Contributions have been made about students, and we know that work routes accounted for less than a quarter of the non-EU citizens entering Britain last year. The majority of non-EU migrants are in fact students. Including their dependants, they account for about two thirds of the visas issued last year under the points-based system. Many come here to study courses below degree level, and we have to question whether they are the brightest and best that Britain wants to attract.

Home Office data on compliance and student behaviour show that students studying in privately funded colleagues are much more likely not to have left the country after their visa expired than their counterparts in universities. Although we need to preserve our world-class academic institutions above and below degree level, we also need to stop abuses. I know that other Members have made that point.

We must also consider the issue of temporary versus permanent settlement. We realise that some argue that many of the workers and students who come here are temporary migrants who return home. However, in many cases that is not true. Of the skilled non-European economic area workers who came here in 2004, 40% were still here by 2009 and 30% had settled. We will need to return to that important issue.

Clearly change is seldom easy, particularly for those who have benefited directly from the current system, but if we do not create wider public confidence in our immigration system, public concern about immigration and social tensions will only increase. This Government are determined to create an immigration system that controls migration for the benefit of everyone in this country, and we shall bring forward our specific measures shortly once we have had a chance to consider all the points raised in the consultation, including here today.

15:44

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

As a new Member speaking in a debate that has been called as part of a new process, I must confess that it feels a bit odd to be speaking after the Minister and the shadow Minister have summed up the debate thus far. I am in no doubt that my contribution and those of hon. Members still to come will encourage the shadow Minister to offer more than just cautious support for the Government.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) on securing the debate. I also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his excellent speech, with which many people on both sides of the House will have agreed. I record my appreciation of the fact that the Backbench Business Committee has secured time in the Chamber to discuss this issue, which has been a key concern for some time in my constituency and across the country.

I am proud of the British sense of tolerance and the generous manner with which we have welcomed a great many people to our country over hundreds of years. The vast majority of those who come to the UK make a valid contribution to our society and enhance our multicultural credentials, which I value very much. Although I am proud of our tolerance, however, I am acutely aware, unlike the previous Government, of the fact that our generosity has been overstretched.

I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) is elsewhere in the House, but given his earlier intervention, I am sure that he will be delighted to read in Hansard tomorrow that I intend to focus the majority of my comments on EU immigration. Our porous border controls have materialised into a considerable problem across the country, but welcoming vast numbers of migrants from eastern Europe into the country with no thought to their integration or the sustainability of our public services has proved incredibly short-sighted. At the time, Opposition Front Benchers warned of the impacts of uncontrolled immigration from eastern European countries. The then Home Secretary gave reassurances that despite the high estimates of net migration for 2004 and beyond, the country was well placed to accommodate new migrants. In fact, net migration for that period dwarfed those estimates, and net immigration totalled nearly 244,000 in that year.

At the time, we were shielded from the true effect of that drastic and sudden increase by our economy’s relatively good health. A booming construction industry soaked up many accession migrants seeking work, and our public services were able to cope with the unprecedented strain. Now, however, our economy finds itself in a weaker, less prosperous position, competition in the job market is high, demand for housing continues to rise, and our health and education services are struggling to meet the demands of a growing population. With a substantially different economic outlook, with slower growth predicted and with pressures on public services, the decision to welcome such a high number of EU migrants to our country is cast in a rather unflattering light.

That is most evident in deprived wards. Two of the most deprived wards in the country fall within my constituency. Tensions there run high and social divisions are deep. That is partly down to the fact that those who are on low incomes or who are welfare dependent feel themselves to be in direct competition with, if not threatened by, new migrants arriving in the neighbourhood. Indeed, constituents from those areas contact me regularly, deeply concerned at the impact of the unprecedented scale of immigration into the area, and they specifically cite people from eastern Europe. They have real concerns about their communities, about the erosion of traditions, language and heritage, about the added strain on our public services—education, welfare, housing and health care—and about heightened competition in the job market.

The impact on public services is becoming acutely obvious in my constituency. I was recently shocked to learn of a primary school in one of the deprived wards in my constituency suffering from a vast influx of eastern European migrants and reporting that almost 40% of its pupils did not have English as a first language. I appreciate that that figure is considerably higher in other wards across the country, but it is new for parts of Chatham. Furthermore, we have found that the migrant community is less settled, creating a worrying inflow and outflow of pupils during the school year. There is a genuine concern that such volatility will have an adverse effect on children’s schooling because teachers are unable to plan properly, based on full-term and yearly educational progress.

The impact of migration and of the significant number of pupils in the area who do not have English as a first language is illustrated in the percentage of pupils achieving level 4 in English at key stage 2. In the four years following EU enlargement in 2004, those percentages dropped significantly from 70% to 61%, a trend completely at odds with that in the rest of my constituency and the country. Importantly, it is not the quality of teaching that is in question. If one compares those percentages with those for pupils who achieved the equivalent grade in maths and science, one does not find a similar fall in achievement.

Similarly, the cost of Kent police’s translation services increased by some 30% between 2004 and 2007 to more than £420,000, according to figures reported in my local press. My constituents will interpret that those figures are a direct result of the rapid increase in net migration, and their assumptions would not be unfounded. Following a recent freedom of information request, Kent police confirmed that the top five languages required by its translation services in the past four years were those of countries that joined the EU in 2004, with the exception of Russian.

In one ward in my constituency, Chatham Central, there is growing tension between the eastern European migrant population and their native counterparts. Divisions are not limited to culture; there are also geographical boundaries. Migrants occupy and dominate certain areas, making them no-go areas for neighbouring residents. Those areas are typified by multiple-occupancy homes, antisocial behaviour and high levels of criminal activity, which makes life for those who have lived in the area for many years unbearable—I am afraid to say that it also makes them hostile to immigrants. That is clearly a concern, and efforts have been made by the local authority, in partnership with community groups, the local police and their excellent community support officers, to help to ameliorate the divisions. Regular seminars, development programmes and cultural events are held, but we are still in the early days, and measuring the success of those events will be key.

Following on from that is the issue of integration, which other hon. Members have spoken about. Integration is viewed by some immigrants as a scheme from which they can opt out, which is quite simply not good enough. We cannot aspire to cohesive communities without wilful integration, and we must do more to ensure that it happens. One of the EU’s common basic principles on integration states:

“Basic knowledge of the host society’s language, history, and institutions is indispensable to integration; enabling immigrants to acquire this basic knowledge is essential to successful integration.”

As the host nation, we have a duty to enable migrants to acquire the basic knowledge to integrate successfully, but we must stress that that is very much a two-way relationship. Far too often, immigrants have arrived with no intention of learning the basic tenets of our society, despite our attempts to allow that to happen. That reflects the majority of views that have been expressed to me on the doorstep and in local resident association meetings in my constituency, where communities in deprived areas are characterised—sadly—by an us-and-them approach.

In conclusion, I reiterate that immigration is a good thing for our country as long as we have the right to exercise control over our borders. Controlled immigration can help to stimulate an economy while enriching the fabric of our society, but for too long it has been assumed that we cannot control the inflow of immigrants, and our public services suffer as a result. That is why my constituents and I welcome the Government’s ambition to restore net migration to the levels of the 1990s.

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend rightly identifies the issue of the supply of EU migrants. However, on the other side of the coin, there is a demand problem. One local farmer to whom I was chatting recently in my constituency of Bromsgrove told me that of his 60 employees, 54 are from the EU, mostly from Poland. He has found it very difficult to hire local workers. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s approach—a universal benefit, other welfare changes, the skills strategy and so on—will make a difference on the demand side and help the situation?

[Tracey Crouch]

Welfare reform and the demand for proper provision of opportunities have been touched on in this debate. When I was at university and studying for my A-levels, I worked in McDonald’s. At the time, there were very few non-British people working there, but now it is very difficult for young people seeking employment in the service sector to get a job, whether in McDonald’s or a sandwich chain. There has to be a balance between the provision of opportunities and a sensible approach to welfare reform that can encourage people to take all the opportunities available.

It is important that we are brave on EU immigration—indeed, we must be brave—and provide for future conditions, even if that means renegotiation in relation to those wishing to come to the UK. Like the right hon. Member for Birkenhead and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex, I recognise that welfare reform will play its part in that process, but we cannot rely on that alone to reduce the numbers of people wishing to make the most of the services that the UK provides. It is important that local authorities and community partners receive support to help promote integration and cohesion in communities suffering from social divides and tensions, but that needs to be done much better.

Finally, I am sure that our constituents will all welcome this sensible and constructive debate on what can be a sensitive issue, and I join others in calling on the Government to take note of the comments made in the Chamber today.

15:56

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). It frightens me, given that he sits on the Labour Benches, how often I agree with his sentiments, not just about immigration but about welfare, education and many other issues.

I am not here just to talk about the immigration chaos of the past 15 years or so, because colleagues on both sides of the House have discussed the human and economic issues. Clearly, this debate is not just about process and numbers. We seem to face a much deeper problem than just the number of people coming to the United Kingdom. This debate is also about how we support, resource and recognise those in charge of protecting our borders. In many ways, the immigration service has become the forgotten service, and that will be the focus of my remarks.

During his Labour party leadership campaign, the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), accepted that Labour’s arguments on immigration had not been good enough. Immigration officers have been telling us that for some time. In May 2009, Mr Mike Whiting wrote a letter to The Times saying that the Labour party’s reforms had

“devastated the visa officer network that successfully operated for many years.”

Then in April 2010, just days after the last Government publicly hardened their stance on immigration, it was revealed that they were also seeking to cut the number of immigration officers. That is despite a quadrupling of immigration on their watch. An e-mail that was leaked at the time stated:

“A Voluntary Early Release Scheme will be launched in selected parts of the UK Border Agency… There is an opportunity to make targeted reductions across the Border Force.”

The e-mail claimed that the policy would not “impact on front-line services”. However, clearly immigration officers are, quite literally, the front line, because they physically guard the borders of the British Isles.

From such evidence a picture slowly emerges. Under the last Government, the immigration service was at best neglected by Ministers, but at worst it was treated with contempt. It was only two years ago that a Labour Home Office Minister, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who was in the Chamber earlier, described immigration officers in somewhat unparliamentary language. This was reported online by the BBC on 29 November 2008:

“UK immigration officials have been on the receiving end of a four-letter outburst by former Home Office minister”,

the hon. Member for Slough, who

“told a conference of a Labour think tank that the job could corrupt ‘even quite good and moral’ people.”

She apparently then said:

“One of the reasons immigration officers are”

s***s

“is actually because some people cheat and they decide everyone is like that”.

That is wrong, wrong, wrong. It seems astonishing that senior Labour figures could trash immigration officers when it was their Government who caused the immigration chaos in the first place.

If those were stand-alone comments, that would be bad enough, but the hon. Lady was backed up by the Labour MEP Claude Moraes, who rounded on immigration officers, complaining about their professional standards. However, they are paid a modest income compared with other parts of the public sector. Their entry-level salary in London is less than £15,000 a year, and during the past 13 years they have suffered a loss not just in working conditions, but in prestige. The symbol of that is that they were not awarded the golden jubilee medal, unlike those in almost every other comparable area of the public sector. That is why I call the immigration service the forgotten service.

As the House will know, eligibility for the Queen’s golden jubilee medal was initially restricted to the armed forces and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service. It was then extended to include the police, fire and ambulance services, the coastguard, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the mountain rescue service. The right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), the then Culture Secretary, explained that she had taken that decision because 11 September had highlighted the vital role of the emergency services and the risks that they face. The golden jubilee medal now recognises those who face a potential threat of injury or worse each time they are called out in response to 999 calls. In 2003, the golden jubilee medal was extended to living holders of the Victoria cross and the George cross. In 2005—an election year—Labour took the additional decision to award the golden jubilee medal to public sector prison officers. Speaking to prison officers, Baroness Scotland stated:

“The Prison Service is a key public service, whose greatest achievements often go unseen by the general public. In times of emergencies you rise to the challenge with great skill and professionalism, and these medals recognise that.”

The House will know that such medals have been given out at every coronation ceremony since Queen Victoria’s golden jubilee in 1887, and they have a rich civilian history. For example, the recipients of King George V’s silver jubilee medal in 1935 included members of the judiciary, members of the clergy and religious sisterhoods, teachers, physicians and, according to an ancient copy of Hansard, “mail couriers” and “lighthouse tenders”. In 1977, the Queen’s silver jubilee medal was awarded to many other civilian groups, including the police, firemen and women, social workers, health visitors and the civil service.

The key criterion for getting the golden jubilee medal seemed to be that one had risked one’s life for Britain, especially in the face of potential terrorist attacks. Immigration officers do not just protect our borders; they are also on the front line against terrorism. Whenever there has been a crisis, such as when there were hijackers at Stansted airport, it has been immigration officers who have been called on to deal with the resulting emergency. In the attack on Glasgow international airport in 2007, they were first on the scene. In 2001, for instance, two officers serving abroad in Nigeria were attacked with gunfire on their return from work one day. Sadly, that has become an all-too-frequent occurrence. Those are just a few examples of the daily risks and sacrifices that we ask of immigration officers.

To quote Baroness Scotland again, when she announced why the Prison Service was being awarded the golden jubilee medal, she said that it was

“a key public service, whose greatest achievements often go unseen by the general public. In times of emergencies you rise to the challenge with great skill and professionalism”.

Surely that is true of our immigration service too. That is why I have written to the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport asking him to consider awarding immigration officers the diamond jubilee medal in 2012. I have also asked him to consider retrospectively awarding them the golden jubilee medal. The first ever early-day motion that I tabled—early-day motion 114—was on that issue, which was also the subject of the first question that I asked in Parliament.

In conclusion—

[Stephen Pound]

I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, and I appreciate that he had come to his conclusion. With reference to his earlier comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), may I confirm for the benefit of the House and the way in which things are done here, that he had the courtesy to inform her that he intended to name her in the Chamber this afternoon?

[Robert Halfon]

I did not inform the hon. Lady, because I did not know that I was supposed to do so. I apologise to the House, and I will write a letter of apology to her.

In conclusion, it is bad enough that Labour cut the number of immigration officers, and that at the same time they opened the floodgates and allowed the number of migrants to quadruple, it is bad enough that the previous Government did not always speak of the service with decency and respect, and it is bad enough that every day the immigration service must face the rising threat of terror from extremist bombers and separatists, but it is unacceptable that immigration officers have not been given the recognition they so richly deserve, and have not been awarded the golden jubilee medal. Their work of keeping our borders secure against great odds and on low pay deserves a public honour. Since I started this campaign in Parliament, more than 50 immigration officers have written to me independently, expressing their support. I am proud to say that many of them live in and around my constituency, as they work at Stansted airport.

I shall finish by quoting one of those letters from an official. He said:

“I have served as an Immigration Officer for over 25 years. We play an important role in the fight against terrorism, smuggling, people trafficking, crime and illegal entry.

During my own service I recall officers being called upon to assist with emergencies such as…The Herald of Free Enterprise disaster…The return of hostages from Kuwait…Hostage emergencies at Stansted...Deployments to Kosovo, the Czech Republic and Iraq.

Whilst Prison Officers won their battle to receive the Golden Jubilee medal, nobody considered immigration officers. Not surprisingly we feel we are the Forgotten Service, called upon when needed, cast aside when convenient.”

The immigration service has been forgotten for too long. For the sake of common decency, public sector morale and recognition of that service, I hope that the Government will right this wrong as soon as possible.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify the forms of the House when hon. Members refer to other hon. Members who are not present? My understanding from perusing “Erskine May” is that hon. Members should notify another hon. Member if they make a personal attack, but not if it is the cut and thrust of political debate. I understood that what my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) said was the cut and thrust of political debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

The ruling is that it is common courtesy that before one hon. Member refers to another hon. Member—particularly to that Member’s conduct, which is a matter for debate—the hon. Member who is commenting on the other hon. Member’s conduct should notify them. This is not a matter for the Chair, but it is a matter of common courtesies and how Members are expected to behave.

[Mr Frank Field]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I hope that we are not going to have a long series of points of order.

[Mr Field]

I think that some hon. Members do not know the rule. I was attacked by an hon. Member on my side of the House, and she much regretted that she had not known the rules. It may be a surprise that someone on my side attacked me, but I accepted that no one had told her about the rules of this place.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is an interesting point of information which is now on the record, but it is not a point of order. He also knows that there is an obligation on Members of the House to acquaint themselves with the common courtesies and rules of debate in the Chamber. Perhaps we can now move on to the next speaker.

16:09

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Let me assure the House, and certainly the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), that I have no intention of attacking anyone. I should also like to thank the Minister for his accelerated denouement, which has given all Members the opportunity to speak if they wish to do so.

I was interested to hear from the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) that this issue had not been debated in the House before, but I was perhaps not surprised, given that this is one of the most sensitive debates we could have. As a result, we have too often shied away from it. It has been taboo—beyond the pale for mentionable conversation. We have only recently discovered that, unless we are prepared to talk about it sensibly, openly and honestly on the Floor of the House, we cede the debate and the concern of the public to the rather more unsavoury voices that, thankfully, we do not have in this House.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate; he has been buried under bouquets this afternoon. I hope that, as a result of it, we in the House and people out in the country will be able to see the undoubted benefits that the country has gained from immigration without forgetting the undoubted problems that are attendant on large-scale, uncontrolled, unconsidered immigration. There is no doubt that we have benefited from immigration to this country, be it in science, the arts, comedy or cooking. I prefer eating to cooking, but there is no doubt that, culturally, we have had a massive stimulus as a result of immigration. Beyond that, many people have come to our country down the years and got jobs or started businesses. They have got involved in the community and paid their taxes; they have done all the things that we should all try to do to be part of the big society.

Over the past 15 or so years, however, the myth has developed that uncontrolled immigration has been an unalloyed economic benefit to this country. That myth needs to be exploded. We are told that cheap labour is good for us, and migrants tend to be cheap. They come here and they do jobs that other people do not want to do, and they accept wages that other people will not accept. They provide a service at low cost and everyone is happy, but that masks the price of immigration, and we need to recognise that price. It is undoubtedly true that immigration keeps wage inflation down, but it also keeps a lid on productivity. If employers can import more and more cheap labour into this country, they will have less and less incentive to be more productive in their business. As a competitive model, that is unsustainable.

It is therefore incumbent on the Government not to turn a blind eye to businesses that are importing large-scale cheap labour. Those businesses that import illegal immigrants should be fined and the illegal immigrants sent home. We need to send a message to businesses and to the people who should not be here that they cannot profit by getting around the law. That is a very important message to send. Unless we do that, we will inspire slackness in business and resentment among hard-working, tax-paying, law-abiding people, as I think the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) recognised in his constituency some years ago.

We must, however, draw a distinction between those people who want to come here to provide labour for jobs that no one else wants to do and those who want to come here at the behest of their employers or putative employers to provide highly skilled labour for an extended period. We need those people in this country, and I was therefore pleased when the Prime Minister made it clear that Britain was open to business and that we would allow the best talents to come to this country to help us to shape our economy, and to provide businesses with a cutting edge to compete in the global marketplace.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Before my hon. Friend continues down that road, I would like to ask him whether he considers migration from outside the European Union to be just as worrying—or as good, depending on where someone is—as migration from within the European Union.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am pleased to respond to my hon. Friend, and I think it depends on the jobs that people are coming here to do.

I was pleased to hear that the Minister was prepared to look at intra-company transfers to ensure that we do not disbenefit companies that want to bring employees into Britain to help the outsourcing industry—for example, by transferring employees into companies through the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. We need to bring into Britain people from the Asian subcontinent, for example, who have good IT skills and understand the ethos of the companies to which they belong in order to train up those employees transferred through TUPE. It is important to recognise that the outsourcing industry needs transferable people with transferable skills moving around the world to help British businesses do business wherever they need to do it.

We also recognise that immigration can bring economic problems, and infrastructure is another issue, to which other hon. Members have alluded. Anyone reading the House of Lords Economic Affairs report, to which the noble Lord Lawson contributed—it shows the effect of large-scale immigration on housing, transport, health care and so forth—would realise that there are real issues that must be addressed.

Still another issue is social tension. We have all engaged in electioneering over the last six months. We have been knocking on doors and meeting our constituents. Cumulatively, we must have met thousands of them. Since then, we have received e-mails and letters from our constituents running into the thousands. If we are honest with each other, we will surely admit that one of the key issues that constituents continually raise with us is their worry about immigration. They are frustrated and concerned. They are frustrated because they believe that the last Government refused to recognise their legitimate concerns about large-scale immigration; and they are worried, frankly, that the new Government will also ignore them.

Having read the coalition agreement, I can say in all candour that the new Government are moving in the right direction when it comes to listening to people’s concerns. I do not mean that simply because we are introducing an immigration cap, which sends a message to the country and beyond that we are serious about immigration controls; because we are tightening up the student visa system, which was badly abused under the last Government; because we are introducing a border police force to protect our borders and ensure that those parts and ports of the country that lack protection will subsequently have it; or because we are insisting on minimum language skills so that people who come here can work and integrate. The most important thing the Government are doing as part of the coalition agreement to meet the challenge of uncontrolled immigration is to take control of the welfare system.

Our welfare system—“system” is a neat word to describe what is really a mess—costs us £194 billion a year, and it has locked hundreds of thousands of people into dependency by making it economically senseless for them to work. As a result, there are vacancies. To fill them, employers look for employees in all sorts of places, including abroad. The vacancies act as a magnet for people abroad to come and try their luck in Britain. It makes absolutely no sense to make hundreds of thousands of people not work—effectively, to pay them not to work—while importing hundreds of thousands more people to fill the gap in the labour market. As we know, those people place a strain on our social infrastructure, the fabric of our country.

I think that the Government are doing exactly the right thing with the Work programme, which aims slowly, steadily and surely to return people to work, to choke off the demand for labour, and at the same time to introduce stringent controls to stem the supply of immigrant labour. Getting that balance right is the way to deal with our uncontrolled immigration, and the Government have got it right. They are introducing a workable, fair system which, crucially, emphasises the importance of British workers getting into work and British businesses acting responsibly, as well as the importance of controlling inflow.

When he was Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said that he wanted to take control of the immigration problem and deal with it quickly and effectively, so that we would no longer describe it as an issue. That is a sound and sensible aim. I believe that the approach that the Government are now taking is correct, and I commend it. I look forward to hearing less about this issue in future, but if we do have to talk about it, I hope that we will talk about it in the same sensible way.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Will my hon. Friend say a little more about European emigration into this country, about how he thinks the Government ought to cope with new additions to the European Union, and about whether their entry could be rather more staged?

[Christopher Pincher]

As my hon. Friend will know, article 21 of the EU treaty means that we are unable to stop the free movement of EU citizens to countries that are already members of the EU. As for new entrants, we need to establish transitional rules to ensure that we do not have to admit the hundreds of thousands of Poles, Romanians and Bulgarians whom we have unfortunately had to accept in the past five or six years because the last Government did not introduce such controls.

The steps taken by the Government so far are fair, workable and balanced. As I said, I look forward to hearing less about this issue in future, but if we do have to hear about it, I hope that it will be discussed in the same sensible, balanced way in which it has been discussed today.

16:22

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

This is an important debate. The House will be aware that for much of the last century, and certainly under Governments who have approached the issue of immigration responsibly, the United Kingdom has taken a twin-track approach to the issue, limiting the number of those entering the country to appropriate levels while ensuring that new arrivals are properly integrated into British society. That approach worked very well until, perhaps, 1997, when—as Members in all parts of the House will know—net migration began to rise sharply, remaining high throughout the duration of both the Blair and Brown Governments. It is principally that rise that has led to the significant public concern to which the motion refers.

As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) observed at the beginning of the debate, this is all about numbers. The fact remains, for those of us who are concerned about immigration into this country, that the figures are very stark. As the House has already heard today, provisional figures for net migration during 2009 indicate an influx of approximately 196,000. That is a great number of people, enough to fill the Emirates stadium—which I visit on many Saturdays—three times over with some to spare. It is a figure that many, including me—and, as we heard earlier, the Minister and the Government—regard as unsustainable. It is unsustainable both in terms of the integration into this country of those who are coming here and in terms of the pressure that this level of net immigration has placed on our public services at a time of considerable economic uncertainty.

As a number of Members have observed in the debate, this is not only an important point, but it is, perhaps, the crux of the issue. All of us have recently gone through a general election, and all of us have therefore heard on the doorsteps in our constituencies quite how important the issue of immigration is to our constituents. Indeed, it was not just an important issue at the general election; it is an important issue today, as the contents of all of our postbags testify.

I therefore congratulate the right hon. Member for Birkenhead—and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), who unfortunately is unable to be here today—on securing the debate. I also congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on the work it has done in ensuring that this important issue is discussed—for, as I now understand, the first time within the living memory of any Member of this Parliament. That might not be quite as bad a situation as my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) suggested in his remarks, but it is none the less very bad. Perhaps for the first time in a generation, we are having a proper debate in this country, without labels like “racist” and “racism” being bandied around, about what sort of immigration we want, what sort of country we wish to live in, and how we are to deal with what will be an increasingly important issue during the course of the 21st century as the world becomes ever flatter.

The important question is not, perhaps, merely one of numbers. It is, rather, how we as a society can maximise the benefits that immigration brings while minimising the strain on our public services, which have been stretched to breaking point by the uncontrolled immigration presided over by the last Labour Government, and which the previous Prime Minister and his predecessor permitted to occur.

The current Government are, in my judgment, entirely right to say we cannot, and should not, entirely halt immigration into this country. However, we have to bring down net immigration to a level that is reasonable, sustainable and capable of being supported by our constituents. We need to take this approach not just because, as a number of Members have said, we have always been a tolerant and reasonable society, but more because it is in our own interests to continue to attract the best and brightest to study and work in the United Kingdom, while ensuring that we do not place an unacceptable strain on our resources or overburden our peculiarly welcoming nature as a society.

These issues are particularly acute in my constituency of Sleaford and North Hykeham. To those of us who live in rural Britain, their significance is obvious. For communities like mine, an influx of migrants can increase the population in ways that existing public services find it difficult to cope with, and that serve to foment resentment and lead to the rise of extremist politics—a rise which all Members of this House would deplore. The last Labour Government, with their focus on urban, rather than rural, Britain, wholly failed to understand or grapple with that aspect when they came to consider the question of immigration.

Going forward, we must ensure that those entering this country to work provide skills that we do not have in our own work force. We have heard something of that in the debate, and we need to ensure that it is the case, particularly at a time when we are trying to get our own people into work as the size of the public sector reduces and unemployment rears its head again. The whole House will appreciate, and as is evident from this debate does appreciate, the benefits of workers from other countries filling the skills gaps in our economy. As other hon. Members have said, those gaps were too often created by the previous Government’s poor policies on higher education.

However, what we need to do throughout is to look closely at why those rushing to this country are willing to fill vacancies for which they say they have the skills, while those within this country who might already have those skills are not willing to fill those vacancies. In general terms it would be difficult to disagree with the proposition that the best way to boost our economy must be to incentivise the people already in the country—the people who are already British—to learn new skills, rather than to bring skills in from overseas and possibly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) hinted, to depress the wages of United Kingdom workers artificially as a result.

For all those reasons, what we have heard from the Minister today has been very welcome. I support the introduction of a limit on non-European economic area immigration, as I believe do most in the House. Reducing the number of immigrants from hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands about which the Government are talking seems vital to ensure that we have a proper balance between the economic benefits of immigration and the sustainable use of our public services.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I wish to raise, once again, the point of immigration from the European Union and whether it is realistic just to focus on immigration from outside the EEA or whether we have to look at our treaty obligations to the EU. I know that my hon. and learned Friend is a member of the European Scrutiny Committee and pays close attention to these matters.

[Stephen Phillips]

Of course I must tell the House that my hon. Friend knows that because he serves on the same Committee, and this is indeed an issue about which he and I are concerned. He knows the current position, as indeed does the whole House, which results from our treaty obligations arising out of our membership of the European Union. There is very little we can do—it might be nothing—about migration from existing EU countries. As he is aware, this has become a difficulty in our country as a result of the limits that other EU members imposed on migration from new EU countries. The previous Government decided not to impose those limits here and, as a result, there was considerable resentment in our constituencies as migrants who might have headed for France or Germany made for the United Kingdom when the states of which they were citizens joined the European Union. This is perhaps not the focus of today’s debate, but there is no doubt that as and when further states join the EU, the Government of the day will have to grapple with this issue properly. They will have to show a courage that was not displayed by the previous Government to ensure that limits are placed on those who can come from new member states of the EU to this country. I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention and I believe that he and I agree on this matter, as I suspect many Members of this House now do.

The points-based system has, to some extent, if not largely, failed to provide sufficient control over immigration to bring numbers down, as demonstrated by not only the figures to which I have alluded, but the position that prevailed under the previous Government for the majority of their time in power. In terms of social cohesion, we simply cannot afford not to have effective immigration controls in place in an increasingly globalised world. All in this House—I believe this is common ground on both sides—have a responsibility to restore the public’s faith in the immigration system by ensuring that those conditions are in place.

The lack of faith that we have witnessed among the public and our constituents has made it all too easy for people to blame new arrivals for social problems in their communities. Effective controls will allow us to face down those from the right and the out-and-out racists and to defeat the all-too-often expressed views that immigrants are a danger to our society—a view that is wholly inconsistent with the past, with the tolerant nature of our society, with the needs of a 21st century Britain and with our need to trade in a globalised economy and an ever-flatter world.

I believe that it is crucial that we should achieve in this Parliament a sustainable level of immigration. We had under the previous Government what often appeared to be—even if it was not—an open-door policy. I was heartened to hear the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) say that nobody on either side of the House any longer believes that to be appropriate. For my part, I have nothing but praise for how the Government have begun to address the entire issue—for the first time, I believe, in more than a decade—in an open and responsible way that shows that we are listening to the concerns of our constituents and of the British people and that ensures that we are dealing with the porous borders and the open-door immigration policy of the last Labour Government. For that reason, and for all those that I have given in my speech, I intend to support the motion.

16:36

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

I am pleased to have the chance to talk on such a vital topic. For far too long, politicians of all parties have ducked debating immigration and, in my view, that has done Britain considerable damage over the past few years. I therefore congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on organising this debate, which is an important step forward. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who is a near neighbour of mine on the Mersey estuary. I was a long-time admirer of his before I joined the House. Like the Prime Minister, I want immigration to cease being a political issue. We certainly cannot achieve that by deliberately ignoring it or shrilly shouting down anyone who tries to raise it, but we can achieve it through calm and sensible public discussion.

To my mind, there are three areas of overwhelming public concern that need to be addressed: enforcement, integration and pressures on public services. Unless we have faith in our ability to control our borders, immigration will inevitably remain a major concern for many of my constituents. It is right that the Government are creating a border police force, but if we are to get to grips with enforcement, the UK Border Agency must become more efficient. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) talked eloquently about the staff who man those borders. I recently went on a trip to Auschwitz with a group of schoolchildren from my constituency and from the north-west. When we landed at Krakow airport, we were under no illusions about who was in charge, which I found quite ironic given the number of Poles that come to our country and the fact that we were only there on a day trip. I believe that the idea of a uniformed force—and, dare I say it, even an armed force—as a welcoming committee should be discussed.

There are still hundreds of thousands of outstanding cases, however, with many applicants waiting years for a decision. That regrettable hangover from the years of Labour mismanagement not only undermines faith in the system but is deeply unfair on those left waiting, not knowing whether they are coming or going, unable to plan for the future and truly to integrate into society. Decisions on applications must be reached quickly and fairly, a point that was made earlier.

Let me turn to the issue of integration. It is a concern of mine that in some of our towns and cities there are real divisions along racial, cultural and religious lines. A few years ago, the head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Trevor Phillips, expressed his concern that Britain was sleepwalking into segregation. Such divisions are deeply unhealthy and need to be tackled head-on.

In my view, instead of the phoney posturing about Britishness of which the previous Government were so fond, we should focus on the biggest barriers to integration, such as language. Making learning English an absolute requirement for those who wish to settle here will not only strengthen community cohesion but help to reduce pressure on our public services. Studies have shown a strong correlation between poor school performance and the number of children on the roll who come from homes in which English is a second language. That is just one of the many additional pressures that high levels of immigration have placed on our public services. My conversations with many of my constituents have left me in no doubt that the main reason for public concern about immigration is the pressure that it places on our schools, hospitals and housing. People are frustrated that for the past 13 years, Labour Ministers have seemed completely oblivious to those pressures, particularly on housing. I recommend that hon. Members read “The New East End”—an excellent study on this subject that was carried out not far away in Tower Hamlets.

It is vital to balance the need to reduce those pressures against the need for specialist, highly skilled workers. Earlier, I asked a question about Daresbury science and innovation campus, which is an outstanding institution in my constituency. It is an international campus that relies totally on attracting the brightest and best scientists from around the world. For that to be successful, we have to look outwards and allow people from all over the world to access it. I am concerned that that might not have happened under previous Administrations, but it is vital to allow the brightest and best to access our universities and businesses.

I would be interested to consider more closely the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) about surety deposits, with discounts for immigrants with particularly sought-after skills. That would allow businesses to benefit while new migrants pay their way for public services. It would also help to reduce the sense of unfairness that some feel about free-riders getting immediate access to schools and hospitals without having contributed through taxes.

I conclude by supporting the motion wholeheartedly. Those of us who believe in the values of one-nation conservatism know that we need to be more effective in managing migration if we are to be a truly united kingdom.

16:41

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) and the Backbench Business Committee on securing the debate. Many of my constituents, including many in black and minority ethnic communities, are highly concerned about current immigration levels. It is essential that their concerns are addressed on the Floor of the House and by the mainstream political parties, because if they are not extremists will exploit the issue.

There have been a number of high-quality speeches today. I hope that my hon. Friends sitting around me will forgive my singling out the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) and the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), who is not in her place but who had the courage to approach the issue from a different perspective.

I start by talking about my home town. It is predicted that at the time of the next census, 42% of Croydon’s population will be from black and minority ethnic communities. Within that figure, there will be significant black Caribbean, black African, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and other communities, and it will be the 11th-highest among local authorities in the country. My constituency is fairly representative of the borough as a whole, which is predicted to have a BME population of just over 40% at that time. I suspect that that figure will be the highest among Government Members.

It is important to note that people generally get on very well in my area. The recent Place survey showed that 77% think that people in Croydon from different backgrounds get on well together. That figure is higher than the London average and the national average and it has improved on the figure from two years ago, which is in sharp contrast with the situation in many other parts of the country.

There is a significant UK Border Agency presence in my constituency. The previous Government decided that anyone who wants to claim asylum has to do so in person in my constituency—the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I shall return to that point later—and as a result, immigration and asylum issues dominate my casework. There are three groups of people who contact me. First, there are those who are concerned about the pace of change in Croydon. Secondly, there are the thousands of people going through the immigration and asylum system who are concerned about their future prospects. Thirdly, several thousand of my constituents work for the UKBA and are both frustrated by the rules and processes that they have to go through and, given the Government’s decisions on public expenditure, concerned about their future job prospects. Although those three groups of people appear to approach the issues from different perspectives, they share a lot more common ground than they suppose. Before I explain that, however, I shall describe my own perspective.

I am very lucky to be a Member of Parliament who represents his home town. I have lived there all my life and believe very passionately that Croydon’s diversity is one of its greatest strengths. It makes the area a vibrant and cosmopolitan place to live, and in today’s globalised world the fact that many Croydonians have connections with other countries is a huge asset to the town. Immigration has brought entrepreneurs who have set up new businesses and created new jobs and people who work in our public services, and it has also enriched our culture. My close friends, neighbours, former council colleagues and almost every voluntary group with which I interact as an MP include people from black and minority ethnic communities.

A number of Members referred to the British sense of fair play and to this country’s tolerance, and, although I know their good intentions in making that point, I always think that “tolerance” is not the right word to describe the situation. I do not tolerate the fact that people from all over the world have made their homes in Croydon, I celebrate it. I am proud of the fact that they have chosen to make my home town their home.

It is possible to have “too much of a good thing”, however, and I was interested to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden refer to a pamphlet that he published with that very title. I have not read it, but I certainly will now. My constituents undoubtedly think that we have had too much of a good thing in recent years, and I shall run through their concerns.

Most people are concerned not about race or skin colour, but about population growth, jobs and the pressure on local public services. Many of those issues have been addressed today so I shall keep my comments brief. On population growth, the latest projections from 2008, which are based on the assumption of net migration to this country of 180,000 people a year, predict that the population will increase to 71.6 million by 2033, an increase of 10.2 million people. Of those 10.2 million people, about 7 million will be accounted for by net migration.

My right hon. Friend referred to housing projections in Hertfordshire, and I am sure that every Member can tell a similar story. My local authority is a growth area under the London plan, but the plans for significant housing growth cause real concern. Bizarrely, very few people live in our town centre, so there is an opportunity to build significantly more housing there, but large parts of my constituency have suffered in recent years from overdevelopment, which has changed the character of residential areas. There has been lot of backbone development, with detached or semi-detached houses replaced by blocks of flats, and that has caused real concerns for constituents. Indeed, the pattern of net migration has driven much of that change.

On jobs, the figures from the Office for National Statistics’ labour force survey show that between April to June 1997 and April to June 2010, the employment of people who were born in the United Kingdom rose from 24.5 million to 25.1 million, while the employment of people born outside the UK rose from 2 million to 3.8 million. We should not be so simplistic as to say that, if there had been no net migration, exactly the same number of jobs would have been created, because the situation is much more complicated; but, during the previous Labour Government, a period of relatively sustained economic growth, about three quarters to four fifths of the jobs created definitely went to people who were not born in the UK. An opportunity was missed to get a large number of people in this country who had been off work for a considerable period back into work. As I said, we should not be simplistic about those figures or take them at face value, because the picture is more complicated than that, but it is undeniable that during the last economic boom we missed the opportunity to get long-term unemployed people back into the labour market.

On public services, I sat briefly in the Chamber yesterday for the Opposition day debate on education, when the shadow Secretary of State referred to our debate about the need for capital investment in our schools, and to the requirement for a needs-based investment policy. I was rather staggered to hear him say that what he meant by “needs-based” was that funding should go en bloc to local authorities in areas where there was low education attainment. When I think of “needs-based” in relation to investment in education capital, I think about the state of individual school buildings and about the parts of the country that are experiencing significant population growth among young people and have a need for additional school places.

I do not want to open up the issue of the Building Schools for the Future programme in this debate, but one of my real concerns was that whereas other authorities received huge sums—I am sure that they put them to good use—my authority got not a penny, despite the fact that there has been a large expansion in the number of primary school children and there is an urgent need to provide new primary school places. When I talk to my residents, I learn that one of their concerns is the lack of investment in areas experiencing the effects of net migration to provide increased capacity in public services.

The hon. Member for Lewisham East referred to social housing allocation policy—an issue that comes up time and again. There is a widespread belief in my constituency that the system is biased in favour of people who have just come into the country. That belief is wrong: each year, the council does an assessment to demonstrate that it is allocating its housing on a proportionate basis. However, it is very important to explain why the belief is wrong, because people’s perception is perfectly reasonable from their point of view.

At the moment in my borough, just under 40% of the population are from the BME communities. As we still exist in a society where people from those communities are disproportionately likely to be stuck in poverty, a higher proportion of that community—about 60%—is on the housing waiting list in Croydon. If the council was allocating its housing fairly, we would expect about 60% of the allocations each year to go to those communities. However, the pattern of settlement in Croydon is very mixed, and a large proportion of our social housing stock is in a town called New Addington, where the prevalence of the BME communities is much lower. So a New Addington resident on the social housing waiting list with children will see 60% of the properties coming up there going to people from a BME background and they will think that their children are being discriminated against. We need to do a much better job of explaining to people how the system works and, perhaps, looking at the detail of housing allocation policy to counter some of those concerns.

The issue of numbers, highlighted by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead at the start, is very important and the Government are right to consider that and all the different channels—not just economic migration from outside the EU, but students and family channels, to which other Members have referred. However, it follows from the points that I have made, and from people’s concerns about access to public services, council housing and jobs, that the issue is not just about how many, but who.

I have heard the Minister for Immigration say that Home Office research demonstrates that one third of those who came into the country on tier 1 visas are not working in highly skilled jobs at the moment. We need to make sure that the tiers are applied properly. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden said, we also need to look at some particular small-scale exemptions in certain areas of the economy, where there is a case for bringing people in.

I have heard it rumoured that the Government are considering an exemption for footballers. Personally, I would place a higher priority on highly skilled research scientists and people of that kind. I support what the Government are doing and I think that the cap is right, but we need to look at the detail to make sure that there is flexibility for particular areas of the economy, where it is in our national interest to bring in people with the highest level of skills, or entrepreneurs with a proven record who are going to create jobs and boost economic growth. All Members will have been lobbied by organisations such as the British Medical Association, the Campaign for Science and Engineering and Cancer Research UK on those points.

As I said, for the vast majority of my constituents who are concerned about immigration, the issue is not skin colour or race but jobs, housing and access to public services. However, we should recognise that race is an issue for some people. This is a sensitive subject, but if we are going to have this debate in the House, we need to address it. A small number of people are motivated by hate. Four years ago in my constituency, we came very close to a BNP councillor being elected. Over the past four years, the Labour and Conservative parties have together worked very hard on that, and we saw significant progress at the council elections that were held on the same day as the general election.

There is a wider group of people who do not necessarily have friends, colleagues or neighbours from the BME community with whom they socialise. When I knock on their doors, they say to me that they go to Croydon town centre, for example, and feel that it is not their town any more—that it has changed. This view is, of course, nonsense. Many black and minority ethnic people in Croydon were born there and have lived there all their lives—they are as British as I am. Those who were not born there have uprooted their families, travelled halfway across the world, and chosen to be British. One of the most moving things that I did as a parliamentary candidate, before I had the privilege of entering this House, was to attend a citizenship ceremony and see the pride of new immigrants in attaining British citizenship.

I used to be a councillor before I came to this House, and my responsibility in the immediate period before that related to public safety and the rather nebulous concept that is referred to in local government as community cohesion. One of the things that my council did was to organise events to celebrate the major religious festivals to promote an interfaith dialogue. Perhaps the only thing I did that surpassed attending the citizenship ceremony was to go to an event to mark the festival of Eid, where two young Muslim women, Ruhina Cockar and Joanne Kheder, one dressed in western clothing and one wearing the hijab, spoke about what it meant to them to be British Muslims. I passionately wish that every single resident of Croydon had been there to listen to what they had to say about their gratitude for the opportunity that British citizenship has given them and their determination to repay that debt to society. A single quote does not do justice to their words, but here is a short extract from Ruhina’s speech:

“I’m a Croydon girl through and through. I was born in Mayday hospital…My beliefs are entirely compatible with being British…I have thrived in British society…and I am proud to call myself a British citizen”.

There is currently a bit of a backlash against multiculturalism; some Members have referred to that. To the extent that multiculturalism meant focusing on what divides us rather than what unites us, that backlash is a good thing. However, at the risk of stating the obvious, Britishness—a collective identity for the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish—is by definition multicultural, in the literal sense of the word. That is a good thing. We should not force people to choose between being British and having pride in their roots and their origins.

I should like to end by touching on a parochial issue that affects my constituents in Croydon. I mentioned the widespread concern regarding the previous Government’s decision that all in-country asylum applications should be made in Croydon. That concern has two roots. First, there is a financial impact on the council. The council receives funding from the Home Office to pay for the costs that it has to meet in relation to these issues, but that funding does not adequately compensate council tax payers. It does not cover any of the legal costs, and significant numbers of applicants appeal if they are denied leave to remain. While they are appealing, the council has an ongoing obligation to them, and those costs, and the council’s legal costs, are not covered.

Secondly, the funding does not cover costs in relation to certain people who have no access to public funds but to whom the council has an ongoing duty in relation to providing destitution support, nor does it cover many of the indirect costs. The council is supporting significant numbers of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who do not have English as a second language and require additional support in schools.

[Mr Sutcliffe]

indicated assent.

[Gavin Barwell]

The shadow Minister nods, but under his Government, and under this Government, we have not yet made the case to the Home Office that Croydon council tax payers should not be asked to shoulder the cost of a national obligation.

The Minister will no doubt respond that because of the work he is doing, which I entirely applaud, the numbers of such people have been reducing. However, this involves a twofold issue of principle. First, the next time there is a major conflict abroad, those numbers will undoubtedly increase again, and we will be back where we were a year or two ago. Secondly, there is a more important point of principle, which is that our obligation to provide sanctuary for those who are fleeing persecution is a very important national obligation, and we should not be trying to drive down the numbers of people seeking asylum by making it as difficult as possible for them to do so.

[Mr Sutcliffe]

indicated assent.

[Gavin Barwell]

The shadow Minister nods again, but we were not able to convince the previous Government of that case. I believe that the reason the Home Office took the decision to close the office in Liverpool was to make it difficult for people to claim. I am all in favour of making the process quicker and certainly in favour of making it much more accurate, so that we do not have such a large number of successful appeals, but we should not make it difficult for people who have fled from persecution to this country to claim asylum.

I very much welcome the fact that we are having this debate. If we can reduce the overall number of people seeking to come into the country; if we can focus on two groups of people—those who will contribute to our economic future and those who are entitled to claim sanctuary; if we can have quick and accurate decisions; and if we can have an efficient and properly resourced UK Border Agency, I am confident that we can make progress.

I end by asking the Minister about UKBA. I know that he has already spoken, so perhaps he can reply to me separately. I have a number of constituents who work at UKBA, and they have real concerns about the Government’s public spending decisions. I understand why they are having to make those decisions, but a particular point has been made to me about a consultation that has just happened on the units in UKBA facing redundancy. The Chancellor was very clear in both the Budget and the comprehensive spending review that the Government wished to minimise the number of compulsory redundancies, and I am sure that Members of all parties would agree with that aim. However, the lobbying that I have received suggests that the way in which UKBA is interpreting the units for redundancy is making it much more likely that there will be a significant number of compulsory redundancies. Perhaps the Minister can get back to me on that point. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this debate.

17:01

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell). I cannot believe he has been in the House for only six months. Given the eloquence and fairness of his speech and the way in which he crafted it, it sounded to me as though he had been here for six years. He is very proud of his multicultural constituency, and I thought he was fair and balanced in how he put his arguments forward. It is right that we should conduct a debate on immigration in such terms.

I apologise to the House for having missed part of the debate. The Liaison Committee was meeting the Prime Minister for the first time, and of course it was important for me to be there as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. In fact, the Prime Minister gave us a bit of news on immigration that I will report to the House in a moment. I missed the contributions of many right hon. and hon. Members, and I look forward to reading them in Hansard tomorrow.

I declare an interest: I, of course, am an immigrant. My parents were originally from Mumbai, having gone there from Goa to seek work. They then went from Mumbai to Yemen for similar reasons, as economic migrants. I and my sisters were born in Yemen, and I came to this country when I was nine years of age. As in the situation that the hon. Member for Croydon Central described, my parents chose to come here, exercising the rights that they had through living in a British Crown colony, Aden, to enable their children to grow up and remain here.

I am extremely proud of this country. I am proud of its multiculturalism and the way in which it has absorbed so many communities, not just in the past 30 years but throughout its history. It is difficult these days to know what is pure English, because the British people have been represented by so many different cultures over the past 1,000 years.

What has been good about this debate is the tone in which it has been conducted. I remember that, when I was first elected, great passions were raised on both sides of the House on the subject. I was in opposition then and have returned to opposition now after 13 years. No debate on immigration policy was conducted without people getting extraordinarily passionate and very angry with each other across the Floor of the House. Today’s consensus is extremely important, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) for suggesting the debate and the Backbench Business Committee for holding it. Normally, we discuss immigration only when the Government of the day, be they Conservative or Labour, introduce legislation. We have had many immigration Bills over the 23 years I have been in the House, and I am not sure all of them have achieved what they have been intended to achieve. It is good to be able to discuss immigration in the House and to share our experiences.

The Home Affairs Committee has just published its report on the immigration cap. I urge all Members to read it or at least the conclusions and the summary, as I do with other Select Committee reports. We did not argue with the Government’s desire to impose a cap—that is not the purpose of a Select Committee—but we wanted to see whether they could achieve their goal of reducing immigration from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands. Our conclusion—this was an all-party decision, and there was one unanimous vote in the Committee, which is, of course, in the report—was that they needed to look again at the cap because it cannot, as currently constructed, achieve what they want within the five years they have set out. If they want to look at the figures in five years’ time, they will have to look at the immigration figures in 2013 and extrapolate them to 2015.

The Committee made a number of suggestions that it felt would be helpful. We thought it was extremely important that the Government should look at different avenues if they were to reduce immigration to tens of thousands. The fresh piece of news that I bring to the House this evening is that, in answer to a question at the Liaison Committee—I do not know whether the Minister even knows this, although he may have mentioned it in his speech—the Prime Minister said that the Government’s new immigration policy would be announced next week.

That is the earliest indication that we will have a statement to the House at some stage, and we welcome that. At the moment, we have a temporary immigration cap, and people are concerned. Business is concerned about whether it will be able to bring in the employees that it absolutely needs to fill vacancies that it cannot fill from within this country. Students need to be told whether they will be caught by the permanent cap. As the Committee said in its report, if the Government are to achieve their reduction in numbers, the overseas student population will have to be reduced by a huge number, which will, of course, affect the education system. At a time when fees will be going up, the loss of income to some of our colleges and universities will be very serious.

Anyway, the crucial thing is that we will get a statement of Government policy next week. In a sense, the debate should have taken place next Thursday, rather than this Thursday. However, I am sure that we will find opportunities for further debate on this issue.

The hon. Member for Croydon Central mentioned the possibility of an exemption for footballers. In fact, that is what we have at the moment. Footballers are exempted, but scientists who might win Nobel prizes—the elite scientists—are not. One of the recommendations in the Committee’s report is that if we are going to exempt footballers—even after last night’s result, although everyone who plays for England is, of course, English—we should look at groups that could help the economy.

The Committee also suggested that intra-company transfers should be excluded, because they represent 60% of tier 1. Within 12 hours of our report’s being published, the Prime Minister accepted that recommendation at Prime Minister’s Question Time. Select Committees always feel rather chuffed when their recommendations are accepted by Ministers, and especially by the Prime Minister.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead mentioned Professor Metcalf, and I join the praise of him. The Migration Advisory Committee, which survived the cull of quangos, provides a very useful service. Today, it published a report telling us in stark terms that there will have to be a reduction in student migration and family migration if the Government are to get to their figure for 2015. I am afraid that that will affect all those in the House with constituencies that contain settled communities whose members, for whatever reason, want to bring spouses and dependants from abroad.

Across the Chamber, I see the hon. Member for Croydon Central and the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who must have quite a large settled community. The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) has a big immigration case load. On the Opposition side of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), both shadow Ministers—my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood)—and many others, including myself, have immigration case loads. Our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), will have hundreds of immigration cases to deal with at her surgery tomorrow. The reduction in immigration will affect not only people coming as students, but our settled communities—British citizens whose sons and daughters wish to bring spouses or dependants from abroad. We will all be affected as constituency MPs who deal with immigration cases.

I commend to the House the excellent report of John Vine, the chief inspector of immigration. When he was originally appointed a year and a half ago, he had a pretty hard time from the Home Affairs Committee, because we did not like the fact that he was called an “inspector” and wanted him to be called the “independent inspector”, and we felt he was far too close to the Home Office. However, we need not have feared for his independence, because every single one of his reports has been severely critical of the UK Border Agency. Even today, he has reported that of the £40 million-worth of fines imposed by UKBA on those not complying in respect of illegal immigration, only £5.6 million has been collected. He says that if the Government are to tackle illegal immigration, they must be strong and firm. Any discussion of immigration must deal with illegal immigration as well as legal. I do not agree with the Mayor of London that there should be an amnesty for those living illegally in this country. However, it is important that we consider their cases and give them a decision as quickly as possible.

That leads me to the second part of what I wanted to say today, which relates to a constituency interest of the hon. Member for Croydon Central—I hope he does not take it personally if I criticise UKBA, which is based in his constituency. UKBA remains unfit for purpose. Of course, a Labour Home Secretary announced that, but it will be still less fit for purpose following 20% budget cuts. When Lin Homer appeared before the Home Affairs Committee last week, she said that she could cope with that 20% reduction and with losing 5,000 members of staff, but the Committee believed that such cuts would mean that UKBA could not provide the kind of service required.

One problem is that in the time it has taken UKBA to deal with immigration cases, people get married and have children, which is inevitable when people meet someone they love. Then they want to stay, because they have been here for years. I am sure all right hon. and hon. Members know of such cases in their constituencies. Last week, I met at least half a dozen people who had been in this country trying to get their cases resolved for 14 years. They have become settled and they do not want to go back, and UKBA must deal with that problem. We must be careful in asylum cases that we do not send back those who are genuinely persecuted, but we must deal with other cases as quickly as possible.

One perennial problem for all hon. Members who deal with legacy cases is the letter that comes back from UKBA saying, “Sorry, we can’t deal with this case now, but we’ll have it done by July 2011.” There are hundreds of thousands of legacy cases, some of which lasted the entire length of the previous Labour Government. I have told Immigration Ministers a number of times, “You could be the first Immigration Minister in history to clear the backlog.” None seems to have wanted that epitaph, so the backlog remains after 13 years. Lin Homer has said that if the backlog is not cleared by 31 July 2011, neither she nor any of her senior officers will take their bonuses next year. We will hold her to that. I want to see how she does that following a reduction in staff.

Another thing that concerned us was the rise in indefinite leave to remain—up 4% over the past four months. The House brings in legislation, and tries to do it as quickly as possible, but the figures are going up because the Home Office is granting indefinite leave. Indeed, net immigration this year might even increase, despite the temporary cap, because of the number of ILRs being granted. We should therefore be very sceptical. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead keeps talking about the numbers. Those numbers will continue to rise if we clear a backlog of 400,000 and grant indefinite leave at such a rate—an extra 30,000 cases since February. We do not want people arguing at the end of that, “This Government have let in a whole lot of immigrants.” It is a necessary conclusion to the legacy process.

My next point is about foreign national prisoners. One of the problems is a lack of co-ordination between the Prison Service and the UK Border Agency and the length of time between the finishing of a sentence and removal. Even though we assist people to leave—we pay them up to £1,500 to leave the country—there is no monitoring to ensure that they do not re-enter the country. I and other Home Affairs Committee members went to the camp at Calais, which was cleared several weeks after we visited, and the people to whom we spoke had every intention, if removed, of returning to Calais and making their way from there to the United Kingdom on the back of lorries. They know that the French police protect and monitor their border not on a 24-hour basis, but on a shift basis. Those determined to break immigration law know exactly when those shifts end. So rather than more legislation, there are practical and administrative ways of dealing with this issue.

This has been a good debate—it is important that we can discuss immigration in the way we have—but I caution Members on both sides of the House if they think that the solution to this problem rests entirely with non-EU immigration. One Select Committee member, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), who I think is one of the most outstanding Members in the new intake, inserted into a recent report a phrase about how the Government should be careful about being more restrictive on the routes of migration that they can control, because they cannot control other routes of migration.

That brings me to my final point about EU migration: neither Members nor the Government can do anything about 80% of the people entering this country, because they do so under treaty obligations that Conservative and Labour Ministers and Prime Ministers have signed over the years.

[Mr Lilley]

The right hon. Gentleman is very distinguished and knows the facts, even though he was not here when the Minister quoted them: net immigration into this country is 196,000, and net immigration from outside the EU is 184,000, so it is the bulk of the problem. To pretend otherwise is to mislead people outside the House.

[Keith Vaz]

I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, who is very interested in this subject and has spoken, I think, in every immigration debate in which I have spoken. Immigration is inevitably about volume and numbers, but the freedom of movement enjoyed by EU citizens means that they can come and go as they please. I was the Minister for Europe at the time of enlargement.

[Mr Lilley]

They come and go.

[Keith Vaz]

Yes, and that is the point. Some of our constituents’ criticisms are not about people who come from outside the EU, but about people who come from the EU. Hon. Members will remember the general election and the confrontation between the then Prime Minister and Mrs Gillian Duffy, whom I met for the first time at the Labour party conference one month ago. Her complaint was not about non-EU immigration, but about EU migration. That is what Mrs Duffy was concerned about. When we talk about such immigration and those numbers, we need to know that this House can do nothing about it. This may be an unpopular view in the House, but EU migration has been very good for Britain, for exactly the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. During the boom years, people from Poland, Romania and Hungary came to this country and contributed to the boom; when it went, they went back.

[Mr Lilley]

indicated dissent.

[Keith Vaz]

The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that there is no impact, but then say something else when I say that there is freedom of movement. There is that capacity. We live on an island, so by all means let us have measures that will ensure that we do not overpopulate this island. That is now accepted in all parts of the House. I do not believe it possible to have a limit, because I do not think that the state can have a limit, as there are so many exemptions. America has an immigration cap, but there are so many exemptions that it is not even worth having. The American Government are currently charging Indian IT firms $2,000 a visa, to help with the cost of building the fence between Mexico and the United States. That is where things will end up unless we are careful about this whole debate. I believe that we can be careful. I believe that the Government will respond positively and that we need to conduct this debate in the kind of tone and with the kind of temperament that we have seen today.

17:21

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

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) articulated with great clarity and passion the importance of the debate, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore). The right hon. Gentleman clearly explained that this debate is not about bigotry, race or colour, but about the impact of unfettered migration on the economic and social fabric of the UK. Most members of the settled community whose doors I knock on—particularly those in the Indian community who came across in the ’70s—feel passionately about the impact of unfettered migration, because it is the settled community who tend to bear the brunt of the bigotry. As other Members have said, it is important that we should have this debate so that other, extreme parties do not fill that vacuum.

One reason I stood for election to this place was that I used to get rather irritated outside the House at what seemed to be good ideas that sometimes translated into—how shall I put it?—unintended consequences. I want to focus on what I believe to be a perhaps unintended consequence of placing a crude cap on business. I understand and fully support the need to manage migration. Skilled migrants can add to the success of our economy, and I am mindful of the quite proper desire of our Government to maximise employment. I am also conscious of the demographics of my seat, as the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) put it. I have the largest Jewish population of any seat in the UK. I also have large Indian, Muslim and Afro-Caribbean populations, many of whose members are first, second or third-generation immigrants who have gone on to become captains of industry or stalwarts of major charities, contributing hugely to the rich fabric of our society. I am therefore conscious of the contribution that immigration can make to the UK.

I want like to raise a number of concerns affecting a major employer in my constituency, Pentland Brands. Many hon. Members will say, “Who?”, but it is a major exporter in the UK, producing apparel and shoes, and brands that dominate the high street. Pentland Brands is a successful global company that we should encourage, rather than hamper its ambition to tap into the global market. The right hon. Member for Leicester East suggested that we have a window of opportunity before the statement, perhaps next week, and Ministers should amend the policy before it comes to the House.

On the specific issues that concern the company, the proposed rules seem to have created an inability to hire graduates from across the world, and I shall give two examples of that. Every year, the chief executive of the company seeks to employ an executive assistant who is a high-calibre graduate from a market that he wants to develop. During the past year, he has had two executive assistants: one from India, and one from China. They may well have technical skills that the chief executive could find in the UK, but they bring the nuance of the political, social and economic structures of those markets that the company is trying to break into.

A home-grown graduate, with the best will in the world, will simply not have those skills. Being able to speak Mandarin, Cantonese or Gujarati is not the same as understanding how the markets work and how to open doors—the subtlety of trading in a global economy. Will the Minister consider how to adapt the cap so that it is not a cork that stops all economic migration, but is flexible and allows specific skills to be recruited, even if those skills, superficially, can be met internally? The Prime Minister went to India and China because he recognised that we must tap into those two economies if the UK economy is to pull out of recession and remain a powerhouse in the world economy. Will the Minister look carefully at companies that seek to recruit graduates to help them to tap into developing markets?

It is not just the nuances of language and structures that matter, but specific skills. Commentators have talked rather crudely about why we import IT specialists. I shall give an example of how we could go seriously wrong. IT skills qualify, I believe, under tier 2, not tier 1. The company in my constituency is a specialist manufacturer of sports footwear. Sri Lanka is the world leader in developing the software that allows the design and manufacture of sports footwear. Not surprisingly, the company wanted to recruit IT specialists from Sri Lanka to help to develop its products, which provide huge export benefits for this country. The proposed rules suggest that the company could not do that.

These jobs do not involve low-paid IT skills; they command salaries in excess of £80,000 a year. The people involved are not tier 1 economic migrants who end up delivering pizzas. They have skills that a global company needs if it is to continue to attract business.

[Mr Frank Field]

I draw the Minister’s attention to what the hon. Gentleman just said; I am sure that he was listening carefully. There are no objections if the salary range is at that level, but there is an objection, certainly from me if no one else, to intra-company transfers when salaries are a quarter of that amount.

[Mike Freer]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comment. The company is not looking for an intra-company transfer, and that is exactly the problem. If it cannot recruit a Chinese national or an Indian national, it will have to recruit them in an offshore company, or not at all. Either way, we are hampering the expansion of a good UK company, and that cannot be the purpose of the cap.

The other issue is that if we continue to recruit offshore highly skilled technical migrants who are essential to UK companies, we may benefit from the exports of the UK company, but we will lose the benefit that that small number of highly skilled economic migrants bring to the economy through their personal taxation and spending.

[Keith Vaz]

I apologise for intervening on the hon. Gentleman’s excellent speech, but that company needs those people now because of the skills they possess. This is not an issue of settlement; it is an issue of ensuring that we can produce goods and therefore employ more British people in such companies.

[Mike Freer]

I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. We need a long-term strategy to develop the necessary skills. We can already provide the technical skills, but the training in our British universities cannot provide a knowledge of foreign markets. There is a difference between training someone in the latest Sri Lankan IT software, which we can do, and teaching them the nuances of how to access the decision makers in the Chinese economy, which we cannot. There is a big difference between the two.

I understand that the Government might be thinking of relaxing their stance on visa extensions. The company has an Indian graduate who can no longer get a visa extension. The company will lose his skills and his contribution. I ask the Minister to think again, and perhaps to assess companies on a case-by-case basis to see whether an extension could be granted because of the contribution that certain individuals make.

[Mark Tami]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. Bearing in mind all the problems that he rightly suggests could pile up, does he agree that the company in question and others like it might wonder whether the UK is really the right place to be? Might they not decide to offshore their whole business and work from somewhere else?

[Mike Freer]

I would hate to put words into the mouth of the company’s chief executive, but I doubt that that would happen. The mainstay of the UK operation involves not only administration but design, and its design capability is based in Finchley. The manufacturing already takes place offshore. I am talking about a very small number of specifically skilled individuals, and under the Government’s proposals, the company would no longer be able to recruit such people. So it would not recruit at all, it would not recruit locally because of the lack of that nuanced knowledge of the foreign markets, or one or two individuals would be recruited offshore. All three scenarios would be damaging to the UK economy.

I support the Government’s attempts to control immigration, and I support the right hon. Gentleman’s motion, but I want gently to ask the Minister whether the Government will consider introducing some form of mechanism under which global companies that are struggling and can prove that they cannot recruit the necessary skills in the UK can seek a remedy whereby they recruit offshore graduates for a period of time— perhaps one or two years, or longer—provided that they could make the economic case for so doing. I ask the Minister gently whether we can have a flexible policy, rather than a rigid cap.

17:33

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to speak in the debate. I had not originally planned to do so because I knew that I would be unable to be here for most of it, although I was here at the beginning. I have been moved to speak, however, by a report of the remarks that the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) made about my views, which I have now read in Hansard. I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight before the House.

I want to start by informing the House about the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that I made remarks as a Minister that immigration officers deserved to be called by a four-letter word. They were not made by me when I was a Minister. I made the remarks that he is referring to when I was a Back Bencher, and I never suggested that that label should be given to the class of immigration officers. I pointed out, in response to a question, that it is a fact that large numbers of people—not some, but large numbers—seek to cheat the immigration system, which hardens immigration officers. Inevitably, that leads to a kind of cynicism, which means that they cannot necessarily give each case a completely fresh and individual look. I argued at the time for proper training to ensure that immigration officers did not make that kind of mistake in future. Obviously, it is unfair on the genuine that they should be disadvantaged because of those who are not genuine. I am glad to set the matter straight. If one wants to look at evidence about the degree of cynicism in some immigration officers—as I say, I do not believe that this is universally true by any means—the book “Refusal Shoes” is full of the most shocking anecdotes.

I want to speak briefly about the general issue of immigration. I am pleased to debate it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) will know that I am not one of those who has ever been backward on this subject; I have never been worried about debating immigration.

I am hugely proud to represent one of the most productive towns in this country. One reason why it is such a productive and successful town is that thousands of people have come from countries all over the world to build their future in Slough, which has offered them work. I was so proud just a week ago to sit in a school prom and watch 850 Slough children singing about how people from different countries had contributed so much to the town that they live in and love. This was a celebration of the multiculturalism that is without doubt one of the reasons for the wealth of Slough. It is one reason why, according to the chief executive of Slough borough council, there are more headquarters of European companies in our town than in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland put together. That is why we should celebrate the economic prosperity that migrants bring to Britain. I am glad to do that.

We know that migration offers and brings much. The hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) put it rather well when he said that we need to work to make the best of it and make the consequences of multiculturalism worth celebrating. I will find it depressing if that is not done. The last Labour Government introduced the migration impacts fund as a mechanism to help to achieve that. I profoundly regret the huge cut to Slough borough council’s budget that has resulted from the abolition of that fund.

I did not originally expect to participate in the debate because I was hoping to attend the Westminster Hall debate about houses in multiple occupation. One point of investing resources from the migration impacts fund in Slough was to ensure that migrants in the town did not have to live in sheds—and I mean sheds in people’s back gardens. Government funding enabled the council to inspect HMOs and occupied sheds. It was used successfully to prosecute a landlord who had put a shower on the stairs of a house in multiple occupation in the expectation that people could somehow walk past it. Now we have lost the resources to carry on doing such things, which is much to be regretted.

[Robert Halfon]

As I have said, I apologise for not giving the hon. Lady advance notice of my comments. I was not aware that I should have done, and I will make sure that I do in any future instances. However, all I did was publicly to quote from what the BBC said. I accept that you were a former Minister, but in being a former Minister, you actually give more prescience to your remarks—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that I am not a former Minister, I have never been a Minister and I have no aspiration to be a Minister.

[Robert Halfon]

I apologise again, Mr Speaker. However, what the hon. Lady said, as reported by the BBC, is one reason why immigration officers are viewed as “s***s”—because some people decide that if one is like that, all of them are like that. She made no attempt to distinguish between them, and by her remarks she has tarred every immigration officer with the same brush.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Actually, I did not say “some”, I said “large numbers”. That is one of the corrections that I have just inserted in Hansard. Unlike some of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues who have only read the blog that he wrote about the subject rather than the original BBC article, he knows that the original BBC article makes it entirely clear that I was asked about the negative attitude of some border officials by a questioner who implied that it was universal. I corrected her, suggesting that that was not a universal belief.

I cannot take responsibility for the words that the BBC put in its report. If the hon. Gentleman reads the BBC article that he claims to have in his hand, he will see that when I gave the reason for the fact that some officials acted in this way, I used the phrase “large numbers”. Every time he has quoted from it, he has referred to “some”, rather than to “large numbers”, which was the phrase that I used.

I do not want to bore the House with quibbles about the details, but the words that I have used are accurate, and I regret to say that the words that the hon. Gentleman used—inadvertently, I am sure—are not. I think it important for the House to know my views.

We need to invest in helping communities to deal with the consequences of migration. If we fail to do that, we may create the tensions and vulnerabilities in our communities that we in Slough have experienced in the past. The competition between people of different races and origins poses a risk to our peaceful, multicultural co-existence, which was genuinely reflected by those 850 children from Slough singing in the Albert Hall. The risk is that it will not continue to be a positive attitude, but will create such a source of stress in communities that it could turn into tension and violence between individual communities. No one in the House would like to see that outcome.

[Robert Halfon]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) implied that I have misled the House. I am quoting directly from the BBC article. The part that is in quotation marks reads as follows:

“One of the reasons immigration officers are”

s***s—

“is actually because some people cheat and they decide everyone is like that”.

It is a direct quotation, and that is all that I wish to say about the matter.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that attempted point of order. What I would say is simply this. A comment was made earlier, and subsequently there was a series of points of order. The hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) offered an apology; the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) has now made a speech. As a matter of courtesy to the hon. Gentleman whom I am about to call and the right hon. Gentleman whom I shall ask to wind up to the debate, I suggest that we leave it there. There are now considerations of courtesy to other Members.

17:42

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I apologise in advance to the House for the fact that my remarks may appear less entertaining and somewhat more low-key than the previous exchange. I am also aware that we are nearing the end of the debate, so I shall be fairly brief.

I was particularly taken by two speeches that seemed to sum up the elements that we are trying to reconcile. First, we heard about the real concerns that are expressed to all of us by constituents who are decent people and, in many cases, members of ethnic minorities about the level and velocity of immigration and the impact that it has on our population levels. According to a quotation supplied to me by a Sikh gentleman in my community, given that the current level of net immigration is about 200,000 a year, our population will number 71 million in a decade and a half. That is about 10 million more than it is now. His point was that if that is what the Government wish to do to the country, they should at least ask us. Debates of this type give us a chance to discuss such issues. The pressure on services that is caused by such extensions of the population was described very eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley).

The counter-argument was presented in a very good speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer). Our country is in the vanguard of globalisation. We are the country that goes to summits and always takes the position that protectionism is bad, that world trade must increase and that the velocity of world trade is good for us.

The difficulty we face is in reconciling two key forces. Some of the issues involved in the subject under discussion, such as those caused by the temporary cap, arise from the difficulty that can occur in reconciling the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green said were held by the business in his constituency with the genuine concerns that so many people have about the number of people coming into the country.

I have three observations on how we might reconcile the two competing forces. I now understand that policy will be announced in a week’s time, so my comments might come a little too late to influence that. On intra-company transfers, organisations such as GlaxoSmithKline, Shell, Accenture and IBM need to move people around. They cannot always plan how they do it, and they do not even consider individual jurisdictions or boundaries as being particularly relevant in profit and loss terms. They have to be able to undertake such transfers quickly and if we were to facilitate that, we could gain a competitive advantage. Britain could then become the place for projects that involve people coming together to work. In my business career, how quickly that could be done was a very big issue.

Academia is a second, and related, area. We have heard a lot about the impact of the temporary cap on academia. It is true that if we wish our society to become less reliant on financial services, much of our success will depend on applied science and engineering and on how well we address those subjects at university and transfer knowledge into wealth. We are in a global market, and we need to be able to treat it in a global way.

I was struck by something I recently learned about the Wellcome Trust. It needed to hire a zebra geneticist team leader. It was not able to do that without advertising in the local job market in Cambridge. Members will not be surprised to learn that there were no applicants for the job, and Wellcome was subsequently permitted to recruit by other means. That is a cumbersome process, and we need to do better.

[Mr Frank Field]

Does the hon. Gentleman not know that the opposite also happens? Jobcentres have reported to me that companies have gone through such a procedure and accidentally found the person they are going to appoint.

[David Mowat]

I am sure that is true, but I do not think it undermines the point I am making. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Finally, I want to consider why we are in this situation in the first place. Nine out of every 10 non-EU immigrants coming into the country are given work permits. That means that, on the face of it, they have a skill or a talent that we do not have here. Why do we not have it? I contend that one of the reasons is that over the last decade and a half we have completely failed to equip our work force with the skills needed for them, and for us as a country, to prosper in the decade of advanced manufacturing, STEM-type activities, and all that goes with that.

Some 30 years ago, I studied engineering at university. Last year, five times as many people graduated than when I graduated, but there were fewer engineering graduates from UK universities. That is a large part of the reason why so many organisations need to go abroad to find staff, and therefore cause some of these issues in the first place. I had an exchange with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden on this during his excellent speech. Of course we have to put pressure on organisations and companies to train people better, and of course it is an easy option just to go abroad to hire the graduates companies need, but there is a chicken-and-egg situation here; we have to do both. Unfortunately, over the last decade and a half, we have not.

I thank the right hon. Member for Birkenhead for securing the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House calls on Her Majesty’s Government to act on the overwhelming public concern about the present scale of immigration by taking firm measures to reduce immigration without excluding those individuals who are genuinely essential to economic recovery, on which so much else depends.

Deep-water Drilling (Shetland)

Thursday 18th November 2010 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Vara.)

17:50

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to debate deep-water oil drilling off the west of Shetland. This is a matter of great importance for the UK’s short-term and long-term environmental and economic interests and of significant public interest and concern. This debate was prompted by the Government’s recent decision to grant an exploration licence to Chevron to drill into the Lagavulin prospect, approximately 260 km north of the Shetland Isles.

There is, however, much more in question than just that one individual decision and the Government’s current push for more deep-water drilling risks undermining their pledge to be “the greenest Government ever”. I therefore ask the Minister to cover the following questions. First, how was the decision to approve the exploration drill at Lagavulin made? Secondly, why was the decision announced during a parliamentary recess, just a couple of weeks after the September sitting and 10 days before the House was due to return on l1 October? Thirdly, why was the decision taken before either the official US Government report on the Deepwater Horizon tragedy or the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change’s examination of UK deep-water drilling have reported? Fourthly, on what does he base his conviction that the UK’s regulatory and inspection regime is robust enough to avoid another disaster on the scale of Deepwater Horizon? I hope that the Minister will also address the wider points of what the current push for deep-water oil exploration says for the Government’s commitment to be the greenest ever and how the opening up of new oilfields in the North sea will benefit efforts to increase energy efficiency as well as energy generation from renewable sources.

As the House may well know, a legal challenge has now been lodged against the Government’s approval of deep-water drilling off the west of Shetland. The crux of that legal challenge is the need to protect two nearby special areas of conservation at Darwin mounds and Wyville Thomson ridge. The former is protected for its cold-water corals, the latter for its stony-reef species and bottlenose dolphins. In order to go ahead with any activity that has the potential to have an impact on a special area of conservation, the Government have to be certain that there will be no significant negative impact on the protected sites. Greenpeace is making a strong case that the Government have no way of being certain of this, given that the decision was taken before the official US Government report into the Deepwater Horizon tragedy had published its conclusions.

The Secretary of State’s own words and actions reveal the difference between what he said should have been done and the reality of what happened. He said:

“One of the mysteries appears to be the fact that the blow-out preventer was checked within two weeks of the disaster and still failed. Clearly, that is one of the things that the investigation must get to the bottom of.”—[Official Report, 14 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 634.]

Ten days later, he told The Economist UK energy summit:

“The events in the Gulf of Mexico are devastating. The impacts of the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon give us pause for thought, particularly given the beginning of exploration in deeper UK waters West of Shetland.”

In written evidence to the Energy and Climate Change Committee submitted in September, and repeated to me in a letter of 15 October, the Department said that

“we must learn everything we can from the Macondo”—

the Deepwater Horizon—

“well. Over the last four months we have been looking very closely at all the information that has come out of the Gulf of Mexico incident including the recent BP investigation report, and determining how this relates to our own regime and will continue doing so until the formal US investigations are completed in 2011.”

That sounds very good, yet on 1 October it was announced that the Government had approved Chevron’s application to drill into the prospects at Lagavulin, under a mile of North sea water.

I would of course be happy to hear any evidence that the Government were seeking comprehensively to understand the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, reflecting on the implications for drilling in the UK, especially in deep water, and waiting for all the evidence to be gathered so that a balanced and informed decision could be made. That was what the Secretary of State implied he was going to do. Unfortunately, despite having set out such an approach, the Secretary of State has singularly failed to follow it. In what will quite possibly be deemed an illegal decision, the Government have approved drilling at Lagavulin without proper parliamentary consultation and in the absence of all the facts.

It is difficult to see how the Government can expect Parliament to accept that the decision to approve the Lagavulin well is either responsible or reasoned. It should also be pointed out that until today Parliament has had no opportunity to offer its opinion. Made on 1 October, the announcement of the decision fell almost exactly in the middle of the conference recess. That left it—a cynic might suggest—free from the detailed parliamentary scrutiny that a debate on the announcement would have permitted and, indeed, free from the media spotlight that would have accompanied such a deliberation. Given the long lead times that any new oil well works on, I would be interested to know why the Government did not feel the announcement could wait a mere 10 days more until Parliament began to sit again.

The haste even flies in the face of the Government’s own advisory group’s view on the matter. In evidence to the Select Committee on Energy and Climate, OSPRAG—the Oil Spill Prevention and Response Advisory Group that was set up by the Government following the gulf of Mexico disaster to consider the Deepwater Horizon incident and facilitate the implementation of relevant recommendations—stated:

“The Gulf of Mexico incident obliges the industry to reconsider the worst case scenarios and demonstrate to the satisfaction of all its stakeholders that it is competent to drill all targeted reservoirs on the”

UK continental shelf,

“has the capacity to respond effectively to a loss of well control and to any resultant oil spill. OSPRAG aims to fulfil this requirement…Work within OSPRAG is proceeding in advance of the publication of the investigation into the Gulf of Mexico incident but will ultimately be informed by the findings. It is important that OSPRAG be given the space to deliver and its recommendations not be pre-empted.”

To me, that is pretty strong language:

“It is important that OSPRAG be given the space to deliver and its recommendations not be pre-empted.”

A decision to go ahead with oil drilling on 1 October—well before we have the results of the Deepwater Horizon inquiry, meaning that it is impossible for OSPRAG to incorporate those findings into its deliberations—looks like pre-emption.

As well as not waiting for Parliament or OSPRAG, the Secretary of State has not even waited for the official US Government investigation into Deepwater Horizon. As we know, the Deepwater Horizon tragedy cost 11 deaths and caused untold environmental and economic damage in the gulf of Mexico.

Tonight, we need to get to the heart of what informed that hugely important decision and why it was so important that the decision was made in advance of all the advice that would have enabled it to be much better informed. I have tried to answer that question and all I have been able to find is BP’s investigation and what the Government describe as the good track record of drilling in the North sea, both of which have obvious flaws. BP is far from an independent observer of the disaster that struck its well, and given its handling of the aftermath over the summer it is hardly surprising that it would seek to limit damage. Many commentators have described the BP investigation as an attempt to spread blame from BP and on to contractors. Others criticised the report’s narrow focus on the days leading up to the disaster, rather than on the more systemic failings of design and safety checks. That undermines BP’s report.

What about the claim that the UK has a good record of drilling? What the Government describe as the industry’s strong track record in the North sea has in fact been built up in far friendlier waters than those found off the west of Shetland. The Department of Energy and Climate Change’s information shows that of the 315 wells that have been drilled in deep water anywhere on the UK continental shelf, only three have ever been drilled in more than 1,500 metres of water, as Lagavulin will be. There are only three wells in operation to the west of Shetland, two of which are in about 500 metres of water and the other in only 150 metres. Despite the fact that the previous Government’s 2007 energy White Paper stated that the west of Shetland is a particularly challenging location in which reserves remain largely untapped, the current Government are reassured by safety records that are, frankly, of little relevance. Even the safety record on current wells should be examined in more detail. The Government seem satisfied, as proof of safety, that there have been “only” two major disasters—Piper Alpha and Ocean Odyssey—both in 1988.

18:00

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Jeremy Wright.)

[Caroline Lucas]

When we look in more detail, a worrying picture emerges. The Health and Safety Executive’s offshore oil and gas safety statistics bulletin gives a clearer picture. In the last financial year, 50 major injuries were reported, compared with an average of 42 major injuries over each of the previous five years, and 443 dangerous occurrences, including well incidents, were reported, including hydrocarbon releases and offshore equipment failures. There was also a significant increase in the number of major and significant hydrocarbon releases in 2009-10. In commenting on the worrying increase in safety incidents, the head of the HSE’s offshore division said:

“I am particularly disappointed, and concerned, that major and significant hydrocarbon releases are up by more than a third on last year. This is a key indicator of how well the offshore industry is managing its major accident potential, and it really must up its game to identify and rectify the root causes of such events.”

That is hardly a ringing endorsement of the UK’s regulatory regime. The HSE’s offshore division is calling on the industry to up its game, but rather than waiting to find out whether it has and what the implications of Deepwater Horizon are, and rather than waiting for any kind of scrutiny in Parliament, the Government have given the go-ahead to Chevron. Given the general failings of the industry in the North sea and the specific, terrible recent failing of a deep-sea rig in the gulf of Mexico, one might reasonably expect them to demand a fundamental re-examination of equipment and practices, but sadly, that has not happened. I even understand that the drill at Lagavulin will use the same safety equipment and contractor as Deepwater Horizon. Halliburton will do the cementing and a Cameron blow-out preventer is planned for the well.

The Select Committee heard that the essence of the UK’s superior inspection regime—at least, we are supposed to believe that it is superior—is the fact that it is less prescriptive than others. Instead of having specific minimum standards in each area of drilling operation, the UK requires operators or duty holders to make sure that they have reduced the risks of their operations to ALARP—as low as is reasonably practicable. This means that it falls to inspectors to ensure that each company’s way of achieving that is appropriate, so an awful lot depends on inspectors’ judgment. Where do those inspectors come from? As the Select Committee heard, they are industry professionals who work for consultancies. To top it all, those consultants have a client relationship with the companies they are inspecting. This does not make a compelling case that the UK regulatory environment is superior.

Despite the Secretary of State’s insistence to the contrary, Norway has taken a significantly different stance on the granting of deep-water drilling licences off its coast. Although it is allowing the drilling of wells from its previous licensing round—the 20th—to continue, when it comes to the latest round, the Minister of Petroleum and Energy, has maintained:

“There will be no drilling in any licenses on deep waters coming out of the 21st round before we have sufficient knowledge of this accident, including possible implications for our regulation.”

He also cites the need to respect the precautionary principle, saying:

“The precautionary principle combined with a predictable framework, have to be the foundation for our petroleum politics”.

These facts give the lie to Government reassurances that the UK’s inspection and enforcement regime is far superior to the US system that so badly failed in the run-up to Deepwater Horizon. Indeed, if our system is so robust and fit for purpose, why would we need to double the number of DECC’s annual environmental inspections of offshore drilling rigs? The doubling of annual inspections does not, sadly, amount to very much, given that the baseline is so low.

DECC’s written evidence to the Energy and Climate Change Committee states that in the first six months of 2010 it carried out inspections on 35 of the 282 operational oil and gas installations on the UK continental shelf. DECC inspected only one deep-water drilling rig in 2009-10, and as of September this year only one such inspection was planned for 2010-11.

What is at stake if a major incident such as Deepwater Horizon occurs on the newly permitted drilling site to the west of Shetland? Chevron UK has recently doubled its worst-case North sea oil spill scenario from 35,000 to 77,000 barrels leaked per day, 25% more than gushed into the gulf of Mexico. The managing director, Mr Cohagan, says:

“Deepwater Horizon has given us a new perspective on how bad things could be.”

The environmental damage of such a major spill could be expected to hit many special areas of conservation—SACs—and specially protected areas on the coasts of the Scottish highlands and islands. In addition, severe damage could be expected to the four nearby offshore SACs, including Darwin mounds, home to deep-water coral that is protected by the convention on international trade in endangered species. However hard the clean-up operation has been on the Mexican gulf coast, such work would be significantly greater in the North sea, because colder waters mean that oil disperses far more slowly and there is much more potential for wildlife damage. The remoteness of the site, more than 160 miles north of Shetland, would add a huge extra strain to the clean-up operation, as would the likelihood of rougher seas and weather.

The Government have not only given the go-ahead to reckless deep-water drilling, but absolutely encouraged it. It has not happened by accident. The industry has been reticent about developing deep-water drilling, precisely because of the dangers and difficulties of so doing; and it is only because of recent tax breaks, which the previous Government and now the coalition Government have given to the oil industry to support the development of new, unconventional UK fields, that companies have geared up to go there. The increased tax breaks for companies drilling off the west of Shetland are estimated to be worth £12 billion over the next eight years, or £160 million per new field opened up. The Government’s view, as stated in their evidence to the Select Committee, is:

“UK deep water oil and gas production is necessary during the UK’s transition to a low-carbon economy,”

but their own figures suggest that the pursuit of fossil fuels hampers rather than supports the development of a low-carbon economy.

What else could the Government do with that £12 billion subsidy of one of the most dangerous and risky types of drilling we could imagine? First, they could end the subsidy and invest the money in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, which could fund a significant step in the transition to the low-carbon economy that the Government say they want. Importantly, there are far more jobs in that greener economy than in oil and gas. I understand colleagues’ concerns about potential job losses if a moratorium goes ahead, and we need Government support to ensure that does not happen, but offshore oil and gas each provide only about 265 jobs per terawatt-hour of energy produced. In comparison, the same unit of energy from renewables, such as wind power, creates between 1,000 and 2,000 jobs per terawatt-hour.

Indeed, detailed analysis shows that investing in renewable energy could almost double the UK’s total energy generation over 20 years and create at least 425,000 jobs, so that money should go into green energy. Half the £12 billion that is saved could be used to fund the green investment bank fully. There are great hopes for the bank’s proper capitalisation, but the Government have so far committed only £1 billion to it. Estimates suggest that we need between £4 billion and £6 billion to make the bank a success, so I call on the Government to put some of that £12 billion into it.

I hope that other Members join me in calling on the Government to place a moratorium on all new deep-water drilling on the UK continental shelf—at the very least until the judicial review, and until we have the results of the US Government’s investigation into Deepwater Horizon.

18:09

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

It is a pleasure to respond to this important debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for securing it, although I have found it hard at times to understand what her motivation has been. Has it been in general opposition to drilling for oil and gas at all? That is what she indicated in Westminster Hall last week. Alternatively, is it specifically about the deep-sea issues west of Shetland, on which she has focused tonight? It would be helpful to have a clear understanding of exactly her objective and whether she is trying to end what is, for Britain, an extremely important industry. There is a great deal of confusion in the arguments that she has put forward. I shall try to clarify some of the issues, the Government’s approach and why we have reached the decisions that we have made.

It is right to put this debate in context. We have all been profoundly concerned about the terrible accident at Deepwater Horizon earlier this year. It was a very serious and tragic event. Eleven people died and there have been huge consequences for the gulf of Mexico and those who make their living there. As new developments focus increasingly on more challenging prospects, including deep water, the situation presents Governments, regulators and the industry with a real challenge, which they must address. That has been recognised by the Energy and Climate Change Committee, which is conducting an inquiry into the matter with great thoroughness.

I want to pick up on one of the issues that the hon. Lady was talking about towards the end of her speech. She spoke about tax breaks, as if they involved money that could be spent somewhere else. The reality is that the companies pay in tax 50% or 75% of their profits from oil and gas production. To encourage them to go into more difficult, challenging and expensive waters, the Government have reduced that rate so that they pay slightly less tax. The consequence of what the hon. Lady is saying would be that those billions of pounds of funding from the North sea oil and gas sector would simply dry up completely. Far from having £12 billion, which could be reallocated to other facilities and services, we would be billions of pounds short in the public finances, and massive cuts would have to be made elsewhere. That is the reality. We are talking not about a subsidy, but about a reduction in one of the highest rates of tax that any industry pays in this country.

[Caroline Lucas]

I want to clarify two things. First, I want to make very clear my motive for securing this debate: it is indeed to try to secure a moratorium on any new oil licensing, including the Lagavulin prospect, until the result of the judicial review and until we find out what happened at Deepwater Horizon. The Minister is correct: over time, of course, I would like to see a transition away from fossil fuels and towards green energy. However, I am not suggesting that we do that via a moratorium now; I am suggesting that the particular risks off Shetland are such that we should be acting.

[Charles Hendry]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that clarification, and I shall respond in the same tone. We have looked extremely carefully at the UK regime. We believe that it is absolutely paramount that we in the United Kingdom should have the toughest safety standards. We have a long record of safety. The UK was one of the first areas worldwide in which offshore exploration and production took off. We have four decades of experience. More than 10,000 wells have been drilled in UK waters, including more than 300 in waters more than 300 metres deep.

Our regulatory system has been developed to meet the evolving challenges faced by the industry. Following the Piper Alpha disaster, safety regulation was brought under the Health and Safety Executive umbrella, to get the benefit of its expertise in regulating major hazards. The Department of Energy and Climate Change, of course, plays a vital role in overseeing the environmental performance of the offshore industry.

In the light of the evidence, we have taken further steps to strengthen our regulatory regime by doubling the number of environmental inspections of mobile rigs, and we are satisfied that the regime remains one of the most robust in the world. I am sorry that the hon. Lady cannot recognise that. With great care and scrutiny, we have reassured ourselves about the steps in place, decided what more should be done to maintain our gold standard in oil and gas security and safety mechanisms, and made sure that we have gone a bit further to enhance that. People should welcome what the Government have chosen to do. Of course, we have been looking extremely carefully at all the information from the Macondo incident, and we will continue to do so. When those investigations are complete, we will determine what more, if anything, needs to be done to reinforce our regulatory approach.

The hon. Lady questioned the ability of the inspectors to do the work that is most important. We do not believe it is necessary to inspect every single offshore facility every single year, but we focus on those more challenging operationally, which is appropriate.

[Caroline Lucas]

It is interesting to talk about the checks that went on. In fact, Deepwater Horizon had been checked just two weeks before the tragedy happened, so we can put to one side arguments about the regularity of the checks. The hon. Gentleman talked about doubling them, but I understand that that still means only going from two to four, so that is not going very far. The point is that we do not know why Deepwater Horizon happened. One of the complicated aspects is that it was checked two weeks before, so why are we putting so much stress on that as a way of being able to say that we are certain that we will be safe?

[Charles Hendry]

I hope that the hon. Lady accepts that there has always been a fundamental difference between the way that safety is handled and monitored in the United States and how it is done here. We have had significant contact with the American Administration since Macondo, and they are looking to see what lessons they can learn from our regime. After Piper Alpha, we separated out the licensing roles and the health and safety and environmental roles, so the body responsible for health and safety—the HSE—has no financial involvement whatsoever in the licensing rounds. As a result, over 20 years we have had in place an extremely robust mechanism.

We believe that there is an imperative national interest in ensuring that we get the best of the resources available. The reality is that for all the ambitions the hon. Lady may have—we want to decarbonise this country as well—by 2020, and well beyond, we will still be dependent on a significant amount of oil and gas. We can either find those resources within our national waters or import them. About 17% of our remaining reserves in the United Kingdom lie in deepwater areas west of Shetland. About 3.5 billion barrels of oil of the remaining 20 billion or so on the entire UK continental shelf are in that area. We think it is a matter of great national importance that we should be maximising the economic recovery of those resources, and there is a great deal more that needs to be done in this entirely legitimate and proper activity. That is why we were pleased recently to offer 144 new licences in the 26th round. That shows the continuing confidence of the industry in the UK continental shelf and provides a strong basis for continuing exploration and development activity. We will encourage industry to continue to invest in exploration, development and production while maintaining high standards of management and minimising environmental impacts.

[Caroline Lucas]

On safety, I want to come back to the quote from the Health and Safety Executive’s offshore division, which says that it is

“particularly disappointed, and concerned, that major and significant hydrocarbon releases are up by more than a third on last year”

and calls on the industry to up its game. The HSE itself is expressing that concern. How is that consistent with the hon. Gentleman’s words about how safe everything is and how fantastic our record is?

[Charles Hendry]

If one looks further into the figures, one sees that the volumes released have been gradually coming down over time. We are safer, we have fewer leakages, and every single leakage is required to be reported. Any leakage is unfortunate and should be avoided or stopped, and any threat to human well-being has to be addressed, but I have never seen any industry anywhere with higher safety standards than the offshore oil and gas sector. Those people are constantly driving and striving to improve standards, and the Government will work with them in ensuring that they achieve that.

Let me turn to the Chevron consent at Lagavulin. The hon. Lady questions why we announced that while the House was not sitting. There is no requirement on the Government to announce the issuing of new rounds of licences to Parliament, but we have always done so, as we believe that it is right and proper that Parliament should know about it first. However, individual consents do not require to be announced to Parliament. Before we could make the announcement of the consent, we needed to be absolutely satisfied that Chevron’s plans were fit for purpose, had been thoroughly assessed, and, in the light of any additional evidence from the challengers in the gulf of Mexico, had been tightened up even further. That meant, for example, that we required an update of the oil pollution emergency plan. We considered that very carefully, and not until Chevron was able to satisfy the additional requirements was consent granted.

The additional requirements included an exercise to co-ordinate the work of all the key contractors and to examine the roles, plans and procedures in place to prevent incidents and identify gaps and mitigations, taking into account the Macondo experience. Workshops were required for key onshore and offshore Chevron drilling and service personnel, to secure the alignment of all parties with Chevron’s safety and environmental principles. An audit of Halliburton’s practices and procedures by Chevron’s in-house cementing experts was required, as was comprehensive checking that all relevant Chevron and Stena personnel held up-to-date certification in well control. Regular well control drills were required to test the equipment and crews weekly or more frequently. A dedicated safety meeting of all key rigging contractor crews was required, to review the key findings of the Macondo well experience. There were further steps to ensure that the blow-out preventer would operate reliably if needed, including a third-party audit of the equipment and the presence of a Cameron engineer on board at all times to maintain the equipment and its control system.

A further reason why we can have confidence in the system in this country is that we have also made progress in putting in place capping devices, so that if there is a disaster we can respond much more quickly. Since 1974, some 315 deep-water wells have been drilled in UK waters, with no blow-out or drilling-related oil spill, but we nevertheless require detailed contingency plans that can be brought into force in the event of a spill. Those requirements have been updated in the light of what happened in the gulf, and every single well is subject to detailed case-by-case scrutiny. We now also have containment devices from the gulf of Mexico in the UK, based in Southampton.

The work of OSPRAG is aimed at adding a third dimension to the equation—a capping device that can be deployed on any well head, not just deep-water ones, to mitigate and capture oil flows in the event of failures such as we saw in the gulf. That should be available by the end of 2011 or sooner. In addition, Chevron has developed a quickly deployable capping device that is located in Scotland and could be deployed on the Lagavulin well within nine days of any incident.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Minister answer just two questions? First, why was it so urgent to grant the licence now, before we have understood what happened at Deepwater Horizon? We do not know why that happened, so could we not have waited a few more months to find out before going ahead? Secondly, I go back to the HSE’s stating that

“major and significant hydrocarbon releases are up by more than a third on last year.”

Surely those two things should give the Government pause.

[Charles Hendry]

On the second point, the hon. Lady should examine the long-term trend and give the House the full details. She will see that, over time, there has been a steady reduction in injuries, leakages and emissions, and that there has been continual progress.

On why we made the decision when we did, we did not believe that there was any case for holding back the decision once we had been fully satisfied that every necessary safety mechanism was in place and every safety issue had been properly addressed. After all the extra questions that were put to Chevron, we believed that it had been able to satisfy that requirement. One must also consider the commercial factors involved. When a ship is available to do the drilling work, it costs thousands of pounds a day. Once we were satisfied that it was entirely safe and proper for the work to go ahead, there was no case for holding back further.

The hon. Lady made comparisons with the US approach, pointing to a difference between its prescriptive approach and our safety case approach. Our practice already includes, and goes further than, the measures being proposed under the new US rules. The US Government themselves have examined what needs to be done and lifted the ban on deep-sea drilling in the gulf of Mexico, which is beginning again. They have recognised that it can be done safely, even with all the tensions and pressures that exist in the United States on the matter.

In addition, we have established processes for environmental management that require operators to have an effective environmental management system in place before starting operations. The new US rules will require a similar system, but they will not be in place for another year. Whereas we already have third-party audit of the environmental management system, the US is still considering whether to adopt it.

We have looked carefully at the systems that operate here and elsewhere in the world and we have talked to the companies involved. We should not shy away from the fact that nowhere, apart from Norway, has such exacting standards on safety and environmental protections. The hon. Lady says that Norway has put in place a moratorium, but that is not correct; it has not adopted a moratorium on deep-water drilling, and a number of deep-water wells have been drilled in Norwegian waters this year since Macondo.

[Caroline Lucas]

In fact, I was careful not to say that Norway had put in place a blanket moratorium. I said that it had allowed ongoing drilling under the 20th round of licences, but that it will not release any licences under the 21st round—the new round—until it has learned the lessons. Surely that is the kind of model that we should follow. I come back to my point that I do not understand how Ministers can reassure the House that deep-water drilling is safe until we know why the blow-out happened. We do not know what went wrong, so we cannot be sure that we have put it right or made sure that it will not happen again.

[Charles Hendry]

We have looked at the safety mechanisms—the tests, structures, emergency procedures and fail-safe devices—to see how they are imposed in the United Kingdom. What happened in the gulf of Mexico happened under a very different licensing and safety regime. We have looked at practices here, and we believe that it is safe to go forward, particularly given the many years of deep-water drilling in the United Kingdom. That is the basis of our decision.

In addition, we have looked at the oil pollution emergency plans. We had a review of their format and content. As a result, plans submitted for all drilling activities must now assess the worst-case scenario, where all containment barriers have failed, resulting in a well blow-out that cannot be controlled in the short term. All ongoing drilling operations now have revised oil pollution emergency plans to assess the worst-case scenario. All OPEPs submitted by operators contain a section relating to oil spill modelling. Operators conduct computer modelling on worst-case scenarios to give an indication of the consequences that could arise if the scenarios were to occur. As such, that information gives an indication of where oil might beach on shore and of the time factors involved. That allows pre-planning to take place to address such issues.

The UK has a tough regulatory regime. Everyone anywhere who has looked at the approach in the UK believes that it is a gold standard to which others should aspire. However, we will continue to look at any evidence from anywhere in the world, and we will refine and improves things as necessary. We have made a number of changes in the light of Macondo, such as increasing the number of environmental inspections and seeking revised oil pollution emergency plans.

All drilling applications are considered on a case-by-case basis, and no consents are issued until DECC and the HSE are absolutely satisfied that the drilling proposals are sound and have taken into account the issues that contributed to the Macondo incident. More than 300 deep-water wells have been drilled to the north and west of Shetland with no incidence of a blow-out or oil spill. Deep-water drilling is not a new concept in this country; the industry has been conducting such activities here since 1974.

Taking account of those factors, we do not believe that there is a need to halt deep-water drilling on the UK continental shelf. As I said, the US has recently lifted its moratorium, and Norway has never had one.

The UK oil and gas industry is a great success story, but it does not always receive the praise and attention that it deserves. I have been offshore and seen first hand the dedication, determination and skill of the work force. The industry has shown continuous technical innovation to meet the tough challenges of operating in the North sea and beyond. It is of course vital that operations are carried out safely and that environmental impacts are minimised, and we must ensure that lessons are learned from the US incident. However, the UK regulatory system already provides one of the toughest regimes for the upstream oil and gas industry to operate in.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Minister give way?

[Charles Hendry]

I am about to conclude.

The industry’s track record, particularly post-Piper Alpha, demonstrates its effectiveness. As I said, we have been looking closely at information from the Macondo incident and we will continue to do so. When those investigations are complete, we will determine what more, if anything, needs to be done to reinforce our regulatory approach. However, I can give the hon. Lady and the House an absolute undertaking that we will take no gambles or risks in making sure that we do these things in the most effective and safest way possible.

Question put and agreed to.

18:29

House adjourned.

Ministerial Correction

Thursday 18th November 2010 Ministerial Corrections

Thursday 18 November 2010

Animal Experiments: Primates

Thursday 18th November 2010 Ministerial Corrections

[Henry Smith]

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (a) how many and (b) what species of non-human primates imported for the purposes of scientific research were categorised as (i) captive-born (or F1 generation) and (ii) captive-bred (F2+ generation) in (A) 2009 and (B) 2010.

[Official Report, 4 November 2010, Vol. 517, c. 876-77W.]

Letter of correction from Lynne Featherstone:

Errors have been identified in the response given to the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) on 4 November 2010. In the table referring to figures from 2009, the number ‘100’ should read ‘85’, the number ‘1,257’ should read ‘1,139’ and the number ‘958’ should read ‘932’.

The answer was as follows:

[Lynne Featherstone]

Although the information currently submitted to the Home Office following the acquisition of each batch of non-human primates provides evidence that animals have been born in captivity, there is currently no requirement for the records to indicate whether animals are F1 or F2+. However, from the information available we estimate the respective totals to be as detailed in the following table.

[Lynne Featherstone]

Although the information currently submitted to the Home Office following the acquisition of each batch of non-human primates provides evidence that animals have been born in captivity, there is currently no requirement for the records to indicate whether animals are Fl or F2+. However, from the information available we estimate the respective totals to be as detailed in the following table.

Westminster Hall

Thursday 18th November 2010 Westminster Hall

Thursday 18 November 2010

[Mr Christopher Chope in the Chair]

Backbench Business

Climate Change Conference

Thursday 18th November 2010 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Stephen Crabb.)

14:29

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I am delighted to have the opportunity to lead a debate on the 2010 climate change conference at Cancun. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for its excellent judgment in allocating time for this debate.

I thank Green Alliance and Christian Aid for answering questions as I researched for the debate. I also thank the many constituents who impressed upon me their concerns and priorities for the Cancun conference, especially the climate activists I met as part of the Big Climate Connection. Their representations were a great encouragement. I do not have to choose between being an advocate for some of the most climate-vulnerable people in the poorest countries and representing my constituents, because the former is exactly what my constituents want me to do.

When applying to the Backbench Business Committee, I said that a third of Members are new and have not yet had an opportunity to debate climate change policy. Some of them are keen to take part in this debate; I particularly look forward to the contribution of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), who speaks for the Opposition; like me, she joined the House of Commons this year.

I start by acknowledging the leadership of the last Government and the former Prime Minister, and the role played by the current Leader of the Opposition, in achieving a world first with the Climate Change Act 2008. I also acknowledge the contribution made by Members of Parliament from both sides of the House, many of whom are no longer Members, to strengthening that legislation. It is a record of leadership of which they can all be proud, and one that the new Government must build upon, not only with ambition and commitment but, crucially, in terms of delivery.

The Foreign Secretary has described climate change as perhaps the 21st century’s biggest foreign policy challenge. The Cancun conference is critical to the international response to that challenge. Not only has action become increasingly urgent, but disappointment about Copenhagen has led many to question the ability of the international frameworks of the United Nations to address that challenge. Prior to the Copenhagen conference, public expectations had reached fever pitch despite the opaque nature of those negotiations and the difficulty that many had in foreseeing the obstacles—and, for that matter, exactly who was putting those obstacles in the way.

The Foreign Secretary acknowledged in a recent speech in New York that Copenhagen had not delivered on these high expectations because of a “lack of political will”. Sadly, it seems that the easiest lesson to be learned from Copenhagen was how to manage expectations for Cancun. At Cancun, the world needs to make progress in making binding undertakings for mitigation and in funding commitments for adaptation. The best approach to undertakings for mitigation is to bring on board everyone that you can, and to make as much progress as possible, even if some parties are unwilling to come to the table. I hope that continuing progress in engaging the Chinese Government, as exemplified by Ministers in recent weeks, will allow substantial progress in that regard, even if some in the United States Congress continue to set their faces against the country’s global responsibilities.

I am sure that others will want to speak about mitigation and to suggest ways forward. However, in the time available to me I shall focus on climate finance. A report earlier this month by the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing—the AGF—sets out a number of innovative ways to deliver the substantial Copenhagen target of $100 billion of climate finance a year by 2020. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on his role on the AGF and his contribution to the report.

The advisory group report called the $100 billion commitment “challenging but feasible”. We must take on that challenge in Cancun, however gloomy the sky that heralds the conference. After all, feasible means achievable: we must not live down to expectations. That finance must be truly additional to aid. Global aid transfers amount to about $120 billion a year. Redirecting the bulk of that money would have disastrous effects on humanitarian provision across the globe.

We cannot fund climate adaptation by diverting and repackaging aid, or by cutting vital funds for urgent programmes such as the fight against malaria. Similarly, initiatives to harness private-sector expertise and finance in tackling climate change are welcome; they are critical to the solution and should be welcomed, but they should not be credited to the developed countries’ accounts. Their task, and their responsibility, is greater than that. What is more, many small-scale climate adaptation projects show no financial return, and remain stubbornly unattractive for private investment. I hope that the Minister will agree that although leveraging private finance is indeed important, public finance remains irreplaceable in meeting the climate needs of the poorest people.

I have already mentioned eye-watering sums. The accountant in me might stray into the sometimes dry subject of financial commitments; instead, I shall illustrate what this climate finance is for, and the difference it can make.

More than half of rural households in India still lack electricity. Fast-start finance funds off-grid, locally managed renewable energy schemes that deliver electricity to rural villages. Kasai village in Madhya Pradesh is not connected to the national grid. Since 2005, a small 10 kW biomass plant has generated electricity for Kasai. The plant provides lighting for houses, streets and the school, power for entertainment, and the electricity to run a flour mill, a milk-chilling unit and a water-pumping system. Kasai has biomass in abundance—wood, crop residues, oil seeds and cattle dung—and it is gathered by villagers. There is a maintenance fee and a user charge, and the scheme is overseen by a village committee of six men and five women.

The benefits of that scheme are manifold. Every house has piped water; far fewer residents migrate; agricultural production has trebled with the availability of water for irrigation; villagers can sell milk that previously went bad in the heat; and the new mill allows people to process wheat and rice and to sell the flour. The urgent need for a reliable energy supply is met, and the use of renewable energy means that growth in carbon emissions is limited. Those double wins are just one example of a fast-start-finance climate project allowing a village to thrive that once was dying.

At Copenhagen, developed countries pledged $30 billion in short-term finance for projects like that between 2010 and 2012. Of that $30 billion, $10 billion was pledged by the European Union, which has so far delivered about $7.8 billion through existing channels such as the World Bank and the EU’s global climate change alliance. When will the Government set out the timing and the delivery mechanisms for allocating the remaining fast-start finance that the Government have pledged? Is the £1.5 billion pledged for fast-start finance in the comprehensive spending review additional to the Government’s overseas development assistance commitments? If not, will the Minister at least assure the House that that is not a reflection of the Government’s attitude to long-term climate finance?

Developed countries can now respond to the progress of the advisory group, and to the menu of recommendations that it has made; they have clear practical choices on how to meet their obligations. This is a key opportunity for the Government to show leadership at Cancun, plotting the road map for mobilising finance and turning these innovative sources into a reality. The advisory group identifies a menu of options—the auctioning of emissions allowances, carbon taxes, levies on international aviation and maritime transport, multilateral development banks, and even a financial transactions tax. Those are realistic options that can generate serious revenue. I invite the Minister to give some indication as to which of the innovative sources of finance, identified by the UN advisory group, are priorities for his Department ahead of Cancun. Will he support a levy on international aviation and shipping? Will the British Government show leadership through the EU in co-ordinating a critical mass of developed countries to make possible a financial transactions tax?

Developing countries suffer more than 90% of the effects of climate change despite having done the least to contribute to its causes. Some 250 million people are directly affected by desertification and 1 billion are at risk. Another 135 million people are at risk of displacement due to the effects of environmental deterioration. Many of those people are the world’s poorest and most vulnerable citizens. Countries such as Malawi, Bangladesh and Sudan are the most vulnerable to the impact of climate change despite having done the least to contribute to rising carbon emissions.

This is all our doing, but it is the most vulnerable people in the world who face the consequences. We have a responsibility to them. That much was acknowledged at Copenhagen. Action on climate finance now is not some kind of vague add-on, something that would be nice to achieve, or even an apology for failing to reaching binding agreements on mitigation. It is an essential component in reaching an internationally just settlement as part of the response to this global challenge.

Our Secretary of State has clearly made good progress with his colleagues on the advisory group in pointing to how climate finance can be delivered. Now the world needs to move forward. We need concrete proposals and the Government to show leadership at these negotiations. We must seek to build international consensus; to co-operate and to get the negotiations back on track. It is too late to stop now.

[Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Before calling the next speaker, may I say that it is the wish of the Backbench Business Committee that this debate continues only until 4.30? Therefore, I hope to call the Front Benchers at about 4 o’clock, so that we can give sufficient time to the second debate on our agenda.

14:42

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) on submitting to the Backbench Business Committee the idea of debating this afternoon one of the most important events that is to take place in the very near future. Many people discounted what happened after Copenhagen as being of marginal significance. Although a number of hon. Members have turned up to discuss this topic, they are, to some extent, people I would have expected to be present. Although I offer compliments all round, it is a matter of some regret that there is not a wider attendance this afternoon.

Turning to COP 16, we should remind ourselves that Copenhagen was one in a sequence of conferences of the parties. In hindsight, we can see that it was perhaps over-hyped. A huge number of Heads of State were present and the expectation, or the fervent hope—a hope that I shared—was that a binding agreement would be signed at Copenhagen and that the notion of COPs would move to a different level. Sadly, that proved not to be the case, so we move to Cancun with much lower expectations. Indeed, Cancun is the opposite of over-hyped—it is under-hyped, I think. The presence of key negotiators and relevant Ministers, as opposed to Heads of State, produces an entirely different outlook on the conference. I think the general expectation is that Cancun will produce very little.

What is important is that we in the UK do not dilute our ambition as a result of the apparent dilution of the ambition of others. It is essential that a high level of momentum is maintained where Cancun is concerned. I say that not because I expect Cancun to produce any form of breakthrough, despite what a few people say, but because unless it makes substantial progress in bringing negotiation frameworks back into play, the real prospect of COP 17 in South Africa resulting in the signing of a binding international deal will be lost.

The Kyoto agreement runs out in 2012 and even a binding deal in South Africa would give precious little time for the process of ratification, given the various accompanying hurdles and snares. Nevertheless, the goal of securing a binding commitment in South Africa rests securely on the ability of Cancun to move substantially in that direction. Britain has a leading role to play. At the very least, it must ensure that post-Cancun there are the momentum, commitment and structures that will enable the real, breakthrough progress to be made in South Africa.

Because it is considered reasonably unlikely that Cancun will lead to anything conclusive, we should not feel that nothing will come out of Cancun. There are key goals that Britain needs not only to be very clear about, but to take a leading role in securing. They include the commitment on reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation—REDD-plus—which I believe can be concluded at Cancun. That would be a real breakthrough in the way developing and developed countries work together to tackle the consequences of deforestation, and even turn it back.

We must ensure clear examination of the so-called gigatonne gap, which is the difference between what the two-page document at Copenhagen stated and noted about the need to remain beneath a 2° increase in temperature across the globe by 2050 and the actual commitments, as yet ungratified, on carbon reduction by the various countries. How can we ensure better methods to examine the gigatonne gap, in terms of upcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports and other mechanisms, to get a much clearer picture of the relationship between what Copenhagen committed itself to, at least in outline, and the action that therefore needs to be taken? Hopefully, such action can be ratified consequently.

As the hon. Member for Chippenham mentioned, the question is how we move forward from the outline $100 billion global finance fund that was floated and generally accepted at Copenhagen. Again, precious few details or mechanisms by which it might work were attached to it. The AGF report, which he also mentioned, set out mechanisms, which some people have said are ambitious, but I think that most of them, in the context of the present emergency, are thoroughly realistic about the need to ensure that the fund is properly financed between developed and developing countries, and that the mechanisms by which it is financed are enduring, and are not simply Government commitments that disappear as quickly as they are made and as soon as the spotlight is turned off the issue and its consequences, as we have seen previously.

The reality of financial transaction taxes and how they can be introduced internationally is a key issue that needs to be progressed. Such taxes would be an important mechanism, in conjunction with additional taxes on the aviation and shipping sector, which are greatly overdue. Without those taxes and arrangements, the national commitments to be made on emissions will have little meaning. International capture of emissions from aircraft and shipping is important not only to measuring accurately what the commitments really are, but to making a substantial contribution to the reality and long-term sustainability of the global finance fund.

The UK can play a leading role precisely because it has, in effect, a low-carbon action plan: the Climate Change Act 2008. The consequences of the Act—the five-year carbon budgets, the clear trajectory towards a binding and lasting reduction in UK CO₂ and other greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 and the demonstrated mechanisms by which that will be achieved—are being looked at by other countries. South Africa, for example, is likely to adopt similar legislation in the next year or so, and countries in Europe and across the world are looking at how their mechanisms might take our experiences into legislation.

The moral leadership presented by what we have done in this country is an important part of our approach to Cancun. If we resile from the efforts to increase the EU commitment to 30% reductions in CO₂ within interim target periods, we will undermine the commitment recently made in the Act. There is a great deal for the UK to do at Cancun, even if the expectations for the conference are not high. The key to Cancun being as successful as it can be is countries such as the UK going into it with their ambition held high. If we succumb to a collective lack of ambition, there will not only be nothing at Cancun, but nothing in South Africa and a dribbling away of targets and their achievability.

We have a task ahead of us. I look forward to hearing from the Minister that the UK Government intend to be as ambitious as I hope they will be, and that they will go to Cancun and fly the flag for the achievability of agreements—not necessarily made at Cancun, but based on what happens there—and the achievability of real gains, which will lead to success in the near future.

14:54

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I shall touch on three specific areas where the UK can have a particular and significant impact. The first is global fossil fuel subsidy reform. Hon. Members are probably aware of the joint International Energy Agency, Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and World Bank report, which was provided to leaders at the G20 summit in June. It stated that fossil fuel-related subsidies amount to almost $700 billion a year, roughly equivalent to 1% of world GDP, and if we phase out those subsidies, we could see a 10% reduction in world greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 compared with the business-as-usual scenario. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s recognition that

“removing fossil fuel subsidies will reduce wasteful consumption and inefficient production, and will improve economic efficiency and energy security and decrease carbon emissions”.

Ahead of the Copenhagen summit, he echoed the words of the Secretary of State for International Development when he said that fossil fuel subsidy reforms should be

“at the top of the diplomatic agenda”.

The trouble with those aspirations is that very few people believe that the emerging economies will implement the national commitments, which were flagged up, to reduce fossil fuel subsidies domestically. The non-OECD countries of the G20 account for the significant bulk of the subsidies—for example, Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa. It is apparent from written answers that I received from the Foreign Office, the Treasury and the Department of Energy and Climate Change that there was no discussion of fossil fuel subsidy reform with those countries between the G20 summits. Will the Minister use his influence to ensure that there is a diplomatic offensive across Departments to raise that issue up the international political agenda? Will he also press for a clear statement from the Government that they would like World Bank lending for fossil fuel projects to end? According to the Department for International Development, the World Bank supported fossil fuel extraction and transportation projects to the value of $3.6 billion between 2005 and 2009.

The second area relates to rainforest finance. I am sure that all hon. Members appreciate the importance of halting global deforestation, so I will not repeat the arguments. I warmly welcome the Government’s confirmation of £300 million-worth of fast-start finance to help rainforest nations to safeguard their forests. Unfortunately, as most people would accept, we are a long way from any meaningful agreement on the inclusion of rainforest in the carbon markets. However, we have seen the emergence of agreements between countries to protect standing forests—for example, the widely reported deals between Norway and Guyana and Norway and Indonesia. Does the Minister agree that, in the absence of a REDD agreement, the UK should find innovative ways to use some of the agreed £2.9 billion of international climate finance, which was put aside in the spending review, to pursue bilateral deals with rainforest nations?

Finally, global aviation emissions account for about 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions, but the sector is widely predicted to grow significantly. In addition to the other sources of potential finance already identified by speakers today, will the Minister press for a deal at Cancun that includes aviation?

I acknowledge the increased levels of public scepticism towards the climate agenda. To the climate sceptics I say that, for all our sakes, I hope they are right, but, though I doubt that any scientific thesis has ever generated as much attention or attracted more scrutiny, the vast bulk of scientific opinion still holds that man-made climate change is a real threat. I accept that few things are truly certain in science, but even the most committed climate sceptic would have to accept that there is a possibility that the majority scientific position is correct.

I am told that Vice-President Dick Cheney declared that if there was a 1% chance of a nuclear scientist helping al-Qaeda to build a nuclear weapon, we should treat it as a certainty in responding. Climate change seems far more likely, and the risks are certainly far greater. In addition, whereas the costs of inaction are incalculable, most of the steps necessary to deal with climate are steps that we must take irrespective of climate change. Surely it makes sense for us to apply the same logic. Thank you, Mr Chope, for the opportunity to speak.

15:00

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

I thank the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) for securing this important debate. According to the Prime Minister’s own words:

“The dangers of climate change are stark and very real. If we don’t act now, and act quickly, we could face disaster.”

I agree absolutely, but that action must be driven by science, not political expedience. Although I welcome the fact, for example, that Britain is leading the way in passing climate change legislation, the targets in that legislation must be commensurate with the scale of the challenge that we face.

The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research suggests that if we are to have a good chance of keeping the atmospheric temperature rise to less than 2° C above pre-industrial levels, thereby significantly reducing the likelihood of catastrophic climate change, average global emissions must be reduced by far more than the figures being bandied about in political debates. The institute discusses an average global emissions reduction of about 60% of the 1990 baseline by 2030. That is a global average: the responsibility of developed countries is even greater, because of course we are and have been overwhelmingly responsible for climate change. That responsibility equates to a 90% reduction in emissions by developed countries by 2020.

We face a monumental challenge, but it is important to put the figures on the table in order to remind ourselves of the scale of that challenge, as well as to remind us that equity and social justice must be at the heart of any new climate agreement. Many models have been proposed that encapsulate equity, ensuring that we move towards a situation in which each person has an equal right to a certain amount of emissions per capita. The models involve technical terms such as contraction and convergence, but they are essentially concerned with ensuring that we tackle climate change equitably. There is no way that we will get an agreement at Cancun unless equity is at the heart of it.

One of the biggest obstacles to progress at Cancun will be a potential lack of sufficient finance on the table for developing countries. International climate negotiations have stalled, not least because developing countries have no great faith that the industrialised north will deliver on its financial commitments to help poorer countries tackle their emissions.

At the Copenhagen summit last December, world leaders pledged £100 billion by 2020 to fight climate change. First, that figure, although welcome, is not enough. Secondly, the history of such pledges is not a happy one. Far too often, the pledges are not kept. If the money is forthcoming, it is simply re-badged money that has already been committed, rather than genuinely additional resources. Although I welcome the £2.9 billion committed by the Government to climate finance, I also understand that that money is not additional to the existing aid budget. Will the Minister clarify that? It is crucial, as the hon. Member for Chippenham said, that the money is additional and not a redirection of existing aid.

It is also clear that even with the £2.9 billion, we will need further, innovative financing mechanisms to raise more money urgently. A range of options has been discussed this afternoon, including a tax on aviation, but I want to discuss the so-called Robin Hood tax. It could be a critical instrument in helping to break the deadlock on global climate agreement negotiations. A tiny bank levy on financial transactions, if applied globally, could generate billions of dollars a year and provide poor countries, which have done the least to cause climate change, with the money required to cope with its impacts and to develop in a greener way. Although a Robin Hood tax would certainly be more effective if it were implemented globally, it need not be. It is important not to go away with the idea that it can only be done globally. Plenty of research suggests that it could be done nationally without giving the UK a massive competitive disadvantage, that we could take a lead on that positive initiative and that, even if the tax were only imposed in this country, it would still generate significant amounts of money.

Rich countries and corporations have grown wealthy through a model of development that has pushed the planet to the brink of climate catastrophe. We have overused the planet’s ability to absorb greenhouse gas emissions. As I said, developed countries representing less than one fifth of the world’s population have emitted almost three quarters of historical emissions. In a sense, the rich world has colonised the Earth’s atmosphere, and that process has mirrored and perpetuated the vast economic inequalities that persist in the world today.

Meanwhile, poor communities—those least responsible for climate change—are already facing its worst impacts. It is happening now to people in Bangladesh, for example, and in many other parts of the world. Sometimes I hear people say, “We need some climate disaster to happen to wake the world up to the seriousness of climate change.” Those disasters are happening now, and we need to wake up, make that link and put them on the front pages. Because of the rich world’s historical responsibility for climate change, we have a duty to compensate the world’s poorest people. That means finding climate-friendly ways to meet their energy needs and providing resources to assist them in coping with the effects of climate change.

The rich world’s climate debt can be described as mitigation debt and adaptation debt. I will give a few more numbers, as they sometimes help to concentrate the mind. They are large numbers, but they remind us of the scale of the challenge that we face. A report published last year by the World Development Movement and the Jubilee Debt Campaign calculated that based on its historical responsibility, the UK’s adaptation debt equates to at least £5.5 billion a year over the next 40 years, provided that it stops increasing that debt immediately: in other words, provided that we start absolutely reducing our emissions now. The same organisations make the case that we owe at least £11 billion a year for the next 40 years in mitigation debt. Those resources must be made available to enable us to share low-carbon technologies freely with the developing world and to fund low-carbon infrastructure. I acknowledge that that is an enormous amount, and we must use every tool available to generate it. Models such as the Robin Hood tax are some of the simplest and most effective that we could develop.

Cancun is just a few weeks away. Industrialised countries desperately need to be able to go to those talks with a new, big commitment on finance if we are to have any hope of reaching agreement. I hope that the Minister will tell us today that some new financial commitment can be made, and that he will say whether he supports the principle of contraction and convergence, or any similar model of dealing with climate change that has equity at its heart and is based on the idea that we must converge to a situation where everybody in the world has an equal per capita emissions right. That will not happen in the next years—it will take several decades—but we must get to the point where equity is at the heart of climate change negotiations, because right now it is not.

I will end by reflecting on political will. I am haunted by the words of the actor Pete Postlethwaite in the film “The Age of Stupid”. For those Members who have not seen it, the film is based on the assumption that some kind of climate catastrophe has occurred 50 years hence and that Pete Postlethwaite’s character is the sole survivor. He looks back to today and asks, “Why is it that, knowing what we knew then, we didn’t act while there was still time?” Those words haunt me, because we have the information, technology and, frankly, the money that we need to act. When it came to bailing out banks, we found billions in a few days. If the planet were a bank, it would have been sorted out a long time ago.

The issue comes down to political will. It can be stated simply. Will we generate sufficient public and political will to tackle climate change fairly in the time available, or will we go down in history as the species that spent all its time monitoring its own extinction rather than taking active steps to avoid it? It worries me that only about a dozen hon. Members are here today. This Chamber should be packed—there ought to be a presence on the streets ensuring that it is packed—because this is the most important issue that we face.

Finally, if we were to take climate change seriously and introduce the measures that we urgently need, those measures would create hundreds of thousands of green jobs and improve our quality of life. For example, we would have fuel-efficient homes—people would not die from the cold in the 21st century—because we would have a proper programme of home insulation. We would have affordable, efficient public transport—they seem to manage it on the continent, but it somehow still evades us in Britain—and we would have kids playing in the streets again because our roads would not be packed with cars. We would also have a quality of life that, in many respects, would be more fulfilling and, crucially, there would be more jobs. At a time of economic austerity, people need jobs and there is no quicker means of job creation than to have a programme based on green jobs, insulation, environmental efficiency and renewable energy. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to tell us that he has got some good news on all of those issues when he sums up.

15:10

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) on securing the debate and making it happen. This is a critical issue. Like other hon. Members, I would have preferred to see more people in the Chamber, but it is up to us to promote the problem of climate change and to excite people’s interest in the subject. It is also up to us to come up with ideas and solutions that bring about the scale of interest that we undoubtedly need. The truth is that, even if we did just a little better than we have done thus far, we would still be facing a worsening situation in terms of CO₂ output. That is the reality. We need to embark upon a huge set of policy initiatives if we are to see a significant degree of improvement.

We have been talking about Cancun, but let us talk briefly about Copenhagen and why nothing happened there. The real reason nothing happened was that the United States and China got together and decided that nothing much should happen. The first and most important lesson for all of us in this room and beyond to learn is that Europe has huge responsibilities and a range of opportunities to influence the debate. Europe must play its part in a significant and resolute way if we are to start to secure the kind of agreements that are necessary. I hope that Britain plays a powerful role at Cancun, but we must also engineer a strong European voice; otherwise the same sort of thing will happen.

Related to that, but just as important, is the role of the BRIC—Brazil, Russia, India and China—economies as emerging economies. It is not just a matter of what China and the United States are doing; it is about what those four economies do next. We must encourage them to pursue policies that are CO₂-responsible. For example, there is evidence that technology we have in my Stroud constituency is being exported to Brazil and elsewhere. It is critical to encourage such a relationship at national level, as well.

May I address some of the issues raised? My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) talked about fossil fuels and the fact that they are subsidised in countries where we should not be subsidising them at all. Instead, we should be encouraging the right kind of technology. That is an opportunity for us and a necessity for those countries. I urge the Government to think carefully about that. The Government should not simply say that subsidising fossil fuels is bad; they should start to think about what is good for the economy as a whole. We need to promote that strong message.

Given the constituency of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), it was interesting that he talked about shipping and aviation. It is true that both shipping and aviation produce emissions that are damaging. However, we must get the proportion and scale right, because some 90% of trade is actually shipped. We must bear in mind that if we do not ship certain things and decide to produce them here, it could do more damage in terms of CO_2. We should not worry too much about shipping. We must get the proportion and our understanding of the questions of transport versus production exactly right. Talking about aviation taxes is not necessarily the right thing to do at this point, because I understand that aviation accounts for just 2% of emissions. It is much better to strike at the very heart of the problem and deal with the big issues that really matter: energy production and domestic transport.

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Gentleman observed that although I represent a port constituency, I said that international bunker taxes ought to be introduced on shipping. That should also be the case for aviation, not necessarily because of the percentage of emissions that shipping and aviation currently represent, but because there is an upwards trajectory in the percentage they will represent in the future. Indeed, we are assuming that our own carbon budgets are included in emissions totals. We would have to make unbelievably high reductions in emissions elsewhere in the economy if that is not the case, bearing in mind the trajectory increase. It is also true that, per kilometre tonne hauled, shipping is not remotely as emission-concentrated as aircraft. Nevertheless, taken in the round, the increase is very apparent, which is why I said what I did.

[Neil Carmichael]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. I still think it is a question of proportion. That is something we should have a discussion about. I started off by pointing out just how steep the challenge really is and I think all hon. Members in this room would agree with that. I think we all recognise that significant CO₂ reductions just have not happened thus far—in fact, there has been an increase.

I shall end by mentioning the point made to me very forcefully earlier this week by the Institute of Mechanical Engineers—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham also heard what was said. The institute rammed home just how big the challenge is and how important technology will be. It talked sensibly about the need for Britain to push ahead with the development of technology. I hope that the Government will continue to reassure us that that is exactly the direction in which they intend to go and that renewable energy and so forth will be promoted. We need to create a secure market for all of those things. It is crucial that we set about producing an infrastructure that is responsive to the new types of energy that will be feeding in, so that we can distribute easily. I am not just talking about a national infrastructure; I am talking about a European infrastructure. Renewable energies have their geographic suitabilities—for example, wind in one area and solar and hydro in others. We need to be flexible enough to benefit in big ways from all of those through a proper infrastructure.

Last but not least, if we are to start taking remedial action, which we need to do because of the scale of the problem, geo-engineering is a way forward. The Institute of Mechanical Engineers also made that point. I understand that we are not yet really in that development area, but we should be, because that is something in which Britain could play a part. We need to start to think carefully about our commitment to geo-engineering as a demonstration of how we will deal with the problem. Involvement would also bring about obvious advantages in terms of jobs and economic growth for ourselves and anybody else who cared to help us.

Those are the points I wanted to make. I can sum them up in this way: first, let us recognise the gravity of the problem. Secondly, let us recognise that solutions will, first and foremost, be international, which is why we must frame our argument along the lines I have described. Thirdly, we must encourage the right technology and implement it where we can.

15:20

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Setting out a realistic ambition for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change at Cancun must begin with a clear understanding of what happened at the fifteenth session of the conference of the parties in Copenhagen in December. It also demands humility on the part of the UK and the EU. In the UK we often behave as if we are the acknowledged global leaders on climate change, and as if we believe we punch above our weight. Indeed, that has already been suggested in this debate. It may be worth reminding ourselves that the final negotiations in Denmark took place between the leaders of China, the US, India, Brazil and South Africa. The meeting itself may have been in Europe but Europe was not in the meeting.

Europe has no leader, which means, in summit politics, that it has no voice. To say that EU negotiators played a considerable role in crafting the accord may be true, but in the final frame Europe was not present—never mind the UK. Europe needs to become a player once again. We have certain unique contributions to make to the ongoing debate, but we shall not be able to make them if we cannot agree on a spokesperson who is taken seriously by the leaders of the emerging powers and the USA. The problem may not manifest itself so much at Cancun, because we do not expect the influx of world leaders that went to COP 15. However, the situation is more likely to be a problem in South Africa in 2011 at COP 17, and it certainly will at the Rio plus 20 summit the following year. It needs to be addressed now.

There is no common narrative about Copenhagen. The western media proclaimed COP 15 a failure because it did not deliver a legally binding agreement. Cancun will not deliver a legally binding agreement either. The truth is somewhat more complicated. As the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the USA is a critical player, but it has refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol because of the concern that it might damage US economic growth. Given the fact that Kyoto places no binding commitment to emission reductions on major developing countries such as China and India, the USA has made it clear that it is unlikely to join any post-2012 framework based on Kyoto. By contrast, developing countries are concerned that annexe 1 countries have failed to live up to the commitment that they took on at Kyoto. They want a second commitment period under the protocol, as that guarantees the important—in their view vital—principle of common but differentiated responsibility, which reflects the greater historic responsibility of the developed nations as well as their greater wealth and capacity to act.

Another group of countries, which includes Japan, Australia, Canada and the EU, believes that it is essential to bind in the United States to any future agreement, and wants the major developing nations to take on commitments of their own. The first commitment period of the Kyoto protocol will conclude in 2012, and most parties are conscious that we must establish a post-2012 settlement that is comprehensive and preferably legally binding. Copenhagen failed to do that. So will Cancun.

In the mean time the Copenhagen accord created a loose, open-architecture structure, which is very much a coalition of the willing. Under the accord, countries put on the table the national actions that they are prepared to take to reduce their emissions—nationally appropriate mitigation actions. They monitor their success in achieving their own targets. Interestingly, although the western press accused China of spiking an agreement at the time, that is precisely the sort of structure that China had already proposed two months before Copenhagen. It has the benefit of preserving sovereignty while maximising commitment. Obama’s insistence on international monitoring of China’s voluntary actions within the Kyoto process, when the USA had not even ratified the Kyoto protocol, was less informed diplomacy than strategic media grandstanding. The world’s press fell for it, but we should not.

President Obama’s political capital has now been expended on a weak health care Act. The cost is his inability to get a climate change Bill through what was the most amenable Congress in decades. The mid-terms have configured a very different Congress, and we in the UK must now consider where future progress on climate change can best be pressed to advantage. One thing is clear: that place is not America.

China’s 12th five-year plan was announced last week. It will be published in detail in the spring, and it makes it clear that China is looking to create an emissions trading scheme. In Europe we have considerable experience, both positive and negative, of the EU ETS and the EU must work with China to help it to learn from the initial mistakes that we made in setting it up. Indeed, those discussions are already going on at a high level.

It is time for the UK and Europe to refocus our efforts away from the United States to form a more strategic alliance with China. Last week I participated in a Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment forum on climate change in Tianjin—I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—along with 70 legislators from countries ranging from South Africa to Brazil. Sixteen of the G20 countries were represented, including the US. It is clear to me that a radical programme for climate change would mean the EU joining forces with China, ultimately to create common standards in products, and a joint carbon market establishing an international price for carbon around the globe. That would be a game changer. More than that: it could be a game changer that market makers in the US would suddenly find extremely threatening. America can resist any opposition to its policies. What it cannot take is being sidelined or ignored. Let us imagine that the biggest pressure on President Obama to sort out climate change came not from the liberal left or even from some “blue dog” Democrats in the Senate, but from American industry and Wall Street itself. What if Wall Street were saying to Obama: “Climate change? It’s all about the economy, stupid!”

As we approach Cancun we need to be clear about why the accord is not sufficient and what is required to take the negotiations on a trajectory that may be able to deliver a legally binding agreement. The total emissions reductions pledged so far under the accord by the US, Japan, Europe and the major developing economies fail to match the scientific calculations on targets for stopping dangerous climate change: the accord agreed on a rise of no more than 2º C. The accord makes no enforceable provision for funding of capacity building in developing countries. It creates no binding obligation on developed countries to finance adaptation, or to effect technology transfer. It creates no structure to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation. I will try to deal with each of those aspects of the matter.

First, as to emissions reductions, currently almost 50% of global emissions come from the developed world, which represents just 20% of the global population. The World Resources Institute estimates that the developed country commitments at Copenhagen would reduce those countries’ emissions by no more than between 13% and 19% below 1990 levels. The IPCC has called for between 25% and 40% reductions. Therefore, the commitments from the developed world fall well below the minimum that the IPCC believes is necessary to avoid dangerous climate change of more than 2° C. Among the major countries, the USA has offered to reduce its emissions by 17% by 2020, but only below 2005 levels, which equates to a reduction of just 3% below 1990 levels.

Let us now look carefully at our own suggested target of at least 80% reductions from 1990 levels by the developed world. Why has that not been welcomed more fully by China and other G77 nations? Let us cash out the numbers. Global emissions in 1990 were 21 gigatonnes—21 million metric tonnes—so the global reduction of 50% required to sustain a 2° C trajectory would give the world a total of just 10.5 million tonnes of emissions annually to play with. In 1990, the developed countries emitted 15 million of those 21 million tonnes, so an 80% reduction would mean that they should emit no more than 3 million tonnes by 2050, or almost 30% of the world’s total annual emissions.

Today, the developed world accounts for just one fifth of the global population, and the proportion is estimated to fall to just one eighth by 2050. Why should we expect China and India to think it fair that one eighth of the world’s people should get 30% of the world’s emissions capacity? It would mean that developed countries would have exactly three times the emissions per person of developing countries, which is hardly the basis for a just and sustainable international settlement.

To date, the mitigation debate has been locked around a failure to agree on emissions reductions targets that will equate to a rise of no more than 2° C. The reason it has always stalled there is that the Chinese and the Indians are good mathematicians and so refuse to lock themselves into what is a manifestly unjust equation.

Let us now turn to finance. At Copenhagen, developed countries under the accord pledged a significant amount of money—$100 billion annually by 2020—as has already been mentioned. There is also fast-start funding approaching $30 billion cumulatively through 2012 for developing country mitigation and adaptation. However, that created new questions on both the sources of that money and the policies that it is supposed to pay for. Those are fundamental issues of trust between developing and developed countries. The accord did not specify how, from where or under what conditions the funding would be transferred, and developing countries urgently need that clarification before they commit themselves to the way in which they will account for how the funding is used.

Developing countries, on the other hand, first seek clarification on how the money they commit will be used. They want a clear system for measurement, reporting and verification—MRV—of the developing country mitigation actions. Understandably, we say that we cannot send our taxpayers’ money to pay for mitigation projects without a clear mechanism for MRV to hold people accountable and show that the money is actually achieving the desired outcome of emissions reduction. That has created a chicken-and-egg problem in the negotiations; developed countries are unable to provide clarity on financing until developing countries provide clarity on their mitigation measures, and vice versa.

How can we break that stalemate? The proposed wording mentioning the Copenhagen accord’s figure of $100 billion has made it into the negotiating text for Cancun, albeit as one of hundreds of phrases and options that are currently in brackets. Some parties have suggested referring to the $100 billion that is otherwise mentioned only in the Copenhagen accord, but not all parties have yet agreed to do so. Potentially, a critical bulldozer to remove the roadblocks is the high-level advisory group on climate change financing, which has already been mentioned, which was created by the UN Secretary-General after Copenhagen. Heads of state and Ministers have been studying sources of revenue for the promised $100 billion a year by 2020. That group has completed a report that will be released just before the negotiations in Cancun, and the sight of money on the table might be what is needed to restore the lost trust between the parties.

In addition, negotiating sessions since Copenhagen have produced general agreement on a fund that will channel rich countries’ financial contributions to poorer nations’ mitigation actions, and both developing and developed countries have put forward constructive proposals on how that fund could be operationalised. That means that Cancun could see a COP decision officially creating that fund and procedural rules relating to it. In Europe, we should certainly press for that to happen. With more clarity about the money, developing countries might be willing to agree to let the international community measure, report and verify what that money is used for. MRV of mitigation actions in developing countries is, in my view, the essential key to unlocking those funding flows. We should emphasise that point to everyone in the negotiations. What is required at Cancun is a clear decision on how such reporting will take place and possibly some sort of global registry of mitigation actions that can be scrutinised and verified so that funds can begin to flow.

At Cancun, a goal for REDD-plus—a development of the United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries—should be written into the preamble of the decision text. That goal could be to reduce emissions from deforestation by 50% by 2020, for example. The type of activities recognised as part of the REDD-plus decision, however, must be nailed down. The REDD-plus decision text includes references to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, conservation of forest carbon stocks, sustainable management of forest and enhancement of forest carbon stocks. The accord, however, only mentions the first three goals. To clarify which activities will receive compensation, the definition of what constitutes REDD-plus needs to be made consistent within the UN process.

Another uncertainty relates to the mechanisms used to fund REDD-plus activities. The Copenhagen accord, like the Bali action plan, states that there should be positive financial incentives for countries that take action to reduce deforestation and degradation, but how countries would receive that money is still up in the air. It could be through a carbon market, a dedicated fund or something else. That question needs to be resolved in the REDD-plus decision text.

Industrialised countries expect a market mechanism for REDD, with the exception of Norway, whose Government, commendably, is donating billions to rainforest protection. Rich countries envisage significant participation of the private sector in REDD financing, through market incentives such as the clean development mechanism. On the other hand, developing countries are wary of markets, preferring direct Government-to-Government funding for REDD. Although the current negotiating text contains proposals in brackets that explicitly forbid the use of markets and the creation of offsets for REDD, it also leaves the key phrase “options to use markets” in brackets.

Several parties to the REDD discussions have highlighted in their statements the importance of maintaining the environmental integrity of any market mechanism associated with REDD. That shows that they still consider a market mechanism to be a potential outcome. Outside the negotiations, Governments have created infrastructure for REDD finance but will not necessarily come through with their financing pledges—again, something that was alluded to earlier. Donor members of the REDD-plus partnership—a group of more than 60 nations that have either pledged to fund REDD efforts in developing countries or are slated to receive them—are having trouble making good on their financing promises, and some donations constitute rebranding of previously allocated funds. Our own Government should take note of that.

In contrast, the private sector has shown real interest in REDD credits on the voluntary carbon market, presumably for both marketing and speculative purposes. For instance, the first REDD project is expected to be approved under the voluntary carbon standard this December. In addition, BNP Paribas has set up an option to buy up to $50 million worth of potential forest credits from an African project. If developing countries continue to perceive private sector interest in market mechanisms for their mitigation actions while they are waiting for industrialised Government funding to come through, they may remove barriers to markets in the negotiating text and thus open up the option for business to participate in global emissions reductions through tradeable REDD credits. That is another aim that our Government should pursue at Cancun.

Mr Chope, I seek your guidance on time. I wonder how we are doing.

[Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for 21 minutes, according to the clock. I know that at least one other Member who has not yet spoken hopes to be able to chip in something to this debate. If the Front-Bench spokesmen take 10 minutes each and push right up to half-past 4, that means that we will have to start the Front-Bench speeches at 10 past 4, but they may want a bit more flexibility to answer some of the points that have been made. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) wishes to participate.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

That is the score, so the hon. Gentleman can make his own judgment.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am grateful to you, Mr Chope. In that case, I will not pursue my remarks on land use, land-use change and forestry—LULUCF—because I believe that the Department is already familiar with what I would say. I understand that it is looking carefully at ensuring that there will not be half a gigatonne of free credits in any post-2012 LULUCF settlement, the fear that has been expressed by many.

Perhaps the most difficult question for this conference of the parties is whether it is possible to move forward on all of the issues without first dealing with the elephant in the room: the stalemate about the overall form of the agreement. The US has contended that all the elements of a global deal should be pursued simultaneously, and it objects to an approach that it says cherry-picks—that takes areas where we think progress may be likely, such as, for example, REDD-plus. However, if negotiators continue to pursue the so-called American balance package, they may spend so much time and effort discussing the form of an agreement after 2012 that they fail to take even relatively easy decisions that could achieve real progress.

Over the past two years, GLOBE legislators—legislators participating in the Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment—in 16 of the G20 countries have been discussing the architecture of a post-2012 deal. They have put forward a proposal that suggests a way forward that might be politically acceptable to the major economies. Negotiations under the Bali action plan are currently taking place on two separate tracks. The first is the Kyoto track—those who support Kyoto—whereby Kyoto parties are considering further targets for a second commitment period beyond 2012. There is also the convention track, where long-term co-operative action involving all parties including the US and major developing economies is considering how to strengthen action taken under the convention.

Based on those discussions over the past two years with more than 100 legislators in different countries, we believe that certain elements could be part of a politically acceptable deal: first, agreement on the overall level of ambition that has already been stated in the Copenhagen Accord to hold the increase in global temperatures below 2^oC; secondly, a decision under the Kyoto track that commits annexe I Kyoto parties—the developed countries—to a second commitment period, 2013-17, and involves quantified, economy-wide emissions reductions targets and the associated commitments of finance and technology, subject to addressing satisfactorily the issues of hot air and the rules for accounting for forestry emissions; and, thirdly, either a new parallel treaty under the convention track or a set of COP decisions under the convention track that place comparable commitments on the US without its having to join the Kyoto protocol. Such commitments could include an economy-wide emissions reduction target and a commitment to provide financial and technological assistance to developing countries, and formalising the actions of the major developing countries—for example, on carbon or energy intensity targets, renewables targets, efficiency targets, sustainable forestry targets and other central policies—with a commitment to increased transparency through national communications under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. We believe that that could be achieved through the recognition of national legislation and the role of Parliaments in monitoring, reporting and verification.

Hon. Members have alluded to many other aspects: air and sea bunkers, the EU position and whether we should have a more or less robust position in the negotiations. It is clear that Europe is split at the Commission level on European targets. They were offered at 30% if others participated and came in with further commitments before Copenhagen, and repackaged afterwards by Commissioner Hedegaard in such a way as to imply that they were good for our industry anyway, and we should just get on with it.

I met both Commissioner Hedegaard and Commissioner Oettinger the other day. In the morning, Commissioner Hedegaard told me that it was absolutely vital that we proceeded to reduce emissions by 30% by 2020. In the afternoon, Commissioner Oettinger told me that it was absolutely impossible to do so. The Commission is irrevocably riven on the subject, and there is clearly no desire to adopt a more robust position at Cancun and going forward.

I believe that we are not looking for a legally binding agreement at Cancun but for small stages of progress that can take us forward to Johannesburg in the following year, and to Rio plus 20 in 2012. However, we need to adopt a much more radical approach in the alliances that we form. We need to look across the globe to China and other BASIC countries—Brazil, South Africa, India and China—to see how we can develop common standards and frighten American business and industry into realising that they are being left behind, and that they need to come into a common framework under the UNFCC.

15:49

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

Members might be relieved to know that I will keep my contribution short. The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) spoke with far more knowledge and detail and far more eloquently than I can, and covered many of the points that I wanted to make. That will, no doubt, come as good news to all. I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) for securing the debate. Our attendance today suggests that we need no reminder that climate change affects us all.

A perpetual challenge for climate change conferences is matching up the microcosmic with the macrocosmic: from the level of individual action to regional, national and international action. Putting that scale of possibility for action together is often the challenge that international climate change conferences run into.

Sidetracking for a moment, I am very proud to be a representative of Bristol North West. Bristol is a city that I will often criticise, but it has done extremely well in making itself a green city, with biomass plants in the Blaise nursery in my constituency, and in pressing for the wider, global impact of planning applications to be taken into account in the planning process. It might be slightly odd to raise a local issue when we are discussing such an international matter, but it demonstrates that to make progress we need not only ambition—an abstract thing—and legally-binding targets that embed hope in a legal framework, but action and strategy.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) mentioned equity, the hon. Member for Brent North talked about China, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham mentioned climate finance, and I shall talk briefly about those issues. Climate finance is an absolutely key issue. In recent discussions with some representatives from the Chinese Communist party, we talked about the perceived luxury of morality that developed countries have when it comes to climate change. As the discussion progressed, we began to unravel that the problem was having a judgmental morality rather than an enabling one. If I can suggest anything to people far more knowledgeable and experienced than me in these climate talks, it is that we need to shift from a judgmental morality to an enabling one, and to understand where countries such as China and India are coming from and the trade-offs that they have to make to reach the position—to which they aspire—of having the luxury of the morality that we enjoy.

The hon. Member for Brent North covered this issue in comprehensive detail, but I wonder whether we should flip the coin, and change from black to white, from sticks to carrots, and from constraint to opportunity. As he said, China has already demonstrated encouraging signs—perhaps surprisingly for much of the British media—that it is looking at climate change far more proactively than we may think, not only from the point of view of morality, but because it sees a great economic opportunity. Europe likes to think of itself as a leader in green technology, but we might have to start stepping up our game because China—this should be good news to everyone—is also stepping up its game substantially. It has already started to put climate change measures into legislation for the congress in 2011; it has committed to reducing its carbon intensity by 40 to 45%; and it might even, as the hon. Member for Brent North said, be willing to sign up to emission cuts, which is something that we can work on.

In particular, if we look at what Europe, and Britain as part of Europe, can offer, and at what we can bring to the table in an arena with two extremely big players, China and the United States, I suggest—and I recognise that I do not have as much knowledge and experience as other contributors today—that the best thing that we can offer is leverage. We could provide a lever to use China’s motivations and the opportunity they provide to nudge the USA into a far more co-operative position. We cannot do that by simply pushing; we cannot do it by endlessly enunciating ambitions; and we cannot do it by just creating expectations, embedding them in legislation and then somehow hoping that the existence of legislation makes things a reality. We have to be very strategic. The low expectations for Cancun are a massive opportunity, as are the low expectations of China. I very much hope that Cancun can be a massive surprise.

15:49

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope, and I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) on securing this timely debate.

The UN summit in Cancun is a chance for world leaders to make vital progress toward a legally-binding treaty, and it is only right that this House has the opportunity to debate the issues. We should all be in no doubt that climate change is the greatest threat facing our generation. It will have an impact on a global scale. We can expect to see greater hunger due to increased water scarcity, extra health risks from diseases such as malaria, the impact of rising world temperatures on agriculture, and more climate-related disasters. The threat is both real and urgent.

This year has been one of the hottest on record. We have seen extreme weather events across the globe, with mudslides in China, forest fires in Russia, floods in Pakistan and the breaking-off of a massive ice sheet in Greenland. Millions of people have seen their homes destroyed and their lives shattered. This is a global threat, and it will require co-ordinated global action. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) said, expectations for Cancun have dampened since Copenhagen, but it is clear that progress can be made, especially on climate finance. Making real progress on that at the forthcoming summit must surely be a priority.

Vital to any progress towards a global deal on emissions is the provision of sustainable and predictable sources of climate finance for developing countries. Without that, many of the gains that the world’s poorest countries have made in development over the past 50 years will be lost. Climate finance is necessary to help vulnerable people and poor countries cope with the impact of climate change and develop in a carbon-constrained world. I urge the Government to press other countries, particularly those within the EU, to deliver the $30 billion in fast-start funding pledged at Copenhagen, as soon as possible. By delivering early on our promises, developed countries can send a powerful message to developing countries.

Delivering on the fast-start finance is important, but we also need to look beyond 2012 and work to develop a substantial long-term finance package. As other hon. Members have said, the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing has just reported on a range of financing sources that could be used to provide the $100 billion pledged at Copenhagen. I welcome the Secretary of State for International Development’s commitment in a speech today at a Climate and Development Knowledge Network event that the Government will seek to make progress on that at the summit. I also welcome his announcement of the Government’s support for a climate advisory fund, which will provide access to legal and technical support for the poorest countries, to secure their participation in reaching an equitable deal. A bold solution to financing must be reached, as relying on private sources alone will not be enough.

[Duncan Hames]

Given that the hon. Lady mentions the AGF report, I wonder whether she would share my view that an important and helpful next step would be some quantification of the potential contribution of the options in that report towards the $100 billion a year target. The advisory group has not yet done that, but it would certainly help to concentrate minds.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, and I accept that quantification would be warmly welcomed.

Not only is it vital that long-term finance is made available, but we should also be clear that the money must not be repackaged aid. The $100 billion pledged at Copenhagen is a similar amount to current annual global aid transfers. At a time when aid budgets are stretched, redirecting the support to global climate financing would inevitably have serious consequences. Under the Labour Government, there was a cap on UK climate finance spending, which ensured that no more than 10% of the money could come from the aid budget. Although the Government’s planned spending for this year will not exceed that cap, so far we have not received any confirmation that the 10% cap will remain for the long term. We are clear on this side of the House that the vast majority of the aid budget should remain focused on tackling poverty, and that the UK’s commitments to climate finance should supplement our aid commitments.

We need to hear from the Government what they plan to do after 2013. Will they keep the cap, or do they plan to cut the aid budget to fund international climate finance commitments? Strong leadership from the British Government is vital to ensure that we make progress on tackling climate change, and such leadership is needed both at home and abroad.

At home, we need to do a lot more to build a low-carbon economy. We can only show leadership globally when we practise what we preach. The Government inherited a strong green legacy from Labour. The Climate Change Act 2008 was the first of its kind in the world, and it is widely acknowledged that Britain has made huge environmental progress in recent years. It has been at the forefront of tackling climate change on the international stage. The Government deserve some credit for building on Labour’s legacy by bringing forward proposals for a green investment bank and the green deal. The intentions are good, though at this stage the details are thin.

In Europe, the Government need to push our European neighbours to commit to a second phase of the Kyoto protocol, which focuses on developed countries cutting their emissions first and fastest. There are grave doubts on both sides of the House, even from members of the Government, as to the Prime Minister’s ability to lead on the issue in Europe.

On 22 April, the Deputy Prime Minister said,

“I think if you’re going to lead on this, of course you have to lead at home, but you also have to lead in Europe. There’s no point clubbing together as David Cameron has done with people who even deny the existence of climate change in Europe.”

We all saw how the Prime Minister was marginalised last week at the G20 summit. We can only hope that the same does not happen again, because the UK must be at the heart of Europe pushing for an ambitious global plan on climate finance. This Government will never be the greenest ever unless they back up their soundbites with strong leadership, decisive action and determined commitment domestically, in Europe and on the international stage.

There is much to be achieved at Cancun. I urge the Government to be at the forefront of the discussions and to take a lead in ensuring that the summit delivers on climate change.

16:01

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Chope. We have had a good, productive debate; it has been thoughtful, considerate, passionate and wide ranging. Although the numbers have not been as great as we might have wished, the quality of the debate could not have been better. People looking at it from outside will have perceived the genuine commitment of everybody who spoke to get the best possible deal out of Cancun and to make real progress. One of the most important roles of the Backbench Business Committee is constantly to raise ambition; to push and encourage the Government to do more; and to encourage the Government to be realistic, but ensure that we know we have the support of parties in all parts of the House in raising the ambition for what is possible.

I commend the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) on the way he introduced the debate. He made an extremely effective contribution in which he raised many important issues. I hope to deal with those points and everything else in my response. He rightly paid tribute to the work of the last Government. One of the most important aspects of the progress that we can make in this country is the degree of cross-party agreement on what needs to be done. The commitment to an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 had the support of a broad coalition. Members of the Opposition in the last Parliament pushed the Government to go further, and the Government responded positively. It was therefore possible for this country to give a global lead towards achieving our aims. The hon. Gentleman was also right to say that we need to bring as many people on board as possible. He talked about China and other parts of the world, because this is not something we can do on our own or purely with Europe. This is a global challenge requiring a global response.

I was also impressed by contributions from hon. Friends and hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), speaking for the Opposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) is completely right in saying that we have to win hearts and minds. That is where his measured tones are so much more effective than a hectoring style. That type of tone, reasonableness and thoughtfulness, help to win people round and to understand the extent of the challenges we are facing. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) says, climate change is happening now—a point supported by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree. We only need to look at what has happened this year to realise that time is not on our side. We have to act now and constantly up the pace at which we tackle these issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) talked about the need to encourage progress, not just to penalise bad behaviour. That is at the heart of the tone that we should be adopting. If we want to encourage people to change, we should be showing how much better things can be, rather than constantly telling people how bad they are at the moment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) picked up that theme. I liked her analogy of moving from judging to enabling—that is an effective comparison. She mentioned, as others did, the importance of China. I know that when the Prime Minister and others were in China last week, they were constantly impressed that China is not a laggard. China is determined to lead the world in clean technologies. It is rolling out onshore and offshore wind and other low-carbon technologies, and seeking to take a lead in carbon capture and storage. China sees an extraordinary business opportunity and wants to ensure that it takes a global lead.

As has been constantly emphasised, the scale of the challenge shows that we must have international action; it is not something that the UK can do on its own. Our proportion of global emissions is just 2%, so even if we managed to obliterate those over the next few years, without action being taken across the world we cannot begin to make the necessary progress to limit global temperature increases to no more than 2%. We all know that beyond 2% the risks of dangerous climate change are greater and the costs associated with managing the impacts rise sharply. That is why we are committed to working towards a global deal to limit emissions, and to provide support for developing countries to adapt to the inevitable consequences of climate change.

[Barry Gardiner]

So as not to mislead people, would the Minister care to correct the record? I think he meant 2°C, rather than 2%.

[Charles Hendry]

I did mean 2°C, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that for me. I am not sure what 2% would work out at, but 2°C is the figure we should be working to. I am grateful for that clarification and correction.

A legally binding global deal is the best way to secure a stable, transparent framework for action, build confidence for investors and reassurance for the developing world that developed countries will deliver their commitments, but as Copenhagen showed us, we must be realistic about when such a deal can be achieved. We all now recognise that expectations at last year’s Copenhagen conference became over-inflated. That is a point brought home by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), who speaks with such expertise on many of these matters. In reality, there was a lack of political will on the part of too many countries to reach a comprehensive deal. We need to win the argument that it is in countries’ political, economic and security interests to move towards low-carbon economies.

Although we will not agree a full legally binding treaty in Cancun, we can and must make solid progress. Cancun can set the stage for future negotiations and provide an essential stepping stone towards a legally binding agreement in the future. Our preferred outcome at Cancun would be to make solid progress on a package of issues that would benefit both developed and developing countries. That package could include bringing the emissions reductions offers countries have made since Copenhagen into the UNFCCC process; strengthening the measurement, reporting and verification arrangements, which will ensure progress on emissions is transparent; and establishing the structures for climate finance beyond 2012, including an international green fund for climate change.

Achieving even that will be challenging. All countries must be prepared to show flexibility in their positions to maximise the chances of success and progress. That is why the EU has signalled its willingness to sign up to a second commitment period of the Kyoto protocol, subject to certain conditions being met. But success does not depend solely what happens at the negotiating table. Given the challenges in securing a global deal, we must increase our support for practical action on the ground, in parallel with negotiations if we are to persuade other countries that taking ambitious action is in their economic and security interests. We must demonstrate the benefits of moving to a low-carbon economy domestically, and support others who are willing to do the same; encouraging them to deliver on their existing commitments to reduce emissions and go even further.

In that respect, I believe we have a strong record as a new Government in trying to achieve progress. We do believe in showing global leadership in the measures we are putting place to mitigate climate change. We have allocated £1 billion to the green investment bank, even in these difficult times, and made a commitment to come forward with additional funding. We are encouraging the most ambitious programme of energy efficiency improvements through the green deal, which will be the centrepiece of the energy Bill this winter.

We are providing £1 billion of investment to support the demonstration of carbon capture and storage technology—the most any Government anywhere in the world have allocated to a single project—thereby ensuring that the UK will continue to lead in that critical technology. The internationally renowned “2050 Pathways Analysis” helps us to consider some of the choices and trade-offs that we will face over the next 40 years if we are to move to a secure, low-carbon economy, and it allows us to explore the combinations of effort that will be needed to meet our emissions targets while matching energy supply and demand. We are taking action to switch from fossil fuels to cleaner and more sustainable green sources of energy by taking forward the renewable heat incentive, a world-leading scheme that provides long-term support for renewable heat technologies. There are also the feed-in tariffs to encourage microgeneration.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West mentioned the biomass facility that I was delighted to visit with her in her constituency. Another change that we have made will enable councils to generate their own electricity and sell it to the grid, freeing up a fantastic potential that has not been delivered in the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud spoke about the critical use for technology in that area. British universities have global leading potential in the area. The genius of invention and innovation that is found in so many of our universities can provide fantastic opportunities to deal with the challenges we face. I am delighted that my hon. Friend, and many colleagues from all parties, are engaging with the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, because of the contribution that it can bring to the debate.

I shall now respond to some specific issues that have been raised. The hon. Member for Chippenham, and many others, raised the question of long-term financing. The United Kingdom is making a significant commitment to support action on the ground. The spending review provided £2.9 billion of international climate finance through the international climate fund. That will allow the UK to help developing countries to adapt to the impacts of climate change and move on to a low-carbon growth path. That fully funds the UK’s pledge to deliver £1.5 billion in fast-start finance between 2010 and 2012, including £300 million for reducing deforestation.

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister clarify whether those funds included any element of the previously announced £750 million for the environmental transformation fund?

[Charles Hendry]

The £2.9 billion is new in that it is drawn from the rising aid budget. Part of the £1.5 billion to which I have referred relates to the fiscal years 2011-12 and 2012-13. That is included in the figure of £2.9 billion. Funding for years three and four of the spending review period represents a further commitment of resources for climate finance. The hon. Gentleman may like more detail on that, and I would be more than happy to correspond with him if any further clarification is necessary.

Such figures demonstrate the UK’s commitment to scaling-up climate finance to meet its fair share of the $100 billion of public and private international finance per year from 2020. We welcome the recent report from the UN Secretary-General’s advisory group on climate finance, which makes a number of recommendations on how to meet the $100 billion goal. We look to make good progress in implementing its recommendations.

We need things to happen now, and that is why we call for international bodies such as the United Nations framework convention on climate change, international financial institutions, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, the G20, and others, to take action in their areas on the back of the report, so that we can deliver progress at Cancun with a view to producing concrete proposals by the time of the climate change negotiations in South Africa next year. It is clear that public finance alone is not enough; we also need to mobilise private investment. That is why we have launched the capital markets climate initiative to help create the right commercial conditions to drive economic investment in emerging economies.

The fast-start programme has been mentioned. As I have said, the United Kingdom will provide £2.9 billion through the new international climate fund and the spending review to help developing countries to adapt to the impact of climate change and move to a low-carbon growth path. That fully funds the UK’s commitment to deliver £1.5 billion in fast-start finance between 2010 and 2012. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park asked about the importance of bilateral agreement. We are absolutely clear that any action must be taken through bilateral and multilateral discussions. It will be a priority to deploy some of the finance to tackle deforestation.

The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) asked whether developed countries need to be clear about the finance they will provide to developing countries. We could not agree more about that, which is why we are pushing other countries to be transparent about how and where they are spending their fast-start finance. We support a Dutch-led website that allows countries to make information about their fast-start spends publicly available.

In his opening comments, the hon. Member for Chippenham asked about which AGF sources are a priority. He asked about the levy on aviation and shipping and the financial transaction tax. The report identifies a range of proposals on how to achieve the goal of £100 billion, and we now need to work with others to make that happen. The United Kingdom continues to work with the International Civil Aviation Organisation and the International Maritime Organisation to develop co-ordinated global solutions to tackle emissions from those sectors. Many questions need to be explored about whether proposals for a financial transaction tax offer a stable and efficient mechanism to raise revenue. Those are issues that the Government will take forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park asked about aviation, and we want to ensure that action to limit emissions from aviation is discussed at Cancun and in further negotiations next year. However, we must look at the potential perverse consequences that can sometimes emerge. It is clear that some freight is being brought by air into mainland Europe and then by lorry into the United Kingdom because of different levels of aviation tax in different countries. If we act unilaterally, we must be aware that the ingenuity of the business community will find ways around that, and it could be British consumers who end up paying without the important carbon savings being delivered.

My hon. Friend also asked whether the United Kingdom would support an end to World Bank lending to fossil fuel projects. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development said this morning, we will press the multilateral development banks to support a shift towards climate-smart lending across their portfolios. As part of that, the Government are reviewing the role of the multilateral development banks in energy lending. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park has publicly asked the Department for International Development questions about that, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will be aware of the comments that he has made during this debate. He also asked whether we will press for reform on fossil fuel subsidies. We strongly support the G20 commitment to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. That commitment was restated at last week’s G20 summit, and I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to raise the issue in our bilateral contact with counterparts in other countries.

We have covered many issues during the debate, but I will conclude with the extent to which there should be international agreement. We would all like to see the EU take an international leadership role in these debates, but we must also recognise that we have our own national perspectives to push forward. As a country with a strong Commonwealth link, we perhaps have a different perspective from that of other countries in the EU. Although we would all welcome greater EU co-ordination and a greater ability to speak with one voice on such matters, we also greatly value the ability of independent nations and Governments to speak on behalf of their own populations and the expertise that they bring to the debate.

The situation is not about us and China against the United States. This is a global issue and we must bring the United States with us. I am not sure that trying to bully the American business community will work. We must build bridges with the American people and the American Government to persuade them of the urgency of doing what needs to be done. We know that they are facing particularly difficult times, as are we. The work of international organisations such as GLOBE International plays an extremely important part, and in that respect I pay tribute to the work carried out by many hon. Members of this House. If we are to make progress, we must do so in a co-ordinated way.

My final point relates to forestry, and a couple of contributions have mentioned the programme on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries—REDD-plus. Our overarching goal is to maximise the contribution to global mitigation from forest and land management action in developing countries. We seek to achieve that by agreeing to strengthen the UNFCCC rules on counting emissions from forest management action towards the targets of developed countries. Those rules should incentivise action beyond business as usual and ensure environmental integrity, but avoid unfairly penalising countries that are practising sustainable forest management. We are also seeking an ambitious deal on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), who leads on these matters in the Department, is talking to some of his international counterparts at this moment, which is why I have been standing in for him and responding to the debate. I hope that I have been able to reassure my hon. Friends and the Opposition Members who spoke that this is a matter of profound importance to the Government and we are determined to continue to make progress.

Houses in Multiple Occupation

Thursday 18th November 2010 Westminster Hall

16:20

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to open a debate that you are chairing, Mr Chope. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate on houses in multiple occupation after I pitched the idea to it “Dragons’ Den” style. A colleague told me that I am making history today by having been granted the first one-hour Backbench Business Committee debate in Westminster Hall. If that is the case, I am grateful to be blazing a trail on an issue that so directly affects my Loughborough constituency.

It is a pleasure to see the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) here today. Some of the substance of what we shall debate was discussed in the Delegated Legislation Committee debate on two relevant statutory instruments earlier this week. I see from Hansard that even though I was not present at that debate, I managed to get a mention in it because of this debate. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) suggested that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government, who spoke then, would be speaking today. In fact, we have a different Minister today. I hope that that is because the Department realises that this is a topic of serious concern to quite a large number of hon. Members, so two Ministers need to take an interest in it.

I thank hon. Members for being here today. I realise that 4.30 on a Thursday afternoon is something of a graveyard slot, but several hon. Members have delayed leaving Westminster to be here and I am very grateful to them. I have received messages of support from hon. Members who cannot be here, including the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), who all confirm what a huge problem the concentration of houses in multiple occupation is in their constituencies.

On 9 June, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was asked by the hon. Member for City of Durham to confirm that the Government would not seek to undermine the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Order 2010, which came into force on 6 April this year. He replied:

“We all know of the problems of houses that are kept badly, and of past problems involving HMOs. I will ask the Minister for Housing to get in touch with her about his plans, so that we can ensure that we get this right.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 329.]

I suggest to the Minister that the fact that we are here today means that we have not yet got this area of policy quite right, but I hope that today’s debate will assist with that.

The primary reason for my asking the Backbench Business Committee for the debate was the changes that the Government decided to make to the April order. However, issues surrounding HMOs are not just about planning. I suspect that some hon. Members might want to talk about licensing and regulation of HMOs and safety concerns.

The change that I have mentioned was to introduce the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Order 2010, which came into effect on 1 October and drove a coach and horses through the earlier order by allowing as permitted development the change of use from a dwelling house to a small-scale house in multiple occupation. The reasons for the April order and the reasons why the October change has been greeted with such disappointment by affected communities were discussed during the Delegated Legislation Committee and I do not want to repeat all of them here. That said, certain of the concerns are so great that I cannot avoid repeating some of what was said by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. This debate also provides an opportunity to consider the wider issue of sustainable and balanced communities, and I will say more on that in a while. I should say now that I am a member of the all-party group on balanced and sustainable communities.

I shall concentrate on four issues. First, I shall talk about why any control on HMOs is needed at all, focusing on our experiences in Loughborough. The second issue is the April and October orders and the third is the practicalities of directions under article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. The final issue is where we go from here.

Shortly after I became the candidate in Loughborough, I was contacted by a group of residents known as the Storer and Ashby Area residents group, or SARG for short. Many of them live in an area of Loughborough known as the golden triangle. The area consists of a concentration of terraced houses, which had previously been occupied by all age groups and were within easy reach of the town facilities. However, over the years and particularly between 1994 and 2004, as our extremely successful local university expanded, there was insufficient student accommodation on campus, so landlords, including parents of students, began to buy those terraced houses and rent them to our students. That led to various problems, such as late-night noise, pressure on parking and rubbish collections, poor maintenance of houses and so on. Furthermore, the problem is not confined to one area of our town, but has spread to other areas and types of housing.

I should stress that I and, I think, the residents, because many of them work there, are very proud of our excellent, world-class university. It is my pleasure to visit the campus regularly—even when that involves a live TV debate about student finance against the vice-president of the National Union of Students. However, a growing university in a relatively small town causes problems, and no one seemed to be hearing the problems. The crunch came when the members of the residents group opposed a planning application relating to the building of more student accommodation in their area of town because of the impact that that would have on the local area. The planning inspector agreed with them, and everyone else locally started to sit up and realise that there was an issue that had to be tackled.

I am pleased to say that, since then, we have all learned a lot and come a long way. On the whole, there are good relations between town and gown in Loughborough. We have an excellent community relations officer at the university, senior management who want to be helpful, committed local street wardens, a proactive student union, a supportive and engaged council in Charnwood borough council, and residents who are able to raise the alert about problems. However, the problems remain.

The fact is that the balance in the part of Loughborough to which I am referring has almost irrevocably changed. Each academic year, residents have to brace themselves for the arrival of the students. Will they be good neighbours, as many are, or will they bring trouble, late-night noise and too many cars, often inconsiderately parked? The Minister might well ask, “Hasn’t the damage been done? What would the April order have done to help with that situation?” Well, even now, there are people buying the remaining properties and trying to convert them. The April order would have given the local authority the power to know when those conversions were being proposed and to consider the impact on the local area.

In 2005, Charnwood borough council introduced a supplementary planning document on student housing provision in the town, which adopted a threshold approach that applied different responses to planning applications, depending on the percentage of student houses in any one area. The SPD is a material planning consideration when planning permission is sought—but that assumes that it has to be sought. If the property is being converted into a small-scale HMO, planning permission is not needed. That is why the April order was good news for Loughborough.

What are the consequences of losing a balanced community? The part of Loughborough to which I am referring has lost its primary school, church and post office due to lack of permanent residents. There is a rather ghostly atmosphere during university holidays, and as students are, by their very nature, transient, there is less of the sense of community and social interaction than is normally found in a stable and balanced community. There are also higher levels of crime. If a burglar breaks into a student house, he is likely to find several laptops, TVs and so on, which is bad news for the neighbours.

Turning to the April and October orders, I entirely understand the Government’s desire to empower local communities, where there is a problem with a proliferation of HMOs, to take action. I also understand that that problem does not affect the vast majority of local authorities. However, we must give communities real power to put effective controls in place if they want to do so. I will come on to article 4 directions, but first I want to examine the reasons given for the change as set out in the explanatory memorandum and impact assessment for the October orders.

The evidence base for the impact assessment sets out many of the problems associated with HMOs—for example, antisocial behaviour, increased litter, parking issues, reduced opportunities for low-cost home ownership, closure of under-used community facilities, pressure on over-used community facilities such as doctors, and loss of community balance. The evidence base goes on to say:

“It has also been argued by some that it”—

that is, all councils being caught by the April order—

“could result in a reduction in supply of this type of low cost housing in areas where it is needed because prospective landlords could…be deterred from entering the HMO market by the time, cost and uncertainty arising from the requirement to submit planning applications. However, there is no reliable evidence supporting this.”

Pages 8 to 10 of the evidence base set out the costs and benefits of the new orders for each affected group: landlords, local authorities, the planning inspectorate, HMO tenants and the local community. Those drafting the evidence base managed to think of both costs and benefits for each group, except for local residents, for whom no benefits are listed at all. That is at best highly unfortunate, given that they have to live in the affected areas.

On page 11, the document also says in relation to the costs of the new October orders that

“there may be some costs such as: local communities would have no opportunity to comment on new individual HMOs…local authorities would lose the ability to consider the impacts of new individual HMOs”

and

“there may be a slight increase in complaints from neighbours in relation to particular HMOs. These costs have not been monetised.”

I will say a word about the way in which the July 2010 consultation was conducted. A limited number of groups, including, I am pleased to say, the National HMO Lobby, were invited to take part. In response to a written question, the Minister for Housing and Local Government sent me a summary of the responses. Of those invited to respond, eight were against the proposed change and six in favour. Of those who responded on their own initiative, 31 were against and eight in favour. I ensured that all my local interest groups, the residents, Charnwood borough council, Loughborough university and Loughborough students’ union, responded. All supported the retention of the April order.

Loughborough university stated:

“The concept of community balance is important in our local setting and the University continues to invest significant time, energy and resources to community issues. The University continues to believe that the case for the new legislation is similarly unchanged.”

SARG stated:

“We fail to understand why you are overlooking the responses of 92% of more than 900 respondents to last year’s country wide HMO consultation, all of whom saw a change in the Use Classes Order as the preferred way forward for avoiding concentrations of HMOs. Participants did not make a blanket proposal to stop landlords converting family homes into HMOs. We envisaged a change in the Use Classes Order which councils could opt out of in situations where it was expedient to increase such accommodation. We breathed a sigh of relief that Charnwood Borough Council were at last being given the tools with which to control concentrations of HMOs and which could be tied into the existing Student Housing SPD.

Your decision to revert to the status quo, with some slight changes to Article 4 Directions is like a slap in the face to local communities. We have been told for years by our local authority that Article 4 is not a practical means of control, more so now, in view of cutbacks to budgets and workforce. This implies that you are happy to consign communities like ours to eventual extinction.”

The reason given for the limited consultation was that the detailed consultation that had taken place a year earlier had teased out the main points. I am sure that that is true. If those responses hold good, it is worth noting that only 1% of respondents supported the position that we find ourselves in of relying on article 4 directions.

I acknowledge the letter and attachments that the Department sent to me last night about article 4 directions and the process for making such directions. It would have made it easier if they had arrived at 7 pm when I started drafting my speech, rather than at 11 pm when I had just finished, but I was glad to have them.

My concern is whether the ability to put in place article 4 directions adequately fills the gap left by the April order. The evidence base for the impact assessment on the October orders shows that there are direct financial costs to local authorities of putting article 4 directions in place. First,

“they will bear the administrative cost of processing planning applications as the fee is waived where article 4 directions have been made”.

Secondly,

“there will be costs associated with publicising the intention to make article 4 directions.”

Thirdly,

“where article 4 directions have been made with immediate effect or less than 12 months notice and where applications which were submitted within 12 months of the effective date are refused or granted subject to conditions, local authorities may be liable to pay compensation to applicants as set out in the Benefits section above.”

Fourthly,

“there may also be costs associated with the need to investigate where intervention is necessary…and enforce against unauthorised HMOs.”

The evidence base concludes:

“It is difficult to determine the extent to which local authorities will use article 4 directions to deal with new HMO development.”

Local authorities have concerns about having to pay compensation to a party whose planning permission is refused when it would otherwise have been permitted development. Charnwood borough council’s response to the Department in July 2010 stated that the article 4 option

“was among those offered to stake holders by the previous government in its exploration of potential planning responses to the problem. It failed to attract support chiefly because of the provisions for compensation which would have discouraged local planning authorities from claiming that power.”

The Minister knows that local authorities will be calculating whether that is a financial risk worth taking at a time when money is so tight.

The submission of the Residential Landlords Association to the Department in July responded to the question whether planning authorities would choose to issue article 4 directions with immediate effect or with less than 12 months’ notice:

“No, from our experience where compensation is involved it is highly unlikely that local authorities would seek to do anything which could involve them having to pay compensation.”

In the light of the documents that were sent to me last night, will the Minister confirm what is the situation in relation to the conversion of a dwelling house to an HMO? Am I correct that if a council makes an article 4 direction with 12 months’ notice of that direction, compensation may be payable if permission is refused within that first 12 months, but that after that time, assuming that all the proper processes are followed and the article 4 direction remains in place, compensation would not be payable?

I note that the Secretary of State also has the power to make article 4 directions. Will the Minister confirm whether the Secretary of State might take action if a local authority unreasonably refuses to make an article 4 direction in an area that needs it? I appreciate that that is not the kind of top-down action from Whitehall in which this Government, and this Secretary of State in particular, want to indulge.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. A number of hon. Members present have a university in their constituency. Much as we value those universities and the economic benefits that they bring to our areas, there are significant problems relating to HMOs. Does she agree that in areas with large unitary authorities, such as Cornwall, the council that is best placed to make decisions about the use of article 4 directions is the parish or town council in the area that contains the HMOs?

[Nicky Morgan]

I agree absolutely. If the Government want to empower local communities, they must do so at the right level and include those who are most aware of the problems. Local communities and councils that work together are fully aware of the problems. The Government rightly talk a lot about the localism agenda, and I am sure that the Minister has taken on board my hon. Friend’s point.

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

The counter-point to that and to the Government’s thinking on this matter is that if there is not a problem in an area, there will not be many applications to change to HMOs. The Government have therefore got this argument on its head.

[Nicky Morgan]

I recognise that this is not an issue for a large number of local authorities. Submissions have been made to suggest that councils could opt out of the regulations if they do not apply to their area. The Government have decided to give local authorities the power to impose restrictions when planning permission is sought. If that is the case, my argument is that local authorities must have real power and not be open to undue financial risk. Even those of us who have not been councillors know that local planning authorities do not like to take risks. If there is any chance of a financial risk in the current financial climate, they will be reluctant to take the powers that the Government have said are on offer to plug the April order.

Finally, I will say a word about restoring balance to our local communities. It is generally accepted that when a concentration of about 20% or more of a particular group, such as students, is found in one community, the balance of that community starts to change. I have mentioned the damaging effect that that shift had on the local school, church and post office in one area of Loughborough. Long-established residents decide they want to move out and potential new permanent residents decide to stay away. I do not believe that any national or local authority wants to see that, and I certainly do not as Loughborough’s MP.

Where do we go from here? I hope that I can help the Minister by offering a few constructive thoughts. First, the explanatory memorandum for the October orders states that the policy changes are to be reviewed in October 2013 to consider their impact and the extent to which the objectives have been achieved. It states that arrangements are in place to allow a systematic collection of monitoring information for future policy reviews. In annexe 1, the post implementation review plan is helpfully set out in detail. I agree that it is important to check what impact the changes are having. Will the Minister confirm that the review will take place and say what arrangements are in place to allow for the collection of that monitoring information?

Secondly, I hope that the Minister will pass on to the Minister for Housing and Local Government that since July, I have received more requests for him to visit Loughborough. Indeed, more constituents have requested him than have requested the Prime Minister. Please will the Minister or his colleague agree to visit Loughborough to see for themselves why local residents and the council are so concerned about this issue?

Thirdly, anecdotal evidence in Loughborough suggests that, as a result of the university having built much more on-campus accommodation, demand for houses in certain streets might be beginning to fall. Is there a way that the Department could work with local councils and communities to restore balance to such areas and to create more sustainable communities?

The Department recently announced a consultation on the new homes bonus. One of the questions is whether the bonus should be extended if empty properties are brought back into use. Would the Government consider whether the scheme or some other incentive could be extended to properties that can be used by families or other long-term residents, rather than sitting empty because the demand for them as student lets is shrinking?

In particular, many of my residents are concerned that, because students do not pay council tax, no council tax is received in respect of HMOs occupied solely by students. I agree that that is a whole other debate, for another day, but some form of financial incentive for restoring balance to local communities might be welcomed by local authorities and, indeed, actively sought in difficult financial times.

The idea of empowering local residents and the council to take direct action in specifically affected areas is right, but the powers must be real and capable of being exercised without opening local authorities to undue financial risk that would stop them taking those powers. This is also an opportunity to empower communities to put right some of the damage done—the imbalance caused by the rapid proliferation of HMOs in towns such as Loughborough. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

[Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Before calling the next speaker, may I say that there is a lot of interest in the debate? If I call the first Front-Bench speaker at 5.10 pm, that leaves only half an hour to fit everyone else in, so I hope that people will keep their remarks appropriately brief.

16:41

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I am speaking in the debate because the issue is of extreme importance to my constituents, in particular those living in areas such as Dunkirk, Lenton and Wollaton Park who feel that their local neighbourhoods face irretrievable damage as a result of the uncontrolled spread of houses in multiple occupation.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) on securing the debate—her contribution was extremely thorough and asked many good questions on behalf of all of us.

Local people in Nottingham, supported by their local elected representatives, campaigned for years to secure the planning changes that Labour introduced on 6 April. They would agree that we should have acted earlier, but the change was none the less very welcome when it came. It was exactly what local people had been asking for and would have protected their communities for the future.

I do not need to go into a great deal of detail here, because hon. Members present understand the problems that high concentrations of HMOs create in local communities, but I want to set out briefly why the issues matter to my constituents in Nottingham South.

In Nottingham, we are fortunate to have two excellent universities that attract thousands of young people to our city. We value greatly the contribution that the universities make to our city and we welcome students into our communities. However, the impact of large numbers of family homes being converted into student lets has been considerable, and many long-term residents feel that their local neighbourhoods are changing beyond recognition.

For example, in Lenton, we have seen many of the local shops disappear, to be replaced by takeaways. Local residents have seen their local primary school shut down for lack of children. During term time, they experience daily problems with parking and, unfortunately, on occasion, with noise, litter and increased crime. Outside term time, they sometimes feel that they live in a ghost town.

The universities, Nottingham city council and local voluntary and church groups are working hard to restore a sense of community, but they need the support of the Government too. The ability to control the development of HMOs gave local people real hope—the opportunity to maintain balanced and sustainable communities, rather than have their neighbourhoods left to the market.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because I am conscious of time. Obviously, the problems do not stop at the boundaries of Nottingham South. In Nottingham East, we share a similar set of problems. She is completely correct to say that the permanent residents, in particular those who are not students, feel strongly about the issues. It is a planning matter, and it seems such a shame that we are now not in a position to have the local authority properly empowered, in particular for this next year, to exercise those rights on behalf of local residents.

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—it is about the opportunity to maintain those balanced and sustainable communities, not about being anti-student. Students are very welcome, but it is important that communities are balanced. That is why local residents feel so badly let down by the Government.

I have three questions in particular that I want to ask. Hopefully the Minister will respond to them. First, why was the consultation this summer so narrow and selective? The previous Government undertook extensive consultation on all the options and the planning changes they made reflected the view expressed by the vast majority of respondents. The current Government seem to have ignored all that and, after a hasty consultation over the summer, have chosen the option virtually no one—just 1%—wanted.

Secondly, why was the change rushed through without proper time for debate and discussion of the consequences or any time to see the implications and effects of the new planning changes that had just been brought in? It is very welcome that we are having today’s debate, but the truth is that it is too late. The protection that local people had worked so hard to secure was removed at the beginning of October—yet the guidance on article 4 directions was not published until last week.

Finally, do the changes not present landlords in those areas most affected with a perverse incentive to convert family homes into HMOs before article 4 directions are in place? Local authorities cannot risk compensation claims, especially in the current climate, and therefore we will have a gap of at least 12 months when we will be back to uncontrolled development.

Local communities such as mine are desperate for local planning authorities to be able to protect their interests. Why are the Government simply ignoring them?

16:46

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

It is a pleasure to participate in the debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) on securing it. She articulated well many of the concerns of local authorities up and down the country, in particular on article 4 directions and the potential for compensation—certainly something my own local authority in Milton Keynes is concerned about. I will not dwell on those points, since she spoke so well, I simply ask the Minister one question on behalf of Milton Keynes council, which, he is aware, is seeking a legal review at the moment. The council is keen to continue negotiations with the Government, but I understand that the Government would rather wait until the legal challenge has finished before they communicate again. It would be helpful to me, and to the council, if the Minister could confirm that.

I am sorry to say that the debate is particularly relevant to my constituency. I have long pushed for tougher measures on HMOs, given the various problems that they have caused in Milton Keynes. I even secured an Adjournment debate on the matter back in 2007. However, two months ago, two people died in an HMO fire—deaths that might have been prevented—which brought into sharp focus why fire safety is paramount in such properties, of which we have many in Milton Keynes. I want to summarise the chain of events that led to the tragedy and propose how lessons might be learnt.

In the early hours of Sunday 5 September, the emergency services were called to 200 Fishermead boulevard, where a fire had broken out on the first floor. It was clear to crews on arrival that this was an HMO: a three-storey, three-bedroom terrace property converted into five bedsits. Firefighters rescued one woman, and a firefighter was injured when the floor collapsed beneath him.

In the morning, friends were still searching for 29-year-old Bola Ejifunmilayo and her three-year-old daughter Fiyin. It was not until the next day, when the friends reported the two missing, that the property was searched again. Their bodies were discovered in a top-floor bedsit, 30 hours after the blaze. Why the search was discontinued and why it took so long to discover the bodies are the subjects of separate police and fire investigations. I would not want to pre-empt the outcome of either investigation. My focus is simply that this was an undeclared, unlicensed HMO.

Since the incident, I have met the Buckinghamshire fire and rescue service. It is clear that the outcome of the tragedy could have been very different with only a few simple fire precautions. The crucial point is that, because the landlord declared that the house was not an HMO, there was no local authority inspection, which would have ensured fire precautions, such as fire alarms, being put in place. As a result, the fire was burning for approximately 45 minutes before 999 was called. There were no self-closing doors but, for example, the door to the room where the blaze started was open, and fire doors could have contained the blaze for at least 30 minutes.

On Monday, I joined officers during an HMO inspection. Their checks included ensuring that the landlord provided means of escape, as well as fire extinguishers, blankets and doors with in-built keys to unlock them. The unregulated conversion of some HMOs—such as the addition of extra rooms or the removal of wall and floor linings—can also pose structural risks, and creating ducting or openings between floors can assist the spread of fire and cause a chimney-like effect for the flames.

It is widely accepted that HMOs are more susceptible to fire than other types of properties. That is borne out by the figures. In 2007, around 2% of houses in the UK were HMOs, but around 33% of fire deaths happened in multiple-occupancy properties. In Milton Keynes, HMOs suffer a disproportionate number of house fires.

Apart from overcrowding, HMOs put five times as much demand on the electrical supply. In these properties, kitchen appliances such as fridges are common in bedrooms; electric extension cables abound; and several people often cook meals at the same time. There is also an element of anonymity among the people who live in HMOs. That can heighten the risk of fire. The population in some HMO communities can be very transient, and it unlikely that residents will know who is living in the next room, let alone the next house.

On the tragic morning of 5 September, it appears that there was confusion in Fishermead about who lived in which bedsit. Firefighters find it harder to evacuate places if there is no awareness among those who live there and no interdependency. Given the nature of HMOs and their tenants, will the Minister acknowledge that they are more hazardous and that they therefore warrant more stringent fire regulations? Despite fire safety being paramount in HMOs, 200 Fishermead boulevard was not licensed or identified as an HMO, and was therefore not subject to safety checks. As far as the council was concerned, it was a single family dwelling. The authority had been assured of that through an e-mail from the landlord in January 2009.

I emphasise how important it is for the authorities to know when a house is an HMO. Not only can the information help prevent fires, as I have explained, but when the fire service takes a 999 call the crew is able to prepare for such an incident en route. Given that fire safety can be assured only when an HMO is declared as such, registering these properties should be made a priority.

Even for registered HMOs, risks surround inspection. Dual legislation means that although local authorities are responsible for inspecting bedrooms and private areas, the fire service inspects communal areas such as kitchens, landings and stairways. The fire authority acts under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, but the council has to adhere to the provisions of the Housing Act 2004. However, Milton Keynes operates a Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services or LACORS agreement. The council enforces it on behalf of both authorities, and it is supported by the fire service out of hours when required.

Apparently the LACORS method works better than when responsibilities remain divided. Even then, however, fire safety is not as rigorous as it could be. Councils have to give 24 hours’ notice before inspections, but fire authorities can enter immediately. As a result, the deputy chief fire officer has written to the leader of Milton Keynes council, offering the authority the fire service’s more dynamic powers.

It is no wonder that the fire service is so keen to help. It is the fire service that has to deal with the consequences. Officers would rather visit homes and install fire safety precautions than tackle a fire. They even have the power to prosecute. Meanwhile, the council is overstretched. Milton Keynes has five council staff responsible for overseeing the city’s 90,000 properties. Will the Minister consider streamlining this dual legislation? Though the LACORS agreement works well in Milton Keynes, will he consider allowing the fire service to take the lead in HMO fire safety?

I acknowledge that HMOs fulfil a necessary role, and that they are here to stay. However, our current legislative approach underestimates the magnitude of risk that they pose to residents—as proved at Fishermead. I would like to see a more robust approach to fire safety for HMOs. To that end, will the Minister acknowledge the risk, prioritise their registration and perhaps put the fire services back in the driving seat?

16:52

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) on securing this debate, and on the way in which she put her case to the House. I do not disagree with one word of what she said. The hon. Lady has campaigned and been active in the House on the issue of HMOs, as have I. If the Minister here today—and the Minister who was present at what might be called part 1 of this discussion, which took place on the prayer against the orders that were debated in Committee Room 12 on Tuesday—will not listen to me, I hope that they will listen to her.

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that, in Loughborough and in many other communities, the advent of new rules that enabled local authorities to take planning action as far as permission for HMOs was concerned represented a manifest step forward. Local authorities in many towns and cities had long wanted a change to be made so that such action could be taken.

As has been said, the debate is not about students or studentification. It is about balanced and sustainable communities in those parts of the country where students—but not exclusively students—occupy HMOs. It is not the students’ fault, and not their concern, but such homes are often used in that way without conversion—and, as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) said, without any thought of safety. They are placed in the HMO market and are instantly occupied by four, five, six or even seven people, where previously a family may have lived, with the attendant changes and stresses on the community that that represents.

Such change was for a long time out of sync with planning and housing legislation, and the idea that it could be subject to planning regulation and planning permission was a great step forward, not only in theory but in practice. The balanced and sustainable communities all-party group visited Belfast last year to see how the changes had been implemented there. It was a precise parallel, with the use class orders for housing separated into two, and the changes have worked well. Not only that, but the landlords in Belfast thoroughly supported the changes. They accepted that the new regime brought a number of benefits for them, as well as for the communities affected. I agree with the hon. Member for Loughborough that when the changes came into effect in the spring they made a difference. It was a difference too long in coming, but it was nevertheless real.

We then come to the October changes. Frankly—I shall not mince my words—they were an act of legislative vandalism. They purported to change the planning regulations so that planning permission could be required, under article 4 direction, in the communities with a concentration of such properties. As the hon. Lady said, it is extremely unlikely, particularly in the present circumstances, that many local authorities will take that route.

I have a letter announcing that the local authority in Southampton is cutting 250 jobs; among them are five environmental health officer jobs. That is the result of a £62 million deficit in the council’s budget heading. The idea is fanciful that, at the same time as such cuts are being made, local authorities could easily take on board the risk of the compensation payments that might loom. It is also fanciful to suggest that local authorities would undertake a process outside the planning system, when if the planning permissions requirement had remained, the application fees would have paid for most of the changes so they would have been, effectively, self-funded.

We are back to the status quo ante. Like the hon. Member for Loughborough, I received a cyber missive late last night from the Minister for Housing and Local Government, setting out his reasons for the change. After a page of discussion on article 4, which is not quite the weapon that he thinks it is, he said that the problem affected only a small number of communities. That is not right. Indeed, in our debate on the orders on Tuesday, he said that the Rugg report on the consultations on the legislative changes made in April stated that only 0.5% of wards were affected. However, that was based on the idea that 10% or more of homes in that particular ward had already turned into HMOs. He then conceded that that was a substantial underestimate, and that 5% or 6% of communities were affected. That is out, I think, by some 15%, and I put the figure at 20% or 30%.

Most of the main freestanding towns and cities in this country have this issue at the heart of their communities. It is not a tiny minority issue. It may be the case that in substantial parts of the country it is not a particular issue but, as the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) pointed out, those are the places in which very few applications are made, so it is not a particular imposition—in theory at least—for those communities to have to look at planning permission as far as such homes are concerned. Even if it were an imposition, the original suggestions made during the discussions before the April measures provided for the idea of an opt-out.

In the letter that appeared on my computer last night, the Minister said that the change is all about localism. However, what has happened with these changes—which are frankly unbelievable amendments to the April changes—is that local people have been denied the opportunity to take back control of how their communities are balanced and planned by their local authorities. A far better version of localism would have been to enable communities and local authorities to opt out of measures if they thought that they were not appropriate for their areas. That would have been a genuine local choice. Before the recent changes, if communities had had serious concerns, the use class changes, the planning permissions, the funding and the ability of those communities to make decisions based on local need would be firmly in place. I therefore reject the idea that the measure is all about localism; it is not. It is about taking us back to the position we were in before any changes were made. I regret to say that those people who have been campaigning hard for change will have to do so all over again.

I hope that the Government will think again about the changes, review them early and conclude that they have got them wrong. I hope rather than believe that that will be the case. It may be that the representations that were made by the hon. Member for Loughborough will have to be repeated by many others to enable us to make progress to the balanced and sustainable communities that could have been achieved by these changes.

17:02

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

In view of the time, I shall be as brief as I can. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) on securing this debate on a matter that affects a large number of constituencies the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.

When I arrived in Southampton in 1991 to go to university in what is now the constituency of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), only one in seven of the population went on to higher education. That figure is now almost one in two. My constituency of Bournemouth West is probably at the stage now where Southampton was in the early 1990s. Figures from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health show that between 2000 and 2007, studentification increased in Bournemouth by 47.1%. That dramatic increase is having a huge impact on the communities that I serve.

On 17 June, the Minister for Housing and Local Government stated:

“I understand the concerns of local people who see their neighbourhoods being damaged by undue concentrations of HMOs and the significant impact this is having on their quality of life.”

That is profoundly true in Bournemouth West.

In two areas of my constituency, the problem is particularly acute. The Branksome East ward is in the Poole area and is adjacent to the university campus. Large Barratt-style houses that would go for between £350,000 and £400,000 are being purchased by landlords and used for student accommodation.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend support my idea that any expansion in higher education should be matched by an expansion in student hall facilities, thereby reducing the impact on existing housing stock?

[Conor Burns]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point on behalf of his constituents in Swindon, and one that is worthy of further consideration by the Minister.

In the area to which I referred there is a fantastic residents association, led by Victor Shears, that is trying to get Ministers to understand the impact of the problem and the ways in which it is changing the character of our communities. The Winton area, the most significant area in my Bournemouth West constituency, has seen a dramatic increase in the numbers of students in recent years. The Winton Forum, which is chaired by Pat Oakley and the former Liberal Democrat councillor Anson Westbrook, is working hard to engage in a dialogue with Ministers. It wants places where the problem is particularly serious to be better supported by Government regulation.

Let me give one small example of the problem’s impact on the quality of life in the area. Bournemouth university, the Arts university college and Bournemouth council got together to joint fund a duty officer to monitor noise. In 2008-09, complaints were upheld against more than 90 student properties. Some 63 abatement notices were served on 16 properties. In the past year alone, the number of complaints has risen by more than 25%. In part, those increases were down to the fact that the local community and the university published out-of-hours numbers so that residents could make their complaints known.

Other hon. Members have talked about the increase in the number of fast food outlets and the diminished trade during university holidays that makes businesses unviable. I am not anti-student. I would not change a second of my experience in Southampton in the early 1990s. This is about universities being a vital part of the local economy and responsible players.

Let me put three important points to the Minister. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough made the point about compensation. That is a very serious issue that local authorities are having to deal with under article 4 directions. Secondly, there is the matter of the private rented sector handing over its properties to the university letting service, thereby exempting itself from some of the regulations. My hon. Friend was absolutely right about that, and tempts us to an Adjournment debate. Thirdly, there is the fact that student properties do not contribute to the council tax, but still require the services of the local authority.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her efforts in this debate and I hope that we can have some reassurances from the Minister. I hope that I have been brief enough to let in one of my other colleagues.

[Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

The Front Benchers have said that they will delay speaking until 5.15 to allow Back Benchers more time. I hope that the two hon. Members will be able to share that time between them.

17:07

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

I thank the Front Benchers for that concession.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) on not only securing the debate but making an excellent and knowledgeable speech. I say that as someone who has been both a councillor and an MP for Headingley. I have worked with many campaigners not only from Leeds but from all over the country. Let me put it on record that I think that it is a disgrace that I have only two or three minutes to give the views of the people of Headingley, who have been campaigning on this issue for 10 years. We should have had a debate on this subject before 1 October and before last Tuesday. It is an insult to each and every Member of this House and to Parliament that we have not had the chance to do so. As a big supporter of Parliament, I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree with me, even though he will probably not say anything.

This is a cross-party issue. I pay tribute to Andy Reed, the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough, who assiduously worked on this matter; my own predecessor, Harold Best; and all the MPs, councillors and council groups who have taken the subject seriously. It is interesting that the Government say this is all about giving councils more power. In that case, why were councils not consulted about the reversal of the changes in April? Some have taken to legal action to get their views across, which seems a very perverse perspective.

I am proud to be the vice-chair of the all-party group on balanced and sustainable communities, and I work with colleagues with similar problems in similar areas. I always make it clear that what is important is balance and that balance is in everybody’s interest. Areas that are 90%, 95% or 100% HMO, as some are, are not in the interests of students. During the summer, those areas become ghost towns; they do not have neighbours to look after the properties and keep an eye on them. The only ones who benefit from that imbalance are the businesses that rely and thrive on it.

There is frustration after 10 years of campaigning all around the country and, let’s face it, not being listened to. When we were finally listened to, there was a consultation and a decision, but it has been quickly reversed without consultation with councillors, Members or the all-party group. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough pointed out that 92% of respondents to the consultation wanted change.

In the limited time that I have, I want to make a few points to the Minister. First, HMOs are an important part of the housing stock, as we all recognise, and in their appropriate place they are to be welcomed, but they do not represent additions to the housing stock because HMOs are nearly always conversions from existing family homes, hence the problem. In nearly all cases, and certainly in virtually every case in my constituency, one more HMO means one less family home.

The additional burdens on local planning authorities have perhaps been exaggerated. Indeed, I ask the Government to justify the numbers further. The figure of 8,500 additional planning applications per year is cited, but I have not seen grounds for that estimate. Will the Minister write to the all-party group providing that information? There is no real financial burden on local planning authorities from the changes that were announced in April, because the fees for planning applications are intended to cover the costs, and all planning applications for HMO change-of-use should, therefore, be cost neutral.

I must bring the Minister’s attention to the letter that the Minister for Housing and Local Government received from Leeds city council, which referred to the costs of article 4 directions. We are all aware of the problem and are trying to resolve it. Only this week, Leeds city council in its entirety—all parties—supported a motion to, first, lobby the Government to say that they think that the Government have made a mistake, and, secondly, to ask for clarification about whether they can use those article 4 directions, because the costs that the chief planning officer in Leeds set out are worrying, as other hon. Members have mentioned. The cost of surveying the housing mix in some areas would be £320,000, and, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test said, we are in a difficult financial situation. I know that Ministers have addressed the costs of compensation, but concerns remain.

I shall sit down to give my colleague, the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), the chance to speak in this debate, but I regret that we have not had a chance to debate HMOs and the changes properly—a debate that I have twice asked for in business questions. Can that finally happen, so that we have hours to all put our constituents’ views across?

17:13

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Chope, for the opportunity to support this excellent debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) secured. I am conscious that I need to be brief, and, as I intervened earlier to get one of my points across, I will be.

I speak as both the North Swindon MP and as a former councillor of 10 years in my constituency. I have seen at first hand what a big problem this is. I have a quick list of reasons why I am so keen to support my hon. Friend. Those reasons include the connected problems of antisocial behaviour and crime; inadequate parking provision—I know from experience that that does not mean that people give up their cars but that they create parking spaces, which is dangerous, particularly for emergency service vehicles; the pressure on rubbish and recycling services; additional strains on local facilities, which was mentioned earlier; and the fundamental change to the nature of an area. Hon. Members have spoken about the impact of HMOs on the quality of life, as I have in earlier contributions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) brought up safety.

I am conscious of time, so I will simply reiterate the point that I made earlier: my constituency is desperate to secure a university. As a councillor, for a number of years I kept making the point that we should link an increase in higher education provision with additional halls of residence provision, to ensure that there is not a knock-on impact on to the existing housing stock. I would like the Minister to look at ways to explore whether that is practical.

17:14

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

Like other hon. Members, I congratulate the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) on securing the debate on an important issue, which I know is close to her constituents’ hearts. She will know that, sadly, in many respects the debate is overshadowed by the fact that on Tuesday delegated legislation passed that took away local people’s right to object to new HMOs in their areas. We have heard excellent speeches and interventions this afternoon, all of which have reinforced the points that the hon. Lady expressed so well in her speech.

We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who rightly expressed concern about the nature of the consultation, which I shall touch on shortly. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) gave us the benefit of his wide experience. The hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) argued forcefully for his community, and was matched only by the anger of the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and the constructive comments from the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson). I shall talk about the constituency of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) later.

We all know many problems caused by the unchecked spread of HMOs. They include poor-quality conversions; cramped living conditions; loss of mixed and balanced communities; higher, wasteful energy consumption; and a greater risk of fires, and, therefore, concerns over health and safety. In conversations that I have had with the fire service, one thing is clear: the greater the number of bedsits, the greater the risk of fires. That is exacerbated by the lack of hard-wired smoke alarms in those properties. I hope that hon. Members on both sides will attend tomorrow to support the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders), which will help to tackle that serious problem. I hope also that the Government will not oppose it on the basis of the one-in, one-out rule for regulation, particularly when we hear of the tragic case that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North raised of a death that might have been prevented.

Stripping away the ability of planners to review applications for bedsits as a matter of course does not fill me with confidence that standards and safety for tenants will rise. In our debate on Tuesday, I raised with the Minister the fact that Labour’s regulations were introduced after a substantive consultation with stakeholders across the sector. There was no such consultation when the present Government decided to do away with those rights for local people. That is not localism. However, representations were received from a number of interested parties—let me run through a few of them from papers deposited in the Commons Library. The National HMO Lobby was against, the National Organisation of Residents Associations was against, the Planning Officers Society was against, and the Royal Town Planning Institute was against. They commented that the blanket removal of a council’s ability to manage controversial developments in their area will, in practice, have the opposite effect to the one that the Government want. Torbay, Southampton, Milton Keynes, Exeter, Charnwood, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Haringey, Blackpool, Great Yarmouth, Oxford Nottingham, Southend-on-Sea and Thanet councils were all against the change. Only one authority was in favour: Canterbury.

Right hon. and hon. Members wrote to the Minister opposing his plans to take the rights away, including the hon. Members for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) and for Bath (Mr Foster), from the Liberal Democrats, and the hon. Member for Loughborough, who rightly pointed out that when the Labour Government held a consultation, 92% of respondents were in favour of the rules that we brought in and only 1% were in favour of the article 4 directions that the Minister has introduced.

I am sorry that the Government are not listening to the hon. Lady’s utterly reasonable concerns, but that is not surprising. Are the Government really seeking to devolve power to local communities, as they claim? Are they merely trying to smooth the path for developers and landlords at the expense of local residents’ rights? We heard on Tuesday and today that the change is about avoiding blanket legislation to protect a few people. All equality legislation is predicated on that premise. Would the coalition do away with that as well? Why are these measures being brought forward in haste? Is it because the changes to housing benefit will increase the number of people seeking single rooms and bedsits? According to the Department for Work and Pensions, something like 88,000 people will seek to move into bedsit-type accommodation.

I am amazed, however, that the Government would pursue a policy that strips away local people’s rights. They preach the virtues of localism, but sacrifice those virtuous words when it suits their political aims. Localism is not a creed for this Government; it is a convenience. Local people and local communities deserve better than that.

We have heard a lot from Ministers about the wonders of article 4 powers. We have heard from hon. Members speaking for their local authorities that the powers will not do the job. Plymouth city council expressed the view to me that because the directions will cause the number of HMO applications to rise, while planning fees are not payable for such applications, the change will create additional work load with a net cost loss. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.

I have not seen any evidence to support the Government’s case for the change in regulations. Colleagues here today have argued the case well. I hope that the Minister will respond in detail to the specific questions posed, particularly by the hon. Member for Loughborough.

17:20

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to this debate, which has included well informed and occasionally passionate contributions from Members. I do not want to minimise the underlying point that it is important to ensure that houses in multiple occupation are appropriately placed, safe and secure and that they do not have a destructive impact on their neighbourhood. It is certainly not the Government’s intention to give a charter of immunity to unscrupulous landlords. On the contrary, we have introduced a targeted process of control that is available to local planning authorities. As quickly as I can due to limited time, I will explain to the House exactly what is proposed, state what progress has been made and, as far as I am able, answer the questions raised.

One point at issue is how widespread the problem is. The Minister for Housing and Local Government gave in the debate on Tuesday and brought to the Committee the estimate made in the Rugg report. He said, “Let’s assume for the sake of argument that it’s actually 10 times worse than that, and that it’s 5%.” Members have said today that 20% of the country is affected. In that case, I must say gently to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) that he cannot claim at the same time that 8,500 planning applications is an overestimate. If the size of the problem is anything like what some people have described, the number of applications made will be hugely greater. In fact, if it is a 5% problem, that means that out of the 8,500 applications that the impact assessment anticipates, only 450 would be in problematic areas. That would impose on landlords a £12 million application cost that would be completely unnecessary for 8,000 out of those 8,500. I say to hon. Friends who perhaps believe even more strongly in deregulation than I do that surely there cannot be anything very wrong with that.

[Dr Whitehead]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Stunell]

Certainly, but my time is limited.

[Dr Whitehead]

I understand that, so I will make my intervention brief. The Minister’s mathematics simply do not add up. If the problem is as concentrated as he suggests, most of the applications will be made in certain areas and not others. He cannot divide the number arithmetically across the country, conclude what the number of planning applications will be and still stand by the view that it represents only a small number of wards in the whole country.

[Andrew Stunell]

I can, and I shall debate it with the hon. Gentleman later over a cup of coffee. I point out that that is not at the heart of the Government’s case. Our case is quite clear: effective legislation should be in place where there is a genuine problem. We are saying that that will be determined by local planning authorities, not by national legislation.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman has a letter from Southampton city council. I know that Southampton and Portsmouth do not get on well, but Portsmouth has already started the process of imposing an article 4 direction on the whole city. It takes 28 days to do it, and then its 12-month period will run. Perhaps Southampton should learn from Portsmouth. It is dangerous for me to say so, but I will say it.

I commend the Minister for Housing and Local Government on pointing out in the debate on Tuesday that in his constituency of Welwyn Hatfield, Welwyn was fine while Hatfield had a problem due to the university of Hertfordshire students and their HMOs. He supposed, and I understand that he told the Committee, that Welwyn Hatfield council would take action on article 4 in relation to part of its area. Several Members who have spoken in this debate mentioned specific areas in their constituencies that were a problem. The hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) mentioned Branksome East and Winton in particular, and the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) discussed three wards in her constituency.

That is exactly the Government’s point: the problems are comparatively localised, although serious where they arise. We believe that there is a better way to address them. We believe that the article 4 system will deliver. There is already evidence from Manchester, Portsmouth and Exeter that local authorities are responding and are not finding it unduly burdensome to go down that route. The guidance issued by the Minister for Housing and Local Government on 4 November will, I hope, give them some additional reassurance on that point.

I welcomed and enjoyed the contribution made by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan). Yes, we will be undertaking a review, as she requested. Yes, monitoring will take place. I am absolutely sure, given all the eyes turned on us, that if we did not, the House would be quick to remind us of it.

[Alison Seabeck]

Will the Minister confirm exactly how the monitoring will be done and who will do it?

[Andrew Stunell]

I will have to write to the hon. Lady on that point, but I am very willing to do so. There are a number of questions to which I might not have the opportunity to respond fully and properly, and I will attempt to catch up with them by correspondence.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) that we absolutely should not trivialise the issue of safety in HMOs. As a type of housing, they have a poor reputation for safety and fire. That is why a licensing system exists and fire brigades pay special attention to them. However, that is not controlled by the planning system. The planning system responds only to applications, or possibly to reports from neighbours that an application should be made. It does not prevent a rogue landlord from turning his house into something else, which might lead to horrific incidents like the one that my hon. Friend reported. The issue is not part of the planning application process, nor is it specifically relevant to the legislation that we are discussing, but fire protection matters are a responsibility of my Department, and I will take his concerns back to the relevant Minister, so that he is fully aware of the situation.

Another point made was that a local planning authority may be too big a body to take a sensitive and informed decision about where an article 4 order is needed. The example given was Cornwall. If Cornwall is too big an area to take a sensitive and informed decision about where HMOs need to be controlled, how much more true is it that central Government is not in the right place or on the right scale to decide? The driver for the change is giving that responsibility back to the locally elected democratic level in this country, which has been disempowered over the years by successive Governments. We are turning that process around, which means that we are strongly committed to helping councils and local planning authorities take such decisions and respond to pressure from the ballot boxes in their areas rather than to the dictates of Whitehall. That is what localism—turning the whole top-down control system into a bottom-up one—is all about. I do not apologise for what the Minister for Housing and Local Government has said. It is right that the House recognises the importance of localism in this context.

17:30

Sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(11)).

Written Ministerial Statements

Thursday 18th November 2010 Written Statements

Thursday 18 November 2010

Planning Reform

Thursday 18th November 2010 Written Statements

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

I am announcing today reforms to the community infrastructure levy. The levy came into force in April 2010 and gives local authorities in England and Wales the option to raise funds from developers undertaking new building projects in their area.

The money can be used to fund a wide range of infrastructure that is needed as a result of development. This includes: transport schemes, flood defences, schools, hospitals and other health and social care facilities, parks, green spaces and leisure centres.

The Government have decided that this tariff-based approach provides the best framework to fund new infrastructure to unlock land for growth. The community infrastructure levy is fairer, faster, more certain and more transparent than the use of the existing system of planning obligations to collect standardised contributions. Levy rates will be set in consultation with local communities and developers and will provide developers with much more certainty “up front” about how much money they will be expected to contribute.

Under the system of planning obligations only 6% of all planning permissions brought any contribution to the cost of supporting infrastructure, when even small developments can create a need for new services. The levy creates a fairer system for collecting tariff contributions, with all but the smallest building projects making a contribution towards additional infrastructure that is needed as a result of their development.

However, currently too little of the benefits of development go to those directly affected, and our ambition is to correct that. Therefore, the existing powers to set a community infrastructure levy will be reformed so communities have more control over how it works, and developers benefit from a more flexible system.

New neighbourhood funds

The Government will require charging authorities to allocate a meaningful proportion of levy revenues raised in each neighbourhood back to that neighbourhood. This will ensure that where a neighbourhood bears the brunt of a new development, it receives sufficient money to help it manage those impacts. It complements the introduction of other powerful new incentives for local authorities that will ensure that local areas benefit from development they welcome.

Local authorities will need to work closely with neighbourhoods to decide what infrastructure they require, and balance neighbourhood funding with wider infrastructure funding that supports growth. They will retain the ability to use the levy income to address the cumulative impact on infrastructure that may occur further away from the development.

More flexibility for local authorities over levy rates

The Government will include provisions in the localism Bill to limit the binding nature of the examiners’ reports on levy rates. Currently, an examiner scrutinises a council’s levy rates, and all changes that they request are binding, including the rates set for specific areas or types of development.

Examiners will now only be able to ensure councils do not set unreasonable charges. Councils will be required to correct charges that examiners consider to be unreasonable, but they will have more discretion on how this is done—for example, they could depart from the detail of the examiner’s recommendations on the mix of charges to be applied to different classes of development or the rates to be applied in different parts of their area.

Most affordable housing and charity development will continue to be exempt from the levy.

Additional flexibilities for levy charging authorities

The Government want councils to have more control over the working of the levy. Changes to the existing regulations will therefore include:

Freeing up payment arrangements—local authorities will be able to decide their own levy payment deadlines and whether to offer the option of paying by instalments;

Removing the £50,000 minimum threshold so authorities can accept a payment in kind for any level of contribution;

Minor amendments to secondary legislation to close potential loopholes and improve how the levy system works, for example, reducing burdens by scaling back information requirements on the “notice of chargeable development”.

Planning obligations

The Government are confirming that there will be no significant change to the arrangements relating to planning obligations set out in the existing community infrastructure levy regulations. Planning obligations will continue to be used to mitigate the direct impacts of specific developments and to fund affordable housing; however, their use to collect standardised tariff-style contributions will be phased out in favour of the levy by 2014.

Transitional arrangements, timing and next steps

Local authorities that have decided to introduce a community infrastructure levy charge on the basis of the current legislation can now do so.

Local authorities who take steps now to adopt a charging schedule will not need to return to an earlier stage of the process when these changes take effect. And local authorities that have already adopted the levy before the reforms come into effect will be able to take advantage of the new flexibilities without having to review their charging schedules.

The Government aim to publish draft regulations for debate in Parliament in the new year. It would bring the changes into effect on 6 April 2011.

General Affairs and Foreign Affairs Councils

Thursday 18th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

The Foreign Affairs Council and General Affairs Council will meet in Brussels on 22 November. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will attend the Foreign Affairs Council. I will attend the General Affairs Council.

General Affairs Council (GAC)

Follow-up to the September European Council and preparations for the December Council

The presidency will review the outcomes of the October European Council and set out the main themes of the December European Council, which takes place in Brussels on 16 and 17 December. No agenda for the December Council has yet been issued, but we expect that economic governance, the EU budget, enlargement and strategic partnerships will be covered briefly in this discussion.

Use of videoconferencing at Council

Ministers will be presented with proposals for the use of videoconferencing as part of contingency arrangements for EU ministerial meetings at times of crisis. This initiative builds on experiences with the volcanic dust cloud from Iceland which disrupted air travel within Europe earlier this year.

European Commission’s Work Programme for 2011

The Commission’s work programme for 2011 outlines the Commission’s priorities for next year and lists initiatives it plans to launch. It has been put on the agenda as an information point only—we do not expect a discussion. An explanatory memorandum on the work programme will be laid before the House shortly. Detailed responses to policy initiatives will be given as legislative proposals are put forward.

Disaster relief

The Commissioner for International Co-operation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response (Kristalina Georgieva) will set out the Commission’s proposals for building EU disaster response capacity. The proposals will focus on the response to disasters inside and outside the EU; consider both civil protection and humanitarian assistance; and seek cost-effectiveness through use of common assets. The UK supports multilateral humanitarian response, but is not in favour of elaborate new structures.

Foreign Affairs Council (FAC)

EU’s Strategic Partners

Baroness Ashton will set out her latest thinking on enhancing the EU’s strategic relationships. This follows the September European Council mandate, which required her to present a set of proposals in December. The UK wants more focused engagement with EU strategic partners—for example, our position for the India and Russia summits are set out below.

Burma

Ministers will discuss recent developments in Burma including the flawed elections of 7 November and the release of Aung San Suu Kyi on 13 November.

Baroness Ashton released a statement on 13 November following the release of Aung San Suu Kyi which can be found at:

http:/www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/l17708.pdf

This followed an earlier declaration of 7 November by Baroness Ashton, on behalf of the EU, on the elections in Burma which can be found at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/l17549.pdf

The UK was closely involved in the drafting the declaration of 7 November which reflects our serious concern about the nature of the elections. The Prime Minister made a statement about the release of Aung San Suu Kyi to the House of Commons on 15 November.

Summit Preparations (Africa, India, Russia and OSCE)

Baroness Ashton will seek Ministers’ views on preparations for summits.

EU-Africa

The discussion on the EU-Africa summit of 29 and 30 November is an opportunity to use the EU to help deliver some of the UK’s objectives in Africa. The overarching themes of the summit are investment, economic growth and job creation. We expect the summit’s communiqué to contain a renewed political commitment to regional integration and trade facilitation. Additionally, the summit should endorse the outcome of discussions in New York on the African Union Mission in Somalia, (AMISOM). On current plans, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) will represent the Prime Minister at the summit.

EU-India

The EU-India summit takes place on 10 December. We expect that the summit will complement our recent drive to enhance the UK’s bilateral ties with India. The FAC will consider the agenda and objectives of the summit which will focus on trade, climate change and regional and security issues of interest to both sides.

EU-Russia

The EU-Russia summit will be held on 7 December. The UK supports the proposed agenda which includes Russia’s WTO accession, negotiations on a new EU-Russia agreement, climate change and EU-Russia relations including support for the partnership for modernisation.

OSCE

Ministers will be invited to discuss preparations for the forthcoming summit (1 and 2 December) in Astana.

The UK delegation will be led by the Deputy Prime Minister. I will also attend. The summit will mark a key step in the Corfu process, set up in 2009 to address a Russian initiative on the future of European security in a comprehensive manner covering all three OSCE dimensions—human, economic and environment and politico-military. The UK and EU’s summit objectives are focused on four priority areas:

To strengthen the OSCE’s conflict prevention/resolution capabilities, including in relation to protracted conflicts, updating existing and considering new mechanisms as needed.

To reaffirm the OSCE’s commitments. Updating and strengthening of commitments in the areas of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of the media.



To strengthen the conventional arms control framework in Europe, including confidence and security building measures.

To enhance the role of the OSCE on Afghanistan, and more generally on countering transnational threats; for example, WMD proliferation, organised crime, terrorism, narcotics.

Iran

Ministers may discuss the state of the E3+3 (UK, France and Germany, and US, China and Russia) negotiations with Iran, depending on progress achieved. Ministers may also raise human rights in Iran.

Middle East Peace Process and Lebanon

Ministers may discuss developments in the US-led middle east peace talks and what the EU can do to support progress. On Lebanon, Ministers are expected to adopt conclusions that express concern about the current situation in Lebanon and supports the National Unity Government and the special tribunal process.

Sudan

Ministers will discuss the situation in Sudan. The UK will be looking for the EU to agree conclusions that set a clear agenda for what more can be done to ensure the successful completion of the comprehensive peace agreement, whatever the outcome of the referendum. The conclusions should stress the urgency needed on preparations for the referendum to take place in January. The Council will also discuss the conflict in Darfur, and may stress that efforts must continue to find an inclusive political solution to the Darfur conflict, and underline the importance of improving security and humanitarian access in Darfur. The UK will encourage a further discussion on Sudan in December.

Iraq

The discussion on Iraq will focus on the internal security situation and in particular recent attacks on the Christian community. The UK has condemned these attacks and others against Shia targets. A number of EU member states have also expressed concern over the attacks. The UK judges that it is important that the current (and future) Iraq Government protect all communities in Iraq, including minorities, against violence. Ministers may be asked to agree conclusions.

European Count of Justice (Appointment of Romanian Judge)

Thursday 18th November 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 18 November 2010 the appointment of a Romanian judge to the General Court is to be considered.

The nomination is in respect of Andrei Popescu.

Having consulted with the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice and the Attorney-General, I agree to the appointment.