House of Commons

Thursday 25th November 2010 Commons Chamber

Thursday 25 November 2010

The House met at half-past Ten o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 25th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 25th November 2010 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

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

1. What estimate he has made of the likely amount local authorities will incur in redundancy costs in the next 18 months.

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

It is for individual councils locally to determine redundancy policies based on their own circumstances. Decisions about when and how to make and manage work force reductions, including policies on redundancy payments, are rightly for individual councils to make as the employers.

[Mr Blunkett]

Ministers do not have the first idea what the cost will be to local taxpayers. Is this not a triple whammy, whereby families and individuals lose their services, communities find that provision is taken from them and individuals lose their jobs? Is it not correct that instead of paying for services, council tax payers will have to pay for redundancies for services that are being withdrawn? Is it not a scandal that the Government do not know what the impact will be?

[Robert Neill]

The Government have endeavoured to assist the most vulnerable local councils by increasing the amount of money available in the formula grant that is not ring-fenced, moving more money into formula grant, reducing the amount of ring-fencing and rolling more grants into one. I imagine that when his Government were in office, the right hon. Gentleman would have complained greatly about their removal of working neighbourhoods funding for his city of Sheffield, which will cost the city some £38 million. We will endeavour to find the means to cushion that—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are talking about redundancy costs, so we must get on with it.

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

I gather that in the comprehensive spending review the Government allocated £200 million for the capitalisation cost of redundancy payments. I also gather that local authority chief executives and treasurers suggest that the costs might be between £1.5 billion and £3 billion. If they are correct and the Government estimate is much lower than the actual sums involved, what are the Government going to do about it?

[Robert Neill]

Capitalisation, which enables local authorities to treat revenue expenditure as capital and borrow for it is an exception to the accounting rules, so there has always been a need for some control, and capitalisation for a number of streams has never run at 100%. It is also worth bearing in mind that local authorities have been aware for some time that reductions in expenditure were inevitable—they were planned by the previous Government. A shrewd authority will therefore have planned to deal with the problem in advance.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

Local government now predicts an 11% cut in council budgets next year, with 140,000 jobs lost and a redundancy bill in excess of £2 billion—not the £200 million originally predicted by Ministers. Is local government right? Do Ministers know, or is the truth that they simply do not care about the public servants they will lay off or the public services that they will lay to waste?

[Robert Neill]

The greatest threat to public services for the future is failure to tackle the unprecedented deficit that the previous Government left us. We are prepared to work with local government to deal with those issues, but the hon. Gentleman and his party clearly have no answers whatever.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to reduce the number of unauthorised encampments.

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

6. What steps he is taking to reduce the number of unauthorised encampments.

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

Local authorities will be responsible for determining the right level of Traveller site provision in their area to meet local needs and historic demands. We will encourage councils to provide sites with incentives through the new homes bonus scheme and grant funding for local authorities to deliver new sites.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

Will my right hon. Friend give us some idea of the time frame for the withdrawal of planning order circular 01/06? In the meantime, does he take the view that the Government’s intention to withdraw this circular should be a material consideration at both the planning and appeal stage?

[Mr Pickles]

We have certainly stated our intention to repeal circular 01/06 and we shall shortly start consultation on an alternative to it. In the meantime, given that the localism Bill will substantially change planning on these matters, I can say that our intention almost certainly is a material consideration.

[Jonathan Lord]

Residents of the village of Normandy in my constituency are fed up with the never-ending cycle of encampments on green-belt fields, retrospective planning applications and seemingly unenforceable planning refusals. Does my right hon. Friend really believe that the measures he has described will provide a proper and permanent solution for my concerned constituents?

[Mr Pickles]

The short answer to that is, of course, yes.

I am afraid that the policy pursued by the last Government left us in a very difficult position. Let me give an indication of how difficult it has become. I remind Members that in 1997 there were 887 unlawful encampments. That figure was bad enough, but it has now shot up to 2,395. As for the second part of my hon. Friend’s question, we intend to restrict retrospective planning applications substantially.

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

May I warn the Secretary of State of a new type of unauthorised encampment? In my city of Nottingham, the chief executive of Framework, a major charity for the homeless, warned this week that there would be hundreds of rough sleepers in tents in the woods or in sheds on industrial estates as a result of the swingeing cuts that the Secretary of State has implemented in the Supporting People budget. Will he please think again?

[Mr Pickles]

I think that the hon. Gentleman may be a little mistaken. As he will know, the Government have passported £6.5 billion to local authorities to support people, and we expect that money to be passed on to the most vulnerable.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that no element of human rights legislation contains any provision allowing antisocial behaviour, or enshrining any kind of right or protection allowing people in unauthorised encampments to participate in such behaviour?

[Mr Pickles]

We are trying to achieve a balanced approach. The last policy was unrealistic. To hit the 2011 targets set by the last Government, we would have to wait for a further 18 years because we are so far behind. I believe that that policy was predicated on conflict, whereas we want to ensure that there is firm action on retrospective planning applications and enforcement. We will end the continuous process of appeal on application, subsequent application and stop notice, but at the same time we hope to introduce mainstream provision for Travellers by including provisional sites in the new homes bonus.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

3. What representations he has received from local authorities on likely changes to funding from his Department since the publication of the comprehensive spending review.

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

I have received a number of representations about the challenging but fair settlement for local government. We will shortly announce details of our proposals for funding local authorities in the provisional local government finance settlement.

[Simon Danczuk]

The Secretary of State’s failure to stand up for councils in the CSR is having a devastating impact on jobs and services in Rochdale. Provision for the homeless, community centres, adult care and many other services are being cut. The situation is so bad that six Liberal Democrat councillors resigned last week, and yesterday the Liberal council leader stood down. Because of the Secretary of State’s cuts, the local authority is in turmoil. When will he stand up for local government?

[Mr Pickles]

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would congratulate the coalition Government. We recognise that a number of authorities are more dependent on grant than others. We face a particularly difficult task in relation to Rochdale, as we must bridge just short of £6 million that the Labour Government took from the working neighbourhoods fund, but we will certainly seek to provide that cushion. My advice to the hon. Gentleman is “Go back to Rochdale, put a bit of lead in their pencil, and let them get on with protecting front-line services rather than fighting among themselves.”

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree, on the basis of the representations that he has received from local authorities, that every progressive authority in the country will have planned for the reductions in expenditure? Does he intend to ensure that councils are able to freeze council tax following the years of rapid increases under Labour?

[Mr Pickles]

Absolutely. What was going to happen to local government was well showcased. It was clear from the previous Chancellor’s statement in autumn 2009 and the Budget earlier this year, before the general election, that at least £5 billion was coming out of local authorities and that that would be front-loaded. I would therefore expect prudent local authorities and prudent chief executives to have taken the necessary precautions.

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

The worst aspect of these cuts to local authority budgets, which amount to 28% in real terms over the next four years, is that they are front-loaded. The hardest hit councils are facing reductions in their grants next year of 14%, 18%, 20% or even more. That means they have to plan their service cuts and redundancies now, so may I urge the Secretary of State to think again about the scale of these cuts or to alter their phasing so that councils are not forced to take what will be very damaging crisis measures?

[Mr Pickles]

“As we look forward”, regeneration spending is

“not the biggest priority we face”

as there are “other competing priorities.” I apologise: perhaps I should have made it clear that those were the words of the now Leader of the Opposition, speaking on the Radio 4 “Today” programme on 12 April, just before the general election. That is the dilemma. The Opposition have a blank piece of paper. They oppose everything when they know, as we know, that they were going to impose £5 billion of front-loaded cuts on local authorities.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

May I ask the Secretary of State to join me in congratulating my council, Dudley metropolitan borough council, on engaging in discussions with Wolverhampton, Walsall and Sandwell councils about rationalising services and reducing back-office costs without affecting front-line services?

[Mr Pickles]

I have to say that that is the future of local government. We expect local authorities to merge services and to protect the front line. Prudent councils are doing that. Councils that are more content to use the poor and the vulnerable as a battering ram against the Government will seek to protect the centre and not seek to protect front-line services, whereas good councils will protect the front line.

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

4. What progress has been made in devolving more powers and financial autonomy to local authorities.

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

In six months, the coalition Government have ended the ring-fencing of all but two revenue grants, simplified over 90 separate funding streams for local government to fewer than 10, scrapped comprehensive area assessments and abolished 4,700 central targets on local government. The localism Bill will give many more new powers to local councils, including a general power of competence. This Government are reversing decades of top-down control, which has led to Britain being one of most centralised countries on the planet.

[Mr Raynsford]

The Minister may be aware that, in responding to his Department’s recent paper on proposed changes to social tenancies, Councillor Richard Kemp, leader of the Liberal Democrats in local government, described the proposals as “an irrelevant fantasy” and added:

“No council with any sense of the realities on the ground is going to be interested in this”.

Does the Minister—and, perhaps more interestingly, do his coalition partners—agree?

[Greg Clark]

The consultation my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government has launched has been well received across the sector because it introduces a right, not an obligation, and when we have a homelessness crisis, I think it is right to give registered social landlords more flexibility than they currently have in allocating to homeless tenants.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Like many other local authorities, South Lakeland district council would desperately love the autonomy to be able to scrap the second-home council tax subsidy, which costs the council tax payer in South Lakeland £1.25 million every year. At this time of hardship, difficulty and restraint, is it not time to look again at whether we should give a 10% subsidy to those who can afford it the most?

[Greg Clark]

We have made a lot of progress already. My hon. Friend is right that localism involves there being greater control of resources locally. A further set of measures will be considered in a review that will start in January, and I will make sure that his proposal is considered in that.

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

The Minister for Housing and Local Government was not in the House on Monday to answer questions on the housing consultation paper so, while we are on the subject of devolving powers, may I ask his colleague about this? The Government have repeatedly said that they will not allow social landlords to change the rights of existing tenants, yet question 13 of that consultation leaves the door wide open for them to do exactly that in the future. Can this Minister give the House a personal guarantee that the Government will not now or in the future permit changes to the rights of existing social tenants?

[Greg Clark]

Yes.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

5. What requirements local authorities have to report their expenditure to his Department.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

10. What recent steps he has taken to increase transparency and accountability in local government spending.

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

We are replacing bureaucratic accountability to central Government with democratic accountability. People should be able to hold their local council to account over the taxes it spends. More and more local authorities are publishing details of spending items of more than £500 online. Next month, I will consult on a code of recommended practice for local authorities, which will address issues such as scope, formatting and timings for publishing data.

[Penny Mordaunt]

Although I do not want to add to the administrative burdens of local authorities, it would be useful to have data against which performance, quality and reach of services, and efficiency could be measured. What tools will be made available to this House and the public to do that?

[Mr Pickles]

It is most important that we continue to press ahead with the agenda and, in particular, with the public right to know how money is being spent. It is no use talking about cuts in public spending and cuts to front-line services when we find that we have excessive pay among chief executives and excessive numbers of middle management, and that local authorities are not offering value for money. So the important thing is that all authorities will put this online. I have to tell my hon. Friend that the Portsmouth, Great Yarmouth and Norfolk authorities have not put these amounts online. I hope that she and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) will urge them to do so.

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that. I know that Great Yarmouth’s authority is set to go live with this online in January. Does he agree that having the new transparency in place will mean that voluntary sector organisations and small businesses across the country will have a much more even playing field when bidding for contracts?

[Mr Pickles]

Yes, and we will be taking this a step further: not only will voluntary organisations be able to compare the costs and the spending, and the public will be able to judge those, but in the new localism Bill we will give voluntary organisations the right to bid for services and to run them directly if they can produce them better and more cheaply than local authorities.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

What plans does the Secretary of State have to encourage local authorities to publish the expenditure that they are undertaking on big society projects? If he has plans to scope out that expenditure, could that report contain a particular section on funding for citizens advice bureaux? The representations that I am receiving suggest that they are going to get a hammering as a result of his funding settlement.

[Mr Pickles]

They should not get a hammering, as that would be foolish of local authorities. That applies whether the authority is Labour, Liberal Democrat, Conservative or hung; it applies to councils of whatever colour. If local authorities seek to deal with this country’s financial crisis by simply paring back on grants, salami slicing and taking X% out of all departments, they will fail. They have to restructure, they have to change and they have to share services. If they do not do that, they will rue the day when they cut back on Citizens Advice and similar voluntary organisations.

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

On the issue of reporting expenditure to central Government, and pursuant to the Secretary of State’s previous answer about protecting the front line, has Westminster council informed him of its intention to close a disability centre that provides luncheon facilities and a hydrotherapy pool to many severely disabled people, many of whom are also losing their levels of care services, as they, too, are being retrenched?

[Mr Pickles]

I will look into that issue and write to the hon. Lady. I have to say that Westminster council has a fantastic record in dealing with vulnerable people, but I will look into the specific case.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

7. When he plans to publish the localism Bill.

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

12. When he plans to publish the localism Bill.

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

14. When he plans to publish the localism Bill.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

17. When he plans to publish the localism Bill.

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

The localism Bill contains a wide range of measures to shift power from central Government into the hands of individuals, communities and councils. The Bill frees local government from central and regional control and strengthens local democracy. In addition, it gives greater power over planning, housing and other services and allows councils and councillors to be better held to account. The Bill will be published imminently.

[Julian Sturdy]

I thank the Minister for his response. May I ask him to go into a little more detail on how the localism Bill, through empowering local people, will help protect the green belt in my constituency of York Outer?

[Greg Clark]

Of course. One of the real opportunities in the localism Bill is to remove the threat to the green belt that comes from the regional spatial strategies. The concern up and down the country that green belts could be deleted through those strategies will be buried once and for good by the localism Bill.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State confirm that material consideration should be given by councils to circular 01/06 on Gypsies and Travellers, although some, including mine, have not been doing so. May I ask the Minister to outline what benefits that will present to neighbourhoods and to villages such as Welford-in-Avon in my constituency?

[Greg Clark]

The Leader of the Opposition has said that the previous Government looked down their noses at local government. Nowhere was that more true than in the case of parish councils. The charge of parochialism needs to be turned round and we need to regard an interest in locality through parishes as a positive measure. The localism Bill will allow parishes, as neighbourhoods, to set their own plans, to have them adopted and to give effect to them in the planning system.

[Julian Smith]

May I ask my right hon. Friend to go a bit further on the role of parish councils? Skipton and Ripon is packed with hundreds of excellent parish councils and they are asking me what specific role they have in relation to district councils. Will he go into a bit more detail on that?

[Greg Clark]

The planning provisions in the localism Bill will allow every neighbourhood in the country, including parishes, to set its own local neighbourhood plan. That will mean that they can design the look and feel of their neighbourhoods going forward into the future and in so doing take away the bureaucracy that is involved in taking planning applications through the development control process. If we capture it in the plan, we will not have that bureaucracy and uncertainty.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I welcome the Government’s commitment to include local referendums in the localism Bill. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the results of those referendums are not binding, their status will be only marginally higher than that of an ordinary petition, although they will be a lot more expensive? Will he bring in proper referendums that are legally binding?

[Greg Clark]

I know that my hon. Friend is a great champion of referendums, as he has organised one in his own constituency. The localism Bill contains binding referendums on subjects such as whether to introduce mayors, the neighbourhood plans that I mentioned earlier and excessive increases in council tax. It also contains provisions for advisory referendums that will test public opinion and can influence policies. Sometimes it is appropriate to nudge councils to do the right thing. This will be perhaps more of a shove than a nudge, and I think it will be difficult to ignore.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

How can the Minister keep a straight face when he talks about localism and local democracy when later today his Government will ram through legislation to take away that local democracy from Exeter and Norwich with our recently restored unitary status?

[Greg Clark]

I am advised that the right hon. Gentleman did not even table an amendment to the Bill, such is his commitment. I shall stand corrected if I am wrong. During the previous Government’s time in office, this country became one of the most centralised countries. We want to revive local democracy by transferring power from central Government to local government and down to communities. We will take no lectures from the Opposition, who have driven that centralisation.

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

What discussions has the Minister had with the Welsh Government on devolving extra powers to the National Assembly under the localism Bill?

[Greg Clark]

We have had discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government. Clearly, if we want to devolve powers to the lowest possible level, those discussions will vary according to the different provisions in the Bill. It is quite a detailed matter and the hon. Gentleman will see the outcome of the discussions when the Bill is published.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Will the Minister say what proportion of local expenditure should be raised locally, thereby bringing direct accountability to local communities on delivering localism?

[Greg Clark]

I do not think it is terribly localist to prescribe what that percentage should be, but it is right that as we take a more localist direction, we want a greater connection between the behaviour of local councils and the revenue being raised. That is the direction in which we are going, but it would be wrong to prescribe a percentage.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

Two weeks ago the High Court ruled that the Secretary of State acted unlawfully when he scrapped regional housing plans, comparing him with Henry VIII. His Majesty’s reply was that it did not matter because the Government were going to abolish them in the localism Bill anyway, but that could take nine months to become law and the confusion that the Government have created has undermined the construction industry and led local councils to ditch 1,300 new homes every day. Will the Minister confirm that, in the mean time, local councils should get on with supporting the construction of the homes that the country so badly needs?

[Greg Clark]

The right hon. Lady makes a mistake that afflicted the Government of whom she was a member—the fatal flaw of confusing plans with homes. In many cases there was an inverse relationship: the higher the target, the lower the number of homes actually built. That is why we want to reform the planning system. The Government’s intention has been absolutely clear. There is not a councillor, planner or developer in the country who does not know that the regional strategies are on the way out and will be buried and interred for ever.

[Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

8. What his policy is on the distribution of reductions to local authority funding over the comprehensive spending review period; and if he will make a statement.

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

We will announce our proposals for the local government finance settlement in the usual manner in due course.

[Dr Pugh]

It would be rational to accept that the size of the front-loaded cuts coupled with the council tax freeze in the first year will create a huge problem for even prudent local authorities, necessarily giving them less time, less flexibility and less chance of saving front-line services. Does he agree?

[Andrew Stunell]

No I do not. I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the fact that we have proceeded at a rapid rate with de-ring-fencing and breaking down the silos between different funds coming to local councils, reducing the number from more than 90 to around 10. We are also putting large sums of money at the disposal of local authorities. I also want to draw his attention to the option that local authorities have of raising their council tax income by up to 2.5% and receiving a compensatory grant so that their residents do not have to bear that cost, thereby protecting residents and giving councils the opportunity to generate more revenue.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The Treasury’s green book confirms that funding for local councils will be cut by 28% over the next four years, but the spending review framework document says that the Government will limit the impact of the reduction in spending on regions that are heavily dependent on the public sector. As we are all supposed to be in it together and in order to ensure fairness will the Minister confirm that the cuts faced by local councils will be based on their total budget requirement and not on their formula grant? As he knows, the formula grant accounts for up to 80% of the budget requirements of some councils and less than 20% of others.

[Andrew Stunell]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the picture is very complex. That is why when the settlement comes, he will see that the Government have responded to the points he has raised.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

9. What steps he is taking to reduce the number of squatters.

[The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)]

On 8 November I published an online guide for home owners affected by squatters, setting out the rights and action they can take. We are also taking steps to help get empty homes back into productive use and will be helping to reduce the scope for squatting by doing this.

[Michael Ellis]

I thank the Minister for that answer, but we have some long-established squatters in Parliament square. What are we going to do about them?

[Grant Shapps]

As the Prime Minister said yesterday, the Government share the concerns about the current state of Parliament square. I can inform the House that we intend to introduce legislation shortly.

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

11. What recent steps he has taken to reduce homelessness.

[The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)]

The Government are committed to tackling and preventing homelessness. We have established a cross-departmental working group on homelessness, taking in eight Departments, and the homelessness grant has been fully protected at £400 million.

[Andrew Selous]

Does my right hon. Friend believe that the Government could learn lessons from the recent successful scheme by the charity Broadway, which got a number of long-term homeless people off the streets and into their own accommodation at an average cost of £794, compared with the many thousands of pounds spent on them while they are on the streets?

[Grant Shapps]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Broadway scheme is excellent and innovative. It has taken funding and allowed the people who are involved with homelessness provision and the service users to decide how best to use it. I congratulate Broadway, which has managed to get a lot more done for £794, rather than the average of £3,000. It is an excellent scheme from which others can learn.

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

Will the Minister confirm whether now or in the future he plans to reduce homelessness by changing either its definition or the categories of people who are entitled to assistance and re-housing because they are homeless?

[Grant Shapps]

We have no plans whatever to change the categories of reasonable preference—those categories that councils have to take into account in order to state whether somebody is homeless and, therefore, provide statutory help. We have already changed the terms—the measurement—of homelessness as defined by rough sleeping, which, under the hon. Gentleman’s Government, meant that there were only 440 people sleeping rough on the country’s streets. We discovered very quickly, once we had counted such people properly, that there are actually 1,294.

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

13. If he will estimate the proportion of the funding for the new homes bonus scheme which will be spent in Milton Keynes.

[The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)]

The new homes bonus will match-fund the same amount of council tax for every single home built for an additional six years, and we have published a very helpful calculator on the Department’s website, where people can go today to find out how much they will get for the additional homes built.

[Iain Stewart]

I warmly welcome the new homes bonus, which will go a long way to providing the infrastructure that new housing estates need, but will local authorities have the discretion to use that bonus for capital and revenue items?

[Grant Shapps]

The new homes bonus is available for local authorities to spend as they see fit. Under the localism Bill and the flexibility that we now provide, it is absolutely possible for local authorities to use that money potentially even to borrow against, because the income stream is guaranteed for six years. It is a simple, very straightforward approach to making sure that people get more money to their area. To give Members an indication of the calculator, I should say that for every 100 homes that are built in any given area £1 million is likely to go to it over the six-year period.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Specifically on Milton Keynes, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart)?

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Milton Keynes and Slough are both in the same region, and they both face similar issues, because the homes in their areas are more likely to be in a lower council tax band than the homes in neighbouring areas. Is it fair that those neighbouring areas, which build bigger, richer houses, will get more money than places such as Milton Keynes and Slough, which have more band D places?

[Grant Shapps]

We can usefully draw out a couple of points from the consultation that is before the House. First, we have set the banding equally throughout the country, so a band D home represents the average band D home throughout the country. Secondly, bigger homes obviously take up more space, so people will get less money because they cannot build as many. Thirdly, the hon. Lady will be interested to know that we have over-compensated for affordable house building, ensuring that every single affordable home that is built will get more than £350 in additional money. That represents a figure of more than 125% for every affordable home built. We should get more built—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am very grateful to the Minister.

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

15. If he will take steps to encourage community ownership of local assets and facilities.

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

The Government will make it easier for communities to take on community assets through the community right-to-buy provisions in the localism Bill. Practical help is already available from the Government-funded asset transfer unit and from the Communitybuilders programme, and the big society bank will step in to help social enterprises and voluntary sector organisations early next year.

[Esther McVey]

Does the Minister agree that the Government need to do more to empower communities to improve their local areas and take over amenities, such as community centres and allotments? What steps will the Government take to ensure that those initiatives are taken up in the forthcoming localism Bill?

[Andrew Stunell]

First of all, I commend Wirral borough council for setting up its own fund for the transfer of community assets and for making the launch of those much more feasible. I hope that other local authorities will look at that example.

The community right to buy will be a powerful option for neighbourhoods and community groups that want to take on assets, and that will be backed by money. The asset transfer unit and Communitybuilders, a project lasting through to 2014, will be there to provide support. I also want to make quite sure that the House understands that the big society bank will be there to assist as well.

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

16. What steps his Department is taking to return empty homes to productive use.

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

My hon. Friend’s question is well timed, as it is empty homes week. I am sure that there will be concern right across the House at the fact that there are currently 738,000 empty homes in this country and that more than 300,000 of those have been vacant for six months or more. They are a blight on the community and a waste of housing that we cannot afford.

The coalition agreement says clearly that we are planning to tackle the issue, and we have made the first steps. We intend to provide £100 million over the spending review period to bring empty homes back into use—that is a tripling of the money contributed by Labour in the last comprehensive review period. We are consulting on how the new homes bonus can also be used to bring more homes back into use.

[Amber Rudd]

In Hastings, more than 2,300 families are on the housing waiting list and there are more than 800 empty homes. Has the Minister considered whether there is any additional incentive that we can give to councils to try to bring the more difficult properties, which have been empty for more than two years, back to productive use, as against the slightly easier properties, which have been empty for six months?

[Andrew Stunell]

Every effort needs to be made by local councils. They have some statutory tools at their disposal—statutory improvement notices, enforced sales and the empty dwelling management orders. However, I hope that the fact that we are tripling the investment for bringing empty homes across the country back into use will give my hon. Friend some assurance that we are serious about the issue and will work with local authorities to deliver a much improved record.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I am glad that you have mentioned that there are 738,000 empty properties, many of them long-term empty. Can you give some quantitative indication of—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I can give no quantitative indication at all, but the Minister might be able to. Carry on.

[Graham Jones]

Sorry, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister give a quantitative indication of the extent to which he hopes to reduce the figure over the period—100,000 or 200,000? By how much will he reduce it?

[Andrew Stunell]

Some £100 million is intended to assist in bringing back 3,000 empty homes into use, and that is direct financial support. I draw the House’s attention again to the impact that the new homes bonus can make in increasing that, and there are of course the statutory levers that local authorities should use to make sure that the blight of empty homes is reduced.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s remarks about the new homes bonus. However, will he go a little further and confirm that that bonus will be payable to local councils that bring empty properties back into use, so that councils such as Basildon and Thurrock can benefit from the measure?

[Andrew Stunell]

I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the fact that this is a matter on which we are consulting. We have that intention, and I hope that he will write and encourage us to carry forward that proposal.

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

18. By what date he expects the residential property tribunals system for park home owners to be in full operation.

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

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on her staunch work on behalf of mobile home owners. Subject to parliamentary approval, we expect residential property tribunals to begin hearing cases under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 in spring next year.

[Annette Brooke]

I very much welcome the Minister’s response. However, I am sure that he is very much aware that it will not address some of the appalling practices to which some park home owners are subjected. What further action will he set in motion?

[Andrew Stunell]

As my hon. Friend knows, I attended the lobby that she organised, and I have absolutely no doubt about the serious problem that residents face with a small minority of rogue landlords. We need to see how the Tribunals Service can deal with these complaints and matters. Certainly, we shall be looking very hard to see what progress we can make. The Minister for Housing and Local Government is looking at a range of measures that will help to combat the mismanagement and abuse that some residents face, and he will shortly make an announcement on his plans.

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

19. What estimate he has made of the change in number of first-time buyers in the housing market in the last 12 months.

[The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)]

According to data from the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the number of first-time buyers has fallen slightly over the past 12 months, by around 5% in total.

[Mr Robinson]

Is the Minister aware that those figures are among the worst ever for first-time buyers? Is he further aware that the calculations put out by the British Bankers Association on Tuesday of this week show that the level of new mortgage approvals is at its lowest for 19 months, and that the level for gross mortgage lending is the lowest for 10 years? This is a disastrous situation for hundreds of thousands of young couples who want to get into the housing market. What is the Minister going to do about it?

[Grant Shapps]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in that analysis; I completely concur with it. It is a disaster for first-time buyers. One of the first things I did as Housing Minister was to reverse the policy of the previous Minister to say that I believe in the aspiration of people owning their homes. The reason we ended up with this problem in the first place is related to the enormous deficit and boom and bust, which was led by housing in particular. We need a more stable economy in place—not like the one that we were headed for or like the Irish one, but one that is stable for the long term. That means that cutting the deficit is the No. 1 move. I am also very aware that there are effectively only five lenders on the high street, which means that there is very little competition for first-time buyers. The banking review will report next June. It is very important that competition is opened up and we reverse the situation for first-time buyers.

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

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

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

This week my Government will be co-operating with interfaith week, celebrating how faith communities are adding to the well-being of our society. We have published details of our plans to build 150,000 more affordable houses over the next four years. We have welcomed the decision of the Local Government Association’s chief executive to take a cut of £200,000 a year, and we hope that more town hall chiefs will follow his example in these austere times.

At the 2010 British curry awards, the Government paid tribute to the spice industry’s £4 billion turnaround—a real bhuna for the British economy. From bin collections to small business tax relief, we will do our utmost to ensure that Britain’s curry industry is second to naan.

[Mr Blunkett]

Sorry, Mr Speaker, I can hardly follow that.

The proposal to refund 2.5% of income to councils freezing their council tax next year, which was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) and the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), will have the perverse outcome, will it not, of top-slicing the money from all councils and then rewarding the wealthiest, high rateable value authorities such as Surrey twice as much as the poorer low rateable value authorities such as Hull, Newcastle or Sheffield? Given that those three councils are Liberal Democrat-controlled, will the Secretary of State tell me which conjuring trick he managed to do in persuading the Deputy Prime Minister and his colleagues that this was fair or even acceptable?

[Mr Pickles]

I am sorry to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is wrong about the top-slicing. It is in fact new money, and we will not be top-slicing the authorities. I face a great dilemma. As the money that each local authority has varies, the grant differs considerably; he alluded to that. The particular problem I face is the decision taken by the Labour Chancellor to remove £300 million from the working neighbourhoods fund, which will hit Sheffield particularly hard. At the moment, I am trying to ensure that Sheffield and all those authorities are cushioned against Labour cuts.

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

T3. Mindful of the recent floods in Cornwall and the fact that from April next year, upper-tier and unitary authorities will have responsibility for flood risk management strategies, will the Secretary of State confirm that money for that purpose will be guaranteed in the comprehensive spending review? Will he please apply planning policy guidance note 23 to inappropriate developments on floodplains?

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

Our colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs remain committed to funding fully local authorities’ new burdens under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Up to £36 million a year in total will be provided directly to lead local flood authorities for all those new burdens, and in addition local authorities will spend money supported by formula grant from our Department. I will certainly consult my colleagues on the PPG to which my hon. Friend refers.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

It is not really turning out to be a very good day for the Secretary of State, but you know what, it has not actually been a very good fortnight since he told council leaders on 6 November that talk of front-loaded cuts was “fiction”. Now it seems that reality is beginning to dawn on him. According to a report in the Local Government Chronicle, he has been attending emergency meetings with the Treasury to plead for more money to mitigate the effect of those cuts, which could mean some councils losing up to 20% of their funding by April 2011. Whether or not it is true that the Secretary of State has been lobbying the Treasury to come up with more cash, may I urge him to start listening to the concerns of local government and ensure that councils get a fair deal that stops the damage caused by the heaviest cuts falling in the first year?

[Mr Pickles]

I am sorry to say to the right hon. Lady that I have not necessarily found the Local Government Chronicle a very accurate reflection of what is going on in my Department, ripping read though it undoubtedly is. I must also admonish her in the mildest possible terms for using a partial quote. What I said was ridiculous was the idea that councils would face a 20% cut in their total spending ability in the first year.

The right hon. Lady has to recognise that she needs a policy. She knows, I know and the House knows that the Labour party Government were going to impose £5 billion-worth of cuts on local government, which would have been front-loaded.

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

T4. Analysis of the impact of reforming the formula grant on concessionary travel support suggests that most of the options currently being considered have urban-centric criteria and therefore could lead to more money going to urban areas and less to rural areas. What assurance can my hon. Friend the Minister give to places such as Cornwall, which rely on concessionary fare support, that they will not be disadvantaged by the changes?

[Robert Neill]

I understand very well the concern that my hon. Friend raises and the importance of the issue, particularly for shire districts. He is right that we have consulted on that, and we are considering the results of that consultation. I have to ask him to be patient, because we will announce our proposals for the local government finance settlement in the usual manner in due course.

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

T2. What incentive does the Minister think cities such as Southampton will have, under the terms of the new homes bonus, to avoid losing millions of pounds of housing funding by having to build more homes each year than have been built in the city since the aftermath of the second world war, and on land that, because of the urban nature of such cities, does not actually exist?

[The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, because people often say that more homes cannot be built in a city, so perhaps the new homes bonus will not operate there. Interestingly, however, when I go to some of the most crowded places, such as Kensington and Chelsea or Westminster, I am told that even those areas have space to build and will benefit greatly from the bonus. I recommend that his local authority looks for some of the space it has and gets building.

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

T5. Will the Secretary of State inform the House what guidance there will be following the proposed revocation of planning circular 04/07 to inform local authorities such as mine in Selby about planning permission for travelling show people or others wishing to develop land for use as a permanent site for travelling show people?

[Mr Pickles]

I have had a meeting with the Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain, kindly organised by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley). We talked about what would replace those planning guidelines, and we will do our best to meet what the guild is looking for—sensible co-operation with local authorities.

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

T6. Many small voluntary organisations in my constituency that provide services to the most vulnerable, such as Durham Action on Single Housing, are extremely concerned about their futures following local government cuts. What will the Minister do to ensure that homelessness does not increase in my constituency and elsewhere as a result of the cuts to local government spending?

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

It is very important that every local authority reflects on the contribution that the voluntary sector can make. We are decentralising funds from central Government to local government, and I expect local government not to draw up the drawbridge, but to treat voluntary organisations fairly and, indeed, to allow them greater access so that they can provide more services than they currently do.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

T8. The Secretary of State recently visited the Nine Elms development area, which includes Battersea power station in my constituency. We talked about the importance of tax increment financing being available to councils involved in major regeneration projects. Will he press for TIFs to be brought in as soon as possible?

[Mr Pickles]

I thought the development was very interesting. It will transform the south of the river; indeed, Members of the House will be able to look across to one of the more exciting developments in our capital. I very much recall my visit, which was just before my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced our intention to move forward on TIFs at the Liberal party conference. We will be including this in the localism Bill, which will be introduced in this House very soon.

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

T7. On Monday, the Government set out plans to reform social housing, including the scrapping of guaranteed long-term tenancies. These reforms have been described by leading charities as “a deliberate attack on the poorest in society”.Does the Housing Minister agree with the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, who said of the Government’s proposal:“it is not a Liberal Democrat policy, it is not a coalition policy, it was not in the election manifesto of either party, it was not in the coalition agreement…our party would need a lot of persuading that it has merit”?

[Grant Shapps]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that, because a lot of misinformation has been put about on these reforms. For one thing, on the flexible tenure—the idea that a tenure from two years could be provided—we are thinking about special cases, such as that of my constituent Matthew Hignett, who was paralysed from the neck down after a motorcycle accident. He cannot apply under any of the current rules for social housing, but thanks to flexible tenure—because we are making the system more flexible—he will now actually get the help and assistance that he requires. Some of the charities have made comments on that, but some, such as the YMCA, have said that they appreciate and welcome flexible tenure, so, no, I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s comments.

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

My constituents welcome the fact that Milton Keynes council will become the sole planning authority for the city, but they are concerned that some of the assets currently controlled by Milton Keynes Partnership may not be used for community purposes. Will the Minister meet a delegation from the city to discuss some innovative ideas about how those assets could be used?

[Mr Pickles]

It is always a pleasure to meet my hon. Friend, and I look forward to meeting him and representatives from Milton Keynes in due course.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

T9. What support will the Secretary of State give the campaign that I am launching to ensure the retention in Retford of the full-time fire station and service, which has been there ever since the inception of local government?

[Robert Neill]

It is for individual fire authorities to decide the manning levels and the nature of the duty systems at fire stations, consistent with their obligations under fire services legislation and their integrated risk management programmes. It is not for the Government to interfere, because those authorities are best placed to assess the needs, priorities and risks in their areas.

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

Will the Minister confirm whether the requirement on local authorities to front-load the budget reductions is in any way connected to the protection of the Olympics budget?

[Mr Pickles]

No, it is not.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

What steps did the Secretary of State take within the Government to protect communities in London and the south-east that have not been able to take advantage of the national insurance holiday that other areas have enjoyed, precisely because they were more, rather than less, reliant on public sector workers? Surely, that must have stuck in the Secretary of State’s craw just as much as it did in mine.

[Mr Pickles]

There needs to be consistency from Opposition Members. They cry, “What are the Government doing to help the north of England?” but the national insurance holiday is a tangible measure that the previous Government were unable to take. The hon. Gentleman should congratulate this Government. After all, only when we get through the reduction in public expenditure and get our economy back on to an even keel can we look forward to—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I thank the Secretary of State.

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

Will the Minister give a brief account of progress on the FiReControl contract?

[Robert Neill]

The Government inherited the FiReControl contract from the previous Government. As I have indicated to the House already, we have concerns about the contractor’s persistent delays in delivery. In consequence, on 8 November, we placed the contractor in material breach, which requires a response within 20 working days.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

In October, the Secretary of State told the House that it was outrageous for me to suggest that the money announced in the comprehensive spending review for elderly care would be wiped out by overall cuts to local government. Will he tell me what he disagrees with in the London Councils’ estimate that overall funding, in relation to the personal social services budget, will decrease by £885 million, or including inflation, £1.8 billion?

[Mr Pickles]

I think that the London Councils’ analysis is overblown, and that it errs a little on the side of hysteria. Let us be clear. What we know is that the local government settlement is £6.5 billion for Supporting People, and, for care for the elderly, for an extra £2.2 billion will come directly from the NHS.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Further to my questions in the House, the Secretary of State has challenged local government to get its house in order on executive pay-offs. Will he therefore commend the approach taken by Bristol city council, which has applied a cap of £700 per week in redundancy payments for each week’s pay in the settlement? That has cut redundancy costs by 30%, and it affects only the highest paid 10% of the work force.

[Robert Neill]

It is absolutely right that Bristol council has used existing flexibilities to reflect the circumstances that apply to it. That is the right approach, and why, as I indicated in relation to a previous question, it would be inappropriate for the Government to restrict the ability of local authorities to respond to their own circumstances in such matters.

Business of the House

Thursday 25th November 2010 Commons Chamber

11:32

[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 29 November will include:

Monday 29 November—A motion relating to banking reform, followed by a general debate on the regulation of independent financial advisers. The subject for both debates was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 30 November—Opposition day (7th allotted day). There will be a debate on school sport funding, followed by a debate on tuition fees—both debates will arise on an Opposition motion—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—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, followed by a general debate on national policy statements.

Thursday 2 December—Motions relating to the publication of information of complaints against Members, power of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to initiate investigations, and lay membership of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, followed by 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.

The provisional business for the week commencing 6 December will include:

Monday 6 December—Opposition day (8th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.

Tuesday 7 December—Second Reading of the European Union Bill.

Wednesday 8 December—Estimates day (1st allotted day). There will be a debate on police funding for 2011-12 and the Department for International Development’s assistance to Zimbabwe. Further details of the second of those debates will be given in the Official Report.

[The information is as follows: “DFID’s Assistance to Zimbabwe” (8th report from the International Development Committee of Session 2009-10, HC 252); Government response, Cmd 7899.]

At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.

Thursday 9 December—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No.2) Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments.

The House will also wish to be reminded that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make his statement on the autumn forecast on Monday 29 November 2010. I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 2 and 9 December will be:

Thursday 2 December—A debate on fisheries.

Thursday 9 December—A debate on the future of pubs.

[Hilary Benn]

I thank the Leader of the House for his answer. Will he confirm that there will be the debate on Europe that traditionally takes place before the December European Council? The Foreign Secretary said in the Queen’s Speech debate that it would happen in good time, and this one will be especially important given the problems affecting a number of eurozone countries.

We now know that the vote on lifting the cap on tuition fees will take place before Christmas—in other words, long before the promised White Paper on higher education. As the Government are clearly desperate to get this out of the way, will the Leader of the House assure the House that the necessary orders will be taken and voted on on the Floor of the House, so that every single voter can see every single Liberal Democrat MP who goes through the Aye Lobby and breaks the pledge that they made? It is not so much the new politics, but very old politics—say one thing, do another.

Talking of which, two weeks ago the Deputy Prime Minister said that he should have been more careful about signing the pledge. This morning, we learn that he now “massively regrets” not keeping his word. Can we expect a further statement next week from him that he is now really, really, really sorry about breaking his word, and if so, can we have a debate on crocodile tears and could he lead it?

Last week, the Bill that will reduce by 50 the number of representatives in this House—to cut the cost of politics, we are told—had its Second Reading in the other place. In the very same week, the Government decided to increase by 54 the number of new life peers in the other place. I make that a net gain of four parliamentarians, so can we have a debate on incoherence, and could the Deputy Prime Minister lead that one as well?

Two weeks ago, I raised with the Leader of the House the Education Secretary’s arbitrary decision to take away all the funding from school sport partnerships, which, as we know, have been highly successful in getting more children to take up sport, including 1 million more doing competitive sport. Yesterday, extraordinarily, the Prime Minister chose to describe that as “pathetic” and “failing”. I will give the Leader of the House some other words that have been used by those involved to describe the decision—“unforgivably cynical”, “despicable”, “catastrophic” and “heartbreaking”. May we have a debate on irrational decision making, so that the Prime Minister can first apologise for rubbishing the efforts of all the people who have made this happen and secondly explain why he has not told his hapless Education Secretary to think again?

Christmas is coming, and some geese are getting very fat indeed. I refer, of course, to the traditional start of the bankers’ bonus season. Yesterday, the Prime Minister refused to confirm that he will enact Labour’s legislation to provide transparency on salaries and bonuses of more than £1 million a year, and yet in the very same week we were told that the Minister for Housing and Local Government wants local authorities to require new council tenants to disclose how much they get paid. Apparently, that is in case their earnings are too high, in which case they could be evicted from their homes after just two years. Given that the Government now have one rule for bankers and another for just about everyone else, can we have a debate on double standards? And could that be led by the Deputy Prime Minister as well?

Finally, last week, Lord Young was sacked for saying that we have never had it so good. On the day that the happiness index is officially launched, would the Leader of the House like to take this opportunity to make it clear that the personal happiness that he expressed last week is not at an all-time high? Given that the Prime Minister is ruthless when it comes to people saying the wrong thing, but useless when it comes to Ministers doing the wrong thing, we would hate to lose the Leader of the House simply for being too cheerful.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the range of questions that he asked. On his first question, I would remind him of paragraph 145 of the Wright Committee report, which was accepted by both sides of the House and which we are implementing—something that his party refused to do. Paragraph 145 makes it absolutely clear that the days for the pre-European Council debates are now a matter for the Backbench Business Committee—something that we established, which he and his party failed to do in office. Therefore, the question of that debate falls to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) and her Committee, not the Government.

On tuition fees, we hope that the motion that will be tabled by the Opposition on Tuesday will clarify whether the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Leader of the Opposition is in charge of Opposition policy, and whether there will be a commitment to a graduate tax. We wonder whether the shadow Chancellor will wind up that debate, so as to make it absolutely clear that his views are the same as those of the Leader of the Opposition. On the specific question that the shadow Leader of the House posed, the answer is yes: there will be a debate on the Floor of the House and a vote on lifting the cap on tuition fees.

I will take no lectures from the Labour party on the appointment of life peers. We could not conceivably match the record of the Labour party and Tony Blair in appointing people to the upper House, however long we were in office. I gently point out to the right hon. Gentleman that some of those nominated last week for the upper House came from his party. If they want to make a contribution to reducing the size of the upper House, to respond to the right hon. Gentleman’s injunction, it is perfectly open to them not to take their seats.

There will be a debate on school sports on Tuesday, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, but in response to the substantive issue I can tell him that the coalition Government are anxious to devolve decisions down to the local level. We have removed ring fences in local government and education, because we think that it is right to let local people decide how best to allocate the funds. That is what has happened to school sports.

On bankers’ bonuses, we are doing exactly what Sir David Walker recommended. Labour appointed Sir David Walker to look at bankers’ bonuses, and he is absolutely clear that this country should not take unilateral action. We are following the advice of the person whom the previous Government commissioned.

On tenancies, it is important that people do not go around saying that after two years people will be evicted. That is not the policy at all. We are suggesting that some tenancies be initially for two years, and the position reviewed. It is in the interests—[Interruption.] It is in the interests of those on the waiting list that there should be more mobility in the social housing stock, in order to make progress in allocating homes to those who desperately need them.

On the happiness index, mine went down this morning when I heard that England had been bowled out for less than 300, but I am sure that they will rebound. However, I would just ask the right hon. Gentleman how happy he is in a shadow Cabinet where his party leader is being undermined by fellow members, and where they are at war with each other on the 50p tax and the graduate tax, as well as on other issues, such as whether there should be one member, one vote for leadership elections. I think that the shadow Leader of the House will find that we on the Government Benches are far happier than he is.

[Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

May we have an early debate on the proposed cuts to the staffing hours and acquisitions budget of our Library? The Library is one of the few resources available to all Members in their work of scrutinising the Executive. Given that importance, there must be other areas where savings could be made, not least in the top-heavy bureaucracy of this House.

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend will know that the Select Committee on Finance and Services is seeing how reductions of around 17% might be made in the House of Commons budget. I know that the Committee will want to pay serious attention to his view that, if reductions are to be made, they should not be made at the sharp end, and nor should they take away from the ability of Members of Parliament to hold the Government to account. I pay tribute to the work that the Library does in that respect.

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

In view of the launch of the happiness index—mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn)—on which the Prime Minister is so keen, will we get a statement in the near future on how happy are those who will be the subject of the savage cuts in jobs and services that are coming shortly? As far as yesterday’s demonstration is concerned, it was marvellous, and gives a lead to others to follow.

[Sir George Young]

I do not think I have ever seen the hon. Gentleman look happy. Wherever the index is, it will be dragged down by his appearance in the House. I wonder whether, on reflection, he would describe yesterday’s demonstration as “marvellous”. Hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of damage was done in Westminster, and the demonstration was ruined by a minority of irresponsible people. I pay tribute to the way in which the police responded.

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

In the light of the imminent publication of the report of the Select Committee on Transport on the North review, can we have a debate on the future of drink and drug policy?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Government will introduce a police Bill, which will cover issues relating to alcohol licensing, and that may provide the opportunity for my hon. Friend to clarify his views on those issues. We take the matter seriously, and we are moving towards publication of a document on drug policy.

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

In response to my question last week, the Leader of the House kindly agreed to arrange for the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to publish a list of land owned by the Forestry Commission in each constituency. We now have that list, and it shows that more than 170 constituencies will be affected by the fire sale of our national assets. In view of the widespread concern on both sides of the House, can we have a debate in Government time on the way in which the sale is proceeding and its threat to our natural national assets?

[Sir George Young]

The House will have an opportunity to debate the Public Bodies (Reform) Bill when it has completed its passage in another place, and that will be the right forum for the hon. Gentleman to make clear his concerns about disposal of national forests.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

In the light of the announcement this week about the proposed cap on immigration, can we have an early debate on the need to provide skilled, ethnic cuisine training, because the curry industry and other ethnic cuisines will be particularly hit by that announcement?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That point may have been made on Tuesday during the exchange following the statement of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The point was well made, and there would be no need to import chefs from Bangladesh and other countries if we were able to provide the necessary skills in this country. My hon. Friend makes a valid point.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

On Monday, the Government announced that a £200 million project to transform the Meadows estate in Nottingham will not go ahead. The estate suffers from serious deprivation, a poor reputation, fear of crime, and high unemployment. Although local people and community groups, such as the Meadows Partnership Trust, are doing wonderful work to tackle those problems, they are hampered by poor housing and poor quality infrastructure. The scheme would have transformed the area, making the Meadows estate a more sustainable community and a place where people would choose to live and work. Can we have a debate on the decision by the Department for Communities and Local Government to scrap the housing private finance initiative, which has so dismayed my constituents?

[Sir George Young]

We have, of course, just had questions to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. I do not know whether the hon. Lady was able to ask her question then.

The Decentralisation and Localism Bill will devolve more responsibility to local authorities, but I say in response to the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) that, because of the legacy that we inherited, it is not possible to go ahead with all the projects that are being urged on us by Opposition Members. I remind Opposition Front Benchers that the shadow Chancellor has insisted on a nine-stage process before they enter any financial commitments.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

Improvements in sporting facilities wherever possible and certainly in my constituency are always welcome. The coalition agreement states:

“We will use cash in dormant betting accounts to improve local sport facilities and support sports clubs.”

Will the Leader of the House agree to have a debate on that matter, which would be very beneficial to my constituency?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport has asked my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster) to do some work on dormant betting accounts, and I understand that he has made some inquiries and before the end of the year will produce a report suggesting how the matter might be taken forward. There may be a possibility of legislation later.

[Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North) (Lab)]

I note the response of the Leader of the House to the question from my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House on the Europe debate. We have exactly the same situation with the annual fisheries debate, which always took place during Government time, and provided a key opportunity for those of us with fishing constituencies to hold the Government to account. I have been advised by the Minister with responsibility for fisheries that his Department is no longer allowed to organise such a debate, which seems strange. Will the Leader of the House advise me why the Government have chosen to use the extension of democracy to Back Benchers to reduce Departments’ accountability?

[Sir George Young]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his election to the House of Commons Commission last night. I find this line of attack from Opposition Members astonishing. The Government decided to give up their responsibility for deciding what the House would debate, and we have allocated roughly one day a week to the Backbench Business Committee. Among the issues for which we are no longer responsible are the fisheries debate, the European Council debate and the four days of debate on defence. Those matters now fall to the Backbench Business Committee, and if the hon. Gentleman wants a debate on the European Council or on fisheries he has to go to the Committee’s Chair, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who is sitting next to him. He will know that her Committee has allocated time for a debate on fisheries in Westminster Hall, which I announced a few moments ago.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

May I refer the Leader of the House to early-day motions 1046 and 1047?

[That this House recognises the enormous contribution by members of Her Majesty's Armed Services from each of the UK Crown Dependencies in wars and conflicts over the years, fighting for Queen or King and Country; believes that the sacrifices of all these brave men and women should be fully acknowledged in a similar way to members of the Commonwealth of Nations, by granting representatives from the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and Sark the right to lay a wreath in their own right at the annual Service of Remembrance at the Cenotaph in Whitehall, each year on Remembrance Sunday; and calls on the Government to ensure that all the appropriate arrangements for this to happen are in place in time for Remembrance Sunday to be held on 13 November 2011.]

[That this House recognises the enormous contribution by members of Her Majesty's Armed Services from each of the British Overseas Territories in wars and conflicts over the years, fighting for Queen, or King and Country; believes that the sacrifices of all these brave men and women should be fully acknowledged in a similar way to members of the Commonwealth of Nations, by granting representatives from Ascension Island, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, St. Helena, Tristan da Cunha, Turks and Caicos Islands, the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands the right to lay a wreath in their own right at the annual Service of Remembrance at the Cenotaph in Whitehall, each year on Remembrance Sunday; and calls on the Government to ensure that all the appropriate arrangements for this to happen are in place in time for Remembrance Sunday to be held on 13 November 2011.]

They deal with the laying of a wreath on Remembrance Sunday by representatives of the British Crown dependencies and overseas territories. Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary and the Lord Chancellor to make a statement to the House on why our British territories are still refused the right to lay a wreath on Remembrance Sunday to remember their war dead, while other Commonwealth countries are allowed to do so?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend has pursued this issue with diligence. I think I am right in saying that the Foreign Secretary lays the wreath on behalf of the British Crown dependencies, but I will of course raise this important issue with him and others, to see whether we might make some changes in the future.

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

In previous years, questions about Europe and matters for debate prior to European Councils have always been dealt with in Government time. Instead of hiding behind the wording of the Wright report, will the Leader of the House explain the real reason that the Government are afraid to have a debate prior to the European Council on 19 December? Is it because of internal divisions with his Eurosceptics, or is it because he cannot get an agreement with the Fib Dems?

[Sir George Young]

Again, I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should criticise the Government for implementing a measure that empowers Back Benchers. We have given up the monopoly on deciding what the House debates. Paragraph 145 of the Wright report deals with set-piece debates, and one of the subjects mentioned is

“two days for pre-European Council debates”.

It makes it absolutely clear that the responsibility for fixing those debates transfers to the Backbench Business Committee. We have honoured our obligations and set up the Backbench Business Committee; it is now for the Committee to decide which debates are held and when. We cannot have a position in which the Government transfer the days to the Committee but remain responsible for fixing all the debates that would be held on those days. Even the hon. Gentleman must be able to see that that would be a very one-sided deal.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Will there be an opportunity for the Home Secretary to make a statement to the House about the use of kettling, particularly with regard to schoolchildren?

[Sir George Young]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be answering questions in the normal way. As I have said, I think that the police handled yesterday’s demonstration well. It was an enormous improvement on what happened last time. I am not going to criticise from the Dispatch Box the tactics that they used in order to protect public property and prevent more extensive damage from being done, but there will be an opportunity at the next Home Office questions for my hon. Friend to raise that issue.

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

I welcome the fact that we are having a vote on tuition fees soon, but does the Leader of the House agree that, prior to that debate, it is vital to have a debate on the difference between a pledge and a promise, to assist Lib Dem Members?

[Sir George Young]

There will be opportunities in the debate on Tuesday and in the subsequent debate on the Browne report and raising the cap on tuition fees. I remind Labour Members that they had a pledge not to introduce tuition fees—a pledge that they broke.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Yesterday, young violent thugs disrupted a peaceful protest. Those thugs were wearing face coverings so that they could not easily be identified by the police. At the next sitting dealing with private Members’ business, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) is introducing a private Member’s Bill—the Face Coverings (Regulation) Bill—to outlaw such practices. Will the Government make a statement on whether they will be supporting his Bill?

[Sir George Young]

When that important private Member’s Bill is reached, there will of course be a Minister on the Front Bench, and, during the course of the debate, the Minister will make clear the Government’s response to the Bill.

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

Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from the Ministry of Defence on what progress, if any, has been made on compensation payments for the Christmas Island veterans, and, indeed, victims? I say this from a non-partisan point of view, because my own party, when in government, could and should have done more for those people.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue and I will pass on his request to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to see whether we can make some progress.

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

Mr Speaker, you are the anecdote to verbal diarrhoea—[Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think the word for which the hon. Gentleman was vainly searching was probably “antidote”.

[Mr Ellwood]

It is always good to get off to a good start, Mr Speaker. I stand corrected. The rules that you impose during the week are not being adhered to on Fridays in the Chamber. Next Friday, we will debate the Daylight Saving Bill, for which the excellent publication “Time to change the clocks” has been produced—I recommend it to all Members—but my worry is that the Bill will not see the light of day because Members will try to talk it out. Is it not time to change the draconian rules that apply on Fridays to ensure that good ideas are able to be debated by the entire House?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not seeking to prove himself an expert in verbal diarrhoea.

[Sir George Young]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on a good recovery. If I may say so, Mrs Malaprop would have been proud of him. There is a serious issue about Fridays and about the procedure for private Members’ Bills, which he has touched on. The Procedure Committee is conducting an inquiry into the parliamentary calendar, which will include the use of Fridays. That will absorb the whole question of how we deal with private Members’ Bills, and will provide my hon. Friend with an opportunity to make representations to the Committee to determine whether there is another way of dealing with them, in order to overcome the problem that he, eventually, correctly described.

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

There is clearly surprise and unease on both sides of the House about the fisheries debate and the EU Council debate. The matter was raised last week, not only on this side but by Lib Dem Members, and it has been raised again this week. Given that clearly a number of people feel that this decision is wrong, may I ask the Leader of the House what we can do to bring about a change to the recommendations of the Wright report, and to take those matters out of the hands of the Backbench Business Committee?

[Sir George Young]

I would regard it as a retrograde step if time were taken away from the Backbench Business Committee and given back to the Government. The whole direction of travel is the other way. I have announced the Second Reading of the European Union Bill, which will provide an opportunity to raise European issues. Also, there is going to be a fisheries debate. The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who chairs the Backbench Business Committee, and I have made it absolutely clear that if Members want a debate on the European Council, they have to make representations to the Committee in order to secure such a debate. As I understand it, no such representations have been made.

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

May we have a debate on unaccounted Government spending, and on how that can happen? Bearing in mind the irrational decision making mentioned by the shadow Leader of the House, can we make the specific subject of the debate the £38 billion committed by the Ministry of Defence over 10 years without accountability?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend is quite right to say that we inherited a number of obligations from the outgoing Government, and that the resources were not there to honour them. The Ministry of Defence provides a very good example. We had an opportunity to debate that when we discussed the strategic defence review, but I am sure that there will be other opportunities for my hon. Friend and others to remind the House and the country of the irresponsible action of the outgoing Government and the unsustainable expenditure that they left us to sort out.

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

The Leader of the House will be aware of the lead story in the Western Mail last week, in which it was disclosed that powers have been transferred on numerous occasions to the Welsh Assembly Government without the corresponding financial resources. Will he ask the Chancellor to make a statement on how these liabilities will be addressed?

[Sir George Young]

I understand that the Welsh Assembly has had a relatively generous settlement compared with that of other public bodies. Against that background, I am not sure how much substance there is in that suggestion.

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will be aware of the media coverage of the predatory paedophiles who were convicted yesterday of grooming and raping children. It is well documented that this vile and criminal activity has also happened in my constituency. Will the relevant Ministers make a statement outlining what the Government are doing to stamp out this abuse of children?

[Sir George Young]

I am sure that everyone was appalled by what was revealed yesterday. I saw the interview with Emma on “Newsnight” and I was horrified by what had happened. It is crucial to learn the lessons and make sure that that never happens again. I will certainly pass on my hon. Friend’s request to the Secretary of State for Health to see whether some ministerial response might be made to what was revealed yesterday.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on British representation at the Oslo Nobel peace prize ceremony award to Liu Xiaobo, the Chinese pro-democracy dissident? The Chinese are bullying countries like mad not to turn up. Could we raise our representation to ministerial level and ask our EU and NATO partners also to send Ministers, because the only language bullies understand is that of someone standing up to them?

[Sir George Young]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is important that we do not succumb to pressure from the Chinese and that this country—and, indeed, NATO countries and all countries—should send strong representations to the ceremony so that the Chinese understand that on this issue they are alone.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

Does the Leader of the House agree that it would be better if large and volatile demonstrations were routed away from Parliament to end in a rally in a park, where just grievances and speeches could be heard? Does he agree that the Police Act 2005 has to be amended so that the commissioner can refuse a particular route?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My understanding is that section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 allows the police to place conditions on a march, where they consider that without such conditions the march would result in serious public disorder. These conditions would include the duration, the location and the size of the march. I therefore think that the police may well already have the powers that my hon. Friend wants them to have.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the Government’s cruel decision to cut the mobility component of disability living allowance for people living in residential homes, as the Prime Minister seemed totally to misunderstand the question asked about it at Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday? We need to discuss the impact of this decision on severely disabled people like my constituent Pam Coughlan.

[Sir George Young]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did understand the question yesterday. There will be an opportunity to debate this when the Government bring forward the necessary measures in the welfare reform Bill. My right hon. Friend’s answer yesterday was that if people are sponsored by the NHS, their mobility component is removed whereas it is not removed if they are sponsored by a local authority. That is an anomaly, which the Government’s proposals are designed to address.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

A serious situation has developed this week in Korea. If the situation deteriorates, will the Leader of the House undertake to ensure that we have a statement? China is launching its first aircraft carrier and America is sending an aircraft carrier there. Does that not underline the fact that the procedures of this House and our defence configuration must be prepared for a very unpredictable and dangerous world?

[Sir George Young]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Prime Minister has been in touch with President Lee of South Korea, making clear this country’s condemnation of the unprovoked North Korean attack and offering condolences for the loss of life that has occurred. My right hon. Friend also agreed that we would work together on the next steps that need to be taken in the United Nations Security Council. We are now indeed in discussions with our Security Council partners on those next steps.

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

In Communities and Local Government questions earlier this morning, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), indicated that the localism Bill was likely to be published imminently. I listened carefully to the statement by the Leader of the House, but I heard no reference to the localism Bill in the business announced for the next two weeks. Given that the Government are clearly having increasing difficulty matching their actions to their words, will the Leader of the House tell us the meaning of “imminent” and whether we can expect a debate on this rather important and controversial Bill before Christmas?

[Sir George Young]

The Bill will be published shortly. Second Reading will follow after a decent interval.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 1090?

[That this House notes the Harrington Report, and its criticisms of the French multinational company ATOS, who have a £54 million contract to assess benefit claimants through medical checks; welcomes the Government's agreement with the Harrington Report and its promise to implement the Harrington proposals in full; concludes that ATOS has damaged the public perception of medical assessments, and has also created a serious risk of maladministration of incapacity benefit checks, following the shocking reports on their systems in the national media; further notes frequent complaints in this regard from Harlow constituents and others; and therefore calls on the Government to act swiftly so that medical assessments are more localised, humane and sympathetic.]

Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the Harrington report and the maladministration of incapacity benefit checks, following the shocking report into the private company ATOS? A number of my Harlow constituents have been maltreated by this company. Does he agree that urgent action is needed?

[Sir George Young]

We are grateful to Professor Harrington for publishing his report on the work capacity assessment and we accept all his recommendations. He did indeed find that improvements should be made. He has now started the next stage of the next review. We will improve the medical assessment conducted by ATOS by putting in place champions with additional expertise in mental, cognitive and intellectual conditions.

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

Given this week’s independent report indicating that the removal of speed cameras could lead to 800 extra deaths on our roads and the fact that some Tory councils have already removed their cameras, may we have a debate on the effects of the removal of those cameras and whether those individual councillors should be held directly accountable for their actions?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue relating to road safety, and it strikes me that it would be an appropriate subject for a debate either on the Adjournment, in Westminster Hall or through the Backbench Business Committee. I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of Transport, who will be here shortly.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

May we have an urgent debate on Burma? I am sure the whole House would welcome the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, but the fact remains that 7,000 political prisoners remain incarcerated. May we have a debate to put pressure on the Burmese Government to be more serious about political dialogue?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend is right that there are still a substantial number of political prisoners in Burma. I hope that the release of Aung San Suu Kyi will enable her to have a dialogue with the military regime to see whether a way forward can be found that introduces some sensible human rights measures in that regime which are absent at the moment.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

In recent evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, the Gun Trade Association, the Countryside Alliance and others expressed concern about the violent content of video games and their effect on some people who buy firearms. At this time of year especially, it is important for parents to have an understanding of the content of some of these games. When can we have a statement or a debate on the Government’s response to the Byron inquiry?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the inquiry that his Select Committee is conducting into firearms. We have made a commitment to having a debate when his report is published. That would be a good context in which to explore further the impact on young people of videos and games that involve firearms. We could then establish whether any further legislation was necessary.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Given the recent revelation by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government that the last Labour Government wasted nearly £81 million developing regional spatial strategies, and given the recent attempts by developers to raise these, zombie-like, from the dead, would it be appropriate to have a debate on regional spatial strategies and their current status?

[Sir George Young]

This takes us back to the localism Bill. We will shortly, imminently and very soon introduce the localism Bill to Parliament. That will sweep away the last of the outgoing Government’s controversial regional strategies. It is clear that top-down targets have not worked; we propose to move to a different regime, giving local planning authorities some real incentives to get on with house building in their area.

[Valerie Vaz]

(Walsall South): Alumwell business and enterprise college in my constituency has seen a 14% improvement in GCSE results by getting marked papers, but it has had to pay for them. May we have an urgent debate so that state schools can get the marked scripts free, just as they do with standard assessment tests?

[Sir George Young]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on the good results in her constituency. I will raise with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education the question of whether these documents can be made available without charge.

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

Over the past three years, failures in the cross-border commissioning protocol between the Department of Health and the Welsh Assembly Government have caused NHS Western Cheshire to lose about £19 million. Despite having been involved in a formal dispute since 2007, they seem to be no nearer to ending it. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the operation of the protocol?

[Sir George Young]

I am afraid that I shall not be able to find time for a debate. I understand that the shortfall to which my hon. Friend refers is not due to a failure of the protocol. A transfer was made from the Department of Health to the Welsh Assembly under the terms of the protocol, but discussions are now under way to review the protocol before it expires in March 2011. They will include discussion of the funding arrangement, and I will ensure that they are informed by what my hon. Friend has said.

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

May we have a debate in Government time on whether we really are all in this together, especially those of us who live in the north, in the light of the withdrawal of £160 million for housing from Orchard Park in Hull? Hull is the 11th most deprived area in the country, but its funds are being cut by 25%, unlike those of Reigate and Tunbridge Wells, which are being increased by between 25% and 37%.

[Sir George Young]

Of course I understand how strongly the hon. Lady feels about her constituency. However, only a few moments ago, when I came into the Chamber, I heard the Government being criticised for focusing help on national insurance relief on the north and not extending it to London and the south-east. Opposition Members must sort out their priorities.

I suggest to the hon. Lady that the £1 billion regional development fund might be a suitable place for her to seek solutions to the problems that she has outlined.

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

May we have a debate on broadband? I strongly support the Government’s review of broadband and its focus on rural communities, but I fear that cities such as Milton Keynes may miss out. We have specific problems because of our 1970s infrastructure. May I simply ask the Leader of the House to ensure that Milton Keynes is included in the review?

[Sir George Young]

That question is slightly beyond my pay grade, but my hon. Friend has made a strong case for a debate on rural broadband. I too represent a rural constituency, and I know that it is vital for those who live in rural areas to be able to compete on the same terms as those in towns and cities. I think that the issue is a strong candidate for a debate, but perhaps not in Government time.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his answers to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the shadow Leader of the House, and my hon. Friend the. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) on the subject of debates set up by the Backbench Business Committee? The Committee’s Standing Orders make no reference to the Committee’s having responsibility for those debates. A dangerous precedent is being set, because those on the Opposition Front Bench who are responsible for holding the Government to account cannot do so. The Government have avoided arranging the debates in Government time and Opposition Front Benchers cannot make representations to the Backbench Business Committee. The Government are thus dodging the issue. May we have those debates in Government time?

[Sir George Young]

Labour Members must make it absolutely clear at some point whether or not they agree with the Wright Committee’s recommendations. They supported them throughout the last Parliament, although towards the end of that Parliament they did not implement them by setting up the Backbench Business Committee.

If the hon. Gentleman reads the Wright Committee’s report, he will see that it makes a distinction between Government business and House business, and makes it clear that the debates to which he has referred are House business. It is up to the Backbench Business Committee, which has been allotted 35 days, to find time for those debates—if it wants to hold them—in competition with other bids. We cannot allow a position in which the Government, having allotted 35 days to the Backbench Business Committee, are then held responsible for all the subjects included in the transfer.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

Yesterday, when responding to questions about the education White Paper, the shadow Secretary of State for Education suggested that many young people could not be expected to obtain five C-grade GCSE passes in academic subjects. May we have a debate on the depressing poverty of ambition that affects Members in many parts of the House and our education establishments?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We must raise the ambitions of our young people. Following yesterday’s statement there will be an education Bill, which will give Members an opportunity to examine the issues in more depth.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

We need a debate on school sport partnerships. We know from his mother that the Secretary of State for Education hated games when he was at school, and avoided them as much as possible. Before we have that debate, will the Leader of the House persuade the Secretary of State to put on his tracksuit and perhaps a pair of trainers, apply some embrocation, get out into the real world—away from la-la land—with the school sport partnerships, and find out what great work they have been doing?

[Sir George Young]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it absolutely clear yesterday that he was in favour of competitive sports and regretted the record of the outgoing Government in failing to promote them. If the hon. Gentleman is here on Tuesday he will have the opportunity to make a longer speech, which will be robustly rejected by whoever replies to the debate.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

We have already heard Members refer to early-day motions this morning. EDMs are hugely important in enabling Members to raise the profile of issues for themselves, constituents and organisations. However, given that the House is seeking to reduce its costs, does my right hon. Friend agree that this is the right time to arrange a debate so that we can examine the cost of publishing EDMs? The contract with The Stationery Office means that it is currently more than three quarters of a million pounds a year.

[Sir George Young]

As I said in reply to an earlier question, the Finance and Services Committee is considering how economies can be made in the running of the House. As my hon. Friend may know, older EDMs have not been reprinted weekly since the start of the current parliamentary Session, which has saved 2.5 million sheets of paper and up to £300,000 a year in printing costs. I will pass his comments to the House of Commons Commission and the Finance and Services Committee.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate on the Government’s migration policy? In response to questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and me, the Home Secretary said—I cannot do the French accent—

“Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once: we aim to reduce net migration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands by the end of this Parliament.”—[Official Report, 23 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 183.]

A few hours later, No. 10 Downing street issued a statement saying that that was an aspiration. If I may use the language of the new Government, is it an aspiration, a target, a milestone or a horizon?

[Sir George Young]

Before she made those remarks, the Home Secretary said that she would “say this only once”, and I think that that was the right thing to do.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman find Government time for either a statement from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), or the Lord Chancellor, or a debate about the cutting of civil legal aid for social welfare cases? In my constituency, the citizens advice bureau represented or advised 14,000 of the most vulnerable and economically and socially deprived people in the area. The Under-Secretary’s response was that people should go and see their Member of Parliament. I am a superwoman, but I do not think that that is the way forward.

[Sir George Young]

I understand the hon. Lady’s concern, but it must be said that the legal aid regime in this country is relatively generous in comparison with those of most other countries. We were not able to exclude it from the difficult decisions that we had to make to control the deficit, but what we have announced requires legislation. There will be a legal aid Bill, which will give the hon. Lady an opportunity to press her concerns.

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

The North East illegal money lending team has helped communities in my constituency to beat loan sharks in communities such as Easterside. It has helped to set up credit unions, and to break up gangs selling counterfeit and fenced goods. Will the Leader of the House please press Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to allow a debate on the subject, and will he impress on them the need for me to have personal meetings with them, along with other Teesside Members, so that we can discuss the agency?

[Sir George Young]

I commend the group in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency for what it has done. I will certainly find out whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government can meet him and his colleagues to take the agenda further forward.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

This weekend, the Tamil community in the United Kingdom will commemorate the war dead and martyrs from the recent civil war in Sri Lanka. Next week, President Mahinda Rajapaksa is due to come to this country on a private visit, reportedly to speak at the Oxford union. May we have a debate to discuss the situation in Sri Lanka and war crimes associated with its president?

[Sir George Young]

The Government do not propose to find time for a debate on the issue, however important it is, but it strikes me that it would be an appropriate candidate for an Adjournment debate at the end of one of our sittings.

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, I call Luciana Berger.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

My constituent Martine Taylor’s husband went missing one year ago. He left behind three young children and tens of thousands of pounds of debt, including two loans worth £34,000 from RBS, a bank which is 80% owned by the taxpayer. RBS has now sold that debt to bailiffs who may force Miss Taylor to sell her home to recover the debt, while RBS refuses to discuss my constituent’s case because the debt is not in her name. Please may we have an urgent debate on the debt recovery practices of Government-owned banks?

[Sir George Young]

I am very sorry to hear of the misfortune of the hon. Lady’s constituent. I will raise the current regime for pursuing debts with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, and ask him to see whether there is any action the Government can take to help this poor lady and to write to the hon. Lady.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the statement—

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that points of order follow statements. We will hear from him later.

Rail Investment

Thursday 25th November 2010 Commons Chamber

12:20

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Government’s plans for investment in rail infrastructure and rolling stock.

These plans build on the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the outcome of the spending review. As we have consistently said, tackling the deficit is our top priority, and by taking the tough decisions on current spending we are able to secure our future growth by making vital infrastructure investments. Over the next four years, we will provide £14 billion of funding to Network Rail to support capital maintenance and infrastructure investment, and £750 million for high-speed rail. We will also fund the Crossrail project, the tube upgrade programme and light rail projects in Birmingham, Tyneside, Nottingham and Sheffield, and provide additional funding to franchisees for extra rolling stock.

I can also confirm today that we will fund and deliver the Thameslink programme in its entirety, virtually doubling the number of north-south trains running through central London at peak times. This huge investment will link Sussex, Kent and Surrey, through central London, with Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire. But the original programme for the rebuilding of London Bridge station to increase through-running as part of this project was always ambitious, with substantial risks in respect of delivery and operation of existing services during construction. To reduce these risks, we have re-profiled the delivery of the programme to achieve completion in 2018. This will enable Network Rail to make the further efficiencies in the design and delivery of the programme that we require to ensure value for money. Passengers will start to benefit from incremental improvements on the Thameslink routes from the end of 2011. As part of the Thameslink programme, we will procure a new fleet of trains—up to 1,200 new carriages. That is in addition to about 600 new carriages that will be provided for the Crossrail project.

Together with the tube upgrades, these projects represent a step change in rail capacity in London, providing a significant boost to economic growth potential in the capital. New Thameslink and Crossrail rolling stock will enable the redeployment of hundreds of serviceable electric carriages currently used on Thameslink services. These carriages belong to rolling stock leasing companies, but we expect they will be available at competitive leasing prices for re-use elsewhere, thus justifying further electrification of our network.

As a first step, I can announce today that Network Rail will electrify the commuter services on the great western main line from London to Didcot, Oxford and Newbury over the next six years. Electric trains will speed up journeys, improve reliability and reduce the impact on the environment on these busy routes.

The Chancellor also announced on 20 October the electrification of the lines between Liverpool, Manchester, Preston and Blackpool, representing an investment of up to £300 million. I expect work in the north-west to begin next year and to be completed at about the same time as work on the Thames valley commuter lines, in 2016. Some sections will be completed well ahead of this, notably Manchester to Newton-le-Willows in late-2013, allowing new electric trains to operate from Manchester to Scotland. As with Thameslink, we will require Network Rail to keep a tight rein on costs. The redeployment of electric rolling stock to these routes will, in turn, free up hundreds of diesel units, which will be available to train operators to lease as they become available in the period after 2015.

This will all be welcome news to passengers. The Public Accounts Committee recently found that many services are unacceptably overcrowded, and I understand the frustrations of rail travellers who have to travel on packed trains. More investment is clearly needed. That is why I argued for additional rail investment in the spending review, and it is also why I have taken the difficult decision to allow regulated fares to rise by 3% above inflation for the three years from 2012, to help us pay for these investments.

In January 2008, the previous Government published a plan to bring 1,300 additional carriages into service by March 2014. That plan was never deliverable. In total, only 206 of the 1,300 carriages had entered service by May this year. My predecessors quoted a grand total of rail carriages, but never referred publicly to the fact that delivery of that total was subject to so many caveats and qualifications as to render it effectively meaningless. According to their published plan, the 1,300 was not fixed and subject to

“value for money, affordability…linkages with other interventions or with other rail projects…infrastructure constraints…supply chain constraints”

and “credibility”. The document went on to say that

“the final outcome could well be different”.

In other words, it was not so much a plan as a press release.

So let me set the record straight. I can today confirm that an additional 650 carriages will have been delivered to the network between 6 May 2010 and March 2014. That is in addition to the Thameslink and Crossrail carriages I have already mentioned.

But it is not just about rolling stock. Network Rail has already started work on station improvements, with funding confirmed for developments at Reading, Birmingham, London King’s Cross and Gatwick airport. Investments on the east coast main line and midland main line and improvements in Yorkshire, on trans-Pennine routes, around Manchester and in south Wales will improve line speed, reliability and capacity of services.

Beyond these investments, there are far-reaching decisions to be made about inter-city services. In February 2009 the intercity express programme, launched by the previous Government, identified the Agility Trains consortium as preferred bidder to build a new fleet of inter-city trains. Then, this February, my predecessor invited Sir Andrew Foster, former head of the Audit Commission, to provide an independent assessment of the programme. Sir Andrew presented his report to me at the end of June, recommending further work on the Agility Trains proposal and a detailed study of the alternatives. I can now tell the House that we have narrowed down the options, from the four Sir Andrew identified to two. I have ruled out the option of requiring passengers to change from electric to diesel trains at a point in their journeys, recognising the value to passengers of preserving through-journeys. I have also ruled out the option of a wholesale refurbishment of the existing diesel InterCity 125 fleet, some of which dates back to the 1970s.

The remaining options are, on the one hand, a revised, lower cost proposal from Agility Trains envisaging a mixed fleet of some all-electric trains and some electric trains equipped with under-floor diesel generators, and on the other hand, a fleet of new all-electric trains which could be coupled to new diesel locomotives where the overhead electric power lines end. Both of these options would allow us to preserve through-journeys between London and parts of the rail network which are not electrified. Both of them would deliver faster journey times too. For example, we expect to see time savings of at least 15 minutes for the journey between Cardiff and London, bringing it below 2 hours. This is a major decision that will affect inter-city rail travel for decades to come, and we must get it right.

To address the outstanding issues on choice of train type and further electrification on the great western main line, additional work will be required within the Department, with Agility Trains, and with the Welsh Assembly Government on the business case for electrification into Wales. When this work, and discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, has concluded, I expect to announce a final decision on the IEP and on further great western electrification in the new year.

The package I have confirmed today has been possible only because this Government have been prepared to take the tough decisions to protect investment in Britain’s future. This is a commitment to our railways that will benefit Britain for generations to come, and I commend the statement to the House.

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

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for early sight of his much-delayed statement. We first read the details of the statement in the Sunday papers three weeks ago, we read them again two weeks ago and we saw much more detail in the press this morning. I know that he tabled this statement as a written ministerial statement today so that he could get away with spinning it on the “Today” programme, but his whole handling of this announcement is an insult to this House, which should be the first to hear about major Government policy decisions, not the last.

Despite all the spin and the re-announcing of decisions taken by the previous Government, many passengers will be bitterly disappointed by the right hon. Gentleman’s announcement today, because it amounts to delaying investment but bringing forward massive fare hikes. The real losers of today’s statement are commuters, who already suffer some of the highest fares in Europe and the worst overcrowding. Because of the cuts he has had to make to his budget, their fares will rise by 3% above inflation from next year and they now face waits of up to a decade for the new trains that will ease overcrowding and speed up journeys.

The statement delays the completion of Thameslink by two years to 2018, following the right hon. Gentleman’s previous decision to delay the completion of Crossrail by a year. His Department is already missing its targets for extra spaces by 15% at peak time in London and 33% in other major cities. Does he not understand the frustration there will be at his decision to delay the delivery of the new carriages that are vital to addressing this overcrowding?

On new carriages, the right hon. Gentleman tries to claim that the plans that Labour announced in government for 1,300 carriages were somehow a work of fiction. Perhaps I could remind him that his permanent secretary told the Public Accounts Committee in September that

“it was a commitment of the previous Government to deliver 1,300 carriages, for which they had a £1.2 billion budget.”

He made it clear that

“we had plans—clear plans—that we could evidence to the National Audit Office…to have acquired around 950 carriages and spent around £900 million.”

He also said that he had plans in place that

“would enable us to get to probably around 1,300 carriages and to develop the full capacity, using the full budget of £1.2 billion.”

Will the right hon. Gentleman now accept that he has cut the number of new carriages that we planned to be delivered in this spending review period, and that he must stop spinning? Why are commuters going to face overcrowding, which will not be substantially alleviated for almost 10 years, when the fares hikes that he says are to end overcrowding start this January?

People in Wales will feel most betrayed by the right hon. Gentleman’s announcement, following his decision to delay giving the green light to electrification of the great western line beyond Bristol. His manifesto was very clear on this, so let me remind him that it said:

“We support…the electrification of the Great Western line to South Wales.”

Perhaps no Welsh MP was in the room during the coalition negotiations, because that commitment was subsequently downgraded to a general statement of support for

“further electrification of the rail network.”

Today, we see why: it was because there was clearly never a commitment to Wales.

We are told that the Secretary of State for Wales is threatening to resign if high-speed rail goes through her English constituency. She does not seem to be threatening to resign over the fact that Wales, whose interests she represents in the Cabinet and is supposed to champion, is to remain the only European country other than Albania and Moldova with not a single metre of electrified track. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision not to approve the electrification of the great western main line to Swansea, as was planned by the previous Labour Government?

The right hon. Gentleman has also today ducked giving the green light to the intercity express programme. We are used to this Government going back on things they promised to do in their manifesto, but today’s statement sees him going back even on what he promised in his Department’s comprehensive spending review statement this October. I remind him that he said:

“Because aspects of Thameslink and HLOS rolling stock programmes, as well as projects to electrify the Great Western Mainline, and the rail routes around Manchester and Liverpool, are interdependent with the IEP decision, a full announcement on all these programmes will be made at the same time.”

Will he tell the House what has changed? Will he now tell us the real story behind the repeated delays to today’s statement and the real reason he has had to push so many of his decisions into next year? Is it true, as some believe, that by changing the specification of the IEP carriages after a preferred bidder was announced he now risks a legal challenge from other bidders?

Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman understand the anger felt by passengers up and down the country at his decision to allow rail fares to rise by such a large amount? His coalition agreement said:

“We are committed to fair pricing for rail travel”.

Can he tell hard-pressed commuters up and down the country why he thinks that allowing rail fares to rise by 3% above inflation after next year demonstrates his commitment to fair pricing? How does driving people off the railways and back into their cars help either our economy or the environment? Does he accept, as his Department has admitted, the very big impact on road congestion that is likely to be caused by his decision?

Is not the reality that he has come to the House today only because he said in his departmental plan that he would do so by the end of November 2010 and because his repeated briefings to the media have created an expectation that a statement was imminent? Does he not accept that his departmental plan commits him not to a statement, but to decisions? Has he today not just missed the first of his own targets in the departmental plan, which was supposed to be the Prime Minister’s way of keeping Secretaries of State on track to deliver Government promises?

Is not the reality of today’s statement that beyond re-announcing a whole series of investment decisions taken by the previous Labour Government and put on hold by him after the election, he has delayed the completion of Crossrail by a year, delayed the completion of Thameslink by two years to 2018, delayed giving the green light to electrification of the great western line beyond Bristol—that is a real betrayal of people in Wales—delayed giving any indication of when electrification of the midland main line will take place and delayed giving the green light to the intercity express programme? His statement pushes the delivery of projects into the next spending review period and ducks decisions on some of the country’s most vital transport infrastructure projects. His delayed statement is itself nothing more than one long series of delays.

[Mr Hammond]

In her second response to me at the Dispatch Box, the hon. Lady adopts a rather churlish tone. She talks about wanting decisions to be made. She will get decisions from this Government, but they will be properly thought through decisions based on value-for-money cases and proper consideration of all the matters that need to be dealt with; they will not be press releases made up on the spur of the moment by a Government who have gone on a regional junket and need something to announce to keep the regional press happy.

The hon. Lady complains that we issued a written ministerial statement this morning, but she ought to be able to understand that the content of this statement, because it touches, in particular, on the procurement of the intercity express programme, is market sensitive, so it was essential that we made a statement this morning before the markets opened.

The hon. Lady talks about fares, and I readily acknowledge that nobody in the commuter fraternity will welcome the increase in the cap on regulated fares that we have proposed for 2012 to 2015. But that is one of the tough decisions that we have had to take to protect the programme of investment in our railways. I have to say to her that I see no sign that anybody on the Opposition Front Bench is prepared to take tough decisions or to understand that without the ability and the willingness to do so they will simply have no credibility in the difficult debates on how we prioritise limited public expenditure.

The hon. Lady criticises the delay in delivering the complete Thameslink project—the 24 trains an hour in both directions. I do not apologise to her or to the House for taking a decision that the programme, as originally set out, contained too many risks—there were risks of cost overruns and risks to existing commuter services into London Bridge station. With Network Rail, we have revised the schedule to create a lower-risk alternative that is both less costly and less disruptive to existing commuter services.

The hon. Lady talks about the midland main line—she seems to have discovered it this morning. There was not a word about the electrification of the midland main line during the 13 years for which the Opposition were in government, but today she wants to bring it up as though it were some Labour priority we are abandoning. For the record, the case for electrification of the midland main line remains strong and we will consider it as a project for control period 5, which begins in 2014.

The hon. Lady attacks me for describing the 1,300 rail carriages to which her predecessors apparently committed as a work of fiction. She is new to the job, I understand, and these are difficult numbers—[Interruption.] I am quite new to this, too, and I can tell the House that they are difficult numbers. If she drills down and has a look, she will see that the figure of 1,300 was maintained early this year only by the inclusion of 400 of the 1,200 Thameslink carriages in the total—a complete and ongoing fabrication to avoid abandoning a number that was never sustainable. The Opposition could not have delivered them because they are not prepared to support any of the decisions that have allowed capital investment to continue. They do not support the fare increase, they do not support cuts in welfare expenditure and they do not support cuts in public expenditure to allow prioritisation of capital investment.

The hon. Lady has the audacity to raise the issue of Wales, but, as she says, Wales has not one metre of electrified railway—after 13 years of a Labour Government. We will take no lectures from her on electrification in Wales.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. As hon. Members can see, a number of them want to ask a question. We are time-limited, but I shall try to call as many Members as I can. You can assist me by asking just one question and, clearly, we need short answers, too. If Members were not in the Chamber for the full statement, I ask them not stand to ask a question: they must have listened to the entire statement.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will ensure that the design of the new franchise for Greater Anglia will maximise the incentive to the successful bidder to contribute to investment in track so that passengers on the West Anglia line and the Great Eastern line will get the advantages from such investment as he has outlined in his statement today?

[Mr Hammond]

I can assure my right hon. Friend that in re-designing the franchise arrangements, as we have committed to do, we will want to consider the opportunities for train operators to contribute to infrastructure improvements and to work more closely with Network Rail. We will also ensure that train operators’ financial interests are clearly aligned with passengers’ interests so that, under new franchises, when we have an overcrowding problem it will be in the train operator’s interest to deal with that problem with its own money rather than, as under the current system, having to come to the Government cap in hand to ask us to solve the problem.

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

I have a direct question for the right hon. Gentleman. Will the outcome of the further long-grass review that he is considering for south Wales, Bristol and the whole line to London deliver rail electrification all the way to Swansea—not to Bristol, but to Swansea? In the run-up to the election in May, all parties stood on a platform of delivering rail electrification all the way to Swansea. The Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), has made a principled point on behalf of her constituents, saying that it is a resigning matter if a different link goes through her constituency. Will she apply the same principle if she fails to deliver rail electrification into Wales?

[Mr Hammond]

I can answer the hon. Gentleman’s question to me, but I cannot answer for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales; he will have to address his question to her in person. There has to be a business case for electrification. We will work with the Welsh Assembly Government to strengthen and build that business case over the next few weeks and I shall make an announcement to the House as soon as we have made a decision on the IEP procurement that will cover both IEP and further electrification on the great western main line.

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

I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that what was originally called Thameslink 2000 by the previous Government will at last be delivered by this Government. Will the Secretary of State also direct those responsible to ensure not only that we have the new London Bridge station in my constituency, and all that goes with it, but that the maximum number of commuter lines are continued in south London? That is obviously of interest to people who live in London as well as those who live further afield.

[Mr Hammond]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is quite right to observe that we must get the balance right between building large new infrastructure projects and maintaining existing services. I have been out this morning to the site of the Blackfriars station development and seen just how incredibly difficult it is to build such a major project on a running railway line with trains passing backwards and forwards. It is very complex, and allowing a little extra time will ensure that we do not have catastrophic disruption during the programme.

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

I welcome the news of investment in rail, although I am concerned about the three-year delay in the electrification of the Liverpool-Manchester-Blackpool line as well as the uncertainties on electrification of the great western line. Will the Secretary of State explain the percentage growth in rail that he is planning within these figures so that rail can grow without overcrowding and without the overpricing that drives people off the railways?

[Mr Hammond]

I do not know where the hon. Lady gets the idea about three years’ delay with north-west electrification. As I said, the Manchester to Newton-le-Willows section will be completed in 2013. Work will start next year. The team that is doing the work will then roll on to complete the electrification of the Liverpool-Manchester section and finally the Preston-Blackpool section. It will all be completed by 2016.

Let me explain the time scale. Electrification will allow the electric carriages released by the delivery of the new Thameslink carriages to be deployed. There is no point completing that electrification, except for the section from Manchester to Newton-le-Willows, until those electric carriages are available. The timetabling is perfectly logical and the early completion of Manchester to Newton-le-Willows will allow brand-new electric trains to be operated on the Manchester to Scotland routes.

The hon. Lady asked about capacity. The total announcements on Crossrail, Thameslink and the additional 650 carriages to be delivered before 2015 will amount to a 17% increase in the capacity of the network.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Commuters in my constituency, particularly those who use Three Bridges and Gatwick stations, will greatly welcome—as do I—the announcement about increased rolling stock through Thameslink. Will my right hon. Friend assure my commuters and constituents that the rolling stock will be of the highest available quality to ensure greater comfort and convenience?

[Mr Hammond]

The trains deployed on the Thameslink route will be brand-new trains with 1,200 brand-new carriages.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State’s statement is the fourth time that the desperately needed new trains for the east coast line have been delayed. Will he tell us what he means by “in the new year”? What time scale is he talking about? Will he go for the dual-fuel trains?

[Mr Hammond]

The bi-mode trains are one option that we will consider. Let me explain again the reasons for the complexity and the delay. We have a preferred bidder, selected by the previous Government. That preferred bidder, Agility Trains, has come back to us with a revised proposal that is significantly more attractive than the original proposal. We have been asked by Sir Andrew Foster’s review to reappraise the Agility Trains bid and to consider specific alternatives. We are carrying out that work. There are technical complexities and legal complexities, because of the procurement process. Of course, we must build a value-for-money case and compare the two options. I hope that it will be possible to make an announcement in January, and I expect it to be made early in the new year.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s sincere commitment to the economic renewal of the north, but what does my right hon. Friend say to people in Buckinghamshire who challenge both the route and the national interest case for high-speed rail?

[Mr Hammond]

I say to them that they will have an opportunity to make their case when we go to consultation on a preferred route in the new year.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Every analysis of the south Wales economy and its competitiveness shows that the single most important thing that could be done to improve the competitiveness not only of Cardiff, Swansea and Newport but all the valleys communities is the electrification of the line all the way to Swansea. Is there not therefore a strong business case, if one really believes in growth in the economy, for making sure that electrification goes ahead as soon as possible?

[Mr Hammond]

That is precisely what we will be looking at working with the Welsh Assembly Government to achieve—a strong business case. The hon. Gentleman might reflect on what he did in the years that he sat on the Government Front Bench when not a single metre of railway line was electrified in Wales.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

I welcome this announcement and I thank my right hon. Friend for delivering an honest assessment of what is achievable. Will he confirm that improvements to Yorkshire and trans-Pennine routes will include upgrades to carriages and increased numbers to improve the journeys of the hard-pressed commuters who have suffered badly thanks to the neglect of the Labour party?

[Mr Hammond]

We expect that additional carriages will be delivered to the northern and trans-Pennine franchises, but my hon. Friend will understand that these are commercial matters and that we have to enter negotiations with the franchisees as single-tender actions. We have to negotiate with them on the reimbursements they envisage for operating those additional carriages, so it is not possible to give him a precise number today because that would remove our negotiating power in the franchise discussions.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Thousands of my constituents travel every day by Thameslink, as do I. The Secretary of State has disappointingly delayed this scheme by two years, euphemistically describing the delay as “reprofiling”. He has specifically mentioned London Bridge, but what about Blackfriars, which he and I have visited? Will he at least confirm that the Blackfriars interchange with the Circle line will be completed on time and will not be delayed?

[Mr Hammond]

My understanding is that, yes, the station’s new interchange with the Circle line will be completed by the end of next year and that 12-car train-running through Blackfriars will begin at that time. His constituents will see the first tangible benefits from the Thameslink project at that time.

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

I welcome the encouraging implications of the Secretary of State’s statement for the maintenance of through-direct links from the north of Scotland to the London metropolis, particularly for the Highland Chieftain—his Department accepted the well-backed petition of The Inverness Courier on that. What is his prognosis for overnight services—the sleeping-car rolling stock—between the Scottish cities, plus Fort William, and London? They are long overdue and much needed.

[Mr Hammond]

It is for train operators to decide which specific services to offer on those routes, but the decision we take on IEP will define the type of rolling stock that is available to operate those services. I would be happy to discuss off-wire services north of Edinburgh with him if that would help.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

When will electrification of the Manchester-Chorley-Preston part of the line, which runs right through my constituency, take place? It seems to be missing each time there is a statement.

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Lady tests my geography of the north-west. If she is referring to the cord that passes from Manchester to Newton-le-Willows, rejoining the west coast main line, that will be in 2013. The rest of the electrification programme will be rolled out between 2013 and 2016.

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

I welcome the Secretary of State’s whittling down of the options for the great western railway, but we in Swindon are waiting anxiously on the platform for a final decision on the electrification of the main line. May I urge him to make a decision that will benefit Swindon and the west country—in favour of electrification—and hold him to his promise to make a decision early in the new year?

[Mr Hammond]

As I have already said, that is my expectation, but, as hon. Members will understand, when complex legal, technical and commercial decisions are to be taken, we have to do the homework before we make the announcement—unlike the previous Government.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I recognise that future investment plans depend on economic growth and I represent one of the most productive towns in the country on the most old-fashioned railway line—the great western main line. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and a group of companies from Slough that are anxious about the impact of other lines between Slough and Paddington, about the effect of Crossrail on the frequency of trains and about the lack of any connection from the west into Heathrow? Will he meet us to discuss his plans?

[Mr Hammond]

I should have thought that the hon. Lady welcomed the electrification of great western main line commuter services and the benefits that her constituency will see from Crossrail. I also have a great interest in the Airtrack project as my constituency is just south of Heathrow. I would be delighted to meet her to discuss these issues.

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

One benefit of High Speed 2 will be a release of capacity on the commuter section of the west coast main line from Euston to Milton Keynes. Will the Secretary of State confirm that as a result of today’s statement, rolling stock formerly used on Thameslink might be released to ease congestion on that line?

[Mr Hammond]

The release of rolling stock from Thameslink will provoke a cascade through the system so that Thameslink vehicles will be available for use on other lines. In some cases they will displace diesel units that will become available for use on still further lines. At the bottom of the pile, some old rolling stock is likely to be retired. By releasing large numbers of carriages into the pool we expect to change the market dynamics for leasing rolling stock, making it cheaper and therefore more affordable for the taxpayer and passenger alike.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State knows that if the Agility train project goes ahead it will create thousands of jobs in north-east England, including hundreds in my constituency where the trains will be built. If that does not happen and the door is slammed on north-east England—if the other option is chosen—will the contract have to go out to retender, thereby causing further delays while the tendering process takes place and delaying the intercity express programme further?

[Mr Hammond]

As I have said, there are complex legal and commercial issues to consider. The hon. Gentleman will understand as well as anyone the process of negotiating with Agility trains as the preferred bidder and that everything we do has to be within the constraints of the European procurement directive.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

I, too, welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement. Will he outline in more detail the benefit that will come from the 650 new carriages that he has announced for 2010 to 2014 and how the investment in Network Rail will benefit the east coast main line?

[Mr Hammond]

Network Rail is making significant investments on the east coast main line, which explains to some extent the less than exceptional service performance on the line in the past few months as that work has been carried out. It will bring benefits in due course in terms of greater line speed and reliability. The 650 additional carriages will be distributed across the network. Some of them have already been contracted with individual franchisees and some of them will be the subject of further negotiations, which we will now commence, but there will be benefits for all parts of the country.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

There will be bitter disappointment not just in Wales but in the south-west of England about the Secretary of State’s decision to shelve the previous Labour Government’s plans for the electrification of the great western line. Will he agree to publish in full the criteria that have informed his decision?

[Mr Hammond]

Yes. In accordance with our transparency agenda, we have made it clear—I made it clear in my previous announcement on roads—that we will in due course publish the business case analysis that informs decisions about projects that go ahead and projects that do not.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

There is a pressing need for additional carriages on the Cardiff to Portsmouth line—indeed, a literally pressing need around Bristol, and on trains serving Bradford-on-Avon. Will it be need and overcrowding, or the commercial positions of franchisees, that drive the allocation of the 650 new carriages?

[Mr Hammond]

This is not about the commercial position of franchisees; it is about the economic benefits. We are not just looking at costs and revenue. If revenues were able to justify the costs, franchisees would be able to do the work on their own, without Government support. We are looking typically at situations where the revenue from fares does not cover the costs, but the wider economic benefits justify the investment of public money.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

My constituents are served by Southeastern and face the highest fare increases in the south-east network. They also suffer from pixies on the line—or rather, PIXCs: passengers in excess of capacity—at peak times, and there is a plan to deliver 12-car trains at peak times on that section of the network. Do the Government still intend to deliver those 12-car trains and relieve the congestion on the line?

[Mr Hammond]

That is part of the Thameslink project—12-car trains running with Southeastern—and it will go ahead.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I hugely welcome the proposed new fleet, but, given the delays that Bombardier caused for First Capital Connect by the late delivery of trains, what discussions will the Secretary of State have with those who are to build the trains, to ensure that they deliver the rolling stock on time?

[Mr Hammond]

When we contract for, or enter into arrangements to support the contracting of, rolling stock, we will look to see that there are effective penalty arrangements to make it extremely costly for anybody to fail to deliver on time what they are supposed to deliver.

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

The Secretary of State has made it clear that he has drilled down hard on the numbers and taken an objective and exigent view of the returns that he expects from the investment. Can we expect a similar approach to HS 2? In the consultation, about which he was very open on the “Today” programme this morning, but has been less so with the House so far, will it be possible to look at alternative routes, not just geographically but in order to run HS 2 down existing lines?

[Mr Hammond]

I am delighted to hear from the hon. Gentleman. Not many people who have addressed me on HS 2 have asked me to alter the line so that it runs through their constituency, as I think he has. I am grateful for his enthusiastic support for the project. The HS 2 consultation will include the detail of the route from London to Birmingham, the wider strategic principles of the high-speed rail network and the selected route corridors, so his constituents, his local authority, and indeed he himself, will have an opportunity to make that point.

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

My right hon. Friend is correct to assess carefully the different options for the intercity express programme, but when does he expect the first IEP trains to enter service?

[Mr Hammond]

At this point I cannot give my hon. Friend an answer; it will depend on which option is selected. Of the two remaining options, one is for a novel technology—the Agility Trains proposal for a bi-modal train, which is an innovation—and the other is for a standard high-speed electric train set with a diesel coupling at the end of the wires. Clearly the latter option could be delivered more quickly, but our decision must be based on the best long-term interests of the UK’s railway.

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

The Secretary of State will acknowledge that, in my constituency certainly, there will be huge disappointment that midland main line electrification did not merit even a mention in his statement. Some of my constituents could be forgiven for thinking that he has something of a grudge against the east midlands, although I am sure—and we all hope—that that is not the case. When will the decisions on control period 5 be taken, so that we might at least have the prospect of that much-needed investment?

[Mr Hammond]

No, I will not acknowledge that there will be huge disappointment. Only a few months ago people were telling me, and relevant publications were saying, that all this investment would have to be cancelled because of the squeeze on public spending. We should rejoice in the fact that we have managed to focus on and prioritise public capital infrastructure investment that will support economic growth in this country. I am a little disappointed that the hon. Gentleman does not sing the praises of the decision to support and invest in the Nottingham tramway, but I will say one thing for him: I cannot blame him for the actions of the previous Government, because he was not in it.

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

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and thank him for his personal interest in the developments at Reading station. He knows, however, that there is particular overcrowding on the route from Reading to Paddington, so will he spell out the improvements that his announcement will make to commuting from Reading to Paddington?

[Mr Hammond]

The decision to electrify the line as far as Didcot will mean that services to Reading are more reliable and faster. It will also enable them to be more frequent, and they will have more passenger capacity. Put together, those factors will deliver a step change in the service that my hon. Friend’s constituents experience.

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

Will the light rail improvements in Sheffield, which I think I am going to welcome, include not merely the four extra trams but the nationally significant tram-train pilot? The lack of electrification of the midland main line is a disappointment, but will the track improvements go ahead and include the extra £23 million requested, so that we can significantly reduce travel times to London, to less than two hours for the first train, and reduce times for the second train, too?

[Mr Hammond]

There are two separate projects in that context, at least as far as the Department is concerned: the additional vehicles for the supertram, about which we have already made an announcement; and a further proposal, for which—the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) tells me—there is a submission on my desk as we speak. I shall be happy to look at it and let the hon. Gentleman know how we can take it forward.

[Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)]

I welcome the decision to continue running through-trains to Aberdeen and Inverness, and the fact that that uncertainty has now gone. In choosing the rolling stock that takes those journeys, will the Secretary of State ensure that we can maximise the journey improvements north of Edinburgh on the unelectrified part of the line?

[Mr Hammond]

Judging by the technical information that I have seen so far, I believe that both options would deliver almost exactly the same journey time, so I do not think that our choice of IEP mode will affect the journey time to Aberdeen or Inverness.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Wirral businesses have worked hard to build our local economy, and they expect me to ask questions of the Secretary of State. He says that he expects work in the north-west to begin in the next year, but given the delays that we have seen, will he return to the House to confirm absolutely that the work he has set out today will in fact go ahead?

[Mr Hammond]

I can save myself a trip by confirming now that work will begin next year and be completed in 2016—barring some completely unforeseen catastrophe. That is in the programme agreed with Network Rail.

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

I welcome today’s announcement of an extra 650 carriages for rail franchises outside London, as it could really help the vital London to Penzance service and the maritime line in my constituency. What assurance can the Minister provide that he is working with First Great Western to ensure that people in Cornwall benefit from the investments announced today?

[Mr Hammond]

First Great Western was first off the blocks today to welcome the statement, and we will continue to work with it. We expect additional carriages for First Great Western to be contracted as part of the 650-carriage programme, and of course, when decisions are made on the IEP and on further electrification of the great western main line, the company will ultimately be a significant beneficiary.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

The Minister knows that I am delighted with the extensions to our tram network, but unfortunately we cannot travel to London on it. Electrification of the midland main line would make it possible to reduce the travel time from Nottingham to London to an hour and a half. The Minister acknowledged that the economic case for electrification is strong—I would say “overwhelming”. Can he assure me that the Government have a strategy to achieve “Nottingham in 90”, pending the development of High Speed 2?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Lady will have noted that the last Government failed to deal with the issue of the electrification of the midland main line. I thought for a minute that I was going to get a bid for a tramway extension to London; to be honest with the hon. Lady, I prefer the option of midland main line electrification. There is a strong business case for electrifying the midland main line. The Government strongly support electrification, but we have, of course, to work within the envelope of affordability. We will be looking at projects for the next Network Rail investment control period, which begins in 2014. Midland main line electrification will have a strong case for inclusion in that programme.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the decision to proceed with the entire Thameslink programme, including the vital redevelopment of London Bridge—and the news that that will be done in a way that does not disrupt commuter services in south London. There is also the additional rolling stock for Thameslink, which should have a knock-on benefit for Southern passengers. It would be greedy to ask for more in this control period, but may I ask my right hon. Friend to consider improving the west London line in the next control period, so that south London, Gatwick, Surrey and Sussex have access to the High Speed 2 route?

[Mr Hammond]

I do not think I said that there would not be any disruption to commuter services during the massive reconstruction of London Bridge station; I certainly hope that I did not. I said that the reprofiling we have done will reduce the risk of serious disruption during that period. However, it will be a very major reconstruction project, and some disruption is inevitable. On west London services, of course we will examine proposals over the next couple of years as we prepare for the next Network Rail investment control period. Furthermore, the Mayor of London has an input into rail investment decisions for London commuter services.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I would like to return to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford). I think I heard the Secretary of State say that the additional Thameslink carriages would facilitate the lengthening of the overcrowded trains that run through our constituencies to 12 cars. Will he just confirm that?

[Mr Hammond]

I thought that the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) was referring to Thameslink services that will run out to the south-east. If I have misunderstood that, I shall look carefully at the question that he asked, and will write to both him and the hon. Lady.

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

I too welcome the news on new carriages, particularly given the broken promises of the previous Government. The Secretary of State has recognised the need for additional carriages on the Northern Rail franchise, but I remind him of the need to deliver those sooner rather than later.

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the broken promises of the previous Government. He will know that they promised 182 new carriages on the Northern Rail franchise, ordered 18, and delivered none. I hope that we will be able to do better than that for him.

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

I welcome the statement because I represent a constituency that needs support from the Government. I also have an interest in the matter as a former railway employee. The First Great Western railways in my constituency are generally very overcrowded. I think the Secretary of State knows the geography of the area, which is not far from his own constituency; if he does not, I will invite him to my constituency so that he can see the overcrowding. Can any extra resources be put in through First Great Western, so that there can be extra carriages to enable people to travel freely and comfortably?

[Mr Hammond]

I do know the geography of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency; I enjoyed going there to campaign against him when he was elected at a by-election. [Laughter.]

The good news for the hon. Gentleman is that Crossrail will draw away some of the traffic that is using the services on which his constituents rely, and the electrification of the First Great Western main line commuter services will also provide them with additional capacity, faster services and greater reliability.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

From his own experience, the Secretary of State will know that the London-Ipswich-Norwich line could qualify as a heritage line; it has hand-me-downs that are not deemed fit for the west coast main line. To be fair, I must add that that situation has obtained for 150 years. Would it be good for us to be included within the IEP, so that for once we would get new rolling stock—fresh, not second hand?

[Mr Hammond]

The question of brand-new rolling stock versus cascaded rolling stock depends ultimately on the business case that can be made. It is expected that some brand-new rolling stock will be deployed on the Greater Anglia franchise. I cannot tell my hon. Friend that that will necessarily be used on the London-Ipswich-Norwich line, but it is expected that there will be some new rolling stock in that franchise.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the statements made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma). On the High Speed 2 consultation, will the Government be expressing a preference about the Heathrow link based on their acceptance of the Mawhinney report? While the Secretary of State is at the Dispatch Box, will he say when the interim McNulty report will be published?

[Mr Hammond]

Sir Roy McNulty’s interim report will be published shortly. I intend to make a statement to the House in the near future about how we intend to take that process forward, looking at the structure and affordability of the railways. I should make it perfectly clear that the consultation on HS 2 will be around a preferred route. It will be open to other parties to suggest alternative routes, but the Government will put forward one preferred route.

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to ensuring value for money from the Government’s investment in British railways. He is well aware of the importance, or potential importance, to the north-east economy of the Agility Trains bid for intercity express. Will he continue to accept representations from hon. Members from all parties who represent north-east constituencies and would like the investment to come to our region?

[Mr Hammond]

I shall be very happy to accept such representations. I talk regularly to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) about these things. I was in the north-east last week and met some representatives of local authorities there. However, my hon. Friend will understand that the European procurement directive imposes a framework of rules around what we can and cannot do in a procurement such as this.

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

The Secretary of State may be interested to know that journey times between Cardiff and London Paddington actually increased during the 13 years of Labour Governments. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend is working closely with the Welsh Assembly to build a business case for the electrification of the main line. Will he also meet Welsh Members of Parliament and Welsh Assembly Members so that they can help him with his homework before he comes to a conclusion about this important decision for the Welsh economy?

[Mr Hammond]

I shall be very happy to do so. I assure the hon. Gentleman that whichever of the two options under consideration is chosen, quite independently of the question of electrification, that will deliver a saving on the journey time to Cardiff that will get us back firmly below two hours.

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

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Commuters in my constituency were hit very hard by the previous Government. Fares went up by 10.3%; furthermore, RPI plus 3 for Kent was introduced in 2006, while trains to Victoria and Cannon Street were cut. May I ask for special consideration for commuters in the south-east in terms of both resources and fares?

[Mr Hammond]

As my hon. Friend knows, the Southeastern franchise fare formula was set on the basis of the need to contribute to and justify the huge investment in Javelin trains providing a super-fast service from Kent to London St Pancras. An objective analysis would say that commuters in the south-east have had a fair crack of the announcement today. Some 1,200 new railcars are to be delivered to the Thameslink service and some of the 650 additional cars to be delivered by 2014 will go to areas of south-east commuterland. There is also the commitment to proceeding with Crossrail. All those things will add massively to rail capacity into and around London.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and the fact that stations were not overlooked. Clapham Junction in my constituency is one of the two busiest interchanges in the country. To make the railways really work, we need great modern interchanges. Although Clapham Junction never made it in any of the three previous control periods, will he join me in hoping that it will be closely considered by Network Rail for the next control period?

[Mr Hammond]

Network Rail is considering the section of line from Clapham Junction into Waterloo, and I will discuss its plans with it over the coming months and years. My hon. Friend might like to know that I have been told this morning that when the work at Farringdon is completed, Farringdon will overtake Clapham Junction in terms of train movements.

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

Like many north-west MPs, I travel on the Glasgow to Euston Virgin Pendolino trains, which are heavily overcrowded during the main journey times. I understand that new rolling stock has been delivered for these trains, but Virgin Trains is not allowed to use it until the Government give it permission to do so. Will the Minister give Virgin permission to use those extra carriages, which are in stock, to alleviate the overcrowding on that line?

[Mr Hammond]

There seems to be a little bit of misunderstanding about this. The new Pendolino carriages have not been delivered. An acceptance test train will be delivered—in 2011, I believe—and acceptance trials will be required for certification of the additional train carriages. Virgin Trains Ltd is contracted to integrate those carriages into the Pendolino train sets, independent of what happens at the termination of the Virgin franchise on the west coast, so that work will go ahead.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

I echo the calls to electrify the great western line fully, but I would press the Minister at least to secure the new fleet of all-electric trains with dual diesel use, to deliver much-needed faster journeys and greater capacity for my Swindon residents.

[Mr Hammond]

I have noted my hon. Friend’s point, and will take his comments into consideration.

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I welcome the statement on behalf of my constituents who use Thameslink. However, can the Minister advise me whether he will ensure that the Government’s investment is not undermined by the unions? Under the previous Government, First Capital Connect staff worked to rule and Ministers refused to intervene, because many of them were dependent on RMT and other union funding.

[Mr Hammond]

I must say that I have been disappointed by the reaction of the unions to this morning’s announcement. Far from welcoming this huge additional investment in the railway and this statement of confidence in its future, they have picked away at it much as the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) has done. We need to restructure the way in which franchises are let to give the train operators proper incentives to work with all their stakeholders, including the unions, to find long-term solutions to the challenges on the railway. We have to get the cost of the railway down, and make it more reliable, affordable and sustainable for fare payers and taxpayers alike in future.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State and his team on announcing such a significant amount of investment despite the economic legacy left to them by the previous Government. I also welcome his clear comments about midland main line electrification; I appreciate that we shall have to wait for that. His statement did, however, mention the midland main line—a fact that seems to be lost on Opposition Members. Could he enlighten the House about the improvements that will be made to the midland main line in the current period?

[Mr Hammond]

In Network Rail’s current control period, there is a programme of capital improvements to the midland main line that will deliver enhanced line speeds, and thus an improved service.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the substantial investment in our rail network, but will he explain how much smaller projects such as the important Coventry to Nuneaton rail upgrade will be assessed for future funding?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend has on a previous occasion asked me to meet him and Opposition Members representing the area. I have agreed to do so, and I look forward to having a meeting with him in due course.

[Jenny Willott (Cardiff Central) (LD)]

I welcome the news that travel times from London to Cardiff will be reduced by 15 minutes; as has been mentioned, that will take us back to the travel times of about 15 years ago. When making a final decision on electrification of the great western main line all the way through to south Wales, will the Secretary of State take into account the extremely strong view of businesses, politicians and commuters across south Wales that electrification is absolutely critical to the future prosperity of the region?

[Mr Hammond]

Of course we will take into account the views of the business community, in particular, but we will also look at the evidence. I now want to work with the Welsh Assembly Government on building that evidence.

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

For 13 years, Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire received the fluffy end of the lollipop when it came to transport policy. I therefore welcome the announcements on the trans-Pennine express and the east coast main line, which my two Yorkshire colleagues got to mention first. However, we also have in northern Lincolnshire some exciting open access proposals, including a line from Cleethorpes through Scunthorpe and direct to London. Will the Secretary of State work with those open access providers, and have his officials work with them, to help to bring those new services to our region?

[Mr Hammond]

We are always happy to see additional services being provided, but decisions on open access applications are for the rail regulator, not for the Secretary of State.

[Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)]

I welcome the certainty that electrification out of Paddington will continue as far as Didcot. However, does the Secretary of State agree that it is a reasonable economic assumption that a continuous project of rolling out electrification through to Swindon, Bristol Temple Meads, Bristol Parkway and through the Severn tunnel is likely to provide better value for money than a piecemeal project where engineering teams, recruitment contracts and so on have to be reassembled?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I should make it clear that we will make the decision on the total extent of electrification of the great western main line long before the physical work begins.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I welcome this statement, which is clearly overwhelmingly good news for rail customers and for the environment. However, may I also press for full electrification to Wales and the west country, and ask for the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s new methodology for calculating the future cost of carbon to be fully factored into the Department’s necessarily careful evaluation of the business case?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. We have made a commitment to changing the formula that we use to assess transport projects to reflect the latest values of carbon.

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

Is the Secretary of State aware of the research published by the East of England Development Agency about the £3.7 billion of potential economic benefit that greater investment in the great eastern main line would bring? Will he take that into the strongest consideration in his discussions with the franchisee?

[Mr Hammond]

There is not a franchisee on the east coast main line—[Hon. Members: “The great eastern!”] I am sorry, yes, the great eastern main line. Of course we will take into account all the evidence of economic benefits when we consider the future of this franchise.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Last, but certainly not least, I call John Pugh.

[Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

On a final jarring note, there is an impression that capital investment in rail usually means rail investment in the capital. What can the Minister do to disabuse me of my prejudice, perhaps by publishing per-region figures?

[Mr Hammond]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It is of course true that two huge rail projects are going ahead in the capital—Thameslink and Crossrail. The good news is that because both projects will between them deliver 1,800 new rail carriages, they will release large numbers of perfectly serviceable electric rail cars, which themselves make the case for further electrification of commuter lines in the north-west and on the great western main line. There are benefits for everybody, not merely for London and the south-east, deriving from the Crossrail and Thameslink investments.

Point of Order

Thursday 25th November 2010 Commons Chamber

13:28

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you would be so kind as to convey to Mr Speaker the very real concerns of attendants and office keepers across the estate about possible loss of jobs due to the cost reduction programme. Many of those attendants and office keepers have worked in the House for years, and some of them are approaching retirement. They are concerned that their jobs will go to the Post Office or to outside contractors—and if they go to outside contractors there will probably be no savings at all. Will you ask Mr Speaker to look benignly on these wonderful servants of the House, who have given many, many good years of their lives to the service of the House of Commons?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am grateful for notice of that point of order. I think that everyone in the House appreciates the great work of the people of whom the hon. Gentleman is talking. He is an experienced Member and he will know that only occasionally do the services and facilities of the House give rise to real procedural points of order. As the House knows, Members are being consulted about savings in the running costs of the House. The Commission welcomes comments on individual proposals, which should be made to the Finance and Services Committee, and Members can always raise such issues directly with the head of the relevant House department. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s words will be noticed by all the relevant people.

Local Government Bill [Lords]

Thursday 25th November 2010 Commons Chamber

Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee, considered.

Third Reading

13:30

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This is a short, two-clause Bill that reverses the proposed creation of unitary authorities in Norwich and Exeter and puts to an end the uncertainty regarding reorganisation in the county of Suffolk. It was first debated and considered in some detail in the other House, then considered rigorously but briskly in this House both on Second Reading and subsequently in Committee. It reflects a coalition agreement and manifesto commitments of the two coalition parties, as well as the Government’s desire, which we believe is well supported by the people in the areas concerned, to put an end to needless disruption, uncertainty and cost for local government. The issues have been well aired within their narrow compass, and I will be happy to respond to such issues as are raised in the debate.

13:31

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I have some sympathy for the Minister, who is having to try to justify the Government’s position on the Bill. Essentially, as he knows, he is trying to defend the indefensible. He knows that unitary councils are far more efficient than the two-tier model that he seeks to retain, and that they save money. He knows that the people in Norwich and Exeter want unitary councils. They want to have some control over their own destiny, and they do not want to be subject to the two-tier system that he seems to think is so wonderful.

The Minister also knows that most of the councillors in Exeter and Norwich support unitary status for those great cities, and that the unitary model is a better governance model for the local authorities there.

[Robert Neill]

Does it follow, then, that it is the official Opposition’s policy that there should be unitary authorities across the country?

[Chris Williamson]

The Minister knows that we support local determination, and we know from the facts surrounding Exeter and Norwich that local councillors and the local people support unitary status for those cities. It is a fact that it offers a better governance model than the two-tier system.

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

Can the hon. Gentleman explain why it took 13 years for the previous Labour Government to come to that view, by which time, with a general election so close, they knew that there was a fair chance that they would never be able to deliver on it?

[Chris Williamson]

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s proposition. If he looks at Labour’s record of supporting local government and unitary councils around the country, he will see that we have supported unitary status where local authorities have requested it. Indeed, the previous Conservative Government created dozens and dozens of unitary authorities. I do not understand why the current Government take a different view from the Conservative Government of the 1990s.

I would also make the point that, for local people, a unitary council is a model that is much more easily understood. Where there is a two-tier system, people are confused about which authority is responsible for which services, and in some areas there is a degree of duplication in service provision. That leads to considerable confusion, which I suspect is one reason people overwhelmingly want unitary councils in Norwich and Exeter.

The Minister is also aware, as members of the Government parties across the piece must be, that cities are a significant engine for economic growth. Freeing up local authorities through the creation of unitary councils enables those councils to innovate much more effectively than they can under the two-tier system. I shall give a few illustrations of what I mean by that from the three cities in my own region, the east midlands.

Let us take the example of Nottingham city council, which was made a unitary authority in the mid-1990s by the previous Conservative Administration. It has developed a wonderful tram line infrastructure in the city, which is the envy certainly of the region and probably of the country as a whole. It has certainly been an economic driver in bringing new inward investment into Nottingham.

Similarly, Leicester is another council that was made a unitary authority in the 1990s by the previous Conservative Administration. It, too, has been extremely successful in securing inward investment, and the Queen recently opened its wonderful new Curve arts centre, a multi-million-pound project that is very well used and much admired by residents in and around the city. It is a wonderful, new, innovative arts facility not only for the people of Leicester but for people in Leicester’s hinterland and county area. That is the sort of thing that can be done if an authority is given the power to innovate through unitary status.

My own authority of Derby has also used the ability to bring inward investment into the city as a result of being a unitary council. Two or three years ago, I had the privilege of opening a wonderful new shopping centre that the council was instrumental in bringing about. That would have been considerably more difficult had it continued to be a lower-tier authority. Derby was yet another local council made a unitary authority by the previous Conservative Administration in the 1990s.

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

I know that the hon. Gentleman is making a case for unitary authorities, but does he not recognise that district councils do an equally good job in the county of Northamptonshire? The Corby district has just opened the new Cube building, a fantastic facility, and in Daventry district, which I represent, there is the iCon centre, which is a centre of excellence for construction. Surely there are points on both sides of the argument. I understand his point about self-determination, and surely that is the point of this exercise.

[Chris Williamson]

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point, and he points to excellent examples of district authorities innovating, bringing about wonderful new facilities and generating economic activity in their areas. However, Norwich and Exeter are looking to secure freedoms that would enable them to innovate and deliver improvements such as those achieved by the district councils he mentions, but much more easily and effectively. That will be even more important in these straitened economic circumstances.

The Minister made a very short opening speech, perhaps because he is rather embarrassed to be standing here supporting the indefensible. He knows that he has to close ranks with the Secretary of State, who in effect has hung him out to dry.

With swingeing cuts being imposed on local councils, unitary status in Norwich and Exeter would offer some protection for front-line public services. It is an undeniable fact that it would be a far more effective and efficient use of public money to make unitary authorities responsible for all council services in their areas. That would eradicate duplication and free up funding, which could offset some of the swingeing cuts that will be imposed. Over the next four years, as we know from the comprehensive spending review, there will be 28% cuts on average, although some local authorities will see even bigger cuts, and it remains to be seen how Norwich and Exeter will be affected. If we can eliminate some of the duplication in Norwich and Exeter, authorities there would have a fighting chance of at least protecting a few more front-line services, which would otherwise be put to the sword.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Will the hon. Gentleman outline some of the duplication in Norwich or Exeter?

[Chris Williamson]

It is pretty obvious, where councillors from the county authority represent Norwich and Exeter, and councillors represent the districts in Norwich and Exeter, that that in itself is a duplication. We heard the Conservatives say in the run-up to the election, and we know from their gerrymandering Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, that they want to make politics more cost-effective, but if they are genuinely serious about that, they would support the unitary status bid in Norwich and Exeter. That, then, is a duplication of the political process. There is also the duplication of the chief officers and the fact that the backroom activities of Norwich and Exeter duplicate those of Norfolk and Devon to some extent. I could go on—there is a long list of areas where there is duplication. That is surely a given.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

On the hon. Gentleman’s comment about Norwich, is it not correct that, even if there was a Norwich unitary, under the previous Government’s proposals there would still be a Norfolk county council, so there would be no change in the number of chief executives? The hon. Gentleman’s point does not make sense.

[Chris Williamson]

Yes, there would still be a Norfolk county council and a Devon county council, but the fact remains that there would be far fewer councillors than there are now. There would certainly be the reduction in backroom staff in Devon and Norfolk that is necessary at the moment. That fact was recognised by previous Conservative Governments, which is why they were so keen to create so many unitary councils, which Derby, Nottingham, Leicester and many other local authorities around the country benefited from. The hon. Gentleman is on shaky ground if he is suggesting in some way that there is no duplication in the two-tier model that we have in Norwich and Exeter.

[Simon Wright]

What is the hon. Gentleman’s assessment of the savings that would be produced by reducing the number of councillors? He said early in his speech that that was one of the main savings. I ask that particularly as the shadow boards that were set up paid considerable salaries to councillors who were already earning a council allowance.

[Chris Williamson]

The hon. Gentleman should not get too hung up on the issue of councillors. I explained that reducing their numbers represented not one of the main savings, but just one of the savings. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the impact assessment that was carried out at the time, he will see that it illustrated that the savings across the piece for Norwich and Exeter would be about £6.5 million per annum. That is an unanswerable fact, and I should have thought that the Government supported it.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Is it not absolutely astonishing that the hon. Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) is not aware of the figures in his own Government’s impact assessment? They show quite clearly that there will be net savings within six years and then savings of £6.5 million every year. Those are not our figures—they are the Government’s figures, but the Government have completely ignored them.

[Chris Williamson]

I agree with my right hon. Friend: what the hon. Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright), who represents one of the cities affected, says is astonishing. It is even more incredible given that the Liberal Democrat party in the hon. Gentleman’s home city supports unitary status for the city. I do not quite understand why he has come here to justify and defend the indefensible. I know that the Liberal Democrats are on the leash of the Conservative party, but the hon. Gentleman perhaps takes things to the extreme.

The swingeing cuts that the Government are imposing will have a devastating impact on people around the country. I appeal to Government Members to consider for a moment what that will mean not only for people who work for the authorities affected, but, most importantly, for the recipients of those authorities’ services. I should have thought that Government Members would have a moral obligation to look for ways to ameliorate the full impact of the cuts to which local authorities are subject. Giving Norwich and Exeter unitary status would go a long way towards ameliorating that impact, so I call on Government Members to look into their hearts and ask themselves whether they are making the right decision. Are they simply being driven by some dogmatic imperative or are they prepared to reconsider their position? Are they—this is why hon. Members are elected to this Chamber—prepared to stand up for ordinary people and to protect their interests. By supporting the position of the Opposition and of the people and councillors of Norwich and Exeter, they would be fulfilling the role for which they were elected to this Chamber.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I promise that I will not trouble the hon. Gentleman again, but how can he stack up the comments that he made earlier about making savings in back-office functions, and therefore making people redundant, with his comments now about trying to prevent cuts in the public sector?

[Chris Williamson]

The fact is that there will be cuts as a result of the decisions being taken by the Government, who are in charge of funding for local councils, but the Opposition do not accept that it is necessary to make cuts on the scale that is being proposed.

As for how I reconcile the points that I have made, I acknowledge that there will be some cuts, irrespective of whether Exeter and Norwich became unitary councils. My point, however, is that the savings that would be generated by unitary status could be used to protect front-line services. Moreover, freeing up Norwich and Exeter would give them the ability to bring in new inward investment and to innovate in a way that would create jobs in the private sector. The Government and the Office for Budget Responsibility claim that 2.5 million jobs are required in the private sector. We should support local authorities such as Norwich and Exeter in bringing in new inward investment and assisting the private sector to innovate and create the jobs that will be desperately required.

I just wonder what happened to the brave new world of Tory localism. Hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong, but did the Secretary of State not say that he wanted to put

“town halls back in charge of local affairs”?

The Government’s position on this issue calls that statement into question—it is something of a sick joke. If the Secretary of State genuinely wanted to put town halls back in charge of local affairs, he would support the democratic wishes of the elected officials in Norwich and Exeter and of the people who live in those cities. This is a bad Bill—it has all the hallmarks of a political stitch-up. It is more to do with placating Tory county backwoodsmen in Norfolk and Devon than with modern, progressive local democracy.

The Bill is not about looking forward at all. It harks back to the disastrous period for local councils in the 1980s, when the Secretary of State was the leader of Bradford council. If passed, the Bill will represent a sad day for the people of Norwich and Exeter, and a sad day for local democracy. For all the Secretary of State’s blustering hyperbole, it seems that he has already written the obituary for democratic localism even before the ink has dried on his much-vaunted localism Bill.

13:50

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

I do not wish to detain the House for long on Third Reading, because much was said on Second Reading and in Committee and we have covered the issues. However, I wanted to update the House on the Norwich and Norfolk situation.

The hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) referred to the potential savings, which in Norwich were just under £2 million. That sounds good, but there is an up-front cost of £20 million, and most savings would be made only after five or six years. In most organisations, such potential savings are never delivered after that amount of time because things change.

[Chris Williamson]

I urge the hon. Gentleman to look at the impact assessment. He is right that the cost of implementing unitary status in Norwich and Exeter is around £40 million, but the savings over that same period work out at £39.4 million, so the net cost of implementation is only £600,000, and there is an additional, ongoing saving of £6.5 million per annum.

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman helps me to make my point: just think how much we could save if we did not have the up-front costs of a top-down, forced unitary authority. In Norfolk, local authorities and the county council are working together to find ways of sharing services and to make the savings of £6 million a year—or potentially more—across Norfolk without going to the trouble and cost of creating a unitary authority that is forced on them from the top down.

We must remember there was no screaming desire on the part of people in Norfolk or indeed Norwich for that change, and no opinion poll showed that they wanted it. The only review—published by the previous Government—showed an overwhelming desire for the status quo across Norfolk and that if there was a preference for unitary, it was for a Norfolk unitary rather than Norwich unitary, which could have meant an awful lot of savings. Changing Norwich city council, which has not had a great track record recently, into a unitary would not save anything in officers or councillors. The real benefit to Norfolk will come from local authorities working together and sharing services. Those discussions are ongoing, and I hope that savings can be made much earlier than they would have been made under a unitary authority. That might even happen before Christmas.

13:53

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) said, this is a sad day for two of our great, historic English cities. I was brought up in one of them—Norwich—and I have represented the other in the House since 1997. The Government’s measures will not be lost on the voters of either city. Indeed, in local government elections in September—they were forced on us by the Bill—the Conservatives did very badly, the Liberal Democrat vote completely collapsed, and Labour retook control of the council. I predict a similar bloodbath for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in Norwich when voters there have the opportunity to use their democratic right.

The quisling stance of the Liberal Democrats and the hon. Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) will not be missed by the voters of Norwich. As a candidate, he advocated Norwich’s unitary status; since then, he has voted with the coalition Government in favour of the Bill and against our amendments that would have kept the ambitions of Norwich and Exeter alive.

There is a long history to the Bill. For hundreds of years before 1974, Norwich and Exeter enjoyed self-government. Long before county councils were even thought of, let alone invented, Norwich and Exeter had their own unitary local government that made decisions on behalf of their citizens. In 1974, the then Conservative Government robbed those two great, historic cities of their right to self-determination in their reorganisation. They handed most of the services, including the most important ones—education and social services—to the county councils.

We have heard a lot in debates on the Bill about dealing with the problems of two-tier local authorities. That principle used to be held by all parties in the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North reminded us, the previous Conservative Government were very permissive in granting unitary status, including to the two other main urban areas in Devon, Plymouth and Torbay. It is funny that they were happy to grant Conservative Plymouth and Conservative Torbay unitary status but not Exeter, which is of even greater economic importance and value to the wider sub-region. The Conservatives have completely changed their position, and it is not really very clear what the Liberal Democrats position is.

There are many reasons to advocate unitary government, and they have been taken up by all parties. My hon. Friend spoke of the economies involved, but almost as important to my constituents is the feeling that they have some democratic control, and that councillors have some democratic accountability. They do not currently have that. Countless decisions that affect Exeter and Norwich are made by county councillors who are not from those cities and who do not have their interests at heart. That is one reason why all parties in the House have supported unitary government in the past. It is more efficient and cheaper, and there is a direct line of democratic accountability, which voters prefer and value.

In the course of debates on the Bill, the Government have been absolutely unable to produce evidence for it. Their own impact assessment made it quite clear that unitary status would mean significant savings to the taxpayer in the medium and long terms. They have been unable to challenge the fact that unitary status in Exeter and Norwich enjoyed widespread support. In my own city of Exeter, every single party on the local council, including the Conservative party, the Liberals, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party, supported Exeter’s unitary ambitions, as did our university and business community. In Norwich, support was almost but not quite as unanimous—the Conservatives were the only party on that local authority to oppose Norwich’s bid.

The Government have produced absolutely no evidence for what they are doing today. My hon. Friend was quite right, therefore, to imply that the only possible reason for the Bill is political spite. There is no other reason for it at all. The voters will long remember and not forgive that, but all is not lost. I was pleased that in an earlier debate on the Bill, Labour Front Benchers gave a very clear commitment that under a future Labour Government, the just and rightful aspirations of the people of Exeter and Norwich will be honoured.

13:58

[Robert Neill]

With the leave of the House, I will briefly reply to the debate.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) on a remarkable display of political chutzpah. I kept my opening speech brief not because I am embarrassed by the Bill—I am not remotely embarrassed by it—but because when I was a young barrister, those who taught me often said, “The stronger the case, the shorter the argument should be.” As briefly as possible, I shall briskly rebut some of the points that were made in the debate.

First, the Bill is not about the merits or otherwise of unitary authorities per se, but about the specific proposals for Norfolk and Norwich and Devon and Exeter, and the hangover arrangements relating to the county of Suffolk—no more than that. That came about, I observe, because the former Labour Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham), attempted to rush through these unitary proposals, against the advice of his Department’s accounting officer and his own party predecessors, in the dying days of the last Parliament. That was struck down as unlawful by the High Court, however, so the matter remains outstanding and has to be brought to a close.

[Chris Williamson]

If this is not an argument against the merits or demerits of unitary councils, it would seem that the Minister has inadvertently conceded that this is an act of political spite.

[Robert Neill]

On the contrary, it is clearing up an act of partisan manoeuvring by the previous Government, who abandoned their own criteria. It is worth remembering that a previous Labour Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), concluded that neither the Exeter bid nor the Norwich bid met the value-for-money test that she had set. Was she acting out of political spite? I rather doubt it. It was also concluded that the Norwich bid was questionable on the affordability test. So the Labour party set out certain criteria, but these proposals did not meet them, and it then completely changed its tune. It is the ultimate hypocrisy, therefore, for Labour Members to accuse the Government of having changed their stance; it is they who have been so inconsistent that the High Court overturned their attempted gerrymandering.

[Chris Williamson]

How does the Minister respond to the point that the impact assessment concluded that there would be ongoing savings of £6.5 million per year? Surely that is an example of good value for money, and it would be brought about by creating unitary councils in Norwich and Exeter.

[Robert Neill]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises the impact assessment, which I was going to come to, because throughout this debate Labour Members have singularly failed to understand how the impact assessment operated. First, it set out and commented on the costs and savings by reference to the previous Government’s assessments. If they think there is a problem with the previous assessments, it is not our difficulty—we did not create them. It was the previous Labour Government who judged that these proposals did not meet the financial criteria and, in the case of Norwich, the value-for-money criteria as well. They cannot have it both ways; their impact assessments were used by their own Ministers to condemn proposals that they later chose to bring forward—so I will not hear any arguments on the impact assessment.

Secondly, it is quite clear—there is ample evidence from across the country, from joint working by local authorities, including those in Devon, Suffolk and Norfolk—that considerable savings can be made through collaborative working without the on-costs and up-front costs of reorganisation. So we can have the benefits without the costs.

At the end of the day, this was a political act by the Labour Government, who, finding it inconvenient to stick with the decisions of their own Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles, decided to wriggle out of it by inventing a reason that had never existed before for departing from their own criteria. That was struck down by the High Court. We have concluded that enough is enough, and that this would not serve the good interests of the governance of the counties of Devon and Norfolk, of which the cities concerned are an integral part. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Business without Debate

Thursday 25th November 2010 Commons Chamber

delegated legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Constitutional Law

That the draft National Assembly for Wales Referendum (Assembly Act Provisions) (Limit on Referendum Expenses Etc.) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 21 October, be approved.—(Mr Goodwill.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

That the draft National Assembly for Wales Referendum (Assembly Act Provisions) (Referendum Question, Date of Referendum Etc.) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 21 October, be approved.—(Mr Goodwill.)

Question agreed to.

business of the House

Ordered,

That, at the sitting on Thursday 2 December, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr Kevin Barron relating to Publication of Information about Complaints against Members, Power of the Parliamentary Commission for Standards to Initiate Investigations and Lay Membership of the Committee on Standards and Privileges not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion; and such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved.—(Sir George Young.)

welsh grand committee

Ordered,

That—

(1) the matter of the implications for Wales of the Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration; and

(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Wednesday 1 December at 9.30 am and between 2.30 pm and 4.30 pm to consider—

(a) a statement by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury; and

(b) the matter referred to it under paragraph (1) above.—(Sir George Young.)

UK Veterans Administration

Thursday 25th November 2010 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Goodwill.)

14:04

[Ms Louise Bagshawe (Corby) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for offering me the opportunity to debate a matter that I know will be of particular concern not only to Members of the House, but to the entire country.

The ceremonies of Remembrance Sunday are fresh in our minds. I know that most hon. Members in the Chamber this afternoon will have had the honour of recently laying a wreath in their own constituencies—in my case, under the auspices of our amazing branch of the Royal British Legion in Corby and east Northamptonshire. It is perhaps appropriate that time has been made to debate how our country treats its veterans, and whether we have the prospect of a better model in front of us, in this month of November. It is my contention that the UK needs a fully fledged veterans administration.

A great opportunity lies before the Government, and I am full of hope because both in the manner of their conception, and the way they have governed since, the coalition Government have eschewed the piecemeal. Things are not being done by halves. They are a Government of big ideas, sweeping reforms and profound change. From the universal credit to free schools, from the spending review to the alternative vote referendum, the Government, like the infant Hercules strangling the serpents, have not failed to grasp nettles and do things differently, even in their earliest days.

Our veterans need things to be done differently. I am sure that all Members support the amazing work of the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes, whose wrist band I am wearing today, ABF The Soldiers’ Charity and the plethora of other worthy military charities operating in our country. However, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister will be aware, there is a great feeling out there among the public that it is shameful that our veterans rely so greatly on voluntary bodies and charitable giving.

As a candidate, I was heartened to see my party campaign on restoring the military covenant, and now, as a coalition Back-Bench Member, I welcome all the various steps the Government have taken for our troops—for example, the doubling of the operational allowance and the military covenant being sealed in statute. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as almost one of his first acts in office, announced a welcome review by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) into mental health care for veterans. Meanwhile, the Secretary of State for Education has announced that the pupil premium will apply to the children of military families, and to great acclaim has recently announced a troops to teachers programme, bringing ex-servicemen’s expertise and valour into the classroom, so that they can benefit the nation’s children.

All of that, taken as a package, is extremely heartening. However, I urge the Minister to consider whether the Government’s efforts on behalf of troops and veterans do not point the way to a more comprehensive and unitary approach and a single co-ordinating veterans administration taking care of everything, rather than to the provision of piecemeal help from individual Departments.

I shall return to the theme that I took up in my maiden speech, because the matter is so important to me. The UK is the only country in the English-speaking world not to have a veterans administration, veterans department or something similar, and that is a rebuke to this House. New Zealand has Veterans’ Affairs New Zealand, with its own dedicated Minister; Australia and Canada both have Departments of Veterans’ Affairs; and of course the United States has the gold standard in the Veterans’ Administration.

In an article written for the website Conservative Home about his review of mental health care on behalf of the Government, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire said:

“Throughout my review I have been struck by the almost grudging beneficence of past British governments towards uniformed men and women in stark contrast with that of other nations, particularly our Anglophone partners. I doubt our warriors will ever enjoy the hero worship that Uncle Sam lavishes on America’s finest”.

But why should that be? Since they are every bit as heroic—many of us would say more so—why should they not enjoy it? I urge the Government to go further than their already welcome efforts have. It is not simply a matter of cost. It is true that the budget for the US Veterans’ Administration is a monstrous $87 billion—and because a good politician is a pragmatic politician, I am not asking the Government to go in that direction—but the budget for the Canadian Department of Veterans’ Affairs is only 3.4 billion Canadian dollars. In this country, however, what is first required is not excessive extra cost, but merely co-ordination. The original United States Veterans’ Administration was founded in 1930 with a mission to

“consolidate and co-ordinate Government activities affecting war veterans”.

And we need nothing more in this country.

Today, we have the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency, but I regret to say that it is nothing like enough. The SPVA was created in 2007. In its own words, there are

“many organisations…from Government and the voluntary sector”

that provide help to veterans. Describing that scattergun approach, the SPVA says:

“This can at times be confusing for those seeking help as they are unsure about which organisations provide what services.”

I regret that that quotation is verbatim. The SPVA website, Veterans-UK, is supposedly the first portal through which our veterans are meant to access its services. It is an embarrassment, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is that really the best that we can do for our veterans, our serving troops and their dependants? If, as a soldier, you want to go online and find out why you are not entitled to priority in local housing—unless you are Welsh—this website is for you; and should you wish to be directed to a number of charities, which may or may not be able to help, this is for you. Anyone wishing to look up the Government’s apparent “review of veterans policy”, which the site is linked to, will be directed to the Minster for Veterans—no, not my hon. and gallant Friend on the Front Bench this afternoon, but a smiling photograph of my colleague on the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), who has not been the Minister for more than four years. That is the level of service that this country currently offers.

Written answers to questions from Members from all parties, in all parts of the House, including the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who had such a long-standing interest in veterans’ affairs, have revealed, for example, a lack of data kept on the number of ex-servicemen in prison. Another answer showed that no estimate of the cost of family breakdown arising from veterans’ mental health problems has been made. Far too many written answers from the Ministry of Defence concentrate on charities. The world is starting to notice. Sergeant Neil Duffy recently returned his medals to the Prime Minister in a protest over benefits cuts that had left him suicidal. That was apparently down to a Department for Work and Pensions error, but a co-ordinating veterans administration would have avoided any confusion between military benefits and civilian entitlements.

On 4 November, The Economist ran an article condemning our country’s veterans provision, writing that

“a lavish American-style GI Bill of Rights is unlikely”—

and nor, I should emphasise, am I asking for one this afternoon—and quoting the director general of the British Legion as saying that he plans for

“a bow-wave of demand for our welfare support”.

The Economist, I hope like the House, concludes that, in honouring our war dead, we

“ought perhaps to think also of a future that, for some servicemen, is likely to be bleak”

There are many things that a veterans agency could do that would cost the Government absolutely nothing at all. Had I won the ballot on private Members’ Bills, I would have introduced a Bill making it illegal to discriminate against a member of Her Majesty’s forces on the grounds that he or she is wearing the Queen’s uniform. I would like to see a drive, led by the Government, on cultural change, perhaps through education programmes in schools and public information programmes, to develop practices such as those that I witnessed when living in the United States with my ex-husband for several years, where military personnel are regularly thanked for their service. When I have taken the opportunity, as a Member of this House, to thank troops whom I have come across for their service, I am often told that nobody has ever thanked them before. Surely that is a crying shame.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire will, in the end, be surprised, because our troops deserve all the honour—all the hero-worship—that the Americans render to theirs. I hope that the Minister this afternoon will consider creating a fully fledged, co-ordinating veterans administration or department, bringing the UK into line with the rest of the English-speaking world. He is not only a Minister, but a distinguished former soldier. May I therefore take this opportunity to thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his service, and to commend this project to him, as the final seal on restoring the military covenant, to which my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are so committed?

14:13

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

May I begin by thanking you for allowing me to speak in this Adjournment debate about veterans, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) on securing it in the first place? Needless to say, representing Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, I am delighted to have this opportunity to talk on behalf of one of the finest strategic naval bases—indeed, one of the finest naval bases as a whole—and one of the most historic naval ports and cities that our country has.

There are two things that I would like to speak about in the next few moments. I will try to ensure that I do not take up too much time, but, first, if my hon. Friend the Minister and the Ministry of Defence are going to make a decision about the location of the national veterans weekend in 2012, I would like to ensure that Plymouth is up there in their considerations, as it most certainly should be. There is a genuine feeling that Plymouth was rather let down under the previous Administration and that Chatham pipped it at the post, but Plymouth has a good story to tell. Indeed, it is interesting to note that as we debate an incredibly important issue for my constituency, and for other Army, naval and Royal Marine bases, no members of the Labour party are here to participate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that this is an Adjournment debate that was secured by the hon. Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe). She has given him permission to participate, but normally the convention is that only she speaks.

[Oliver Colvile]

Thank you for reminding me of that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The second issue that I should like to raise is the whole business of combat stress and the mental health issues that go with it. I have been hearing some sad and depressing stories about how it can take 14 years for some veterans to come forward with combat stress. I have also heard stories of serving personnel who experience very big problems in their homes, because they have been overcome by their mental health issues. Unless we take action on that, we will face a whole series of related issues, including more drug and alcohol abuse, homelessness and all those other mental health issues.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) has produced his report, which I understand has gone to the Prime Minister and which, according to the Secretary of State, will be fully implemented. That is very good news. The report makes the point that we should incorporate a

“structured mental health systems enquiry into existing medical examinations performed”

while servicemen and women are still serving, which is very important indeed. The report talks about uplifting

“the number of mental health professionals conducting veterans outreach work from Mental Health Trusts in partnership with a leading mental health charity,”

which is absolutely vital. The report refers to:

“A Veterans Information Service…to be deployed 12 months after a person leaves the Armed Forces,”

which is vital, as is the

“Trial of an online early intervention service for serving personnel and veterans.”

All that is absolutely vital, because if we do not do something about these issues, we will see more people admitted to our mental health units, increasing numbers of people going to prison—and mental health issues in prison are a very big worry indeed—and an enormous amount more homelessness on our streets.

When I was first selected to be the candidate in Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, I was struck by the story of a man whom I met at Bretonside bus station who was living on the streets. He told me about how his relationship had broken down once he had left his regiment in the Army—the whole thing had gone very wrong for him—described the problems that he then encountered and explained how difficult he was finding it to get back into work. The whole issue of combat stress is vital, but caring for our veterans after they have served so gallantly on behalf of our country is vital too.

Combat Stress, the well-regarded national charity, told me earlier today that it has seen a vast increase in the number of people suffering from mental health issues since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, so the more help we can give our veterans and the better we can take care of them, the better. That is what we should be about.

14:09

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

Let me start, as is traditional, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) on securing this debate to discuss the important topic of how we look after former members of our armed forces. I am glad to hear that I, too, am expected to grasp nettles like the infant Hercules; I am not sure whether there is a mixed metaphor somewhere in there, but there probably is, although that is my fault, because I am not such an illustrious author. By the way, I am not a very distinguished soldier either—although it was very sweet of my hon. Friend to say that I was. Never mind, I take all flattery when it is given.

I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) here today, and I have heard his submission for Armed Forces day 2012. I am sure that he will make it again, but I will note it and take it into account when decisions are made.

I confess that I was rather sorry to hear that the title of the debate had changed from “Care for UK Ex-Servicemen” to “UK Veterans Administration”. Although I am officially the Minister for veterans, I cannot help feeling that many of those who have served are more comfortable with a term that highlights exactly what they have done—that they have served their country in a way that is unique. My only qualification would be to add that today more and more ex-servicewomen swell the ranks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Corby raised several important points, and I shall respond at length on one or two. I do not want to take up too much time, and I may not have all the information to hand, but we will enter into correspondence about the issues. I do not agree with everything she said, as I shall explain, but what has come across clearly is that she and I, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, share two fundamental principles. The first is that the nation and the Government have a moral obligation to care for those who have made a commitment by joining the armed forces, and taking on the duties and sometimes the sacrifices that service requires. I will return to the question of the armed forces covenant later.

The second principle is that when we provide support, we must place the ex-serviceman or woman at the heart of what we do. Organisations and structures are only the means to an end, and what matters is how we can best help each individual, such as the person whom my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport met in a bus shelter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Corby highlighted the range of services that former service personnel may need to call on during their lives, and the variety of agencies that provide them. She argues that it would be more cost-effective to provide those services if they were brought together in a single administration. I do not agree, because when a service is already provided by one Department for the majority of the population, there needs to be a very strong case to set up a separate organisation to do the same thing for the remainder. Ex-service personnel live among us; they are not separate from the community that they have worked to protect. There are three ex-regular army officers in the Chamber and one former Territorial officer. We are here; we are not separate from the rest.

For the most part, veterans’ needs are the same as those of their fellow citizens, whether they involve health care, housing or benefits. Most of our ex-service personnel do not want that period in their lives, which may be quite brief, to be the dominant factor in deciding how they access services for the rest of their lives. A great friend of mine, General Sir Robert Fry, recently said that some of the reaction to the armed forces at the moment is somewhat mawkish, and that is true up to a point. I do not mean that the armed forces, the House or I myself do not relish the fact that people are now giving due respect where it is deserved—but we must be careful that we do not adopt a mawkish attitude to people who are just getting on with their lives in the service of this country.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Some people might not consider that to be mawkish. From my time in Northern Ireland, I know some soldiers who would benefit greatly from better veterans’ services. Our problem with mental casualties will increase hugely. On average, one person is killed for eight wounded, but in the Minister’s and my time that was one to three. The problem will get worse, and we must ensure that our services for those veterans are as good as possible.

[Mr Robathan]

My hon. and gallant Friend not only spent a longer time in the armed forces than the rest of us in the Chamber today, but came away much more covered in glory and honour than anyone else. I assure him that I and the Government appreciate, as did the previous Administration, the long-term problems that may arise from many of the casualties in Afghanistan. I will return to mental health shortly, because I want to raise several issues.

The US model is often held up for comparison, but the great difference between ourselves and our American friends is, of course, that in this country we have a national health service within a welfare state. It has the vocation to provide the very best care for everyone. Since 1948 the NHS has given excellent service day in, day out to millions of ex-servicemen and women and their families.

Ex-service personnel are entitled to priority in NHS treatment for conditions resulting from service. The main problem has been lack of awareness of that entitlement among ex-servicemen and women, and especially among practitioners, which is why we have supported recent steps to publicise it more effectively. At the new Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham, we see evidence every day of the superb level of care that the NHS provides to our people who are injured in Afghanistan. They are still serving, of course, but that shows the first-class co-operation that can and does exist between different parts of Government. We must ensure that that is everyone's experience.

We must also recognise that part of the support for ex-service personnel comes not from the Government but from the voluntary and community sector; my hon. Friend the Member for Corby mentioned that. Sometimes the service charities are described as substituting for what the Government should be doing. I believe that that does them a great disservice. I say philosophically that Government bureaucracy is not necessarily the best way to deliver some of the extra services and care that service charities deliver. The help that charitable and voluntary organisations and—dare I say it?—the big society have given to people returning from warfare goes back a long way. It is not for the state to do everything, and the state is not necessarily best placed to do that. We all have social responsibilities, and service charities are an excellent example of the big society in action. I pay tribute to their vital and irreplaceable role in our national life.

This week—it seems to have been quite a long week—I had an opportunity to visit the Royal British Legion on the south bank, and Combat Stress, two organisations that work as active and independent charities, but collaborate closely with the Government in the interests of ex-servicemen. Several formulae have been suggested over the years to strengthen the focus on ex-service issues in the UK. They range from the full-blown US-style Veterans Administration to more modest changes to Government machinery. Some give a greater role to the Ministry of Defence; others look to central Government to take on the responsibility. The creation of a Minister for veterans can be seen against that background, but my role, quite properly, has its limits. I can act as an advocate or as an interlocutor for ex-service personnel, but I do not want to tell the Department of Health and its devolved equivalents how best to deliver health care. Rather, I want to see ex-servicemen and women treated correctly across government, and not pigeonholed.

If we are to rely on our current range of providers to support former members of the armed forces, that will impose two requirements on us. The first is that the services that the nation provides should be attuned to the particular needs of veterans, where that is appropriate. Mental health has been mentioned, and it is an excellent example. It is generally acknowledged that ex-service personnel who are suffering problems as a direct result of their service—for example, those with post traumatic stress disorder— might respond better to an environment in which their particular experience is recognised and understood. I have heard this referred to as “cultural sensitivity”. Hence the importance of the six mental health pilots, designed to trial best practice in this area, which are going on now.

Getting our mental health services right, and tailoring them to the needs of the ex-service personnel who need them, is a matter that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) has considered fully in his recent report. We are now taking forward his recommendations. To illustrate the priority that we attach to this, when I visited Combat Stress headquarters earlier in the week and had a chance to learn more about its activities, I was joined not only by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire but by the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns). I hope that represents a true example of joined-up government. I heard exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said on these matters, but rather than going into them in great depth now, I want to discuss one or two of the issues with him later. Perhaps he could buy me a cup of tea.

[Oliver Colvile]

indicated assent.

[Mr Robathan]

Ah, good. [Interruption.] He is quite well off, I think.

That joint approach brings me to the second requirement, which is co-ordination between providers. I think that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who used to do my job, will agree that the co-ordination between providers has not always been good. Ex-service personnel want services that meet their needs efficiently and effectively. They do not want to be shunted about, or to fall down the cracks. That has happened in the past, and it is still happening.

My hon. Friend the Member for Corby has referred to the efforts that the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency makes to co-ordinate the different services that ex-service personnel can call upon. Its helplines are very successful, for example, handling 150,000 to 200,000 calls each year. When I visited Norcross earlier this year, I listened to some of those calls, and heard good practical advice being given in a clear and sensitive way. I would like to put on record today my appreciation for what the SPVA staff do to assist ex-servicemen and women. Whether it involves managing pensions and compensation, staffing the helplines, delivering the veterans welfare service or issuing veterans badges—which are very popular—they make a real difference.

We must ensure that Government Departments work together as a matter of course. They need to take into account the needs and concerns of former service personnel at all stages of their work, from developing policy to delivering services on the ground.

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

I completely concur with the hon. Gentleman’s point about co-ordination at local level. We piloted the welfare pathway—I understand that he does not like that name—and I wonder whether he is going to roll it out further. It was all about getting people at local level talking to each other.

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I recognise and pay tribute to the work that the last Administration did. If we look back 10 years, or even five, the situation was not what it is now—let us not blame whoever was in government 10 years ago—and I pay tribute to what they did. Now, the situation is very different from what it was even three years ago. He is quite right to say that I do not like the term “pathway”; it sounds a bit like new Labour-speak to me. However, in answer to his question, we are making no commitments at the moment, but we are certainly looking towards this way, because if it works, it will be the best way forward.

As I was saying, Government Departments need to work together as a matter of course, and to take into account the needs and concerns of veterans at all stages of their work, from developing policy to delivering services on the ground. I have even put into my speech here that I believe that the previous Government were right to emphasise that principle, when they published the command paper “The Nation’s Commitment: Cross-Government Support to our Armed Forces, their Families and Veterans”. To ensure that that happens, the Cabinet Office chairs a Committee at senior level to bring Departments together.

What we have been discussing is at the heart of the military covenant. Our own commitment to rebuilding the covenant featured prominently in the coalition programme for government. That programme includes a range of proposals to benefit ex-service personnel, from mental health to troops to teachers, which was mentioned only yesterday and, I noticed, was the subject of a headline in the Evening Standard. I am not sure that I quite understood the newspaper’s interpretation of the proposal, but there we go. On Troops for Teachers, I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education yesterday confirming our commitment to a scheme that will help both ex-service personnel and our schools.

I suggest to the House that the key to making things work better for ex-service personnel is that kind of holistic, co-ordinated approach, working together to a common end, rather than an organisational upheaval. Our intention is that the new tri-service armed forces covenant will set the tone of what we do across Government.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby for giving us the opportunity to discuss these issues today. I will take up many of the points that she has raised and discuss them with her further. Her interventions remind us that one of the yardsticks by which a Government are judged is how well they treat their ex-servicemen and women. We are determined to treat them with dignity and respect and to reflect the huge debt, which my hon. Friend spoke about, that we all owe to all of them. It is our moral duty to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

14:35

House adjourned.

Ministerial Correction

Thursday 25th November 2010 Ministerial Corrections

Thursday 25 November 2010

Communities and Local Government

Thursday 25th November 2010 Ministerial Corrections

Departmental Legal Costs

[Graham Evans]

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much (a) his Department and its predecessors and (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent on legal advice in each year since 1997.

[Official Report, 15 July 2010, Vol. 513, c. 905-906W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Robert Neill:

Errors have been identified in the written answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) on 15 July 2010.

The errors are in lines one and six, and the total of the table:

Line 1: Communities and Local Government: £9,564,505. The figure should in fact be £4,894,583.

Line 6: Homes and Communities Agency: £11,913,217. The figure should in fact be £10,081,889.

Total: £25,690,648. The figure should in fact be £19,189,397.

The Housing and Communities Agency should read Homes and Communities Agency.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Robert Neill]

The following table shows total spend on legal advice for the last financial year for (a) the Department and (b) its agencies and non-departmental bodies. Details of expenditure in earlier years could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

[Robert Neill]

The following table shows total spend on legal advice for the last financial year for (a) the Department and (b) its agencies and non-departmental bodies. Details of expenditure in earlier years could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

Westminster Hall

Thursday 25th November 2010 Westminster Hall

Thursday 25 November 2010

[Mr James Gray in the Chair]

Backbench Business

Thursday 25th November 2010 Westminster Hall

Transport (CSR)

Thursday 25th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Relevant document: uncorrected oral evidence taken before the Transport Committee on Wednesday 24 November 2010, on Transport and the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review, HC 630-i.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Mr Newmark.)

14:30

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

I am delighted to have this opportunity to discuss the outcome of the comprehensive spending review in relation to transport. I am pleased to see the Minister of State, Department for Transport, in her place this afternoon. I look forward to hearing her comments and, hopefully, her replies to the questions that I raise. I am also pleased to see here today my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), and I congratulate him on his new position as shadow Transport Minister. He will bring to the post considerable expertise in the transport field.

I welcome the Government’s recognition that transport infrastructure is vital in supporting economic growth. The Department has described it as an engine for growth. Repeated statements and announcements have emphasised the Government’s commitment to transport, and long-term investment in transport, in supporting our economy. Indeed, good transport links are essential to the movement of goods and people both locally and around the country. We cannot have a successful economy without a good transport infrastructure. However, we need good infrastructure throughout the country. Although I support continued investment in transport in the south and south-east, it must not be at the cost of investment in the north and other parts of the country. I will return to that theme a little later on.

I support what the Government are saying about the importance of investing in transport infrastructure for our future. Looking at the detail of the comprehensive spending review in relation to transport, however, it is apparent that there are many important questions that need to be asked and pursued.

In relation to rail, I am pleased that some commitments previously entered into have been maintained; indeed, it would have been very difficult to abandon them. I am particularly pleased that the allocation to Network Rail and to rail, 2009 to 2014, has been maintained, and that the essential part of the investment in Crossrail has also been honoured. A saving of £1 billion has been found. None the less, that cannot disguise the fact that there are to be major cuts to the transport budget.

According to the Department for Transport’s own figures, the overall cut over the four years of the comprehensive spending review comes to 15% in real terms overall. Capital spending is down 11% and resource spending down 21%. Those are major cuts and come on top of the in-year cuts in 2010-11.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. The Labour party submission to the comprehensive spending review suggested that cuts in unprotected Departments such as transport should average no more than 20%. Actually, they have averaged out rather less than that and the Department for Transport significantly less. If she is arguing for even lower cuts in transport budgets, which Departments does she suggest should make greater ones?

[Mrs Ellman]

The purpose of today’s debate is to focus on transport and the implications of the comprehensive spending review for transport services. Indeed, that is the remit of the Transport Committee, so I am concentrating on transport today.

According to the Passenger Transport Executive Group, capital funding for local transport outside London was cut by 19% in 2010-11. It is true that the outcome could have been worse, and comparisons have been drawn with other Departments, but that does not hide the severity of the cuts that will be put in place. There are to be new funds from which transport projects could be supported. The regional growth fund, which started off as a business fund to replace the budgets of the regional development agencies, has been expanded to include transport and some housing projects, and there is to be a local sustainable transport fund. There is no way in which those two funds can even start to replace some of the major cuts that are contained in the comprehensive spending review figures.

At the moment, my Committee is considering the relationship between spending on transport and economic growth. One issue it is considering is the distribution of transport investment around the country. Three times as much transport investment per head is made in London and the south-east as in the northern regions and the midlands. How will the comprehensive spending review impact on the distribution of that transport investment? Will such disparity be reduced or increased? I am very interested to know the answer and whether such an assessment is thought to be important. In relation to budgets, it is extremely important to consider the impact on places around the country as well as nationally.

Many transport schemes are strategic rather than local in nature. In the past, business-led regional development agencies, working with Government offices for the regions, have enabled local government, working with business, to decide on regional priorities and to make representations to Government. That will end. The Secretary of State for Transport has made it clear that the proposed local economic partnerships will not be sufficient on their own to replace those arrangements. He told the Transport Committee only yesterday that he thought that local economic partnerships—I do not know whether he knew exactly how they would be put together—would need to work together, or some other arrangement might be required to look at those very same projects. To my concern, he also said that he did not think that that would be achieved until the end of the Parliament. If those alternative arrangements happen and they do not take place until the end of the Parliament, will the Minister tell us how regional rather than local priorities will be determined? Will the decisions on such projects become centralised? What are the arrangements to be? We cannot wait until the end of the Parliament to know the answers.

Let me turn to roads investment. There are some big questions to raise on the implications of the Budget on roads. The budget for road maintenance is to be reduced by 20%, which is a big reduction. We are told that that will be achieved by efficiency savings rather than by cutting back on important maintenance. We all know that if routine maintenance is not done when it is required, a lot more will be required to be spent at a later date. What kind of mechanisms are in place to monitor how that reduction is to be met? Will it be through efficiency savings or will it mean that important maintenance on our roads is simply not done?

The Highways Agency’s capital budget is to be cut by around 50%. That is also a matter of great concern. Seven schemes have been cancelled and the much needed upgrade of the A14 has been sent back to the drawing board. Does that mean the end of major new road-building in Great Britain? It would be helpful to know whether the major cutbacks in that sector are to do with the problems of our times—the Government’s wish to move very quickly to remove the deficit—or a basic change in transport policy.

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

Does the hon. Lady accept that, at a time when money is tight, it is better to invest in public transport than in roads?

[Mrs Ellman]

It is important to keep a balance in spending. I certainly support continued and, indeed, increased investment in public transport. However, there may be particular road schemes that are very significant to particular areas or that are important to strategies to support economic development in certain parts of the country. Therefore, I would not rule out any particular type of investment, but I am certainly a supporter of investment in public transport.

The Secretary of State announced that 66 major local authority road schemes, which are due to cost £1.7 billion, are competing for more than £900 million-worth of funding. Will the Minister tell us what kind of result she expects to come from that great reduction in funding? Will priority be given to strategic schemes? If so, how will that be assessed and monitored?

Rail is a great success story. During the last decade, rail patronage has increased in a very dramatic way. More and more people want to use rail. Unfortunately, rail’s popularity has not been matched by the provision of sufficient or adequate rolling stock to meet that increased need. Therefore, while we have more and more people using rail, we also have more and more overcrowding and I think that we have seen the development of a rather complacent attitude to the health and safety issues related to that overcrowding.

This week, discussion has focused on the concerns raised about the proposed increase in train fares. The coalition agreement spoke about the need for

“fair pricing for rail travel.”

It now seems that that “fair pricing” means that regulated fares will be increased in the future not on the basis of the retail prices index plus 1% but on the basis of RPI plus 3% from 2012 onwards. The Government tell us that that is in order to fund much needed investment in rail.

The Association of Train Operating Companies presented such increases as average increases. However, average figures are meaningless to the individual wishing to embark on a rail journey. Already, increases of 13.8% and 9.3% have been reported as planned increases when the new policy comes into force. A lot more should be done also to provide much greater clarity about rail fares, with much greater openness about how cheaper fares can be obtained without the complexities and difficulties of interpreting the rules of different train companies on what constitutes peak-hour travel, so that travel can be made easier for more people.

There is a consequence to increasing rail fares beyond the difficulties it causes individuals, for example in getting to work. The Campaign for Better Transport estimates that fares could be 31% higher by 2015 than they are today. One result of what may well be pricing people off the rail network is that more people may go back to their cars, at a time when we are trying to encourage people to leave their cars and make use of public transport. Indeed, the Government estimate that there will be 4% fewer trips by rail than there would otherwise have been as a direct consequence of the planned fare increases.

Our concern is partly about the economic impact on individuals, including the specific difficulties that individuals may experience in getting to work, but we also have growing environmental concerns. The Climate Change Act 2008 has targets to reduce UK greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. In 2009, the transport sector accounted for a quarter of domestic carbon dioxide emissions, with 90% of those emissions coming from road transport and 55% from domestic cars alone.

Why, at a time when we are so concerned about environmental issues and when we now have the Climate Change Act, would we deliberately want to price people off rail and encourage them to get back into their cars? Furthermore, are we really so certain that the Government’s claim that those increased fares will lead to better investment and improved facilities on the rail network will actually become a reality? The rail structure is very complex and there are big questions to be asked about whether all of us—the traveller and the taxpayer—are getting good value for money from the investment put into rail.

Sir Roy McNulty’s report on the rail system and value for money issues will be very important, as will the decisions about rail franchises for the future. If we are to get value for money for the essential funding that goes into rail, it is extremely important that we look carefully at what emerges from Sir Roy McNulty’s study. Although I know at this stage that some preliminary conclusions have been drawn, there is no full report yet. I would be pleased to hear from the Minister her understanding of what Sir Roy McNulty might say and what she thinks might be the policy implications of his report.

I welcome this morning’s announcement about rail investment, particularly the commitment to electrification of the line between Liverpool, Manchester, Preston and Blackpool, and the electrification of the Great Western line. However, I want to be quite sure that that electrification will go together with increased provision of rolling stock and carriages on those lines, and indeed on other overcrowded lines. I would also like to know what kind of monitoring will take place of the promises that we heard this morning—promises about other schemes, as well as the two I have mentioned—to ensure that the investment goes ahead as planned and that we have more capacity, more efficient and environmentally friendly rail travel and better value for money at the same time.

I also welcome the Government’s statement on their commitment to High Speed 2 and the funding for it. However, it is very important that the benefits of HS2 are maximised and that there is no neglect of investment in the classic network.

Rail freight is also very important. Freight moved by rail accounts for about 9% of all goods moved in the UK and I welcome the Government’s commitment to improving investment in rail freight links, specifically those between Southampton and Felixstowe. When the Transport Committee visited Hull recently, to take evidence as part of our inquiry into transport and the economy, we were told about the importance of relatively minor improvements that could enhance access to the Humber port. I hope that those improvements can go ahead and indeed I hope that similar improvements can be made in the Merseyside area. When we talk about rail investment, that debate is often dominated by discussions about passenger rail. We should always remember the importance of freight on rail, too, and the importance of investing in it.

It is also important to look at investment in buses. Indeed, more people travel on buses than on any other mode of public transport. In 2009-10—the last year for which we have figures—5.2 billion passenger journeys were taken on local bus services in Great Britain. That compares with 1.3 billion passenger journeys on rail.

I am extremely concerned about the implications of the comprehensive spending review for funding local bus services. The bus service operator grant will be cut by 20%, local authority revenue for bus services will be cut and we do not yet know how effectively the Local Transport Act 2008 will work to ensure good value for money. We are awaiting the results of the Competition Commission inquiry into the setting of bus fares.

The Government say that they believe that the cuts in the bus service operator grant and other local authority funding, which could have an impact on support for local buses, will have a low impact on services. I am mystified by that and would like to know how the Government arrived at their figures. It seems to me that a 20% reduction in the bus service operator grant, a 28% reduction in local transport revenue funding and the removal of ring-fencing puts a big question mark over how many services that are essential to local people but not necessarily profitable for individual bus operators will be able to continue. I would be grateful for a response.

It is welcome that this Government are honouring their commitment to maintain the national concessionary fares scheme introduced by the previous Government, but the administration of the scheme has changed, and there are now queries about whether the funding for that scheme will go directly to the transport services. Again, I would be grateful for a response on that from the Minister.

Road safety is an important issue that is perhaps not discussed enough—it has not been discussed sufficiently in relation to the comprehensive spending review—but one of the successes of the past decade or so is the reduction in the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads. In 2009, some 2,222 people were killed on our roads and more than 24,000 were seriously injured. Behind every one of those numbers lies a tragedy, and often a broken family, yet the figures represent an improvement on previous years: 38% fewer people were killed on our roads than in the late 1990s. More progress must be made. I am concerned that the reduction in local funding, combined with the abolition of ring-fenced grants for road safety, will halt the progress made and the decline of deaths and injuries on our roads.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. Will she join me in recognising the value of free advanced driver training from organisations such as the Institute of Advanced Motorists, which is available at very little cost to drivers, in raising driving standards and improving safety?

[Mrs Ellman]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I recognise the value of the training that he mentions, but the reason why we have made such progress in reducing the number of deaths and injuries on our roads, although those numbers are still far too high, is that combined efforts have been made not only to improve training but to improve road design, increase publicity through campaigns, reduce speeds and improve enforcement. It has been a combination of efforts by individuals and organisations, led by strong Government focus and guidance. I am concerned that those things might now recede into the background. That must not happen. I welcome an assurance from the Minister that transport safety, including road safety, will be high on her agenda.

Hidden within the comprehensive spending review are decisions to cut funding in important security areas such as aviation security and major changes, also involving funding reductions, to TRANSEC, which is responsible for security in transport. It is not clear what those changes will mean. When the Select Committee on Transport questioned the Secretary of State for Transport about it yesterday, he said that some of the responsibility for funding aviation security would be transferred from Government to the aviation industry. He also said that he could not say a great deal more about changes to TRANSEC. My concern is that we lack information and clarity about what is happening. It is important for us all to know what is being planned. Is the policy change an effort to increase the effectiveness of security, or is it driven by a wish to reduce costs? Transport security could be put at risk at a time of heightened concern. We need to know more about what is happening.

I also draw attention to concerns about the future of passenger representation. Passenger Focus has done an excellent job of drawing attention to the needs of passengers and travellers. It started with excellent work on the rail industry and has recently been given new responsibilities relating to bus travel, yet the Government’s quango hit list stated that Passenger Focus was due for significant reform and changes to its core tasks; I think that those were the words used. How are those core tasks to be defined? Do the Government want to change Passenger Focus’s funding and remit because it has been too successful in representing passenger needs? However committed any Government might be to public transport or indeed anything, it is essential to have an independent body that can speak out for the public about those services. I would be concerned if passenger representation were downgraded.

Finally, questions must be asked about the proposed cut of more than 30% to the administration of the Department for Transport and its agencies. First, what does it mean? Is it about being more efficient, or does it mean that the Department and its agencies will not be able to deliver what they are required to deliver with such significantly reduced funding? What does it mean for the Department’s agencies? We have already heard about cuts to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, including the removal of emergency vessels, which it appears is being done without prior consultation. It is unclear what it is all about, and it is concerning. Such drastic reductions in the administration of the Department and its agencies must ring alarm bells. Is it about being efficient—will services be delivered—or is it about more hidden cuts, particularly to those agencies where what is happening is not always immediately apparent?

In conclusion, I welcome the Government’s stated commitment to investment in our infrastructure and recognise, looking at what has happened to other Departments, that the cuts could have been much worse. However, great concerns remain about the impact on transport of the comprehensive spending review’s cuts. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the points that I have made and assure her that the Select Committee will be pursuing the issues in the months ahead. I hope that she will be pleased to receive an invitation from us before too long. We will be pleased to continue this discussion in another room.

14:58

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) on securing this debate. I do not intend to speak for very long, as the hon. Lady has comprehensively covered the issues that the Select Committee on Transport is considering and, as a member of that Committee, I do not wish to go over the same ground. For the same reason, I do not intend to comment on the specific projects announced in the comprehensive spending review or subsequent announcements.

I welcome the success of my right hon. Friend the Minister and her colleagues in securing the assessment in the comprehensive spending review. I have to say that I feared it would be much worse and that transport would be one of the easy victims of the cuts that, sadly, must be made. By their very nature, transport projects are long term. If cuts are made, the impact is not always immediately felt. It was very bold and brave of the Government to give priority to the schemes that are for the long-term benefit of the country.

I want to focus on what follows the CSR period. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside mentioned, one of the Transport Committee’s current inquiries is into transport and the economy. As we are in the middle of that inquiry, I do not want to prejudge its conclusions, but I want to put on the record my concern and desire that we should take a longer-term perspective on transport planning in this country. We should take a more strategic, joined-up view. We have had plenty of laudable policies, schemes and reviews of individual modes of transport, whether rail, aviation, roads or maritime. However, historically, we have not taken a joined-up view and considered different modes of transport and how they fit together.

High Speed 2 is a classic example. I will not revisit the debate we had in Westminster Hall earlier this week, but we should not consider that sort of project in isolation. In considering the economic benefits, we look solely at what High Speed 2 can deliver, but such projects should be considered in conjunction with a long-term aviation policy for the United Kingdom. Before we fix the route of High Speed 2, we ought to consider how it should join up with airports in the south-east and the rest of the country. Germany has a multiple airport hub that is well connected by high-speed rail services. High Speed 2 is a multi-billion pound, long-term project and we will get one shot at making it right. Before we commit to a specific route and a vast sum of public expenditure, we ought to make sure that it is thought through strategically.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes the valid point that the project needs to be carefully considered in a strategic context. However, if the logic of high-speed rail is, among other things, to compete with aviation and draw people away from aviation to reduce carbon emissions, surely there is not a terribly strong strategic logic to the scheme making it easier for people to get to airports.

[Iain Stewart]

I am afraid I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. There will be competition between high-speed rail and short-haul aviation, and I would like the United Kingdom to be part of a Europe-wide high-speed network, so that it is feasible to travel by rail from Birmingham to Paris or Frankfurt. However, it is an inescapable fact that the demands on medium and long-haul air travel will increase and, until an engineer comes up with a solution, we cannot yet take trains across the Atlantic or other expanses of water.

As part of the Transport Committee’s inquiry, we visited Birmingham airport a few weeks ago. The people who work there are excited about the High Speed 2 line, because the journey time from the London area to Birmingham airport will be less than 40 minutes. That opens up the prospect of having longer-haul flights from Birmingham and relieving the capacity pressures on south-east England airports. That might not be the only answer, but it is the sort of long-term consideration that transport planning should include.

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

Can I take it from the hon. Gentleman’s remarks that he accepts the principle that the UK needs an international hub airport, as well as airports that function for shorter haul, and that he believes Heathrow is very important to the UK economy?

[Iain Stewart]

The United Kingdom certainly needs a hub airport in the broadest sense. I will not go into the relative merits of all the options in this short debate, but if my right hon. Friend the Minister wishes to promote me to the Government, I would be happy to make such decisions. At the moment, I am afraid such decisions are above my pay grade and that of the hon. Gentleman.

We need to think strategically about what we want the long-term aviation policy of the United Kingdom to be. That might involve Heathrow—although from all the evidence I have seen, I suspect not—or a broader south-east hub and Birmingham, Manchester or other airports in the United Kingdom. The point is that such a long-term view should be considered in conjunction with other strategic projects, such as high-speed rail.

If I may anticipate the comments that I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) will be sharing with us in a short time, we should consider specific transport projects in different locales around the country. There are exciting projects in the Leeds area involving trolley buses and other local schemes, which should also be factored into this country’s long-term planning. As a small aside, I shall mention that it is my hon. Friend’s birthday today. As a birthday present, perhaps the Minister can announce something helpful on the Leeds trolley bus scheme. However, I shall not press that matter any further.

In this country, we are poor at long-term transport planning. Part of the problem is that the tenure of Secretaries of State in the Department for Transport has been very short. Let us consider the average time for which Secretaries of State have served in the past. In the 18 years of Conservative Governments between 1979-1997, there were 12 Secretaries of State for Transport. Under the previous Labour Governments, there were seven Secretaries of State in 13 years—they did not last much longer on average. Transport needs to be pushed up the priority list in government. Again, it is way above my pay grade to determine ministerial appointments and tenure, but I hope that an individual is given the necessary time in post and the flexibility to develop a long-term view.

Those are the main points I wish to put on the record. I have the great pleasure of representing the Transport Committee at a European conference on transport and infrastructure this weekend. I am not a great fan of most things European, but Europe has had a comprehensive, strategic transport plan since 1990. I would like us to replicate that domestically in the United Kingdom. The settlement that my right hon. Friend and her colleagues have secured is, as I have said, very welcome in the context in which we operate. I hope that it will be a sound basis on which we can build a truly long-term national strategic transport plan.

15:08

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

It is a pleasure, Mr Gray, to serve under your chairmanship in this debate on transport and the impact of the comprehensive spending review. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) on the excellent way in which she opened the debate.

I want to talk about the proposals made by the Highways Agency to add an additional lane to the M60 between junctions 12 and 15 near Worsley. The decision announced in the spending review to go ahead with that scheme is wrong because it is not a safe option, it will damage the quality of life of my constituents and it does not represent value for money. By going ahead with the scheme in the current restrained financial climate, the Government are opting for what was described by Highways Agency officials at a residents’ meeting as a “cheap and cheerful option,” rather than making a proper assessment of the causes of the congestion that the additional lane scheme purports to solve.

There are several reasons why the scheme will not improve that stretch of the M60 for motorists. It will also create many issues that will affect my constituents’ quality of life. First, the additional lane will not be effective in relieving the congestion on the M60 at peak times. The current congestion is caused not simply by a lack of capacity but by the number and poor design of the junctions in the affected area. On that short stretch of motorway, the M60 interfaces with the M602, the M62 and the A580 East Lancashire road. Traffic on the motorway has to slow down significantly as other traffic weaves across lanes to enter or exit at the junctions. The distance between junctions 12 and 13 is less than half a mile, and on that short stretch, motorists heading into Manchester city centre and or to the busy Trafford centre nearby must cut across each other to get to the right part of the motorway.

Secondly, I believe that the plan itself will put motorists at serious risk. That stretch of the M60 is already dangerous—I will give some statistics later—given the number of closely spaced junctions and the prevalence of heavy goods traffic heading to Manchester city centre and the nearby Trafford Park industrial estate. In fact, the number of large lorries is already set to increase because Peel Holdings, a local firm, has been given the go-ahead to build a large traffic venture called Port Salford at Barton in my constituency. The Highways Agency’s proposals will make that stretch of motorway more dangerous still, because the additional lanes scheme will create four much narrower lanes with no hard shoulder. My constituents are very worried about that. As one wrote to me:

“There is very little margin for error when driving alongside a huge transcontinental lorry. What will it be like with narrower lanes?”

Thirdly, the Highways Agency has failed dismally to take into account the views of local residents on the proposals. The M60 passes extremely close to the homes of my constituents in Worsley, Roe Green and Barton, and even minor motorway works or changes in patterns of traffic can have a major impact on their lives. That stretch of road was not originally a motorway, or even an outer ring road. It started as the Stretford bypass, but residents now have a three-lane motorway, with the threat that it will become a four-lane motorway. Something that starts as a bypass should not end up as a four-lane motorway without much consideration being given to how it will affect local people’s lives.

[Steve Baker]

In my constituency, Wycombe, the M40 had similar beginnings, so I recognise the hon. Lady’s point. Noise is a dreadful problem for my constituents who live along the motorway. Is noise also a problem in the case she describes?

[Barbara Keeley]

I will come on to that point later, but it is difficult to see how any motorway, with increasingly heavy traffic thundering by at various times of the day, can be anything but noisy, so I sympathise with that problem.

The initial consultation run by the Highways Agency was dreadful. Having heard nothing at all about the scheme as the local MP, I received a leaflet on a Wednesday informing me that the consultation was due to start on Thursday and would run only until Saturday morning. Most of that short consultation time was during the working day, and across just two days, so most local people could not attend. Hardly any of the residents affected heard about the consultation or were able to attend at such short notice, and there are around 800 households right next to the motorway. Indeed, the few people who were able to attend were shocked to discover, having talked with the engineers present, that the project would entail significant work to move service cables and take the traffic physically closer to their homes and gardens.

We managed, at my insistence, to get the Highways Agency to attend a packed meeting of hundreds of residents. Indeed, we had to turn people away because it was not judged safe to let many more into the hall. The meeting turned into a series of angry exchanges, and the quality of information given by the Highways Agency was very poor. Residents were left feeling confused and with no information. That situation occurred under the previous Government, and I was as critical of the Transport Ministers then as I am now about the scheme, so it is in no way a partisan point. Since then, the Highways Agency has promised regular newsletters, but only one has emerged. It was initially delivered to entirely the wrong residential area, reaching none of the people who will be affected by the changes.

For my constituents, the environmental impact of the widening is a big worry. They are worried not only that traffic will be brought close to their homes but about what will happen to existing measures to deal with noise. There is an acoustic fence and a narrow barrier of trees at different points along the motorway, but that is all that stands between my constituents and all the traffic on the motorway. Indeed, the acoustic fence was installed only after much campaigning by my predecessor, Terry Lewis MP. Any changes to that fence or to the tree barrier would leave local residents much more exposed to noise and to visual and atmospheric pollution, which they do not want.

One resident has already experienced a distressing accident in which a heavy goods vehicle ploughed through the acoustic fence, down the bank and into her garden, killing the driver. She must now face the fact that it is planned to bring that traffic even closer to her home and garden. Another resident was concerned about the impact that the additional lane of traffic would have on the safety of his young children playing in the garden or on the street. Indeed, I understand that a sloping grassy bank with mature shrubs at the end of one small street will be replaced by a vertical brick wall.

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady will forgive me, but perhaps she would return to the effect of the comprehensive spending review on the Department for Transport. I know that it is a general debate and that she is describing important constituency matters, but perhaps she would come back slightly to the topic of the debate.

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed. What I am seeking to show, Mr Gray, is that the scheme, which was authorised in the spending review, represents very poor value for money and that the decision should be reversed. I know that there are many such schemes across the country for which Members are seeking to find funding. I suggest that the scheme for the M60 is of such poor quality and represents such poor value for money in the spending review that it should be changed. As I have mentioned, the scheme is currently priced at between £43 million and £50 million, which is to be spent on development such as replacing the grassy bank with a vertical brick wall. That would be a major change, as many of the residents have rooms that face the motorway.

With regard to whether that decision, which was taken in the spending review, is the right one, I am most concerned about the safety of residents who live adjacent to the motorway. Why does the consideration of reducing congestion not also have to take into account the safety of those who live nearby? Without a hard shoulder, as I have mentioned, traffic will be closer still to residents’ homes and gardens, and there has already been more than one incident in which vehicles have ploughed through fences and trees and ended up in gardens, much to the distress of local people.

Statistics on safety from the House of Commons Library show that between 2005 and 2009 there were 189 accidents, involving 310 casualties, between junctions 12 and 15 of the M60. It seems to me that any scheme that causes traffic to speed up in the narrower lanes of that busy stretch of motorway will increase that danger, particularly because it will bring traffic closer to residents’ homes.

I believe that the Government need to take a longer-term view and wait until funding is available for a proper and fundamental redesign of the key motorway junctions, because that would deliver a longer-lasting and safer solution for the area. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) said that we were poor at long-term planning. The proposed scheme is not a good example of any sort of planning. It is unpopular with local people and will be an expensive white elephant, because it will be dangerous, noisy and polluting and will not solve peak-hour congestion problems on the M60. The Government should not be wasting scarce resources on it but should use the money for the many bypasses and much-wanted schemes put forward by hon. Members in various areas of the north-west and throughout the country.

As it happens, a constituent sent me an e-mail today at 1.25 pm, stating:

“At question time in parliament yesterday the MP for Glossop was seeking funds for a bypass scheme in his constituency, which he said would improve the lives of his constituents. Why is the above scheme going ahead, which not one single constituent wants, and which would make life for the likes of me intolerable during the construction phase and render the value of my property considerably less?”

When I asked about the scheme at Transport questions, the Minister replied that there would be a consultation and that residents could express their concerns. I hope that she is listening today and I urge her and her ministerial colleagues to withdraw the scheme and use the funding elsewhere.

15:19

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) on securing the debate. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak. Some of the decisions that affect transport infrastructure are particularly important to my constituency.

Cleethorpes is, as hon. Members will appreciate, the premier resort of the east coast. However, they should also be aware that it takes in the major ports and industrial complexes of Immingham, and the area along the south Humber bank up to Barton-upon-Humber, where the Humber bridge crosses the estuary. I shall return later to the subject of the bridge, and the problems caused by heavy tolls.

First, I welcome the Government’s approach within the comprehensive spending review. Despite the difficulties, they have recognised the vital role of transport in allowing business to flourish and bringing growth and employment throughout the country. Public transport of course plays a vital role in the city regions by connecting local people to jobs and other opportunities, including health care and leisure. It ensures that business has access to as wide a labour market as possible. The depth of labour is a critical competitive advantage in the city regions and it is essential to maximise the level of investment and, hence, employment in the economy in the years ahead.

Although investment in transport infrastructure takes a long time to implement, starting now on schemes that will be completed in a few years will not only create much-needed employment at a time of recession in the engineering and construction centres; it will mean that new and improved opportunities are available as the economy improves. Improving the quality, scope and performance of local transport systems is critical to supporting recovery and growth, since competitiveness, and especially the labour market, depend on them. To ensure that city regions retain their cohesiveness and underpinning opportunities, it is vital that we boost the connectivity between the secondary centres. I welcome the Government’s increased attention to more effective transit-oriented development, which links spatial, economic and transport strategies. Research has shown that better co-ordination and integration of transport networks can have a sustained impact on economic performance.

Despite a CSR that has been, on the whole, much better, as other hon. Members have said, than was perhaps anticipated, there have been some disappointments in my constituency, particularly over delays to the A160 upgrade and the A18-A180 link road. The A160 upgrade is the link between the M180 and Immingham docks. It has long been a national priority to improve access to our major ports. Measured by tonnage the Immingham-Grimsby dock complex is the largest in the UK. The Humber bank is an established centre for energy refining and chemicals and is ideally placed to become a hub for the renewable energy sector following the granting of planning permission for the south Humber gateway project, which will provide about 4,500 jobs in the first five years and the prospect of many more in the following decade. Access via the A160 has, as I mentioned, been delayed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and I met senior executives from the developers, Able UK, only yesterday. They remain optimistic, and reassured us that there will be no delays in their plans, but they would like reassurance from the Government that if their development proceeds ahead of schedule consideration can be given to rescheduling the A160 upgrade. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to give an assurance on that today, but I want to flag it up as one of the points that will be raised when a delegation meets one of her colleagues in a couple of weeks.

I welcome the increased investment in the Yorkshire and Humber region, although it still falls behind that in many other regions. There is general acceptance, however one calculates the figures, that spending in our region has, measured on a per capita basis, been well below that in other regions. That is even more true for those of us on the periphery of our region. The Lincolnshire part of the Yorkshire and Humber region has every justification to think that it has not been well served by various Departments and agencies. Only yesterday, my constituent Steve Ashton drew my attention to the Government publication “Transport and the Economy” which gave the 2008 figures as £248 per head of population for Yorkshire and Humber, compared with £259 in the west midlands and £287 in the north-west. Needless to say, there were very much larger figures for London and the south-east.

Not only is my constituency located at the edge of the region; it is also on the boundary between the east midlands and the Yorkshire and Humber region. Both regions have suffered over the years from reduced spending. We would benefit from the upgrading of the A46 from Lincoln through to Cleethorpes, and the extremely dangerous A15 between Lincoln and Scunthorpe. I accept that that is not an immediate prospect, but I want to flag it up for the future because it is vital for the tourism and industrial sectors.

I welcome the answer that the Secretary of State gave yesterday to the Select Committee on Transport, when he said that the Department had made a significant contribution to the regional growth fund and mentioned his hope that transport projects will benefit from the fund. That is clearly a possible funding stream for the very modest £8 million A18-A180 link road that would increase access to Immingham docks, and relieve congestion, giving much relief to Immingham residents.

To turn to the subject of rail services, earlier this week my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole and I met executives from Alliance Rail, which is an open access provider looking to introduce four direct services per day from Cleethorpes, via Scunthorpe, to King’s Cross. That is extremely helpful. Many of the established franchise operators tend to want to increase capacity by just increasing the number of services on existing well-served routes, whereas the open access providers, as has been demonstrated by Hull Trains, Grand Central and so on meet areas such as mine, on the coast, which are not on the direct services.

Finally, perhaps I may remind the Minister, as I said I would, about the problem of Humber bridge tolls. She visited the area about this time last year, and the Treasury-led review that she promised then has now come to pass. I plead with her to do all that she can to ensure that a sustainable result comes from the review. We have had years of tinkering, which has helped at the edges, but we urgently need the job opportunities that will open up to local people without that barrier between them.

I welcome the Government’s decision taken in the CSR, which has proved to be much better than we hoped. It would be much appreciated if the Minister would consider those of us on the periphery.

15:27

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in the debate under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) on securing the debate.

I shall try to keep my remarks short, because other hon. Members want to speak, but it is important to remember the context of the debate. There is no doubt that we are living in incredibly challenging times and the debt that we had was spiralling out of control. When we look further afield, particularly at Ireland, Portugal, Greece and Spain, we see that dealing with the debt is a necessity. The deficit reduction plan is not easy but, for the sake of future generations, it is our duty and responsibility to deal with it. Despite the fact that we face that huge challenge, I, like my hon. Friends, welcome the fact that the Department for Transport has managed to limit the reduction to about 15% in real terms. That is quite an achievement, given the severity of the economic situation, particularly as the Labour party had plans for a 50% reduction. That plan would have meant many more projects falling off the list. It is a testament to the Department’s hard work that we have achieved this settlement.

The importance of the transport infrastructure cannot be overstated. It is one of the keys to growing our economy in these difficult times and it enables people and businesses to travel effectively and help the UK become even more competitive.

Transport really does provide the crucial links that allow people and businesses to prosper. As a Northern MP, I am acutely aware of how important it is, particularly if we are to encourage growth across the country and ensure that the increased prosperity that we hope will come spreads beyond the south-east.

I have long campaigned and complained about the lack of a fair settlement for Yorkshire when it comes to transport, at the same time recognising that investment in London and the south-east encourages more economic growth for the whole country. However, Yorkshire has had a poor deal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) said. Not so long ago, Leeds and Yorkshire and Humber had £100 a head less spent on transport compared with the national average—not just London but the national average. As a result, we have been left with congestion and overcrowding problems.

Leeds has enjoyed a renaissance over the past 20 years, but our transport system has been struggling to cope. The increased economic activity over those years has resulted in people from all over West Yorkshire travelling in and out of the city and clogging up the roads, particularly the M62. I am therefore delighted that the Transport Secretary announced additional capacity on the M62 near Leeds around junctions 25 to 30. That will help enormously in moving traffic from the north-west into Yorkshire and back.

I also welcome the fact that the Department and Ministers have secured funding for south access to Leeds railway station. That station is one of the busiest in the country, but it is accessible only from the northern side. The south access will mean that journey times for the southern part of the city will be cut. At the same time, it will offer an opportunity for economic growth in that part of the city, which has lagged behind the rest of Leeds.

One of the most significant announcements that we have had from the Government was about High Speed 2. It is no exaggeration to say that people and businesses in Yorkshire are delighted with the decision, particularly the decision in favour of the Y route. There was a great deal of concern that the Government might have gone for the other option, which would have involved sending us all to Manchester before sending us on to Leeds. I would not be as complimentary to my right hon. Friend the Minister if she had come to that decision. I am very grateful, and I want to put on the record the thanks of the people of Yorkshire and the north-east.

In fact, HS2 is a real chance to break down the north-south divide, which has been a problem for successive Governments of all parties. That, coupled with the announcement today about investment in our railways, is considerable news, given our hopes for a better economic climate.

There are also several projects in the development pool and, if Members will indulge my continuing to be a little parochial, I would like to mention two. The first, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) referred, is the New Generation Transport trolley bus. Leeds has been led down the garden path over many years. We were promised a supertram, millions of pounds were spent preparing for it, and then the rug was pulled from under us. We were told to go back to the drawing board, and now we have come up with the trolley bus scheme. One of the big problems that people face and businesses complain about is the fact that there is no integrated transport in the city of Leeds. This project will really help to get people around the city once they are in it.

We look with envy at the transport systems in cities such as Manchester, Sheffield and Nottingham, and are simply asking for a bit of the cake. We recognise that more work has to be done, and people on the city council and in Metro are working incredibly hard—they have done a tremendous amount of work, it has to be said—to try to make the scheme affordable. I commend their work.

Another scheme in the comprehensive spending review is the Leeds city region rail growth package. There is no doubt that Leeds and Yorkshire as a whole would benefit greatly from it. Improving access to the region’s wider rail network will provide capacity for future demand while reducing congestion in city centres and major transport corridors. The package represents strong value for money. It would make best use of existing infrastructure, and fill gaps and pinch points.

Under the proposals, there would be two new stations: one at Kirkstall Forge, to be delivered in early 2014, and the other at Apperley Bridge, to be delivered 12 months later. Those two stations are of particular concern to my constituency.

To give a bit of background, there were many mills in my constituency over the years; sadly, they have gone. In their place, we have many new residential developments, but there has been no investment in infrastructure to cope with the increased population. As a result, the one main road that takes people from the north side of my constituency into Leeds is heavily congested. Those two stations would offer a real solution to getting people in and out of the city effectively, sustainably and, obviously, in an environmentally friendly way.

What is good about the project is that 17% of the costs will be met by the Commercial Estates Group and its investors—well over the minimum requirement of 10%—and stakeholder support has been secured from Network Rail, Northern Rail, CEG, Bradford city council, Leeds city council and Metro. The Kirkstall Forge station would bring numerous benefits to Leeds, with £350 million of investment flooding into the area. Approximately 1,100 homes, flats and duplex apartments are included in the scheme. The impact on employment in the area would be significant: it is estimated that approximately 2,400 new jobs will be created. There would be a £4 million contribution from CEG’s investors to delivery of the rail growth package, which will cost £23 million. I cannot emphasise how important both the stations would be to our city, but particularly to my constituency.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South was kind enough to mention earlier, it is my birthday. I do not want a card or a cake, but if I can have two stations, I would be very happy.

15:37

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I, too, commend the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) for leading this debate.

The overall context of this debate is the comprehensive spending review and the need to tackle the country’s deficit. The overspend inherited from the previous Government is so great that one could cut the entire Department for Transport budget—every penny of Government money spent on buses, trains, roads, tube lines and so on—10 times over and still be overspending. That is the scale of the task faced by the Government in trying to rebalance the economy.

In that context, for the Department to have achieved a cut of only 15% over four years is to be genuinely celebrated. It is well below the average for Government Departments, and is reflective, I hope, of a good and robust case put to the Treasury. It certainly reflects the importance of transport to this Government, which is very much to be welcomed. From a Liberal Democrat perspective, the importance of transport is that it will help to improve the economy again, and it will also help us to achieve the boldly stated aim of being the greenest Government ever. Those two in combination should lead to a model of more sustainable prosperity, which is very much to be desired.

Some of the expectations of the comprehensive spending review have genuinely been confounded. We spoke a little about the bus service operating grant. Any cut in it is to be regretted, and I am sure that Ministers regret it as much as I do, but it was widely discussed as potentially 50%. A cut of only 20% is relatively benign, and I believe that bus service operators have assured Ministers, including the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), that it can be absorbed, hopefully without increases in fares. I shall return to the bus service operating grant later.

Comment in the transport press has been favourable. Local Transport Today, a newspaper that I am learning to read avidly, commented in an editorial:

“Philip Hammond will be a happy man this week...The DfT’s 15% budget reduction over the next four years is lower than the 19% Government average and the Department’s reduction in capital funding (11%) is far better than the 29% average.”

That is all to the good. As part of the package, there are new Government funding lines that are particularly to be welcomed. The local sustainable transport fund of £560 million over four years reflects the importance of localism to this Government, and has an explicit link to the reduction of CO₂ emissions, which is very welcome. I hope that grants made under that scheme are for measures to increase the importance of cycling and walking at a local level, as well as for more traditional travel projects.

As the Secretary of State confirmed in an answer to me earlier today, there is also the use of the new methodology for calculating the future cost of carbon. One of the most disastrous calculations by the previous Government was their use of an adulterated version of what was recommended by the Stern review to calculate the future cost of carbon emissions, which is, in effect, the value of future lives lost by climate change. They so heavily discounted that rate that projects such as the third runway at Heathrow looked economic when the cost of climate change was taken into account. It took only a change in the calculation for the idea of a third runway to look as bad as it does, and for the project to be rightly stopped. I am pleased that the new methodology will be adopted in calculations relating to all future projects.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Notwithstanding how carbon is calculated—I do not for a second accept that the methodology was in any way, shape or form flawed—does the hon. Gentleman actually believe that if Heathrow ceases to be a hub, aviation will decrease? Does he not accept that logically Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle or Frankfurt would become the European hub, which would probably be welcomed by Brussels, and that the UK economy would then be in disbenefit?

[Martin Horwood]

I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the methodology was not flawed. It was changed in March, and the now leader of the Labour party, the former Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, rightly presided over that change, which this Government, who took office shortly afterwards, took up. I think that the hon. Gentleman needs to be careful about his calculations.

As far as the other airports are concerned, it is very important that aviation is constrained across the European Union, and indeed around the world, as part of our assault on the threat of climate change. Unless the hon. Gentleman is challenging the methodology used by Sir Nicholas Stern—now Lord Stern—in his review, which was commissioned by the previous leader of the Labour party and Prime Minister, he will have to explain what methodology he would use to reflect the true economic cost of the threat of climate change. The methodology has been widely accepted in business and by investors and is now part of business calculations, and the use by the previous Government—until they changed their mind at the very last minute—of an incorrect and adulterated version of the cost of carbon, deviated from good business practice, apart from anything else.

On assessing project impact, I recommend that Ministers look carefully at the new approach to appraisal—NATA—assessment framework, and ensure that environmental and quality-of-life benefits are properly reflected. My noble Friend Lord Bradshaw in another place has made some very valuable and typically learned critiques of NATA, and I commend them to Ministers.

On railways, Ministers can be very happy indeed. The overall balance of investment in the Department will shift from 49 to 60% for rail by 2014-15, and that is exactly the right direction of travel. I am delighted that major projects such as Crossrail, Thameslink, the tube upgrades and, of course, High Speed 2 are all secure and that High Speed 2 in particular will, assuming that it is extended to Scotland, in the very long term deliver substantial reductions in aviation within the UK. I take the points made by other hon. Members on this earlier, but High Speed 2 is a very important contribution to rebalancing and making more environmentally friendly our whole approach to transport; that has been the experience of high-speed rail wherever it has been introduced around the world in competition with aviation.

Today, significant investment in new rolling stock was announced, with 600 new carriages for Crossrail and 1,200 for Thameslink, which in turn will free up hundreds of electric carriages for redeployment on newly electrified routes elsewhere and help to make the case for those new routes economic, which is very important. That, in turn, will free up diesel rolling stock for other routes, and help to support their economics. We have had additional announcements on developments at Reading, Birmingham New Street and other stations, on the east coast and midland main lines, and in Manchester and south Wales, and the confirmation, which is very important to colleagues in Scotland, that the inter-city express programme has been narrowed to two options, both of which include absolutely through services, and do not therefore raise the prospect of parts of Scotland being cut off by the need to change trains.

I would also welcome the schemes previously announced by the Department, which are reflected in the settlement for light rail, trams and ultra-light rail schemes. Those mentioned are Greater Manchester Metrolink, the Blackpool and Fleetwood tramway upgrade and the Tyne and Wear metro upgrade, and there are plenty of others that we could consider. The hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) made a very powerful case for Leeds, and the Leeds new generation transport scheme is in the development pool, which means that it has a fair chance of success. I wish him well in putting forward a strong case for the Leeds light rail system.

There are other schemes even further into the future, and I must mention the ultra-light rail system being fought for in Gloucestershire. We recognise that it is a long way off in terms of public funding, but important steps can be taken to support it. Most obviously, since it is intended that the system will reuse railway lines that were closed down by Dr Beeching, Ministers could look, perhaps with the Department for Communities and Local Government, at the new planning framework to ensure that nothing is done that prejudices such development. That would be an important way to support the future development of ultra-light rail.

On roads, I welcome many of the announcements, including the confirmation that support for electric car-charging infrastructure will go ahead. With the possibility of “hybrid hybrid vehicles”—those that run on electric batteries until the batteries run out and then revert to more conventional hybrid vehicle technology—we might be within sight of escaping the chicken and egg situation, in which the car-charging points cannot be rolled out until the electric vehicles are there to produce the demand for them, but the demand for the electric vehicles cannot be there until there are charging points. There is now the prospect of beginning to move forward in the electric car market, and the Government’s clear support for that is very important.

I am pleased that the main focus of the Department’s spending is shifting more towards maintenance and away from new roads, but the Liberal Democrats might have gone further and looked rather more critically at many of the other new road projects. I was very interested in what the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said about the M60 project. It certainly sounds as though the Highways Agency’s consultation process has left a very great deal to be desired in that case, and could be critically looked at again. I also suggest that Ministers cast a particularly critical eye over the suggested upgrade of the junctions between the M4 and the M5 in my part of the world. I travelled the M4 and the M5 recently by car, and found no particular problems at the junctions or with the interaction between the two motorways, so I am not sure what the justification for the project is. I urge Ministers to keep all new motorway projects under very close review.

Not all road projects are bad, however. The Mersey gateway bridge project, which is in the supported pool and is therefore certainly being given a fair wind by the Government, could substantially reduce carbon emissions by increasing walking and cycling and considerably shortening car journeys in Merseyside. It would obviously also bring economic benefits. One last comment on roads is that with snow and ice possibly being a topical issue even before the end of the week, it is very welcome that the Local Government Association reports substantial extra investment in the provision of grit by local authorities, but I urge Ministers to keep a weather eye on that because we have seen some disasters in the past, when grit has run out. Grit suppliers particularly need to be encouraged to maintain supplies to local government as a high priority.

I am concerned about buses. I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, who emphasised the importance of the number of bus users in the country. Some 5 billion to 6 billion bus journeys are undertaken a year. The bus sector faces a potential triple whammy from the CSR. There is an admittedly modest reduction in the bus service operator grant, but the maintenance of the concessionary fares scheme is an important political commitment, which I support in principle. In fact, I should like it to be extended to 16 to 18-year-olds, in line with the policy of the UK Youth Parliament. That scheme is imposed on local authorities in a way that is inflexible for them and they have no way to control its costs. Its incorporation into the formula grant in future will lead local authorities to make some difficult choices about how to spend money locally. Since local authorities also subsidise many bus routes, those three things could combine and put a lot of local bus services at risk. That would damage our commitment to public transport and greener transport and would put rural bus services in particular at risk, which would not be welcome. Will Ministers meet their colleagues from the Department for Communities and Local Government and local council leaders from the Local Government Association, urgently to discuss the likely impact of the CSR on the bus sector?

Some responses could be made to the threat to the bus sector that do not involve spending large amounts of public money. It is instructive that bus journeys in London are on an upward trend, whereas bus journeys in the rest of the country are on a downward trend. Those of us outside London might mention the probably well deserved but quite generous subsidy that public transport in London gets relative to the rest of the country. But we could also mention the Oyster card and the use of smart technology, which makes it easier for people to use buses in London and the enormously better marketing and provision of information about routes in London at every bus stop and online. Certainly, that is in sharp contrast to the situation in Gloucestershire and many other parts of the country, which makes buses virtually incomprehensible and difficult for consumers to use reliably.

[Mrs Ellman]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the distinction between the rise of bus services in London and, until recently, reduced use in the rest of the country is attributable largely to the fact that deregulation was never applied in London in the same way as it was in the rest of the country? Does he agree that the provisions in the Local Transport Act 2008 to give local authorities more powers over bus operators must be implemented?

[Martin Horwood]

Deregulation played a role. In terms of the co-ordinated provision of information and marketing and selling bus transport to local populations, it is much more difficult in areas where buses have been so comprehensively deregulated. I do not think that the renationalisation of bus services nationwide is likely. Much as I would love to overturn some of Mrs Thatcher’s legacies, we probably should not concentrate on that one.

My point is that there are solutions to trying to support commercially viable bus routes, or making those routes more commercially viable, that do not necessarily involve large sums of public money and might be about smarter and more intelligent policy locally.

I should like to highlight two local issues. On the Dartford crossing, a small but locally important part of the CSR will maintain the toll regime for its 150,000 users a day. I understand the Government’s case for that, because it is part of an investment in future transport provision in that area and traffic management will be improved, and so on. But the original idea was that the toll would cease when the Dartford crossing had been paid for. I am afraid that it has now been paid for, so there is some fairly justifiable anger locally that this is continuing.

The Minister knows that none of my speeches are complete without a reference to the redoubling of the Swindon to Kemble line in the south-west of England. That is potentially the only rail project that the Government might cancel, which would be regrettable. It is important to the west of England and south Wales, and to Welsh Members and, I suspect, to my neighbour the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael).

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is an excellent neighbour. We both make the same point, which is that the Stroud-Kemble line should be redoubled, if at all possible. The case for that is strong both in terms of business and tourism. It is a good idea to encourage people to use the rail system by ensuring that the magic figure of less than two hours for a rail journey from Gloucester to London is achieved.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case that all Gloucestershire MPs from all parties agree with. Even when there were Labour MPs in Gloucestershire, they agreed too and strongly supported it. That project would increase the reliability and the number of through services in many ways, which is important for Gloucestershire and for the rest of the network in the area, not least because of what one Welsh Assembly Member described as

“an insurance policy against interruption in the Severn Tunnel.”

The Swindon to Kemble line has regional implications. It was, I think, a strange aberration by the Office of Rail Regulation not to include that line in the Network Rail major investment plan. I hope that the Government will see a way to rectifying that mistake.

Overall, the picture from the CSR, as the dust settles on the battleground, shows that the Government have secured substantial investment in transport, particularly shifting the balance of investment towards more environmentally sustainable forms of transport, which is important for the period of the CSR and for future generations for many years to come, and I congratulate Ministers on achieving it.

15:57

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to contribute to this debate, because I represent a constituency that is at the heart of the logistics sector and for which the transport infrastructure and its efficiency is essential.

At a time when the public purse is under such pressure, the Government’s determination to protect spending on transport infrastructure should be commended. I congratulate my colleagues on securing what was, in the end, a good settlement for the Department. However, the pot of money is finite and a number of road projects have had to be shelved. Naturally, I understand the need for that, but I am mindful of the overall need to encourage growth in our economy so that we can repair the state of our finances. The Government have made the wrong call in respect of the proposed improvements at junction 30 of the M25, which have been postponed. This is not a parochial point, for reasons that I will explain.

The M25 is by far the busiest stretch of road in our country. It is also a vital element of our national road infrastructure and an essential artery for the lifeblood of our economy. It was therefore essential that the Government proceeded with the widening of the M25, recognising that too long had been spent talking about that project but not enough had been said about its delivery. The Government have shelved planned improvements to junction 30 until later than 2015, which will cause disadvantage not only to my constituents, but to the business community across south Essex and to UK plc.

For colleagues who do not appreciate the geography of my constituency, let me quickly explain. Thurrock is adjacent to London. The M25 runs through the western part of my constituency and joins the Dartford crossing, which the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) mentioned and which starts southbound at Purfleet. The A13 is the main arterial road, running from London through the borough of Thurrock and intersecting with the M25 at junction 30. Junction 30 is also adjacent to 31, which is where the M25 intersects with the old A13.

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady, but can I ask her to keep her comments to the CSR as it affects public transport? Of course, almost any transport project is affected by the CSR, and I understand that, but perhaps her points could be general rather than particular.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

Thank you, Mr Gray. I have come to the end of the geographical comments. The point is that junction 30 is the place where so much traffic is impeded. It serves the Lakeside shopping centre and the port of Tilbury, which obviously needs access to transport goods around the country. About 92% of people travelling to the Lakeside shopping centre by car use that junction, and hon. Members will understand the impact of that volume of traffic. The traffic often spills on to the local road network and causes congestion, as well as going on to the M25 and, of course, the Dartford crossing.

We have a considerable number of local businesses which, as I mentioned, have an impact on UK plc. We must tackle junction 30 to enable south Essex to grow and business opportunities to expand. If I may crave your indulgence, Mr Gray, I will give two examples: the supply of Fairy liquid for the whole of Europe is made in my constituency, as is every jar of Hellmann’s mayonnaise. That needs to be transported around the country, and one can see the importance of West Thurrock as an industrial hub.

I have spoken with local businesses about the impact of junction 30 and congestion at the Dartford crossing on their business. Carpetright has its corporate headquarters at West Thurrock; 80% of the carpets that it supplies to the nation are cut on that site, generating £212 million. It told me that there are 3,500 lorry movements a year, which will have to attack the M25 via junction 30. It also estimates that 100 man hours a week are lost in traffic delays. Charles Gee, a local haulage firm, concludes that congestion around junction 30 and the Dartford crossing increases its fuel costs by £35,000 a year. That is the overall picture. I firmly believe that the congestion at junction 30, where the M25, the Dartford crossing and the A13 intersect, causes serious problems for local businesses and inhibits their opportunities to grow.

[Barbara Keeley]

The hon. Lady makes a strong case about junction 30 of the M25. Does she find it as puzzling as I do that, to take two congested stretches, the scheme that she mentions is shelved and does not go ahead, despite the strong case that she makes, but the totally unwanted scheme—the additional lane on the M60 that local people do not want at all—is to go ahead? I would generously offer up our scheme for the one that the hon. Lady wants.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I hope that the Minister was listening to the hon. Lady; I was struck by what she said. When I hear the business community in my constituency crying out for increased local investment and telling me that their biggest concern is the poor transport infrastructure, I am sure that such a plan would be welcome. It would be interesting to know why such a conclusion has been reached.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

Let me set the record straight after the comments made by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). The project under discussion has not been “shelved”; it is in the programme that we hope to take forward post-2015. There has been a postponement, but not a cancellation.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I am grateful to the Minister. The point is that for my business constituents, the improvements cannot come soon enough. That brings me to the point raised by the hon. Member for Cheltenham about the Dartford tunnel. As I said, we are at the northbound point of the Dartford crossing. There is light at the end of the tunnel for the funding of improvements to junction 30, and that is the Dartford tunnel. As the hon. Gentleman said, the CSR proposed a 66% increase in tolls, and there is a lot of local anger about that. The deal was for the tolls to be cancelled once the crossing had been funded, but we have long passed that point. Having said that, my constituents are really quite hacked off with the number of times that they get caught on the local road network, and they would take it on the chin if the tolls were increased as long as they got something out of the deal. If we are looking at where funding from that increase in tolls is to be spent, I hope that my corner of south Essex gets its fair share.

Let me re-emphasise the need to invest in improvements to junction 30. I would also like to see the proposals in the CSR for an additional crossing brought forward sooner rather than later. The congestion on the M25, and the crossing in particular, have been neglected for far too many years. We must have a consensus on where an additional crossing should be constructed. As we know, traffic volume continues to grow exponentially and we are always playing catch-up with such things. I understand that revenues will be hypothecated for transport investment, and my plea is for Thurrock and south Essex to be looked on favourably. That would be good not only for my constituents but for UK plc and the businesses that I have mentioned.

16:06

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

I am delighted to contribute to the debate under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) on securing this important debate.

I am going to echo many of the remarks already made by colleagues. Given the economic situation that the coalition Government inherited, we might have expected a transport settlement that was significantly grimmer than turned out to be the case. I congratulate the Department for Transport on doing so well in difficult times. We can all be relieved, to say the least.

I speak as a London MP, and I will unashamedly limit my remarks to London. Hon. Members will be glad to know that I also intend to keep my remarks brief. In my view, London has done rather well out of the transport settlement: Crossrail, tube upgrades, Thameslink and extra rolling stock are all good announcements for London. I know that hon. Members from other regions often view London as being rather greedy in its funding needs. However, I must point out that London is our capital city, and it will be one of the great driving forces behind getting back to economic growth. I cannot resist the danger of irritating hon. Members even further by directing their attention to an interesting article in The Economist that points out that investment in capital projects such as those in transport in London and the south-east tends to get a much better return than investment in other regions. Investment in transport projects around London is always money well spent.

[Martin Horwood]

I would like to point out that I was not accusing London of being greedy. I welcome investment in many London projects, particularly Crossrail, which will enable people to get into London, through it and out the other side quite quickly.

[Angie Bray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that additional helpful remark. Crossrail has always been a huge issue for my constituency and it sits at the heart of our plans for regenerating Ealing and Acton town centres. We hoped so much to get the news that the project would definitely go ahead, and there was a huge sigh of relief around my constituency once that announcement was made in the comprehensive spending review. We hope that Crossrail will bring greater numbers of visitors to both town centres. It will be our task to find ways of persuading people off the Crossrail trains and into those town centres, where we hope that they will spend considerably more money. I understand that there may be some time slippage in the Crossrail project, but I suspect that that may also be due to tunnelling problems that have been encountered. Nevertheless, it is great to know that the project is going to go ahead in its entirety.

I have a plea for the Minister. Ealing Broadway station is one of the busiest transport hubs in west London. It is also one of the most hazardous, with steep stairs, no disabled access to the platforms and a small ticket hall that becomes crowded to an incredibly dangerous degree. Can work be expedited at that station, if at all possible? I hate to say this, but it is an accident waiting to happen.

The problem has been that people living in Ealing have been told for so many years that they cannot have any improvements because Crossrail is just round the corner. As we all know, however, Crossrail has been just round the corner for decades. Now that it really does seem to be on the home straight—in sight—please can there be no more delay for Ealing Broadway station? We have been waiting somewhat impatiently for the option designs for the stations, but I am now hoping to have a meeting with representatives of Crossrail in the next couple of weeks, so that we can see those more detailed options.

The London tube upgrades are another essential investment that will now go ahead. All of us experience the London underground at some stage as we spend time here in the capital city, and I think that all of us would say that the London underground broadly delivers a reasonable service, albeit that we sometimes feel like we are being herded into cattle trucks, particularly at certain times of the day. The problem is that there are continual and frequent problems on all the lines at one stage or another.

The signal box at Edgware Road is a good example. I am reliably told that it dates back to the 1920s. It sits across some incredibly busy and important lines. When we consider that so many passengers are under the control of a signal box that goes back that far, we recognise the importance of getting the London underground up to date if London is to retain its position as one of the world’s premier cities, and as we move back towards economic growth.

I was delighted to hear that the Thameslink programme had been given the green light, so to speak. That will be great news for taking pressure off many of the other services going through London and into and out of London. I was particularly pleased to hear today the announcement of extra rolling stock. West London services are very congested for quite a lot of the time, particularly during peak hours. A recent survey conducted by a local transport group showed that a very large percentage of passengers going in and out of central London from all the stations across Ealing have been finding not only that the trains are impossibly crowded, but that quite often they cannot get on them at all. First Great Western has been putting in bids for extra rolling stock for some time. I hope that as the extra rolling stock is rolled out, the Minister will have a particularly keen ear for the bids from First Great Western for extra help on some of those west London services.

Obviously, the less popular flipside of the coin is the fare increases. There is no doubt about this. No one likes having to pay more for a journey that at best is only ever the same, but quite often seems to be getting worse as the carriages get more crowded or there are delays or other problems. Clearly, however, a balance must be struck between the interests of taxpayers and of passengers. That is always the problem.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside says that she fears that higher fares will encourage more people off public transport and back on to the roads. I accept that that may well be something to be concerned about, but surely it is equally true that only if we can provide new, modern, improved public transport will we encourage more people to use public transport. That is where the difficult balance lies. It always has to be a balance, and that balance has to be set, of course, in the context of what the public purse can afford.

16:14

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

It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. This is the first time that I have spoken from the Opposition side of this Chamber. I would naturally rather be where the Minister is and I certainly was there for a couple of years. It reminds me of the question asked by many people about what it is like being in opposition after 13 years. As a former Minister responsible for road safety, I use a roads analogy. I tell people that it is like when they go to Europe for the first time and drive on the right-hand side of the road. It is strange, but I get it; I know what I am supposed to be doing. However, every junction and every occasion have to be approached with additional care.

Like other hon. Members, I congratulate the Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), on securing the debate, on the way in which she introduced it and on the way in which she leads her Committee. She is very highly regarded in the House, as all new Members will quickly come to realise, if they have not already.

Conservative Members may not be surprised to hear that I do not accept their rosy view of the impact of the comprehensive spending review on transport. The CSR settlement will mean a scaling back of Labour’s plans for transport infrastructure and a significant increase in the burden that falls on passengers through increased fares. I shall try to comment on hon. Members’ contributions later in my remarks.

The Department’s budget has suffered a 15% cut in real terms. That includes not only savings of 21% from the resource budget but, more worryingly, an 11% reduction in capital spending. The implications of that will be felt not just by the travelling public. Because investment in infrastructure projects is vital to growth, it will also affect the recovery, manufacturing and jobs.

[Mrs Villiers]

rose—

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am delighted to give way to the Minister.

[Mrs Villiers]

The Budget produced by the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member put in place a predicted 50% reduction in capital spending. In the light of that, is it not the case that an 11% cut for transport is really not a bad result in comparison with what other Departments are subject to?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I do not for a second, in any way, shape or form, do anything other than congratulate the Ministers on fighting their corner for transport, but when I explain later why I am disappointed with the outcome, the details of the position will become clearer.

The Secretary of State has been over-spinning his settlement as a great success when it is nothing of the kind. Even the Institute for Fiscal Studies listed the Department for Transport as a “loser” in the CSR. Combined with the huge reductions in funding for local government, the impact will be felt by passengers throughout the country.

The Government are trying to get away with these myths: that Labour was planning a much bigger cut in capital spending and that the present Government are proceeding with even more spending on capital projects than was planned by Labour. Both claims are not true. First, the Government have set out spending plans to 2015, for the whole five-year Parliament. They are therefore never comparing like with like. That is classic smoke and mirrors, and I cannot believe that any Government would get up to such tricks.

Secondly, the Government insist on changing the point that they use as their baseline to suit their case. The reality is that even before the CSR, the Government had made £683 million-worth of spending cuts, including £309 million from local transport grants—made up of £61 million from major local authority schemes, £151 million from integrated transport block grant, £8 million from the urban congestion fund, £17 million from the road safety capital grant and £20 million from the road safety revenue grant—£108 million from Transport for London, £100 million from Network Rail, resulting in the scrapping of the better rail stations programme to upgrade 10 key national interchange stations judged the worst in the country, £54 million by deferring schemes and £112 million in internal cuts from the DFT, including staffing.

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Gentleman is identifying certain cuts that he alleges are being made, which clearly he is concerned about. If he will not accept reductions in certain transport programmes, where does he expect the reductions to come in order to tackle the deficit that the Government he was a member of left to us?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

We do not accept for a second, as was clearly outlined by my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor in a speech only last month, that it was a Labour deficit. The deficit was created by an international banking crisis that started in the US. Most other countries copied the UK Government’s solution in restabilising their financial institutions and trying to ensure that the economy was in a position to recover.

We accept that cuts have to be made. We do not demur from that in any way, shape or form. I shall come to that in a second.

[Stuart Andrew]

Does the hon. Gentleman also accept that the Government he was a member of did not put money aside in the good times so that when the bad times came we were in a better position to deal with that, as other countries such as Australia did?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

No, I do not accept that position either. The year before the crisis hit, we were borrowing 2.4% of GDP, compared with the 3.4% that we inherited from the previous Conservative Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). Almost all our borrowing financed capital investment in schools, hospitals, road and rail.

The second myth about our record is that even if the public finances overall were under control, we were spending too much. We do not accept the allegation that what we were spending on schools and hospitals was excessive given the size of our economy. It was in line with other industrialised countries.

[Angie Bray]

rose—

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I give way to the hon. Lady—the debate has certainly livened up, Mr Gray.

[Angie Bray]

The facts show that from 2002 onwards, Labour Chancellors were £30 billion short of what they were spending. Whatever they were spending money on, they were spending too much. From 2002, we were running a £30 billion deficit year on year. That is how we got to the level of debt that we now have, regardless of the breakdown of the banks.

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. The debate has livened up, but it is also ranging fairly widely.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I will do my best to close that down and get back to my text, which I assure you, Mr Gray, is focused on the CSR.

To respond to the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), spending under Labour was not out of control. It was strongly supported by both coalition partners at the time. Indeed, there were criticisms from the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Chancellor when they were in opposition that we were not spending enough. I therefore do not accept the hon. Lady’s argument.

To follow your admonition, Mr Gray, and return to my text, the shadow Chancellor has proposed additional taxation on the banking industry that would raise £7.5 billion and enable us almost to halve the Government’s cut of a third to infrastructure spending. As I have said to the Minister, there would have been cuts under Labour, but they would not have been so severe and the burden would not have been put on passengers through huge hikes in fares.

As an aside, the UK Chamber of Shipping president, Mr Jan Kopernicki, was recently quoted as saying that not bringing forward the new Type 26 frigates from 2020 to assist in dealing with piracy would cost the UK economy and endanger British and other shipping. I ask the Minister to pass that message back to the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence.

In government, Labour delivered major improvements to our rail network, resulting in greater reliability, faster journey times and more passengers than at any time since the 1940s. We set out an ambitious long-term vision for conventional rail alongside our ambitious high-speed rail plans. Our plans included new capacity, better infrastructure and a strategic freight network. We had no plans to make passengers pay more for less, because if people see fares increasing when plans for new capacity and infrastructure are being cut, fewer people travel by rail and there is increased congestion on our roads.

I welcome the fact that the Government have changed their position and now support the Labour Government’s proposed route for High Speed 2. That was more of a Y-turn than a U-turn. There are clearly splits in the Cabinet over this issue and even, we read, threats of resignation. I assure the Minister that the Opposition understand the economic importance of the project. It will bring the west midlands within about half an hour of London and deliver journey times of 75 minutes or less from Leeds, Sheffield and Manchester to the capital. Connections to existing tracks will enable direct high-speed train services to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle and Liverpool.

We also welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation this morning that some of Labour’s plans for additional investment in rail infrastructure will go ahead, including electrification projects, new carriages and station improvements. We do not welcome the delays and reductions in vital projects such as Crossrail, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton. Crossrail will make journeys across London faster, allow direct access from Heathrow to the City, enable 200 million passenger journeys a year, add 30,000 high-value jobs to London in the first 10 years of its operation and add an estimated £20 billion to the UK’s GDP.

[Mrs Villiers]

I had hoped that the shadow Minister would recognise that it is a great result that we have been able to save Crossrail despite the crisis in the public finances. He should also acknowledge that the lengthening of the delivery time for the central section was the result of an engineering-led review on how to deliver the project in the most cost-effective way for the taxpayer.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I do not want to be churlish and I fully welcome the commitment to Crossrail. This project has been on the stocks since about 1880. The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton said that it had been decades, but it has actually been planned in one shape or form for more than a century. I hope that the Minister will be generous enough to congratulate the previous Prime Minister, who ultimately grasped the nettle and said that the project must go ahead, in conjunction with the Mayor of London, the City and the CBI. I would be grateful if she updated us on the time frame for the completion of the branches of Crossrail to Shenfield, Maidenhead and Abbey Wood. I am not sure whether it is on track to meet the time scale mentioned by the Secretary of State this morning.

We oppose the Government’s decisions on fares. They have made two decisions that we believe will drive people off the railways and back on to the roads, increase congestion and hit competitiveness and growth. First, they chose to reverse the decision that Labour took in government to require train companies to apply fare limits to all fares equally, rather than hike some significantly and offset that by making smaller reductions on others. This week, we have seen the result of that change, with commuters being stung by rises of well over 10% on some routes, just at a time when families are being squeezed by wage freezes, the coming VAT increase and cuts to tax credits and child benefit.

Secondly, the Government decided to make things even worse for rail passengers by allowing fares to rise by 3% above inflation. Since 2004, the cap on increases to regulated fares has been RPI plus 1. From 1999 to 2003, it was RPI minus 1, and from 1995 to 1998, it was equal to RPI. The Secretary of State keeps claiming that increases across the CSR period will be only 10%. By our calculations, RPI plus 3 delivers a cumulative increase of more than 30% on the inflation forecasts of the Government’s Office for Budget Responsibility. The Secretary of State’s constituents will see their annual season ticket from Weybridge rise from £2,272 to more than £3,000. As shadow Secretary of State for Transport, the Minister warned that such a rise would price people off the railways. Her Department has confirmed that it expects that passengers will opt for other forms of transport. That is a betrayal of passengers by the coalition, which said in its programme for government that it was

“committed to fair pricing for rail travel.”

It is an even bigger betrayal by the Liberal Democrats, who pledged a real-terms cut in rail fares in their manifesto.

Not only rail passengers but bus users have been hit by Government. The cut to the bus service operators grant, which has been mentioned by several hon. Members, will have a devastating effect on many local bus services, particularly in rural and remote areas, which will not survive without subsidy. The BSOG is a subsidy to bus operators that covers most of the cost of fuel duty. It helps operators to keep fares down and to continue running less profitable or unprofitable services. According to Department for Transport figures, without BSOG we would see a 6.5% increase in fares and a 6.7% fall in bus usage. The social and economic effects would be even greater. With more services becoming unprofitable, more would be taken off the road.

The Government are telling people to get on the bus to find work, but people have to be able to afford to do so. The impact of this cut will be felt especially by those who are out of work and looking for a job. Two thirds of jobseekers do not have a driving licence or access to a car. Research by the social exclusion unit discovered that 38% of jobseekers found that transport was a major obstacle to finding work. People should be getting on the bus to find a job, but there must be a bus there in the first place.

The impact of the CSR settlement on local transport spending will soon be felt by the public. Labour doubled investment in local transport between 1997 and 2010 because we understand how vital local transport schemes are to reducing congestion, to making city and town centres more accessible, and to the creation of local and regional economic growth and jobs. The £309 million a year cut to local transport grants will be followed by significant cuts throughout the spending review period of 28%.

The Secretary of State has cut the number of transport grant schemes from 26 to four under the guise of simplification. We support making the system simpler, saving councils time and money on bids to different funding streams, but he knows that the cut is being used to disguise the significant reduction in the funds available to local government.

Road schemes are being hit hard. We were clear that we would have had to make reductions in the road budget. The Government, however, have pushed back many schemes that we would have taken forward, and even the money allocated to fund the schemes that have been given a green light will require major cuts of, on average, 25%.

Finally, there is real concern at the impact of the cuts on road safety. Cuts to road safety grants to local authorities were part of the Department for Transport’s in-year savings announced in May—£17 million from the road safety capital grant and £20 million from the road safety revenue grant. Following the reform of transport grants to local government announced in the spending review, there is now no specific grant funding for road safety.

Local authorities, facing cuts to their budgets of a third, will be under pressure to cut the funds for road safety and for speed cameras. Only this week, research has shown that 70 more people will die and 700 more will be injured if speed cameras are removed. It is staggering that the Government have admitted, in answer to a parliamentary question this week, that they carried out no assessment of the impact on road accidents and deaths of the decision to cut road safety grants and to end funding for speed cameras.

We have not seen so far the publication of an updated road safety strategy—a parliamentary answer that I received this morning said that it would be published early in the next year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside, the Chair of the Select Committee, remarked, we have seen a gradual and significant 20-year decline in the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads. I hate to say it, but that trend is in jeopardy as a result of some of the decisions.

On aviation, the coalition is poised to add further increases to air passenger duty. Does the Minister realise that adding air passenger duty to the cost of a visa from, for example, China, means that the cost of visiting the UK will be £612?

[Mrs Villiers]

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the increases to air passenger duty which have just been implemented were legislated for by his Government? They are his decisions. How can he criticise us for going ahead with them?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The increases that were being introduced—further increases are being considered—are not being introduced in the way that we planned.

My point is that, if we add the cost of APD to the cost of a visa from China to the UK, it comes to £612, compared with £212 to go to Paris, flying economy. Flying business class, it costs £952 to London, compared with £332 to Paris. Might that explain why France received 688,000 Chinese visitors in 2008, when the UK only managed 108,000?

Will the Minister take that message to the Prime Minister? His recent mission to China was important, and we fully supported it, but to ensure that it is the Chinese destination of choice the UK must be as attractive as possible. Those figures seem to undermine the recent visit and the message that the Prime Minister took to the Chinese Government that UK plc is open to business—the strong message is that the Chinese should come via Paris, because it is much cheaper.

I will not raise the issue of aviation capacity in the south-east again, other than to say that our only international hub losing out to Charles de Gaulle, Frankfurt or Schiphol will act as another disincentive for business people to come to London. Given that Dubai now has six runways and offers access to the Americas for people from India and further east, we need to ensure that the UK is as accessible as possible, to attract those people.

[Mrs Villiers]

Can the hon. Gentleman set out his party’s position on a third runway at Heathrow? Is Labour for it or against it?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The Minister is teasing me. She knows full well that we just lost a general election on a policy of an additional runway at Heathrow and that my new leader—who, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) mentioned earlier, had a particular view when Secretary of State at the Department of Energy and Climate Change—has announced that we are reviewing all our transport policy. I do not accept, by the way, that the methodology was flawed, although I accept that it has been upgraded and improved—“flawed” suggests that there was some skulduggery somewhere, which I do not buy in any way, shape or form.

The last question on aviation hubs is whether the Minister is worried that Brussels might be happy for Heathrow to lose its international hub role in favour of other parts of Europe.

[Angie Bray]

On the issue of six runways in Dubai, does the hon. Gentleman accept that Heathrow has no chance on earth of having six runways because of its geography? The problem with setting up Heathrow as a hub that can permanently compete with other cities that have their airports where they can continue to expand them—to four, five or six runways—is that we can never do that. We are utterly constrained by the geography. The third runway was about as much as we could ever have got anyway, and then only by jamming it in. To continue to compete in that way, therefore, is just throwing good money after bad.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I hear the hon. Lady’s comments and, as I said to the Minister, the electorate have expressed a view—certainly in west London—on additional capacity at Heathrow. I understand that the Department will be instigating a review of south-east capacity running to 2015, which seems a long time scale, and that the aviation policy will be written in a few months’ time. With the greatest of respect to the hon. Lady and to some of her colleagues who are new members of the Transport Committee, a hub airport is a critical piece of infrastructure for any country. Heathrow is running at 98.5% capacity—we will not have a hub if it is not Heathrow.

A strong point of view is that we should not have a hub and that we should deter and discourage people from travelling by air. The problem is that the impact on the UK economy, as a result of what aviation brings to UK plc, will be harmful. That is my personal point of view, but colleagues may want to consider the views of the CBI, the London and UK chambers of commerce, London First and the business community about the impact and role of Heathrow and whether capacity is needed.

[Angie Bray]

Nothing can change the geography. No one can change the geography of the area—one cannot get six runways in there.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I apologise. The hon. Lady mentioned six runways, and she is absolutely right—the third runway was about it. I only mentioned six runways to demonstrate that other countries are investing heavily in aviation infrastructure. A 25% increase is expected in China and south-east Asia over the next 10 years. People will fly—they will fly to the Americas from India, China and Australia, but, if they use Dubai as the stopping point for that part of the world, it will become increasingly difficult to get them to come to northern Europe. If we get them to come to northern Europe, they will not come to Heathrow if it is not functioning as effectively as we all want it to—again, that is an impact on UK plc. However, on the six runways, the hon. Lady is absolutely right, forgive me—I mentioned them only because I had been to see Dubai’s Aviation Minister, and had seen the runways and how amazing that was.

My last point on aviation is that I agree with the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside, the Chairman of the Select Committee, about the future of TRANSEC and the impact of the CSR on security at airports and ports. More information is needed. I hope that the Minister will be able to comment, but obviously I understand the sensitivity around security issues. Perhaps she can comment, however, on the loss of expertise from TRANSEC as a result of impending retirements—early retirements due to potential redundancies—and, indeed, of redundancies. TRANSEC is an important organisation, and none of us want to see it damaged. It plays too important a role in our national security.

I will refer briefly to some comments of colleagues and reinforce points to which the Minister might wish to respond. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) raised the issue of high-speed rail. He got close to being drawn into aviation policy by his hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, but managed to stay away from it. I am sure his time on the Transport Committee will allow him the opportunity to examine closely the whole aviation issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) asked a number of questions of importance to her constituents and about the value-for-money issue. I look forward to the Minister’s response, especially as my hon. Friend was saying that the Highways Agency described the scheme she was concerned about as cheap and cheerful and not managed as we expect our modern motorways to function—without overhead signs controlling flows and changes to bridges. I understand that the scheme was referred back to the Highways Agency, but it has now been decided to plug ahead. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South strongly said, it is regarded as a waste of money. Indeed, she offered it to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price). I am not sure whether that generosity of spirit is normal between opposing parties, but I see that the point was well taken.

Among other matters, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) raised questions on the role of ports and shipping. I agree with him that that sector’s profile does not match its economic significance. As a former Minister with responsibility for shipping, I look forward to hearing more from him in the years ahead.

The hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) cast an envious eye at Manchester and Sheffield; he asked for only two stations at Leeds. As it is the hon. Gentleman’s birthday, I would be interested to see how that request tests the Minister’s generosity.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham said that business accepted the need for restrictions on aviation. As I said earlier, I am not sure that I agree, and I shall not go there again.

The hon. Member for Thurrock spoke about the junction between the M25 and the A13. I am fairly familiar with it, as I lived in Barking for 20 years before moving to Poplar, Limehouse and Tower Hamlets. I know, as the hon. Lady does, that the new ports being built will add to the volume of traffic. Improvements to the junction were being considered by the previous Government in conjunction with the industry and the local authorities, because it is clearly a choke point. Something needs to be done.

As an aside, I believe that there are some 23 crossings on the Thames to the west of Tower bridge and only three to the east. With the regeneration of docklands, at least half of London’s population will be living east of Tower bridge, and there will be much more development on our side of the capital in the years ahead. I look forward to the Mayor of London revisiting the question of an additional crossing, which might marginally help the hon. Member for Thurrock. When the Mayor—Boris Johnson or his successor—comes forward with a proposal, as I am sure he will, I hope that the Department for Transport will support and encourage it. It will obviously be a financial risk for London, not the Department, but DFT support will be critical in ensuring that the project moves forward positively.

The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton raised a hugely important question on London’s transport, as did several colleagues, saying that if London does not function efficiently the whole of UK plc will suffer. Although some cast an envious eye on London and the support that the capital city gets, if London does not function the whole country suffers. I know that all parties in London are supportive of the hon. Lady’s comments.

The comprehensive spending review settlement is far from the huge triumph being spun by Ministers. It will see investment in our transport infrastructure being reduced far faster and more brutally than would have been the case under Labour. Not only will passengers be paying more for less, but they will feel the real burden of the cuts. The reality is that the Government are investing in rail schemes that they inherited from the previous Government, but with delays. Although passengers will see the benefit, the cost will fall on commuters through hikes in fares.

The Government have covered up a massive cut in funding for local government, disguising it as a commitment to localism, local decision-making and simplification, but the reality is that they are leaving the pain of making the inevitable cuts to local authorities and letting them take the blame. The comprehensive spending review settlement for transport is bad news for passengers, particularly commuters, bad news for safety on our roads, bad news for those who rely on buses to get to work or to find work and, most of all, bad news for business, competitiveness, jobs and growth.

16:43

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Gray, to serve under your chairmanship. I am delighted that the Backbench Business Committee chose to put this debate on the agenda, and I pay tribute to all who have taken part, especially the Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), and I thank the hon. Lady for her cogent and thorough introduction to the important issues that we have been debating this afternoon.

On 20 October, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out the coalition Government’s four-year plan to tackle the most urgent issue facing Britain today—mending our public finances and putting them on a sustainable footing. Several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), said that the situation that the Government inherited from our predecessors has put us in an extremely difficult position. Left unchanged, the spending position that we inherited would have seen Britain paying out £70 billion a year by the end of this Parliament, which is more than we spend on educating our children and defending our country put together.

We heard from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside that, as part of the CSR settlement, the Department for Transport will reduce overall spending by 15%. Savings of 21% will need to be made from resource budgets, and 11% from capital. There is no doubt that cuts on that scale mean that difficult choices will have to be made. We very much wish that we did not have to make them, but the reality is, as many Members have acknowledged, that transport has come out of the spending review in a far stronger position than many expected. Among those who made that point were the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and my hon. Friends the Members for Pudsey, for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) and for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray).

The Government want to break away from the recurrent pattern of spending squeezes of past years when, more or less inevitably, the axe fell first and hardest on transport infrastructure projects. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) acknowledged, transport has been given a high priority in the spending review, which reflects the economic benefits that can be generated by investing in our transport infrastructure. Cutting waste, reforming the welfare system and scaling back lower priority programmes has enabled us to prioritise spending in order to boost long-term economic growth. That includes an extensive programme of investment in the nation’s transport infrastructure. As the hon. Member for Cheltenham said, it also recognises the importance of addressing climate change by supporting programmes to decarbonise mobility and travel.

I turn to a matter that was of huge importance to many who spoke this afternoon, albeit from different perspectives. That, of course, is balancing the needs of the various parts of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) made a passionate plea for priority for north Lincolnshire and for the needs of peripheral regions. As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey made a case for Yorkshire; those of my hon. Friends who represent Yorkshire constituencies always make articulate representations in transport debates. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton pointed out the benefits that can accrue to the whole of the UK through investment in the capital’s infrastructure, as it is a major generator of economic growth.

We have a clear commitment to rebalance our economy; we are committed to addressing the north-south divide; and we are clearly committed to dealing with the challenges faced by regions such as the north-east, which have a particularly strong dependence on jobs in the public sector. In making our decisions on transport spending, we sought to take account of those priorities and commitments, as well as the competing needs of the different regions. We can never come up with a solution that pleases everyone, but we have made great efforts to be fair, and we are proceeding with a number of major schemes in the English regions, many of which are in the north.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside rightly emphasised the importance of local involvement in prioritising transport projects. It was not possible to get the entire local enterprise partnership decision-making process up and running in time to influence and inform the decisions that we had to make in the CSR. We have to get on with those projects, as many have argued. We could not stand still and wait for the new structures to be created, so we depended on the advice of the older structures—the regional ones. When taking future decisions on transport priorities, we will seek to engage with local stakeholders and LEPs as soon as practicably possible. We cannot just wait for five years and not engage locally. As soon as the LEP structure is up and running, we will seek to engage LEPs in our transport decisions.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Forgive me, I should know the answer, but do LEPs cover the whole country, or only parts of it?

[Mrs Villiers]

I understand that all local authorities will have the opportunity to set up LEPs, but I am not an expert in how the process works. As has been acknowledged, there is a good case for LEPs getting together, so that we can consider transport matters across a wider area. It obviously makes a great deal of sense to consider units such as travel-to-work areas, which may be considerably larger than the LEP areas themselves. LEPs working together will be constructive.

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the right hon. Lady for attempting to answer my question. Will she acknowledge that there is still a major problem in that LEPs have not been formed in many parts of the country? When the Committee visited Hull, local businesses expressed grave concerns about the inadequacy of the LEP structures. Although she states that her Government will not wait until the end of this Parliament to set up an appropriate structure to deal with transport issues, can she give me any timetable for when she will be able to do so? After all, if she decides to destroy one structure, she should have a better one already in place.

[Mrs Villiers]

As soon as LEPs are up and running, we will engage with them about our decisions on transport projects. If there are gaps in the LEP map, we will engage with the local authorities in those areas that are not covered by LEPs and take on board their views and concerns.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham mentioned reform of the appraisal system. As he acknowledged, we have made efforts to reform the New Approach to Appraisal system to put a more realistic price on carbon, and to address the anomalous emphasis on additional fuel duty revenues for the Exchequer being discounted from the overall cost of the project. Further reform is planned, but it is important to reform the system so that we have a more realistic assessment of the carbon impact of different transport choices because we want to choose the projects that are consistent with our climate change goals.

The Chairman of the Transport Committee expressed concerns about emergency towing vehicles. Ship salvage is a commercial matter between a ship’s operator and the established salvage industry, and we have every confidence that there is capacity in the salvage industry to support ships in difficulty from September 2011 at commercial rates.

As for rail, it is very clear that we have had to take a difficult decision on fares. Of course, I wish that we could have avoided that, but the scale of the deficit that we inherited severely constrains our choices. Without the three years of retail prices index plus 3% increases that we announced, it simply would not be possible to deliver vital capacity improvements that passengers need.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside emphasised the importance of rail services in tackling climate change; I agree and that is why we have made such a major commitment to investment in rail. She also emphasised the importance both to passengers and taxpayers of getting value for money from the railways. She asked me to pre-empt the publication of the McNulty review. I had better not do that, but she will appreciate that one of the key problems that has been identified across the industry is the mismatch between incentives. Aligning incentives more effectively between the train operators and those responsible for maintaining and running the tracks is one possible way in which we can start to reduce costs in the rail industry and put our railways on a more sustainable financial footing. That is essential if we are to deliver value for money for passengers.

The hon. Lady also called for more transparency around fares; there is scope for that. Greater efforts are under way to ensure that consumers know exactly what deals are available. Increasing consumer understanding of the range of rail fares is an important goal. She also recognised that some fares are considerably lower than in past years. That is not something that one would recognise from reading the papers, but lower fares are out there, and increasing numbers of passengers are taking advantage of them. That said, we understand the concerns of many commuters about rail fares. As I have said, we have been forced into a difficult decision by the deficit that we inherited.

We have seen a shift in departmental priorities. Rail has come out much better from the spending review than other transport programmes. The programme of rail capacity upgrades is extensive—arguably, the most extensive in modern history. Crossrail is going ahead according to its original scope. Despite all the scare stories, there has been no announcement that the limbs will be amputated. We expect services to be phased in from 2018 across the Crossrail network. Savings worth some £1 billion have been identified through addressing risks and undertaking an engineering-led review of the most cost-effective way to deliver the central section, including lengthening the delivery time by around a year. We continue to work with Crossrail Ltd, the Mayor and Transport for London to optimise the scheme’s value for money.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton emphasised the importance of pressing ahead with work on the new stations. I am pleased to hear that she will be able to see the station designs for Ealing Broadway soon. Our goal is to keep up the pressure to ensure that we meet the delivery timetable that has been set.

The Chairman of the Transport Committee expressed concern about the position of TRANSEC and the budget allocated to transport security. There will be reductions of 25%, but it is well worth emphasising that the total industry spend on aviation security is more than £350 million. The bulk of the spending on aviation security is made by the industry because it delivers aviation security on the ground. She will appreciate that the 25% reduction that was discussed in the Committee yesterday relates to departmental activity, which is the overview, the policy, and the regulatory and supervision aspects. The savings are deliverable without compromising security outcomes. We recognise that maintaining passenger safety and security is of paramount importance. Administrative reform and reorganisation—rationalising certain training programmes, having to target our research programme and reducing some of our network of aviation advisers around the world—will enable us to deliver those savings without compromising passenger security.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the 25% savings will not have a negative impact on security because of redundancies or early retirements?

[Mrs Villiers]

The shadow Minister makes an important point about the reductions in head count that need to be made not just at TRANSEC but across the board. In making those decisions, it is a top priority to keep hold of the people whose skills are most vitally needed. That is the case with TRANSEC and across the Department.

Subject to the outcome of a rigorous and comprehensive consultation, our plan is to proceed towards construction of a new high-speed rail line, connecting London and Birmingham, and then on to Manchester and Leeds. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South emphasised the importance of getting the route right; I completely agree with him, which is why we will have an extensive consultation. He also talked about the importance of getting right the connections to airports; I agree on that and work is under way on those issues. We need to look at not just Heathrow but Birmingham airport and then Manchester airport to see how we can connect them effectively to the new high-speed rail network.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside emphasised the importance of ensuring continued investment in the conventional network alongside high-speed rail; I agree and that is what we have committed to do. The coalition has also confirmed £2.1 billion to fund Network Rail’s station improvement programme, which includes £650 million to complete the work on transforming Birmingham New Street into a gateway worthy of the UK’s second city.

Schemes are also going ahead to improve the passenger experience at King’s Cross and Gatwick airport stations. The funding has been confirmed for the works under way at Reading, which will improve reliability across the whole of the Great Western main line. Work on the Midland main line will deliver faster and more reliable journeys in the east midlands and South Yorkshire. Improvements on the east coast main line will improve journeys in the north-east and Scotland.

Funding has been confirmed for vital rail freight improvements between Southampton and the west coast main line, and between Felixstowe and Nuneaton. I welcome the support from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside on that issue.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I just wanted to ask the right hon. Lady about the impact of the changes at TRANSEC on ports. Obviously, most people associate TRANSEC with aviation and airports. There is no specific reduction in respect of that transport mode. Regarding shipping and interconnectivity, can she tell us what the spend is for upgrading the freight lines from ports?

[Mrs Villiers]

Regarding the changes at TRANSEC, in making the efficiencies that we have to make, of course we will fully take on board any impact on ports and shipping. Obviously, the bulk of TRANSEC’s work and the bulk of its funding tends to be focused on aviation, but that does not mean that we should underrate the importance of ensuring that we maintain high levels of security for our ports and shipping, too.

Regarding the rail freight upgrades, we are committed to carrying forward work on the strategic freight network. I always think that that is one of the programmes on which the previous Government did some of their best work. There was a lot of engagement with the industry to focus on those upgrades that would have the biggest economic impact and that would have the most impact on taking freight off the road and on to rail.

The comprehensive spending review announced electrification of the railways between Preston, Blackpool, Manchester and Liverpool. Work will also go ahead to improve journey times on the crucial route between Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside asked me to ensure that careful monitoring was undertaken to ensure delivery. Of course it is absolutely right that she should ask that and I know that the Office of Rail Regulation will be very focused on keeping Network Rail to its timetable. She also asked if electrification would be accompanied in due course by new rolling stock. Yes, of course—there is no point electrifying a railway unless there is some rolling stock to use on it. So that improvement will be part of the improvements that we want to see in the north-west.

This morning, the Secretary of State informed the House that funding for Thameslink had been confirmed. Thameslink will virtually double the number of north-south trains running through London. To reduce risks, we have lengthened the delivery programme, so completion is now expected in 2018. My right hon. Friend also gave the green light for the addition of 650 carriages, which will address some of the worst overcrowding hot spots around the country. Those carriages will be in service by March 2014 and they are in addition to the 800 net additional carriages for Thameslink and for Crossrail.

Several points were made in the debate about rolling stock; I think that we heard from several hon. Members about the importance of introducing more rolling stock. I listened with interest to the references to discussions on the Leeds trolley bus by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey. I am not able to give him a “yes” today, even though it is his birthday, but he has made his representations very strongly. I also took on board the statements he made about the Leeds rail proposal, which includes Kirkstall Forge. Officials at the Department for Transport will continue to work with the sponsors and the local authorities to see how best we can make progress on that proposal. He will appreciate that it is one of those schemes that is in with a chance of funding, and we will certainly do our best to work constructively with the people who I know passionately support the project.

This morning, the Secretary of State also confirmed a programme of electrification on the Great Western line between London, Didcot, Oxford and Newbury. An announcement on the extent of further electrification on the Great Western line will be made in the new year, alongside our final decision on the inter-city express programme. My right hon. Friend confirmed to the House that we have ruled out wholesale refurbishment of the High Speed 2 inter-city 125 fleet as the solution to the IEP problem. We will buy a new inter-city train fleet. After careful consideration of the Foster report on the IEP, the Government have narrowed down the options to just two: first, Agility’s revised proposal for a fleet of electric and bi-mode trains; and secondly, procuring a fleet of electric trains that would be hauled by new diesel locomotives at the end of the electrified network. I want to emphasise that both these options allow us to retain through journeys to destinations beyond the electrified network, including through journeys to Inverness and Aberdeen, which I know will be warmly welcomed by colleagues, including the hon. Member for Cheltenham who mentioned such journeys in his remarks.

I turn now to the points made this afternoon about roads and local transport. We propose to drive efficiency and reform at the Highways Agency by appointing a non-executive chair and a performance-monitoring group. Our goal is to reduce the cost of delivering a national road network that is in a safe and serviceable condition, and to deliver a more efficient traffic officer service that prioritises traffic management.

The Chairman of the Select Committee specifically referred to the A14 and her concern was that we had essentially sent that project back to the drawing board. I think that the cost of the project had simply got out of control. We were not convinced that it was the best way to deal with the problems on that transport corridor. We need to think more imaginatively about those types of programmes, to see if there is a more cost-effective alternative, and I think that the work that we are doing on the rail freight routes between Felixstowe and the west Midlands will also make an important contribution to addressing issues around the A14.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I will give the right hon. Lady another opportunity to have a sip of water. She mentioned that a more efficient Highways Agency will look at trying to achieve better traffic management. Does she accept that the other major role of the Highways Agency is about traffic safety, particularly in relation to foreign heavy goods vehicles? They have been a big concern to the Transport Committee and to colleagues right across the country. The enforcement regime at the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency allows these vehicles to be pulled aside, and the new regulations that we introduced only last year allow these vehicles to be impounded and not moved without either the necessary repairs being effected or insurance documentation and other documentation being produced. I hope that she is not saying that that regime will suffer as a result of moving the emphasis to road management as opposed to road safety.

[Mrs Villiers]

I will come on to road safety in a moment, but it remains an extremely high priority for the Government. However, the shadow Minister makes a key point about the importance of enforcement in relation to overseas-run HGVs. We will continue to put a priority on those enforcement mechanisms. I cannot give him the precise figures. Across the board, we will be looking to do things in a more efficient way, but if we can, we will prioritise resources to help us to deal with that very significant problem—I agree with him that it is a major problem.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside also asked whether there was a departure from road-widening and building towards more of a traffic management approach, including a managed motorway approach. I think that there is some truth in that. We want to make greater use of a managed motorway programme as a more cost-effective way to deliver more capacity. Regarding road improvements, our focus is on trying to target the worst traffic bottlenecks, because remedying those bottlenecks will deliver the greatest economic benefit. So we recognise that making better use of our existing road capacity should be a very important part of our strategy.

We also need to look, in a balanced way, at whether we can address a transport problem by using a public transport outcome. We need to look afresh at the way that we approach the national roads programme overall.

The Chairman of the Select Committee also expressed concern about cuts in the budget allocated to road maintenance. We are continuing to allocate very significant funds to road maintenance at both a national and local level. However, we recognise the need to deliver more for less. Safety is, of course, paramount. However, the road network is one of the nation’s most valuable economic assets, so we must ensure that we spend appropriately to maintain it in a good condition. Nevertheless, we feel that better commercial management and better contracting can lead to considerable savings, and we feel the same is true of making the most of collective national buying power, encouraging local authorities to link up together so that they can build their buying power, and reviewing some of the technical standards to extend the life of assets. All those methods are ways to cut costs without compromising safety.

However, there is no doubt that we have had to take some difficult decisions about spending on both local and strategic roads. To help local authorities to deal with spending reductions, we will cut red tape to give them more freedom to make their own decisions. We are carrying out a radical simplification and reform of local transport funding. Our plan is to move from 26 grant streams to four, beginning in 2011-12. That will include £560 million for local sustainable transport projects, including Bikeability cycle training.

Several hon. Members discussed buses. The hon. Members for Cheltenham and for Liverpool, Riverside expressed concern about the reduction in the bus service operator grant commencing in 2012-13. I understand their concerns; that was probably one of the most difficult transport decisions in the CSR. I hope that they recognise that the reduction is far less severe than many predicted. We argued the case passionately with the Treasury. We recognise how crucial bus services are to people on a wide range of incomes and in a wide range of areas, which is why we put the case so strongly in the CSR in order to get a fair outcome on buses.

[Martin Horwood]

I acknowledged in my remarks how well the Department had done in defending the bus service operator grant relative to expectations, but the Minister will recall that the combined impact of the cut in BSOG, the funding arrangements for the concessionary fares scheme and the cuts in local government spending could have a high-risk effect on bus services, particularly rural ones.

[Mrs Villiers]

I appreciate that the position on buses is affected by decisions made about Department for Communities and Local Government funding. We are happy to work with DCLG to minimise the ultimate impact on bus passengers. We have also committed to retain the concessionary fares statutory entitlement. In implementing administrative savings—a programme that we inherited from the previous Government, who also committed to reducing the cost of administering the scheme—we will, of course, seek to ensure a fair outcome for both local authorities and bus passengers.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham emphasised the importance of Oyster-style ticketing on bus services outside the capital. The Government agree fully, which is why we have committed to extend smarter ticketing technology across the country and accelerated the plans that we inherited from the previous Government.

I assure the Chairman of the Transport Committee that road safety is an extremely high priority for this Government. We welcome the progress made in recent years; it is a major achievement by the Government of which the shadow Minister was a member. We are determined that that progress will continue. Concern was expressed about the in-year savings to local authority funding. The revenue stream associated with road safety has been reduced, but it was selected because that was a way to give local authorities the greatest flexibility in how they make reductions. It was also a way to prevent the in-year savings from falling disproportionately on local authorities; that was one of the most even-handed ways to make the reductions. With the withdrawal of ring-fencing, it is up to local authorities how they implement those savings. We hope that they will continue to focus on road safety and make the savings that they need in other ways: for example, through efficiency savings.

[Barbara Keeley]

I do not know whether the Minister is aware that in the Chamber this morning, we discussed the fact that some local authorities are facing grant reductions next year of 29%, 30% or 35%. Does she really believe that those authorities—particularly urban metropolitan authorities in the north, some of which are represented here—will have any flexibility?

[Mrs Villiers]

It is our intention to give them flexibility so that they can make decisions in the local interest. Given the huge importance of road safety to local communities the length and breadth of the country, I am absolutely confident that local authorities will continue to put an extremely high priority on road safety spending.

We will continue to invest in our road and local transport infrastructure. The spending review confirmed that more than £400 million will be devoted to the uptake of ultra low-carbon vehicles in order to comply with our commitments on climate change and the pressing need to reduce emissions from driving. In his CSR statement to the House, the Chancellor confirmed various important road programmes, including the A11 dualling programme at Thetford, which will generate major economic benefits for the whole of East Anglia and provide the missing link of dual carriageway to connect Norwich to the rest of the country. That got the biggest cheer of the comprehensive spending review debate. On 26 October, the Secretary of State announced a further 16 large-scale road and public transport projects, as well as a fund of more than £600 million for other schemes to be selected from a pool through a bidding process.

Several individual schemes have been referred to, including the Leeds trolley bus, on which work will continue, as I said. I hope that it will be possible to make progress on the scheme. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) spoke with eloquence about her concerns for the M60 and its impact on her constituents. I emphasise that safety issues are, of course, taken into account in decisions on which schemes to fund, and both safety and the environmental impact on communities will be explored fully in the planning process, as is appropriate. That is how we ensure that such issues are addressed. I am concerned to hear about the problems that she believes have arisen with the consultation, and I urge her to take it up with the Highways Agency.

[Barbara Keeley]

I thank the Minister for giving way. The Roads Minister was going to meet me and local residents in my constituency to understand the issues that I have raised, and I have stated that the Highways Agency consultation was a mess. Given that and the fact that the scheme’s start date is now later than originally proposed, although still before 2015, will the Minister take back a request to review the matter further? I do not think that the scheme is value for money, and it is competing with schemes that are much more wanted and more certain to deliver value for money.

[Mrs Villiers]

With all such schemes, the process of assessing value for money is ongoing. The scheme is conditional on the planning process, which is the proper opportunity for the hon. Lady’s constituents to make their voices heard and express their concerns about what will happen. It is not for me to pre-empt the planning process in this debate.

Several hon. Members mentioned the Dartford crossing. The hon. Member for Cheltenham was concerned about the nature of the charges. They were converted by the previous Government to congestion charges; the charges originally imposed related to the construction costs of the bridge. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock expressed her concern about the increase in tolls. Again, that is unfortunately another melancholy consequence of the fiscal crisis that we face. Tolls could help us fund a new crossing, which, as the shadow Minister said, would generate significant benefits to the economy and relieve congestion. We continue to work to address the congestion problems and flow of traffic on the Dartford crossing, and that work includes a commitment to lifting the barriers in extreme cases where they are causing congestion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock also expressed concerns about junction 30 of the M25. As I emphasised, the project has not been cancelled but postponed. There is a good chance that it will go ahead, and the Highways Agency will continue to work on that. She has put on record her concerns about how important it is, not least because of the need to transport Hellmann’s mayonnaise and Fairy liquid around the country. She is no doubt a strong campaigner for the interests of her constituent.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I intervene only because one group of constituents who have not been mentioned are long-suffering West Ham fans from south and west Essex, who must fight their way across the M25 to get to Upton Park every other Saturday.

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Gentleman puts that representation well. I am sure it will be duly taken on board as the scheme progresses.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) and the hon. Member for Cheltenham expressed anxiety about the fate of the Swindon-Kemble project. The hon. Member for Cheltenham said that it could end up with the dubious label of being the only rail project cancelled by this Government. In reality, the funding was never in place from the previous Government. It was never confirmed. I believe that the business case is good and that it would be great in terms of increasing the resilience of services to Wales. There are all sorts of good reasons to do the project, but at the moment it just does not look affordable. However, there is every chance that we could seek to take it forward in the next Network Rail spending control period.

[Martin Horwood]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Villiers]

I shall carry on; otherwise the Committee Chairman will not have a chance to speak at the end.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), expressed concern about type 26 frigates. I will certainly take that back to my colleagues in the Department. I have noted his concern about the impact that that might have on piracy. That is obviously a crucial issue we need to address today. He also asked when a road safety strategy will be published. It will be published in due course at some point in the new year. I was somewhat surprised by his comments on air passenger duty because, as I pointed out to him, the increases about which he is concerned were set out in the Labour Chancellor’s Budget and implemented through a Finance Bill that was enacted during the term of his Government. He has had something of a road to Damascus conversion on APD.

I have already dealt with the hon. Gentleman’s points on TRANSEC and the personnel there. He also made the valid point that ports and shipping often do not get the attention they deserve, given their huge importance to the economy. I certainly agree. Whether or not we are in government, it is vital that we recognise the importance of our history as a maritime nation and the economic benefits generated by ports and the shipping industry.

In conclusion, faced with the scale of the deficit we inherited, the easy option would have been to slash capital spending on transport projects. We have chosen not to do that; we have chosen to look at the long-term interests of the economy. That is why, over the next four years, we will spend more than £30 billion on road, rail and local transport projects across Britain, despite the dire financial situation that we inherited from our predecessors. I thank everyone who has taken part in this very interesting debate.

17:21

[Mrs Ellman]

Thank you, Mr Gray, for your chairmanship this afternoon. I also thank the many hon. Members who have demonstrated the significance of national decisions for local facilities and for their constituents. I thank the Minister for her very full replies, but such fullness cannot disguise the fact that a 15% cut in transport, an 11% cut in capital expenditure and a 21% cut in resource expenditure, are major cuts. Yes, it could have been worse, but those are major cuts.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), the shadow Minister, has retained all his expertise and knowledge about transport and I am glad to see it being put to such good use this afternoon. Some promises and commitments have been given, but there are clearly still some gaps and major problems. I am sure that my Committee, in the months and perhaps years ahead, will monitor those promises and continue to raise issues of concern. I look forward to the Minister appearing before our Committee to follow up some of the very important matters raised this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

17:22

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Thursday 25th November 2010 Written Statements

Thursday 25 November 2010

General Affairs Council/Foreign Affairs Council

Thursday 25th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

The General Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council were held on 22 October in Brussels. I represented the UK.

The agenda items covered were as follows:

General Affairs Council (GAC)

The Belgian presidency (Foreign Minister Vanackere) chaired the meeting. The full text of all conclusions adopted can be found at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/genaff/117939.pdf

Follow-up to the October European Council and preparations for the December Council

The discussion was dominated by economic issues, in particular the establishment of a permanent crisis mechanism, treaty change, and the process leading up to any decision by the European Council in December.

Along with others, I stressed the need to keep changes to the treaty to a minimum and ensure that national Parliaments were fully involved. Others also emphasised the importance of careful presentation and handling of economic policy matters, in order to avoid unnecessary market speculation.

On the EU budget, I reiterated our determination that EU expenditure should reflect consolidation efforts being made by member states. The December European Council will discuss how the EU budget can contribute to these efforts.

European Commission 2011 Work Programme

The Commission presented their work programme for 2011. They hoped it would increase the predictability of the discussions in the year to come. They were actively seeking feedback from national Parliaments. The UK (Sir Kim Darroch) said this exercise would aid transparency, and noted that much of the content was useful, especially on sustainable growth. However, the UK also stressed that any proposals needed to be considered against tests on subsidiarity and the avoidance of regulatory burden.

Videoconferencing at Councils

The presidency introduced proposals for a staged upgrade in the Council’s video conferencing capability. These were approved without discussion.

Disaster Response

The Commissioner for International Co-operation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response (Ms Georgieva) presented the Commission’s ideas on European disaster response. She stressed the need to address the increased frequency and intensity of disasters, and to use the EU’s new institutional arrangements. She underscored the primary responsibility of member states, the need to be cost-effective, and the importance of UN leadership externally.

Many speakers welcomed the ideas but made clear they could not accept EU control of national assets. Any legislative proposals had to reflect the different structures in Europe, and the primacy of the UN in humanitarian operations. The UK (Sir Kim Darroch) stressed the need for flexible and pragmatic solutions, noting that future Council conclusions could broadly endorse moving forward but should not prejudge technical discussions. Others emphasised the importance of greater EU visibility and enhanced co-ordination.

The presidency concluded that there was broad agreement to proceed to Council conclusions at the December GAC.

Transparency Register

Under AOB, the European Commission informed the GAC that they had reached agreement with the European Parliament on a transparency register covering all lobbyists and NGOs who sought to influence the two institutions. The text of the agreement would be forwarded to the Council.

Foreign Affairs Council (FAC)

The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton, chaired the meeting. The full text of all conclusions adopted, including “A” points, can be found at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/117948.pdf

Middle East Peace Process (MEPP) - Gaza/Lebanon

Over lunch, Ministers focused on the efforts to encourage Israel and the Palestinians to restart direct talks. Many speakers emphasised the need for the EU to support the efforts of the US. There was also concern about continuing settlement activity, particularly in East Jerusalem. Baroness Ashton said that it was important to maintain momentum to improve conditions in Gaza, reiterating the EU’s readiness to contribute to this. She added that the EU would continue to work with the international quartet. On Lebanon, a number of Ministers argued that the EU should support the special tribunal. Conclusions were agreed.

Iran

Baroness Ashton updated the FAC on the latest developments on the nuclear dossier.

Sudan

Baroness Ashton invited me to lead discussion on Sudan, following the special session of the UN Security Council on Sudan on 16 November chaired by the Foreign Secretary. I highlighted that this was a defining period for Sudan: the EU needed to work energetically to support a peaceful outcome. The EU should ensure that contingency preparations were ready to be signed off at the next FAC on 13 December. The EU also needed to consider how to engage Khartoum, to complement the US package, and to strengthen the role of moderates in the north. I argued that debt relief might be an important element. Additionally, we should not lose sight of Darfur.

Other speakers echoed these themes, particularly on the need to explore quickly options on debt relief. Assistance for the three kidnapped Latvians and one Hungarian in Sudan was also raised.

Baroness Ashton announced that she was setting up a Sudan taskforce headed up by Dame Rosalind Marsden, the EU Special Representative for Sudan. Conclusions were agreed.

Preparations for forthcoming Summits and relations with strategic partners

The FAC discussed preparations for the forthcoming EU summits with Africa (29-30 November), Russia (7 December) and India (10 December), and for the OSCE summit (1-2 December). The discussion also covered the EU’s strategic relations with the US, Russia and China.

Much of the discussion focused on relations with Russia, specifically visa liberalisation and Russia’s WTO membership. Baroness Ashton proposed that Ministers discuss these issues further on 13 December ahead of her presentation to the December European Council.

Burma

Ministers discussed developments in Burma, including deeply flawed elections and the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. Strong concern was expressed at the continued detention of 2,200 political prisoners, and there was agreement on the need for caution in the EU’s response to recent events, and on the need to co-ordinate with other key partners, including the US.

Iraq

There was a brief exchange of views on the political situation and recent developments in Iraq. A number of speakers emphasised the need to pay close attention to the situation of religious minorities. Conclusions were agreed.

Belarus

The FAC was briefed by the Polish Foreign Minister on his joint visit with the German Foreign Minister to Minsk on 2 November. The Lithuanian Foreign Minister reported on the recent visit to Minsk by the Lithuanian President.

Women, Peace and Security

Thursday 25th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

I wish to inform the House that, today, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, will publicly launch the UK’s national action plan on women, peace and security.

Ten years ago, the UN Security Council agreed Resolution 1325 and we committed to reduce the impact of conflict on women and girls and to promote their inclusion in conflict resolution. Ten years on, there is clearly more to do. Our new national action plan sets out how we will pursue progress through a range of initiatives and through incorporating our commitments into our diplomatic, defence and development activity.

The key commitments are:

to make “Women, Peace and Security” an integral part of our conflict policy, including through providing specialised training to civilian and military staff; placing women at the front and centre of our development policy; and the deployment of female military personnel as “Female Engagement Officers” in support of UK battle groups to improve military engagement with female Afghan civilians;

to implement specific action plans for priority countries, starting with Afghanistan, Nepal and DRC;

to strengthen the action taken by the international community, including by taking a strong advocacy role at the United Nations and supporting the enhancement of UN structures that assist women in conflict.

Revision of the national action plan has been carried out by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, in consultation with civil society, particularly the civil society coalition group: Gender Action for Peace and Security (GAPS).

The plan will be reviewed annually, incorporating feedback from civil society focus groups. Progress will be reported to Parliament and civil society through the Associate Parliamentary Group on Women, Peace and Security. A full evaluation of the plan will be carried out after three years.

I am placing a copy of the national action plan in the Library of the House. It will also be published on the FCO website (www.fco.gov.uk).

Violence Against Women and Children Action Plan

Thursday 25th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)]

Today, I formally launch the Department of Health action plan, improving services for women and child victims of violence. This document sets out how the Department, in partnership with others, will take action in response to the findings of the independent taskforce on the health aspects of violence against women and children (VAWC), which were published in March 2010.

The work programme aims to lay the foundations for embedding high-quality evidence-based practice within the national health service in response to violence and abuse and is set around four key themes: awareness-raising; workforce, education and training; improving quality of services; and evidence and information.



The action plan takes into account the key findings from the independent taskforce, which were informed by focus groups with women and children service users. An NHS implementation group on violence against women and children, established in June, will oversee progress of the implementation work.



The Department’s work in this important area also feeds into the cross-Government programme on violence against women and girls. This highlights the importance of partnership-working at both a national and local level to tackle violence and abuse.



I am placing a copy of the report in the Library and copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office.

Carers Strategy

Thursday 25th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)]

We are today publishing a cross-Government strategy—“Recognised, valued and supported: next steps for the Carers Strategy”. This sets out the Government’s priority areas for the next four years to ensure the best possible outcomes for carers and those they support. The strategy recognises the vital role that carers already play in providing support and care to people, and the importance of having a life outside the caring role. It also recognises the importance of a “whole family” approach to supporting young carers, so that they do not take on inappropriate caring roles.

The strategy sets out how the Government will reciprocate the support carers provide with measures that support the responsibilities of caring:

supporting those with caring responsibilities to identify themselves as carers at an early stage, recognising the value of their contribution and involving them from the outset both in designing local care provision and in planning individual care packages;

enabling those with caring responsibilities to fulfil their educational and employment potential;

personalised support both for carers and those they support, enabling them to have a family and community life; and

supporting carers to remain mentally and physically well.



The strategy identifies the actions that the Government will take to support these priorities. These include:

providing £400 million additional funding over the next four years for breaks, and further resources for GP training, to increase GPs’ awareness and understanding of carers’ needs for support. The Department for Education has already announced that additional funding recycled from the child trust fund will be used to support short breaks services. The legislative process to place a duty on councils to commission a short breaks service should be completed in the new year;

the Department for Education will make a new early intervention grant available to local government from April 2011-12, bringing together a range of funding streams for early intervention services for young people and families, including young carers;

the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will issue a consultation document next year to consult with business on how best to take forward the coalition commitment to extend to all employees the right to request flexible working;

the Department of Health and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will examine how small local enterprises can be encouraged to provide good quality, reliable and consistent replacement care either to give carers a break from caring responsibilities or to enable them to work alongside caring responsibilities; and

the Department of Health and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will work with industry and statutory and voluntary sector stakeholders to identify the barriers and enablers to market growth in assisted living technologies, and to support further uptake and boost innovation.

The Department of Health is also publishing a guide on emerging evidence—“Carers and personalisation: improving outcomes”. This includes examples to illustrate how the principles of personalisation have been applied, emphasising the value of finding ways forward that make sense and work best locally.

A copy of “Recognised, valued and supported: next steps for the Carers Strategy” has been placed in the Library and copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office.

“Call to End Violence against Women and Girls”

Thursday 25th November 2010 Written Statements

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

The Government’s ambition is nothing less than ending all forms of violence against women and girls. This is a key priority for us and today, on the international day for the elimination of violence against women, we have set out our guiding principles for this over the coming spending review period. This includes a commitment to provide more than £28 million for specialist services for victims of domestic and sexual violence over the next four years.

We will take a cross-departmental integrated approach to ending violence against women and girls by tackling its root causes and dealing fully with its effects. For the first time we have also included the work that we do at an international level to promote women’s rights globally and reduce the impact of conflict on women and girls.

We will publish the detail of the supporting actions in the spring.

The “Call to End Violence Against Women and Girls” strategic narrative is available on the Home Office website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/vawg and a copy will be placed in the House Library.

Rail Investment

Thursday 25th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)]

This statement sets out the Government’s plans for investment in rail infrastructure and rolling stock. It builds on the announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the outcome of the spending review.



Over the next four years, we will provide £14 billion of funding to Network Rail to support capital maintenance and infrastructure investment; and £750 million for high speed rail. We will also fund the Crossrail project, the tube upgrade programme, light rail projects in Birmingham, Tyneside, Nottingham and Sheffield; and provide additional funding to franchisees for extra rolling stock.

Today, I can confirm we will fund and deliver the Thameslink programme in its entirety, virtually doubling the number of north-south trains running through central London at peak times. But the original programme for the rebuilding of London Bridge was always ambitious, with substantial risks around delivery, and operation of existing services, during construction. To reduce these risks, we have re-profiled the delivery of the programme to achieve completion in 2018. This will enable Network Rail to make further efficiencies to their design and delivery programme.

As part of the Thameslink programme, we will procure a new fleet of trains—up to 1,200 new carriages. This is in addition to around 600 new carriages which will be provided for the Crossrail project. The new Thameslink and Crossrail rolling stock will enable the redeployment of hundreds of serviceable electric carriages currently used on Thameslink services. These carriages belong to rolling-stock leasing companies, but we expect they will be available at competitive leasing prices for re-use elsewhere, thus justifying further electrification of our network.

As a first step. Network Rail will electrify the commuter services on the great western main line from London to Didcot, Oxford and Newbury over the next six years. Electric trains will speed up journeys, improve reliability and reduce the impact on the environment. Network Rail will also electrify the lines between Liverpool, Manchester, Preston and Blackpool—an investment of up to £300 million. Work is expected to begin next year and to be finished in 2016. As with Thameslink, we expect Network Rail to keep a tight rein on costs.

The redeployment of electric rolling stock to these routes will, in turn, free up hundreds of diesel units which will be available to train operators to lease as they become available in the period after 2015.

I can also today confirm that an additional 650 carriages will have been delivered to the network between 6 May 2010 and March 2014. This is in addition to the Thameslink and Crossrail carriages I have already mentioned.

We have funding confirmed for developments at Reading, Birmingham, London Kings Cross and Gatwick Airport. In addition, investments on the east coast main line and midland main line and improvements in Yorkshire, on trans-Pennine routes, around Manchester and in South Wales will improve line speed, reliability and capacity of services.

Beyond these investments in the commuter railway, there are far-reaching decisions to be made about intercity services. The Intercity Express programme, launched by the previous Government, identified the Agility Trains consortium as preferred bidder to build a new fleet of intercity trains. This February, my predecessors invited Sir Andrew Foster, to provide an independent assessment of the programme. Sir Andrew recommended work on the Agility Trains proposal and a detailed study of the alternatives. Following this work, the four options Sir Andrew identified, have been narrowed down to two. I have ruled out the option of requiring passengers to interchange from electric to diesel trains, recognising the value to passengers of preserving through-journeys. I have also ruled out the option of a wholesale refurbishment of the existing diesel “Intercity 125” fleet, some of which dates back to the 1970s.

The remaining options are, on the one hand a revised, lower-cost Agility Trains proposal, which envisages a mixed fleet: some all-electric trains, and some electric trains which are also equipped with under-floor diesel engines. And on the other, a fleet of new all-electric trains which could be coupled to new diesel locomotives where the overhead electric power lines end. Both these options would allow us to preserve through-journeys between London and parts of the rail network which are not electrified. Both of them would deliver faster journey times. For example, we expect to see a time saving of at least 15 minutes, for the journey between Cardiff and London bringing it below two hours.

This is a major decision which will affect intercity rail travel for decades, and we must get it right. To address outstanding issues on choice of train type and further electrification on the great western main line, additional work will be required within the Department, with Agility Trains, and with the Welsh Assembly Government on the business case for electrification into Wales. I expect to announce a final decision on IEP, and on further great western electrification, in the new year.

This package I have announced today has only been possible because this Government have been prepared to take the tough decisions to protect investment in Britain’s future. I will make a further oral statement to the House on the issues raised in this statement later today.

Opposition Day Debate Clarification (Housing Benefit)

Thursday 25th November 2010 Written Statements

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

In the course of the Opposition day debate on housing benefit, 9 November 2010, I stated that:

“We now know that, according to the Office for National Statistics, the private marketplace in housing—Labour Members are completely wrong about this—fell by around 5% last year. At the same time, LHA rates, which the previous Government had set and left to us, had risen by 3%”.— [Official Report, 9 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 167].

The correct answer should have been:

“We now know that, according to national statistics, the private marketplace in housing—Labour Members are completely wrong about this—fell by around 5% between November 2008 and February 2010. At the same time, national LHA rates, the system the previous Government left us, had risen by 3%”.

The source of this statistic, as published in DWP’s analytical supplement to the Work and Pensions Select Committee inquiry of 3 November, is the Find a Property private rental index. This source for rental data has been used by the Department and wider Government since 2008 when the Department for Communities and Local Government stopped producing their own private rental index. The Find A Property index is the biggest national private rental property website with an extensive amount of nationwide data.

“For where problems do arise, we have tripled the discretionary housing payment to £140 million".—[Official Report, 9 November 2010; Vol. 518 c. 174].

I am happy to clarify that discretionary housing payment funding will be £130 million and that £10 million will be available from Communities and Local Government funding for homelessness prevention, hence totalling £140 million over the spending review period. Funding on discretionary housing payments will indeed triple in year from 2012-13.

“Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to explain how the figures show that the real-terms increase over the past five years was 50%, not 18%”.—[Official Report, 9 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 149].

I can confirm that housing benefit expenditure has increased by 50% in real terms from £14 billion in 2000-01 to a forecast £21.5 billion in 2010-11.

Work Programme (Framework Providers)

Thursday 25th November 2010 Written Statements

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

The Government have previously announced their plans for radical reforms of the welfare-to-work system and the implementation of the Work programme.

Work to deliver the programme is progressing quickly and we are on track to deliver nationwide by the summer of 2011.

Today we announce the providers who will be invited to bid to deliver the Work programme and subsequent employment-related support initiatives. These providers have been named on our framework for employment-related support services, which is the commercial vehicle through which the Work programme will be delivered. The list of suppliers will be released at 1pm today, and can be found here:

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/supplying-DWP/what- we-buy/welfare-to-work-services/work-programme

We are delighted that we received so much interest in the framework and we had strong competition from the market. The providers we have selected represent the very best of organisations from both the private and voluntary sectors. There is a good mix of existing suppliers and new entrants to the market, including innovative partnerships.

The Work programme is the Government’s flagship welfare-to-work programme, and will be built around the needs of individuals: we will give providers longer to work with customers and greater freedom to decide the appropriate support for them. We will also offer stronger incentives for providers to work with harder-to-help customers, and to get people into sustained jobs.

House of Lords

Thursday 25th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Thursday, 25 November 2010.

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

Introduction: The Lord Bishop of Oxford

Thursday 25th November 2010 Lords Chamber

11:05

John Lawrence, Lord Bishop of Oxford, was introduced and took the oath, supported by the Bishop of Newcastle and the Bishop of Lincoln, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Introduction: Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield

Thursday 25th November 2010 Lords Chamber

11:10

Peter John Hennessy, Esquire, having been created Baron Hennessy of Nympsfield, of Nympsfield in the County of Gloucestershire, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Lord Radice and Baroness Shephard of Northwold, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Violence Against Women

Thursday 25th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

11:15

Asked By

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the remarks by Baroness Verma on 21 July (HL Deb, cols. 1056-7), what action they have taken to reduce violence against women.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on raising this important Question today, International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. I know the noble Lord is very concerned that this issue remains at the heart of addressing violence against girls and women. The Government’s ambition is nothing less than ending all forms of violence against girls and women. This is a key priority for us, and we will be setting out our guiding principles in this area over the spending review period. A detailed range of supporting actions will be published in the spring.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

I am grateful to the Minister for her Answer. I understand that a Statement may be made in the Commons at 11.30 am. I am sure she will agree, as probably will the whole House, that the assistance of the independent advisers on violence against women and young girls has been effective in reducing the amount of violence and, in particular, in saving public moneys which have been expended in these areas.

I congratulate the Government on extending the funding for them through 2010 to 2011, but we would like to know whether funding will be extended through to the end of this Parliament. The questions are simple: will the money be maintained at the current levels, will it go up or will it go down? Surely, it must go up if the Home Secretary’s ambition is to be realised.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, we have committed to providing more than £28 million directly to those specialist services that the noble Lord has raised. This will cover the spending review period, so that MARACs, IDVAs, ISVAs and SARCs will be fully funded. Because the issue is so huge, we recognise that there is so much more to be done, but we need to do it via voluntary groups as well as ensuring that funding is in place.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

Will the Minister tell me whether she is aware that today is also the 25th anniversary of the first meeting in the Grand Committee room of the 300 Group to get more women into Parliament? Does she think that more women in Parliament might help to do more on this issue of violence against women, which I did a bit on in the United Nations?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, my noble friend is right. I congratulate her on the work that she did 25 years ago, on which we need to build. Of course, better representation in public life, whether it is in national politics, local politics or public bodies, is crucial to ensure that the voice of women and their policies are addressed fully and properly. I look forward to her support as we ensure that through the Equality Act many of these issues will be addressed.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

My Lords, it is clear that there is still no Minister with specific responsibility for ensuring coherence of effort across the MoD, FCO and DfID to combat violence against women internationally. Does the Minister think it is really possible to maximise efforts to combat violence against women without a Minister with explicit responsibility for diplomatic oversight and co-ordination?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the noble Baroness raises a crucial point, and I accept that the only woman in those three departments is me. However, I want to point out that all three departments take very seriously the issue of prioritising the role and position of women globally. I would urge the noble Baroness to have some faith in those Ministers and Secretaries of State. They know that there is a job to be done and, while they are male and may not understand all the tiny details, it is for us to educate them.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chair of Refuge, the domestic violence charity. Does the Minister accept that, in order to support women who are the subjects of domestic violence and children who are caught up in violent situations, highly specialist training and skills are required and that these need to be supported too?

[Baroness Verma]

My noble friend is absolutely right. That is why the more than £28 million we have earmarked is directed towards those specialist services to ensure that victims are given the best possible support.

[Baroness Rendell of Babergh]

My Lords, female genital mutilation is a cruel and barbarous form of violence against women. What action are the Government taking to put an end to female genital mutilation in this country, and what can be done to bring about a prosecution under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness for all her work in raising these issues. Some 66,000 women subject to FGM are living in England and Wales. We need to ensure that practitioners in front-line services are better informed so as to recognise that this practice is prevalent, particularly among certain communities. We need to be able to address these issues much earlier on so that victims feel confident that they will be given support once they have been raised.

[The Countess of Mar]

My Lords, is anger management a component of the management of people who are abusers?

[Baroness Verma]

The noble Countess raises an important issue which perhaps I need to take away. We know that there are many abuses which lead to domestic violence, and I am sure that anger management will be involved.

[Baroness Morris of Bolton]

My Lords, violence against women is abhorrent wherever it happens, but what is happening to women in the Congo on a daily basis is absolutely shameful. Do we have any specific programmes in the region?

[Baroness Verma]

My noble friend is right to say that it is abhorrent. Violence against women in the form of rape is taking place not just in the Congo but in many other countries. We will do our level best, through our international departments and working with other organisations, to ensure that those women receive the kind of support they require.

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the All-Party Group on Domestic and Sexual Violence and of the Corporate Alliance Against Domestic Violence. The noble Baroness rightly alluded to the commitment of the Government in relation to domestic violence advisers. Can I ask her about the specialist domestic violence courts and the Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference? She will know that the work of all these bodies has led to a reduction in domestic violence of 64 per cent. What do the Government intend to do in order to maintain the commitment of the last Government in relation to those additional resources?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, we are committed to ensuring that we have in place the best support systems for victims. Of course it means that it is necessary to review the current systems just to ensure that we are addressing the issues as fully as we can or whether we can address them better.

Sexual Assault Referral Centres

Thursday 25th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

11:25

Asked By

[Baroness Gould of Potternewton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to maintain and increase the services provided by Sexual Assault Referral Centres.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the Home Office and the Department of Health have allocated £2.2 million to new and existing SARCs this year to help increase and improve the services they offer to victims of rape. We have announced today in a Home Office publication, Call to End Violence against Women and Girls, that further Home Office funding to support the development of SARCs will be made available over the next spending review period. Further details will be announced in due course.

[Baroness Gould of Potternewton]

I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sorry that we are having this discussion when we have not yet seen the statement, which would have been very helpful. I am pleased that a further 13 SARCs will be established but perhaps I may probe a little further about the funding. The Minister indicated an allocation of £2.2 million but that is a legacy from the previous Government. What is the future funding going to be? Will it be direct government funding; will it be matched funding and, if so, what would be the consequence if locally it was not possible to match that funding; or will it be purely local funding? If either matched or local funding cannot be provided, are the Government prepared to allow SARCs either to close down or not be established?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

The noble Baroness is aware that SARCs are funded on a partnership basis between police forces and PCTs and that therefore the majority of funding already comes through local sources. The Stern report recommends that in future there should be partnerships between police forces, local health bodies and local government. Central funding, which will come out of the £28 million that my noble colleague has already announced over the next spending review period, is intended to assist, above all, in set up and development, and in encouraging areas of the country which do not yet have SARCs to have them. Beyond that, we see this as being very much a partnership between police forces and local health bodies.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, the Minister will know that follow-up work for victims of rape and sexual assault is often carried out through the voluntary sector. Voluntary organisations find it very difficult indeed to maintain their funding as they are often not seen sympathetically by the general public despite their services to victims. What support do the Government intend for the incest and rape support lines that give so much help to victims?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I should perhaps explain to noble Lords that SARCs—sexual assault referral centres—are part of the statutory sector and rape crisis centres are part of the voluntary sector, with additional funding from government bodies. We recognise that continuity of funding is a huge problem for voluntary bodies under all circumstances. Part of government efforts, both under the previous Government and this one—let us be clear that there are no partisan differences in the approach to this difficult area—involve raising public awareness and changing attitudes, both within the public services which deal with these issues and within the wider public. This will help to increase awareness and reporting and reduce the incidence of offences.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, the National Health Service makes a major contribution to these centres. Does he share my regret that the Department of Health is closing down its monitoring unit? Will he assure me that GP consortia will be instructed by the Government to continue funding these centres when primary care trusts are closed down?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, one of the underlying motifs of this Government is that central government does not always know best. Incidentally, I have been trying to discover over the past few days why it is that West Yorkshire does not yet have a SARC. The pattern of distribution over the country leaves some rather large holes in Yorkshire. There is much better provision elsewhere. Noble Lords will know, particularly if they have read this morning’s Guardian, that the oldest SARC—and in many ways the best SARC—operating is in Manchester. The centres are not evenly distributed around the country but certainly central government intends to give every encouragement possible for all local agencies, including local health bodies, to give every support to these centres, which provide a very valuable service.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether SARCs have helped to improve the rate of prosecution and conviction for rape and sexual assault and whether they have encouraged further reporting of assaults? Underreporting is notable.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, there have been some encouraging developments in this regard. I am told that the reporting of rapes has increased by some 16 per cent during the past year. We all know that the level of reporting is part of the problem. For cases which get to court, there is a 38 per cent conviction rate for rape and a 58 per cent conviction rate overall—people are often convicted for other offences but not for rape. There is movement in the right direction, but there is still much to be done.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that 44 per cent of children in custody report abuse, that 23 per cent of children in custody have been in local authority care and that one in three girls in custody reports sexual abuse? Will he discuss with his colleagues whether more of these girls in custody might go down the welfare route rather than the criminal justice route?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I am very happy to consult further on that.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, how will the Government ensure the continuation of funding for existing centres given the very large reductions in both police and local authority budgets within the area where many of the services are supported?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

The noble Baroness is aware that we are in difficult circumstances. We are giving every encouragement for all these local services to be continued. They are not cheap. The three SARCs operated within London cost £4 million between them. The excellent centre in Manchester costs £1 million. Most of them are partnerships between the police and local PCTs and are paid roughly 50 per cent by each.

Western Sahara

Thursday 25th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

11:33

Asked By

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether their assessment of the situation in the Western Sahara has altered following the visit of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Alistair Burt, to Algeria this month; and what progress they hope to make relating to the region during their presidency of the United Nations Security Council.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, my honourable friend Alistair Burt, the Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, had useful discussions in Algeria about Western Sahara, although these have not altered our overall assessment of the situation. We support UN-led efforts to resolve the dispute by encouraging the parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable solution. The progress of negotiations is slow, but we are committed to using our current presidency of the Security Council to advance a resolution. The Security Council convened on 16 November to discuss recent violence in the territory.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. Does he agree that one of the difficulties is lack of pressure from the rest of the world due to the virtual ban on journalists and politicians visiting the camps where the Saharawis suffer so much? Will he take further steps through our presidency of the UN Security Council to see that that ban is lifted? Will he also support the call of Amnesty International for an independent inquiry into the recent violence, in which an unknown number of people died?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I thank my noble friend for her question. Yes, we are pressing further for better access to the protest camps to see exactly what went on and we are looking at reports from those on the ground. As to an independent commission, we support the idea of a human rights monitoring mechanism. Exactly how it would work is yet to be decided, but our Government have put forward a series of options as to how a commission should operate in what the diplomats call a “non-paper”—a term which I never quite understand. We have made a series of suggestions about how we should carry forward a human rights monitoring mechanism and how it would work to bring better pressure to bear in line with what my noble friend suggests.

[Lord Chidgey]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware—to take his point further—that after the deferral of the informal talks at the UN, reports are coming back that probably 36 people were killed and more than 700 injured when Moroccan security forces broke up a protest camp of the Saharawi people in Western Sahara? Does he share my concern that after four visits to the region by the UN envoy, Christopher Ross, it seems that his efforts may well follow the same fate as those of the earlier special envoy, James Baker, who after four years saw his plans come to nothing? Finally, will the Government use their best efforts to ensure that the previous ideas are brought forward again—that is, to introduce an autonomous Western Sahara authority, with the idea of following it as soon as possible with a referendum on Saharawi independence?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

We most certainly share the concern, which is demonstrated by the fact that, as we have current presidency this November of the UN Security Council, we have made a special point of raising the issue and seeing how pressure can be applied. That is the right way forward, and we will proceed on that basis. Will my noble friend repeat his second point, because I want to answer it?

[Lord Chidgey]

I thank the Minister for that opportunity. I am seeking an assurance that the Government will press for the resurrection of the previous concept of the Baker plan, which was, first, to establish an autonomous Western Sahara authority, with a view to following that in due course with a referendum on independence for the Saharawi people.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

We want the referendum, but we do not make a prejudgment on the different solutions, of which autonomy would certainly be one. We want to see the Saharawi people of Western Sahara in a position to determine their own future via a referendum, whatever model then results. Certainly that is our aim.

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, can I help the Minister as to what a non-paper is? It is a document that sets out your policy without any commitment to be bound by it. Perhaps the best analogy is the Liberal Democrat manifesto at the last election.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am sure that the noble Lord’s vast diplomatic experience can be applied on a whole range of issues in all parties and all sides of the House, as well as in the political establishment generally. I am very grateful to him for explaining to me more clearly an area that I did know about, but with which he is more familiar than I am. When these phrases come up, I always want to establish exactly what they involve. In this case, the paper contains a very firm and useful series of suggestions about how we take the human rights monitoring mechanism forward, and I believe that it will form a basis for a more constructive approach than we have had generally in the past on this whole unhappy issue.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

Does my noble friend agree that this whole saga does not reflect very well on the United Nations organisation? It must be more than 15 years since I visited the temporary refugee camps in Algeria. Is there any news from the last visit that Mr Ross made to the region and the talks that went on in New York between the Polisario Front and the Moroccan Government earlier this month?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I do not think that there has been vast progress. I had the opportunity to have discussions with Ambassador Ross, and we talked about the disappointments of the past and the lack of progress made. The situation has now flared up again because of the camps and the violence to which my noble friend Lord Chidgey has just alluded, which has reinforced the need for a serious and stronger approach by the UN. We seek to strengthen UN involvement to bring this long-standing dispute to some kind of conclusion.

North Korea

Thursday 25th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

11:39

Asked By

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the implications of North Korea’s military action against the Republic of Korea.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I remind the House of my non-financial interest as the chairman of the British-North Korea All-Party Parliamentary Group.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, this was a completely unprovoked attack by North Korea on South Korean troops and civilians, which will lead only to further tensions on the Korean peninsula. Such belligerence by North Korea increases its international isolation. The North Korean regime has again demonstrated callous disregard for human life, for international law, and for its own interests. The Prime Minister spoke yesterday to the UN Secretary-General and to President Lee Myung-bak, about the need for the most effective possible international response.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is not this provocative and calculated act, the 150th breach of the armistice since 1958, a sobering reminder—along with the revelation at the weekend of an industrial complex for the enrichment of uranium—of the central importance of engaging China in finding a way forward? Otherwise, are we not likely to face a catastrophic conflict of the order of the one that occurred 60 years ago, when nearly 3 million people died on the Korean peninsula? Has the Minister had the opportunity to reflect on the recommendations in the report which I sent him following the visit to Korea by myself and my noble friend Lady Cox last month, especially on the importance of encouraging China to broker direct talks between North and South Korea with a view to concluding the war? There is neither war nor peace, merely a shaky armistice. Until the war is concluded, it is unlikely that progress on the six-party talks, which have now fallen by the wayside, on human rights or on any other question is likely to occur.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I think the noble Lord already knows that I have read his excellent report, which is a very useful contribution to putting the situation in perspective. Of course, China is in many ways the key to this. They are the ones who will have to decide how to act responsibly in relation to their troublesome neighbour and protégé. We believe that the main thrust is to get the six-party talks going again. They have faltered but they are the right way forward and we will do everything we can to assure, first, that there is the strongest possible response to this latest outrage and, secondly, that the six-party talks are started again so that we can begin to bring some sense to the actions of this unpredictable, erratic and dangerous regime.

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords—

[Lord Brett]

My Lords, from this side of the House I share the condemnation of the actions of the North Korean Government. Indeed, the Shadow Foreign Secretary issued a statement on that on Monday. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on what is, as the Minister already commented, their excellent report on their recent visit. Can the Minister amplify a little the role that Europe might play in this latest problem and how we might find a way to build some of those bridges? Does Europe have a part to play—again, with China and others—in trying to ensure that the six-party talks continue and that we bring some sense into what is a very dangerous situation?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Certainly, the EU’s voice and weight are always valuable in these situations but our main thrust, at the moment, is in concentrating on getting the six-party talks going. We are not members of those talks but we have an embassy in Pyongyang, as the noble Lord knows, which is a useful gathering and advisory point for this whole process. Perhaps I should elucidate that, at this moment in the United Nations, we are waiting for South Korea to call formally for a meeting of the Security Council—that is: the P5, plus Japan and South Korea, plus two. I believe that they are about to do that but it is a question of getting everything prepared and lined up so that there is a strong and effective response. That is what is going on at the moment but we will certainly consult and move closely with all our EU colleagues in seeing how they can reinforce and make more effective the overall situation.

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

Given the gravity of the present situation, my intervention may seem slightly starry-eyed. However, does my noble friend recall the formula put forward by that distinguished Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping for handling the Anglo-Chinese problems over Hong Kong: the forward proposition of one country, two systems? He may recall that but does he know that, quite apart from that, Deng Xiaoping more than once made plain to me his approach to the Korean problem? He thought that the same formula of one country, two systems might conceivably provide an approach towards resolving that problem as it existed even 20 years ago. Granted the dominant influence of China in this context and the fact that we have, as my noble friend said, had an embassy in Pyongyang for 10 years—but not the United States—is there not perhaps some scope for Her Majesty's Government in seeking to create a bilateral Sino-British initiative, which might contribute in a different way along the Deng Xiaoping lines towards not just a solution of the major problem but resolution of the six-party talks?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, of course I well recall the Hong Kong process, which has been successful and in which my noble and learned friend played a highly significant and effective part. We have lessons to learn from that and we should see how it could be applied. The difficulty here is that the performance of the North Korean regime is heavily under the influence of China, which would be in a position to bring a sense of responsibility to it. Furthermore, the two systems that we had in Hong Kong were a system as laid down by Beijing and our own patterns of moving towards democracy and anticorruption in Hong Kong. It was an admirable marriage of two systems. However, in this case, the system that is left in North Korea is not a very attractive one; in fact, it is highly unattractive and not in line with the insistence on more peaceful behaviour that is necessary in the region. So I listened closely to what my noble and learned friend said, as he has great wisdom and experience on these matters, but I do not see an immediate analogy or indeed a basis for advice to our friends in Beijing.

Business of the House

Thursday 25th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Timing of Debates

11:46

Moved By

[Lord Strathclyde]

That the debate on the motion in the name of Lord Young of Graffham set down for today shall be limited to 3½ hours and that in the name of Viscount Bridgeman to 1½ hours.

Motion agreed.

Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2010

Thursday 25th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2010

Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Appropriate Amount) (Amendment) Order 2010

Post Office Network Subsidy Scheme (Amendment) Order 2010

National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2010

Motions to Refer to Grand Committee

11:47

Moved By

[Lord Strathclyde]

That the draft Orders and Regulations be referred to a Grand Committee.

Motions agreed.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Thursday 25th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Order of Consideration Motion

11:47

Moved By

[Lord Strathclyde]

That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 6, Schedule 9, Clauses 7 to 19, Schedules 1 to 8, Schedules 10 and 11.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord McNally, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper. It may be helpful if I give the House a brief explanation because it replaces a Motion that had been tabled and was due to be agreed yesterday. However, following constructive discussions earlier this week with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the Government withdrew the original Order of Consideration Motion on the Bill, and we have now come forward with the revised Order of Consideration Motion before the House today. The noble and learned Lord made the case that the revised order of consideration would be for the benefit of the House as a whole in structuring discussion on the Bill and would help to speed its passage. I was happy to agree and I am sure that the whole House will be receptive to these propositions.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I express my gratitude to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his constructive approach to this. The revised Motion will help the constructive discussion of the Bill, which will require the responsible scrutiny that I know the House will give it. That scrutiny will necessarily be long, but I am sure that it will be worth while.

Motion agreed.

Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL]

Thursday 25th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Order of Consideration Motion

11:48

Moved By

[Lord Sassoon]

That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 3, Schedule 1, Clauses 4 to 20, Schedule 2, Clauses 21 and 22, Schedule 3, Clauses 23 to 26, Schedules 4 and 5, Clause 27, Schedule 6, Clauses 28 to 31.

Motion agreed.

Liaison Committee: Second Report

Thursday 25th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Motion to Agree

11:49

Moved By

[The Chairman of Committees]

That the Report from the Select Committee on new proposals for committee activity (2nd Report, HL Paper 61) be agreed to.

[The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)]

My Lords, the report sets out our recommendations on some suggestions for new committee activity. Two of these suggestions were ones that we had considered before, for a committee on regulation and a Joint Committee on the UK Statistics Authority. For the reasons set out in the report, we decided against recommending either of these suggestions to your Lordships. We thought that it would be difficult for any committee on regulation to scope and plan its work, and we had doubts about the impact that any inquiry would be likely to have, given the significant changes in the regulatory environment in train or in prospect. Nor did we renew our support for a Joint Committee on the statistics authority.

Since we last reported on this in 2008, the role of parliamentary oversight has been discharged primarily by the Public Administration Committee in the House of Commons. Given that scrutiny arrangements exist and that they appear to be working, we were unpersuaded of the case to seek to supplant them through the establishment of a different and more elaborate scrutiny mechanism.

The last proposal was for an ad hoc committee on HIV/AIDS in the United Kingdom, and this is the proposal that we commend to the House. Although we accept that there is no imminent deadline for an inquiry, we considered that it would be timely. We did not think that it should be too lengthy, so we recommend that an inquiry should be concluded by the Summer Recess next year.

Finally, as health policy is a devolved matter, we recommend that the scope of the inquiry is limited to issues of general relevance throughout the United Kingdom and does not extend into consideration of issues particularly to the devolved nations.

Motion agreed.

Health and Safety: Common Sense Common Safety

Thursday 25th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Debate

11:51

Moved by

[Lord Young of Graffham]

To call attention to the report to the Prime Minister Common Sense Common Safety on the operation of health and safety laws and the growth of the compensation culture; and to move for papers.

[Lord Young of Graffham]

My Lords, it has been some 21 years since I last opened a debate in your Lordships' House. Over these years, our House has changed, for many who used to grace your Lordships' House are, alas, no longer with us. However, one thing that I am certain has not changed is the courtesy and attention which all in your Lordships' House display towards our debate.

Towards the end of last year the Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, asked me to review the operations of health and safety laws and the compensation culture. I published my report on 15 October, after the Cabinet had accepted it in its entirety. I was continuing to work on the process of implementing the 40 or so recommendations across Whitehall. As many in your Lordships' House will know, that is no longer possible, but I have every confidence that the outstanding matters in my report will be implemented in full.

Let me begin by saying that due to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, one of the more successful pieces of legislation, this country has the lowest number of non-fatal accidents at work in the EU and the second lowest number of fatal accidents. This does not, of course, mean that we can afford to be complacent in any way about health and safety, and nothing in my report will reduce safeguards in hazardous occupations. My review deals only with non-hazardous activities, where the health and safety risks are very low but the level of bureaucracy is unacceptably high.

When I first started my work, I assumed, as perhaps many in your Lordships' House would assume, that this was somehow all to do with intrusive legislation emanating from Europe. Alas, I found that this was not so, for much was home-grown, often not because of any laws or regulations but because of the practices adopted by unqualified consultants and untrained health and safety officials in both the private and the public sector. Unfortunately, the sometimes excessive recommendations of an untrained consultant were often followed to the letter, not because the client believed that they were appropriate but because they feared that if they did not follow the advice, their accident insurance policy might in some way be defective. Their concern was heightened largely because of excessive advertising on daytime television and the radio by claims management companies that made them worry that they could be sued on the slightest pretext and have to pay massive damages. Indeed, if you consider the many ways in which government has enabled people to sue—the availability of no-win no-fee contracts, the availability of after-the-event insurance, the actions of the claims management companies that harvest claims in order to auction them off to the solicitor who will pay the most—the world would seem a very unfair place to many small and medium-sized companies.

My report came down firmly on the side of Lord Justice Jackson’s report on civil litigation costs. I am delighted that the Ministry of Justice announced last week that it had started consultations with a view to implementing the report. Lord Justice Jackson came out against the claims management companies and their excessive advertising. I look forward to the outcome of these consultations. In addition to the implementation of the Jackson report, my report recommended that we extend the road traffic accident scheme that was introduced earlier this year in respect of personal injuries arising from traffic accidents across all personal injury claims.

The great advantage of this simplified system is that it enables claims to be settled very quickly. It takes 18 months to settle a personal injury claim using the current system. As a result, it is highly likely that the claimant will not return to work until the case is settled, probably on the advice of their lawyer. In these circumstances, it is possible that the claimant may never return to work. The RTA scheme has demonstrated already that claims can be settled in as little as three to four months. Not only would we have the advantage of much lower costs, saving the National Health Service many tens of millions of pounds a year, but there would be an increased likelihood of the claimant returning to full-time work.

There are other concerns about the abuse of health and safety legislation. All too often it has been used as an excuse for inaction. There is the by now infamous case of the pancake race last Shrove Tuesday in St Albans, where a local authority health and safety official, who arrived just before the off, decided that, as it had rained the night before, he would stop the race. In the event, he let them proceed, provided that they walked the course. I had our lawyers look at this incident; they could not decide under what authority the official acted.

This is not a unique case. In the course of my inquiry we heard of many people who were concerned about the improper use of health and safety legislation. We have now agreed that, should this happen in the future, you can ask the official concerned to put his legal authority for the decision in writing. Any citizen will have the legal right to refer that case to the ombudsman, who has agreed to give an answer within a fortnight. If the event was cancelled without proper authority, the local authority will have to pay compensation. I do not believe there will be many cases of local authorities paying compensation, but it will make officials think twice or more before coming out with arbitrary decisions.

A further area of concern was the bureaucracy imposed on teachers. I found that if a teacher wished to take a class out, he or she had to complete a 12-page pack of forms eight weeks in advance and then get them signed off not only by his or her superior in the school but by the local education authority. This applied every time a teacher wanted to take a class out. Really, this has nothing to do with the safety of a class when it is out of school—that depends mainly on the vigilance of the teacher—but it is an additional and unnecessary burden on an already hard-pressed teacher. Now, all that will happen is that a pupil, when they commence school, will bring along a letter of consent to all sports and outings, signed by their parent or guardian. Of course, all parents will continue to have the right to withdraw their child from any particular trip or activity.

Another area has given rise to general concern. At the time of the heavy snows last February, much was stated in the press about the danger of clearing the snow in front of your house. It was widely stated that if you did so and someone had an accident, you could be liable. Nothing was further from the truth, for voluntary acts do not generally make you liable, but this is once again one of those areas where perception becomes reality. My report recommends that we legislate to make this absolutely clear. I hope, and anticipate, that space will be found this Session in which to do so.

When I travelled round the country, I also found that local authorities were sending their health and safety inspectors to exactly the same premises to which they were sending their Food Standards Agency inspectors. As a result of my report two things will happen. First, I recommend that we merge food inspectors and health and safety inspectors so that each visit covers both areas. Secondly, we are introducing a scheme that will encourage every restaurant and store selling open food to display the results of their inspection at the entrance, and all premises will be marked on a score from five down to zero. I recommend that noble Lords do not go near a restaurant with a score of zero, for about 1 million people a year suffer from food poisoning, some 20,000 end up in hospital and, alas, some 500 die. I believe that such a scheme would provide upward pressure on standards, as has been found to be the case in California where there is a scheme of this nature. It is voluntary for the first year, but should the uptake not be satisfactory we have agreed to make it compulsory. I hope that it will operate in time for the Olympics as it would be a great boon to our tourist industry.

I have covered only a few of the 40 or so recommendations contained in my report. There have been few criticisms of the report’s content, save perhaps from a small minority of personal injury lawyers. I hope that over the next year the report’s various provisions will come into effect and that health and safety will become less of a joke and resume its rightful place in the protection of people in the workplace. It is probably too soon to say but it is my impression that over the past few weeks there have been far fewer stories about health and safety in the press—I have noticed one or two other stories as well—but only time will tell. I beg to move.

12:03

[Lord Bhattacharyya]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Young, for securing this debate. In politics, it sometimes seems that the greatest health and safety risk is the act of thinking aloud. However, it is only by risking controversy that we achieve anything. I am glad that the noble Lord speaks his mind, because too often politics is governed by caution, not frankness.

I declare an interest as director of Warwick Manufacturing Group and as an engineer who has long been concerned with product design and industrial processes. As a young engineer, I remember developing systems to prevent machine operatives from developing posture problems, so avoiding the back injuries and arthritis that manifested themselves 20 or 30 years later. Indeed, the whole subject of industrial ergonomics sprang from research into safety at work. It was not a joke but an ally in building a better workplace and improving productivity, so how did “elf’n’safety” become a national bugbear alongside the jobsworth and the traffic warden? I believe that the answer is a lack of balance. Health and safety regulation becomes unbalanced when processes designed for hazardous activities are applied to low-risk environments.

In many ways, the emergence of a health and safety-conscious society has been a success. Even in the past decade, as the noble Lord mentioned, the number of fatal injuries at work has declined. The Labour Force Survey identifies a fall of 45 per cent in non-fatal injuries. That is good news. There have been fewer deaths and fewer injuries. Only half the reduction in fatalities is due to the changing nature of British industry. It is improved safety that makes up the rest of the difference.

Where you see good, well established manufacturing businesses with high productivity and quality control, you invariably also find a strong health and safety record. At Jaguar Land Rover, more than 50 people are employed specifically to work on health and safety. This is not a legal requirement. The managers simply see it as part of good business practice. We need a broader culture of partnership between business and health and safety inspectors. In hazardous occupations, this is happening. The HSE makes it a priority to work with industry groups such as the Confederation of British Metalforming to produce sensible advice for companies. For example, the Manufacturing Technologies Association contributed to the HSE’s work on standards for safety in machine tools.

Sadly, once you leave the shop floor and go to the small business, the office or the village hall, the reputation of health and safety plummets. After all, health and safety originated in industry; that was where the problem was. It is tempting to see this as a result of media exaggeration. Yes, many of the stories that we hear are myths, but the myths persist for a reason. In yesterday’s Birmingham Mail, there was a story about “topple tests” in a local cemetery. These tests apply pressure to gravestones to see if they fall over. Families whose gravestones fell down were charged £500 for repairs. The Government, the Health and Safety Executive and the industry body all said that these tests were not needed, but they went ahead anyway. It is this sort of activity that gives health and safety a bad name.

We need a proportionate management of risk. Studies have shown that, for a pilot, even the slightest change in a display can have a major impact on safety. The same is not true in most offices and small businesses, yet too often the same level of risk avoidance is demanded. As a result, nearly 40 per cent of small businesses say that health and safety regulations are an obstacle to success. For many small businesses, a fear of being sued for negligence, as the noble Lord mentioned, leads them into a twilight world of misleading information and overfussy guidance.

Often, these policies come not from government but from the small army of consultants who advise businesses on workplace safety. For small businesses, those independent consultants are the main source of information on health and safety. Many are reputable, but some have little interest in making the regulations understandable. The more confusion there is in the interpretation of regulations, the greater is the need for consultancy. It can be nothing more than a gravy train. This leads to high cost. The Better Regulation Executive reported that avoiding pointless health and safety advice could save small businesses £140 million a year.

The solution is clarity and simplicity, not laxer safety rules. We should make it simple for businesses to do their duty by taking reasonable steps to prevent risk. I therefore support the report’s proposal of 20-minute checklists for offices, shops and charities. They should provide clarity that this is all that is required from business. Next, we need to ensure that independent consultants offer good, straightforward advice. Today, the HSE recruits inspectors from industry and puts them through training that provides an understanding of business needs. The report suggests a qualification requirement for consultants, with the HSE taking the lead in validation. I agree. I further suggest that it would be sensible to use the HSE’s existing framework of training as the basis of such a qualification.

The crisis of health and safety in this country is not one of legislation; as the report says, our legislation is effective. It is not one of fatalities or injuries, on which our record is excellent. The crisis is one of communication, complexity and consultants. To change that, we need simple rules and easily understood, common-sense regulation, not gold-plated regulation. Therefore, I entirely agree with the report, which I would like to see supported and implemented fully.

12:10

[Lord German]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Young for his report and, in particular, for the wide range of aspects that it covers because of the range of interests that have to be accommodated in this very complex process, which needs to be simpler. A good health and safety regime must be able to get the balance right, and it is that balance that I will talk about first. Two watchwords that have been mentioned already are protection and proportion: the need to protect people in the workplace and to provide a proportionate response to risk. Getting the balance right between risk and the cost of precaution is the important challenge for us all.

Of course, saving lives and preventing injury must be in the forefront of everything that we do. In practice, as we all know, many people are getting the balance wrong. We have heard indications of that this morning. Some people are going too far, which leads to the sort of myths that we have regularly heard about and seen. We have just heard about pancakes. I suspect that many noble Lords will remember the story about mortarboards. Metro reported that students on graduation were not allowed to throw their mortarboards into the air, for fear that the sharp points might damage their heads when they came down. Just this month, the Liverpool Daily Post reported that potted plants would not be permitted because they were a health hazard. On the other hand, although these are myths, people are still being hurt in easily preventable accidents because not enough has been done to ensure safety. We need to draw the right balance.

I am very glad that my noble friend stated that the problem is not health and safety legislation, but its application and interpretation. He said that, alas, he could not find a problem with European legislation, and I hope that he and his colleagues will take that to heart. It is not European legislation but perhaps its transposition to the UK that is sometimes at fault. The noble Lord, Lord Bhattacharyya, talked about gold plating. Sometimes we have difficulty identifying gold plating in legislation that has been transposed. Are we providing a belt and braces or adding extra things that do not need to be there? Perhaps the Minister will comment on these issues.

My one concern about the report is the emphasis that it places firmly and primarily on the demands and pressures that health and safety legislation imposes on business. I would have preferred a report in which first principles were laid out: a discussion at the head of the report laying out the key issues, such as the purpose of such legislation and how we achieve a proportionate response. One thing missing, I find, is an indication of how many opportunities are lost in life as a result of the legislation—in particular, the play opportunities for young people, many of which have been lost because of health and safety concerns. These overarching issues are raised in the report, so it is a matter of emphasis and where they occur. I welcome the fact that the report covers the issues, but the emphasis is strongly on business, which unbalances the detailed arguments.

I agree that, in that balance, there must be a smaller burden on small and medium-sized enterprises. The compensation culture, with its no-win, no-fee cheques, must be curbed, but we must balance this with a life and injury-saving safety culture in all places of work. Worker safety is a serious matter that risks being trivialised by the often-quoted tales, some of which I referred to just now, which are reported frequently in the media and often turn out to be absolute myths.

However, as with many aspects of life and society—and the noble Lord said this at the outset—perception is all. Perception of a compensation culture has made business fearful of being sued. That perception has been fuelled by aggressive advertising and, for example, by those firms that make it their business to scan road traffic accident and court reports so that they can approach the injured party to seek business. I have no idea how successful such firms are in getting business, but it is clear to me that, if such approaches did not provide an income for claims firms and the associated legal companies that take on the cases, those firms would not engage in this sort of cold-canvass advertising, so there must be a profit in it. The recommendation to which the noble Lord referred for a simplified system for personal injuries in accidents of this sort is very much to be welcomed.

I want to touch on a couple of specific issues. The first concerns training for consultants. It is very important that we provide a qualification structure for those who work in this area. One of the consequences of having a partly unqualified workforce in this area is that people who are unqualified are likely to say, “Let’s strip out all risk from the workplace”, when in fact that is not quite straightforward and it is certainly not the intention behind the legislation.

Secondly, I want to say one or two words of caution about combining local authority health and safety and food safety inspectors. I draw on my experience of the E. coli outbreak in south Wales last year and the subsequent Pennington review, which made it quite clear that there were major faults in the food safety regime. I want to make sure that we do not lose those sorts of skills by combining functions.

Overall, however, I welcome the report. The challenge for the Government now must be to produce a well-rounded response—I am sure that they will do so—that looks beyond the report’s emphasis on the cost to business and takes a wide perspective on the issues raised as a whole. Therefore, when the Minister comes to sum up the debate, I would welcome his views on the need for a multifocused response.

12:17

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Young, on initiating this debate and I welcome his report. I have to admit that my contribution will be devoted to one issue that is deeply affected by three of his recommendations, which propose: a shift from a system of risk assessment to a system of risk-benefit assessment; a review of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act to separate play and leisure from the workplace context; and the abolition of the Adventure Activities Licensing Authority and the replacement of such licensing with a code of practice. I note with interest that the Adventure Activities Licensing Authority is not one of the organisations threatened with abolition or merger in the Public Bodies Bill.

As I have said before in this House, the only raw material that every nation has in common is its people and woe betide a nation if it does not do everything possible to identify, nurture and develop the talents of its people—all its people—because, otherwise, it will have only itself to blame if it fails. For the past 15 years, I have been working with those at the bottom of the national pack—namely, offenders and those at risk of offending. You often find that they have been neglected in a whole variety of ways, including by parents and schools, but when notice is taken of them and opportunities are put their way, they seize them and demonstrate abilities that can be harnessed and developed to the benefit not only of themselves but of the communities in which they live. At the heart of that process is challenging people to do things that they did not think they could do, because the resulting self-esteem is the key to further progress. Many of the challenges involve risk.

Here, I declare an interest as a member of the advisory board of Youth at Risk, which is an organisation involved in providing those challenges. For several years, Youth at Risk has been working in the hardest of inner-city areas and in young offender institutions. For the past three years, it has been running community transformation programmes for 10 local councils across the United Kingdom that are designed to work with young people at risk of poor outcomes. During this time, the organisation has worked with more than 1,700 young people and 2,200 adults, of whom 100 per cent reported that they were able to develop more stable relationships, 63 per cent said that their self-esteem had been improved and 75 per cent reported that they were more able to support others. Typically, those young people included 80 per cent with behavioural, social and/or emotional problems; 60 per cent who were involved in gangs; and 30 per cent who were involved in gun and knife crime.

The evaluation found that the programme successfully engages with vulnerable young people, who engage because they are inspired by the opportunity to change their lives. The statistics prove that they are more determined to achieve as a result. At the same time, the programme has been rolled out in schools and now works with young people who have challenging behaviour that is destructive to their and others’ learning. The programme looks after those whose self-esteem, belief and aspirations need development as well as very able pupils who are at risk of becoming young offenders. All that has been summed up in a poem by two young participants of which I would like to quote one verse:

“Ready to work together so that we might stand tall,

We've learned all about pride before a fall.

As I said there’s no us and them, there’s no square,

LIFE IS A RISK THAT WE ARE WILLING TO DARE.

Like the challenge course, life is no breeze;

We’re about bringing mountains to their knees”.

Despite all that evidence, the sad fact is that Youth at Risk is having to withdraw its programme from one of the councils because the health and safety restrictions being imposed in effect remove the ability to undertake any form of challenging programme that contains the slightest risk. However, the results of overcoming fear and surmounting challenges are clear for all to see. If ever there was an example of the truth of an unenforceable rule that I found displayed on an Army notice board, “A breach of common sense is a breach of the rules”, this is it.

Like other noble Lords who have had the privilege of visiting our Armed Forces in operations in Iraq or Afghanistan, I came back exhilarated and humbled by that experience. The Armed Forces demonstrate very clearly how today's young people respond to challenge and risk. What do those responsible for taking risk out of their lives think about the impact on the future of our country of risk-averse generations? As the Prime Minister says in his report,

“We simply cannot go on like this”.

Of course, health and safety is important but the collective madness that is daily exercised in its name is not only a breach of common sense but is endangering our present and our future.

I hope that the recommendations in the report will be actioned as swiftly as possible before yet more community transformation programmes have to be cancelled. Organisations such as Youth at Risk are performing a job of national importance. Woe betide us if we do not do everything that we can to support them and to prevent what they are doing for our present and our future being itself put at risk by all the unnecessary restrictions, which are so clearly described by the noble Lord, Lord Young, in his admirable report.

12:24

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, Members of the House may be aware that I chair a task force looking into the red-tape burdens on small charities and voluntary groups. In our work, we come across some of the themes to which my noble friend has referred in his report. Therefore, I congratulate him on at least three grounds: first, for having pulled the threads together of a highly complicated matter in a commendably brief and to-the-point report; secondly, for not just stating the problem, which is the easy bit, but for coming forward with some practical suggestions for solutions and ways forward; and, thirdly, for not showing slavish opposition to regulation because regulation has a place, but equally for dealing with the question of myth busting. Problems can lie not just with the regulator but with the regulatee and the enforcement agencies. However, there is a problem, and my noble friend is right to have highlighted it. Last Friday, on a visit to one of the schools in the Lord Speaker’s outreach programme, I mentioned my role and was told, “We’ve just had all our mechanical pencil sharpeners removed because portable appliances have to be tested every year, ours haven’t been tested, and therefore they’ve had to be taken out of service”. There is a problem.

In the research we are doing for my report, one of the basic questions we are asking ourselves is: what stops a person volunteering or becoming a trustee? There is no simple answer to that. Some people say time, some say family pressures, some say business pressures, but behind them all lies the frequently expressed concern about being sued or becoming involved in litigation. Some will argue that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear and the law will support you in due course, but the fact of the matter is that for the non-lawyer, the time lapse between the offence and coming to court, the potential costs, the psychological pressure—your wife saying, “Darling, is our house at risk?”—and the uncertainty about the outcome remain, rightly or wrongly, major disincentives.

This argument also fails to take into account the inequality of arms that appears to have grown up between prosecution and defence in recent years. While I entirely accept that we must ensure appropriate access to justice for our fellow citizens, the present risk-free approach has played a major role in the growth of what my noble friend and others have described as the compensation culture. For me, the combined effect of conditional fee arrangements, claims management companies and after-the-event insurance appears almost entirely malign. I hope that the Government will follow up the recommendation in my noble friend’s report, at least in this aspect.

The elephant in room, to which some noble Lords have already referred, is a major issue in the background of our deliberations. It is risk. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that zero risk is not only unattainable but, if it were attainable, it would be undesirable. If our society is to have any dynamism or creativity, an element of risk is essential. I do not think I am alone in that view; many commentators support it. We need to have a mature public debate about the level of risk that our society is prepared to accept. We need to have this debate away from the appalling emotional pressure of specific events. As a parent, one can only sympathise with other parents faced with the dreadful injury or death of a child. The regret, sadness and anger lead to media campaigns—and sometimes, I regret to say, to some opposition activity—which place great pressure on the politicians of the day to do something.

We need to think about the aspects of the risk equation. There is the knee-jerk regulation, the stable door and the bolted horse but, more importantly, there is the referred risk. Noble Lords will be familiar with the idea of referred pain, where you pull your back in one place but the pain shows itself in another place. Risks are transferred. Noble Lords will recall that there was a bad crash at Hatfield in Hertfordshire in October 2000. A train travelling north at 125 miles an hour came off the rails and four people were killed and 70 were injured. Railtrack found that the crash was the result of the fragmentation of the track as the train passed over it, so speed limits of about 20 miles an hour were imposed. Trains were delayed and cancelled and, as a result, people ceased to travel by train and travelled by road instead. Road travel is much more dangerous than rail travel, and actuaries will tell you that as a result of that in the 30 days after the Hatfield crash five more people died on the roads than would have done in normal circumstances, so we need to think about what shutting off one particular risk may cause in another area.

Another aspect of this is the impact on the social fabric of our society, on the giver as well as the receiver of a service—a social service perhaps. Not only is the receiver of the service deprived of something that he or she would like, but the giver, seeking to put something back into society and to do something for their fellow citizen, is equally deprived. We need to find a way to distinguish between systemic risks leading to a need for regulation and what, in that rather unfortunate but nevertheless accurate phrase of Donald Rumsfeld, can be described as “stuff happens”.

Finally, we need to consider the impact of regulation and the regulatory burden on the destruction and undermining of people’s confidence in their own judgment. Someone might say to you, “It has been covered by the Health and Safety Executive; it has been covered by the Criminal Records Bureau”, as if this absolves them of further responsibility. The fact is that it does not change the risk; it has merely altered the responsibility for it. If my noble friend’s report begins to redress that balance and to restore self confidence, it will not have been a report in vain.

12:30

[Lord Sugar]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for having initiated this debate. I am sure that, like me, having spent many years in business and industry, he is somewhat frustrated at how the adherence to some of the health and safety regulations has impacted on the normal day-to-day running of businesses, small and large, to such an extent that in some cases it may become counterproductive or burdensome.

We find ourselves with a host of rules and regulations in the workplace, where, to put it bluntly, it sometimes feels as if the world has gone mad. I appreciate that the introduction of these regulations was designed to reduce the number of accidents and deaths in the workplace, which in turn would, for example, prevent loss of work hours and save costs to the NHS, but as with all new regulations there is a spin-off or side-effect. It relates to the new industries that sprout up commercially to exploit vulnerabilities that exist in companies, small and large, that strive to be compliant.

I refer, first, to the so-called health and safety consultants or experts. Your Lordships may be surprised to hear that there is no mandatory qualification required to call oneself a health and safety consultant. Indeed, any of your Lordships could become one, which in itself tells a story. In many cases, the advice given is no more than common sense. There is a lack of awareness. For example, the Business Link website offers excellent advice and guidelines as well as checklists where companies can see what they need to do to be compliant. Despite that, companies employ these so-called experts to give advice and in many cases there is an overkill scenario in order to justify high charges.

Compliance has highlighted certain areas or facets in businesses that can expose people to financial claims. In some cases, the cost of indemnity insurance or extra staffing has made certain parts of businesses unviable. The cost of liability insurance has rocketed, particularly for small companies that carry out some form of physical work or service, such as hairdressers, restaurants and builders. Running a small business now not only requires the focus on competitiveness of the general day-to-day running of the business, but also gives rise to the burden of worrying about possible claims, which in some cases could even bankrupt these small companies or seriously damage them financially.

This brings me to my next topic—the compensation culture that has been referred to. I referred earlier to industries sprouting up and one such industry is claim management companies. They advertise on TV implying that they can get consumers substantial amounts of money for injuries that they have sustained. To add insult to injury, some of them are simply brokers who sell their inquiries on to solicitors; they are not solicitors themselves. I point out here that National Accident Helpline is not one of those organisations.

The legal system in this country was one that we could be proud of compared to the ambulance-chasing activities of our cousins in the United States. However, since, I believe, 1999, it has been possible for lawyers here to work on a contingency basis offering a no-win no-fee basis to their clients. While this change had some genuine and positive merit in assisting deserved causes, like all things it has been exploited in most cases to bring derisory claims against companies.

The issue concerns claims from a certain breed of people, some of whom have had the seed of an idea to make a claim planted in their minds from those terrible adverts that they see on TV. The mechanism, as I am sure your Lordships will know, is that the client becomes somewhat irrelevant in the overall scheme of things. The client is simply a catalyst among the solicitors, the claim management companies and the new breed of litigation insurers. It is the client from whom these people make their money. Once equipped with a client, these people become a massive thorn in the side of companies that have substantial assets or their own indemnity insurance. I do not wish to get into too much detail on what contingency lawyers charge, but it is near to outrageous that they can in some cases get double their normal fee.

However, most claims end up being settled by negotiation. Despite knowing that the claim is derisory, companies recognise that to defend it fully will cost a lot and those costs are not recoverable on victory, as the plaintiff usually has no assets. Commercial decisions are made by defending companies that have learnt that fighting on principle is simply bad for the balance sheet. The new breed of these—I am sorry to call them this—vulture-type lawyers knows this only too well, as do some insurers. It is almost a licence to print money if you can convince a member of the public to make a claim. I have even heard of members of the public being paid a modest fee of, say, £500 up front if they agree to become a plaintiff.

Something has to be done about these rogues. The Government should, first, examine what the Advertising Standards Authority can do. I am sure that, if they so desire, they can tighten up the regulations as to what promises can be made and make advertisers issue warnings in the advert to the effect that they are not lawyers and that bringing false claims is an offence. Perhaps, more importantly, there needs to be reform in the law. The Law Society needs to clamp down on some of these unethical lawyers and set some examples. Dare I suggest that, if it was ever possible to make those lawyers responsible themselves to pay for abortive costs when they lose a derisory claim, it would, I can assure your Lordships, kill off this industry in one fell swoop?

12:38

[Lord Brougham and Vaux]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for introducing this important debate and I declare my various non-paid interests as president of the National Health and Safety Groups Council, president of the London Health and Safety Group, vice-president of RoSPA, having been its president 24 years ago, and, finally, honorary vice-president of the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, as well as having close links with other organisations in the field of health and safety.

I take this opportunity to thank IOSH for its continued sponsorship of RoSPA’s annual health and safety awards schemes, which are held in May in Birmingham and in September in Glasgow. This year, over three days, RoSPA gave out more than 1,700 health and safety awards, with 1,000 people attending the banquets on three consecutive evenings, compared to the handful of awards that we gave out in my time at the Guildhall over a lunch. We are very grateful for that continued support.

I know from discussions with IOSH that it welcomes the Government’s review. It is not before time that we have a national debate on health and safety to help to clear the confusion and the negativity surrounding this profession and to restore its good name as a foundation block for a successful and confident society. It would like the public focus to be on the serious issues of preventing injury, illness and death through work activities, rather than the trivial nonsense we read about all too often in some sections of the media.

However, questions are raised in my noble friend’s report, Common Sense Common Safety. These include whether a drive to cut red tape will mean a cut in standards in health and safety. IOSH fully supports any effort to rein back on unnecessary bureaucracy, but in the weeks and months ahead the welfare of workers is on the line. We are told that this is a time of austerity and a time when the Government are looking at managers to cut costs and for entrepreneurs to set up the new, fledgling businesses of tomorrow. Has it ever been more critical, then, to protect people at work?

I refer to those people who take on new tasks and responsibilities in a downsizing organisation or those trying to get a new business off the ground and learning new skills on a tight budget. Enterprise is to be encouraged, but surely not at any cost. It is one of our country’s great achievements that it has one of the best health and safety records in Europe. This success has been built on a strong legal framework, a steadfast enforcer of standards in the Health and Safety Executive and an unstinting commitment by dedicated health and safety professionals to maintaining standards.

How, when the HSE faces a cut in its budget, will it handle an increase in its workload? How, when health and safety is so widely misunderstood, can improvements be made in educating people about the real issues that we face in protecting them from illness or injury at work? How, in this environment of cost-cutting and streamlining, will business afford the same safety levels for its workers? My noble friend’s report details his own views on how to make things easier for organisations to address health and safety, making it less bureaucratic and time-consuming, but IOSH would like to see greater clarity on how this would happen without compromising health and safety standards. Here, the devil is in the ambiguity. IOSH looks forward to working with the Government to scrutinise the proposed health and safety legislation and to address what should be our first concern: how to keep people healthy and safe at work in the difficult months and years ahead.

12:42

[Baroness Donaghy]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate this subject. As author of a report for the previous Government last year on the underlying causes of construction fatal accidents, I see that the noble Lord, Lord Young, has tried to cut the Gordian knot in some of the same areas that I tackled: the role of insurance companies, the gold-plating by some paid health and safety consultants, and the need for a common set of qualifications for health and safety consultants. In my contribution, I want to make a distinction between paid consultants and unpaid health and safety representatives, which I think is an important one. I pay tribute to the hundreds of thousands of trade union health and safety representatives who, over the years and with little appreciation, have helped to keep our workplaces safe. In the discussion about proportionality and the need to do something about the jobsworth mentality and the killjoys, let us not forget that important work still needs to be done by unpaid volunteers who keep our thoughtlessness and carelessness in check.

Reading between the lines of the noble Lord’s report, I suspect he faced the same difficulty as me in pinning down insurance companies as to their role and responsibilities. I was conscious that there was insufficient published information on which to base reliable conclusions for my report, except to say that the issues are worthy of further exploration. I refer to discount schemes and safety incentives, and the possible sponsorship by insurance companies of safety advisers. Insurance is a highly competitive industry with specialist insurance covering large construction markets and low-margin premiums for the bottom end. It is a cutthroat business, but that does not absolve insurers from their responsibilities in this area. If the recommendations in the noble Lord’s report succeed in winkling out more co-operation from the insurance industry, he will indeed have performed a valuable service.

The report also touches on the accreditation of paid health and safety consultants and recommends a process to ensure that assessments are proportionate. During the six months I spent drawing up the report on the construction industry, I met 175 representations of organisations with an interest in the industry. It did not take me long to realise that there are well established organisations with long and honourable traditions of health and safety—dare I say entrenched?—which makes any progress slow and difficult. Of course the possession of a common accreditation or a common core of agreed standards, which might be more achievable, does not guarantee proportionality. Indeed, proportionality is unlikely to be achieved when there is money to be made. There are too many seagulls around this particular liner.

I was reassured by the noble Lord’s words in the executive summary that none of the recommendations applies to hazardous occupations,

“where the present system … is nevertheless effective in reducing accidents at work”.

I hope that the Government will keep their foot on the pedal when it comes to the construction industry. Although we claim that we are among the best in the world, it is a matter of shame that, through accidents at work, we kill between 40 and 100 construction workers every year. Last month, in the course of one week alone, seven construction workers died in separate accidents. The underreporting of accidents under the regulations—RIDDOR—is a national scandal, and I hope that the report’s recommendations on this area will improve matters. However, I do not have time to go into the detail of this.

Each death is a family tragedy. I spent time last year with six families who all felt as if the whole system was against them. To make fun of “elf ‘n safety” in their company or to talk about the compensation culture would have been a sick joke. If proportionality is to work, we must take much more seriously the issue of fatalities in the construction sector.

I refer also to occupational health. Far more workers die from the chronic effects of ill health caused by or made worse at work. Some 20 tradesmen—electricians, plumbers and so on—die every week from asbestos-related disease. In addition, 12 construction workers die each week from silica-related lung cancer. That is 32 workers a week, which means that one worker will have died during this debate. I make a plea to the Government to keep the pressure up on prevention.

Some marvellous work is being done by large and small construction companies, as well as by the trade associations, in partnership with the Health and Safety Executive, to prevent fatalities and accidents at work. It is not sufficient for the HSE to revert to being the policeman for health and safety, because it simply does not have the resources to carry out that role effectively. Working with companies and key trade associations to change the culture is the most effective way for the future. Those companies that concentrate on prevention show, by their record, that on the whole this works. Do not let us wait for blood on the concrete before taking action.

Finally, I referred earlier to the attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Young, to cut the Gordian knot. As noble Lords will know, Gordius, king of Phrygia, tied an intricate knot that supposedly could be undone only by the future ruler of Asia. Along came Alexander the Great, who cut it with his sword. If the noble Lord’s report brings some proportionality into health and safety while upholding the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and thus saving lives, he will truly be an Alexander.

12:49

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate and to mention something which I hope falls fair and square within the scope of the admirable report of the noble Lord, Lord Young, but which is not explicitly mentioned in it. I refer to the health and safety aspects of the use—or, rather, the lack of use—of many hydrotherapy pools and the specialist equipment in them, and the disturbing evidence which the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign is amassing that shows what a widespread problem it is. I declare an interest as a vice-president of that organisation.

I am grateful to Mr Mark Field from Droitwich for getting to the bottom of how the perceived problem of health and safety is causing many hydrotherapy pools to stand empty when they could be helping so many people, in particular children with incurable, progressive conditions. Mark Field is the father of Murray, who has Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Mark is also the health and safety manager for a small manufacturing company in the West Midlands. He has held this position for a number of years and holds a 2008 national general certificate in occupational health and safety—July 2006 specification. Mr Field is no chancer and has a great deal of respect for health and safety legislation, which is there of course, as we have heard, to protect both the working population and the general public. However, he is convinced that some companies and organisations—including, I fear, the NHS—use certain legislation to hide behind.

The typical response from an organisation wishing to protect or limit access to its hydrotherapy pool is to say that the pool cannot be used because there are no staff available and health and safety policy precludes its use by anyone other than a competent member of staff, or because there are no trained staff available and the health and safety policy precludes use by untrained personnel. I shall cite two good examples from the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign. Brislington Enterprise College is a newly built school in Bristol with a hydrotherapy pool. It was built under PFI, which was supposed to allow community use at weekends and holidays. However, once built, the contractor said that that could not happen because of health and safety issues. In another case, in Essex, a muscular dystrophy patient said: “I’ve been frustrated by the failings of the NHS to provide hydrotherapy and suitable physiotherapy. I was referred several years ago but the local NHS hydrotherapy pool was out of use for two years. When it reopened I was told staff could not help me due to health and safety regulations”.

So what can be done? According to Mr Field, a simple change to the company’s or organisation’s health and safety policy is needed to allow competent persons, either employees or non-employees, to use the pool and equipment, such as hoists, after a short instruction course by the organisation. Parents of boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, for instance, are very well versed in how hoists work as they have to use them all the time. They have already received training in the use of lifting and hoisting equipment and, although hoists and lifts can vary in their design, I am sure that they do not change very much. The organisation could even charge a small fee for training competent people to use the equipment. I am sure the parents and helpers of children with severe mobility problems would be willing to get together to minimise the cost. I do not expect my noble friend the Minister who is to reply to the debate to know whether this may be a feasible way forward—although I do know that he is a swimmer—but I would be grateful for a reply in writing later, perhaps with a copy for the Library. I should make it clear, having said he is a swimmer, that I think hydrotherapy pools would be far too warm for him.

Following on from my Oral Question on Tuesday about hydrotherapy, there is general agreement that the need is very great and that it is a terrible waste for many of these wonderful pools to be lying empty for much of the day because of the lack of trained staff. If this small change was made to a company’s or organisation’s health and safety policy, and more competent people were thereby authorised to enable those who need hydrotherapy to use these pools, what a breakthrough that would be.

12:55

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, it has become something of a convention in maiden speeches to acknowledge the friendliness and assistance which new Peers receive on arrival in your Lordships’ House. I express my own thanks not because of the convention but because of my sincere appreciation of the many instances of help and guidance that I have received from all the staff, some of whom I know from Committee Rooms 1 and 2 in a rather different capacity. Noble Lords, when spotting a lost figure, have been quick to engage and I have been the recipient of much good advice. I know that many noble Lords consider that the House is overcrowded and even that there should be a moratorium on further appointments, but they do not let it show.

Some have expressed polite curiosity about me, and it may assist if I give the House some brief answers to questions that might be posed. My name is pronounced “Faulks”—as in “Old Folks at Home”—thereby distinguishing me from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. The physical resemblance I bear to the novelist Sebastian Faulks is not a coincidence—I am his brother—and in answer to a possible supplementary question, sadly I have not, unlike many noble Lords who are here and those who are shortly to arrive, written novels. The limit of my published output is as a contributing editor to the snappily entitled Local Authority Liability—not much chance of a film there.

I said that I had received much local advice from noble Lords. However, on the subject of maiden speeches, that advice was by no means consistent. By some I was told that as it is not necessary to be particularly relevant, and certainly not controversial, it might be better to choose a subject I know little about. That left me with quite a lot of choice. However, the compensation culture is a subject with which I do have some familiarity. I declare an interest as a practising barrister who has spent the past quarter of a century defending increasingly imaginative claims brought against public authorities. I was also a special adviser to the Department for Constitutional Affairs on the compensation culture in 2005 and 2006.

In that context, as an outsider to Westminster I was very impressed by the wide-ranging nature of the inquiry and the consensus that emerged despite party differences. The conclusion was that there was not in truth a compensation culture but rather the perception of one. One of the results was the passing of the Compensation Act 2006, which declared that judge-made law was indeed the law and put the language of the House of Lords Judicial Committee into statutory form. It is not legislation that is often relied upon in court. Legislation is not always the answer, or certainly not the complete answer.

However, the compensation culture, whether based on hard facts or on perception, remains an important issue, with its stultifying effect on so much that is good about our society. I very much welcome the report of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, full as it is of eponymous common sense.

One of the report’s many merits is the broad-ranging implementation strategy. The role of legislation is only one part of this; indeed, it is a battle to be fought on many fronts. The report recognises the tawdry and unedifying aspects of personal injury litigation that have developed—the crude advertising, referral fees and the fact that too often claims become about costs rather than the merits of the case. All these are an embarrassment to most lawyers, and I welcome the suggestions in the report that should reduce, or indeed eliminate, many of the more unattractive features of the compensation landscape.

Another strength of the report lies in the fact that it represents the aspiration of many Administrations: namely, joined-up government. There are frequent references in the report to the recent proposals for reform of civil litigation funding and costs and to the proposals for reform for legal aid. The case for reform is described in the latter as being guided by,

“the desire to stop the encroachment of unnecessary litigation into society by encouraging people to take greater personal responsibility for their problems”.

So there is a clear policy at work in addition to a broad aspiration.

I have only one reservation about the report: the omission of any significant reference to the Human Rights Act. Whatever views on that there are in the coalition Government and outside, those of us who act for public authorities on a regular basis know that they face a wide variety of claims that are based upon it. Such claims have become an expensive and complex feature of litigation in this area. I appreciate that we may have to wait for the commission under the Deputy Prime Minister to report on the Human Rights Act, but it may be worth emphasising that you can be passionately in favour of human rights as a concept and have distinct reservations about the way in which the Human Rights Act works in practice.

In the rhetoric that surrounds the compensation culture, there is the undeniable implication that many of those who act for the claimants are unscrupulous or, in the popular phrase, “ambulance chasers”. I have to say that, although I almost invariably act for defendants, the type of lawyer who acts for claimants very rarely matches this stereotype. Most work very hard for their clients, many of whom are seriously injured and who need their legal representation to enable them to obtain compensation. I very much hope that one of the results of the steps that the report envisages will be a restoration of the reputation of lawyers who practise in this field.

Nor have judges entirely escaped criticism. Although, sadly, it does not always accept my submissions, the judiciary in this country is of the highest quality, both in its intellectual calibre and its incorruptibility. Despite the reservations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, I remain proud of a legal system in which so many members of my family have played a part in the past 100 years.

As I stand here in the quiet of the Chamber, I can hear the not-so-distant sound of galloping hooves bringing news of reform to your Lordships’ House. I do not know for how long I will remain a Member. It is, however, an extraordinary privilege to be here at all.

13:02

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

My Lords, it is my privilege to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Faulks for what I believe to have been one of the best maiden speeches that we have heard in this Chamber. Not only is my noble friend known as a supreme advocate but also he has a fine balance in his attitude towards right and wrong, which we heard in his reference to the Human Rights Act. He is also a foremost barrister. He gave us an indication that it is about 37 years since he was called to the Bar, but last year he achieved a great accolade in becoming the “Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence Silk of the Year”. I think we all know why. It is because he has established an outstanding reputation as one of our foremost legal practitioners. We look forward to many speeches from my noble friend in the future.

Declaring my interest as a partner now for 41 years in the national commercial law firm Beachcroft LLP, as president of the All-Party Group on Occupational Safety and Health and as deputy president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, I am delighted that my friend opposite, the noble Lord, Lord Jordan, is going to follow me. He is my president, and I am sure that I shall agree very much with what he says.

I warmly welcome the report of my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham, not least for the clear and concise way in which he has covered some complex problems. It is this simplifying style which must surely underpin our approach to the whole issue of the compensation culture and how to solve it.

This debate is remarkable because I found myself in complete agreement with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, said. Claims management companies or “claims farmers”, as I prefer to term them, seem to specialise in trying to make the system more mysterious and more complex. In truth, that suits their purposes, because the more complex is the process, the more it is alleged that you need specialist advice to unlock its mysteries. Complexity is the friend of the claims farmer; simplicity and clarity are the enemies.

We have heard many speeches today about whether we have a compensation culture. My first contribution on this subject was to a debate in the other place on the report of the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury, chaired by Lord Pearson, as far back as 1978. I have not changed my views since then. I shall not repeat them now, except to make three short points: first, sadly, I believe that we now have a compensation culture; secondly, the solution is to put genuine claimants back at the centre of the whole process; and, thirdly, health and safety legislation must now focus on what business can do, not on what it cannot.

In his report of 2004, Sir David Arculus found only a perception of a compensation culture, but no-win, no-fee excesses, coupled with a system of lawyers paying ever growing referral fees to claims farmers and others, have created a regime in which the high-pressure selling techniques so clearly outlined by my noble friend can flourish. With those advertising techniques that we are now seeing, a claim for compensation is seen not as the means by which genuine claimants can receive proper redress, but as some sort of windfall or bonus.

Sir David Arculus's views were based on statistics as to claims costs from 2000, which predated the use of conditional fee agreements. We now have the advantage of the compendious review of civil litigation costs by Lord Justice Jackson—one of my partners at Beachcroft, Andrew Parker, was one of the assessors in that review. I pay tribute to Sir Rupert not only for the breadth of his report but for the way in which he has considered all the vested interests and has delivered recommendations which are in the public interest. It is a salutary lesson to us all. My noble friend Lord Young is right to conclude that the Jackson review should be implemented in full. What that means in practice is that the attitude of the claims farmers which I have described has to be removed, so that any incident must not necessarily lead to compensation but could and occasionally should lead to some form of redress.

Today's claimant is told that he needs a lawyer on no win, no fee, a claims farmer, and an “after the event” legal expenses policy to cover the risk of losing. All those mouths need to be fed. By the time the lawyer, the farmer, the broker and the others have had their cut, the claimant's interests trail in in some remote fourth or fifth. That is why I wholeheartedly endorse the conclusions of both Sir Rupert and my noble friend that we must have strictly controlled legal costs in all injury claims of up to £25,000 in value. I am delighted to hear that my friends and colleagues in the National Health Service Litigation Authority have also put forward a proposal to my noble friend which I strongly support.

The approach in health and safety has now to change from “you can't” to “you can”. No one will deny that we have made great strides in reducing fatal and serious accidents. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, concluded correctly by echoing the words of the Prime Minister in the foreword to the report: “We simply cannot go on like this”. This time, we really can deliver and we must follow this through in the way that my noble friend has so clearly outlined.

13:09

[Lord Jordan]

My Lords, I declare an interest as president and a trustee of RoSPA, whose mission is to save lives and reduce injuries. It welcomes any attention focused on the issue of health and safety, and Common Sense Common Safety does that. However, the misplaced emphasis in this report on the headline-grabbing compensation culture undermines the importance of health and safety and belittles the tremendous achievements that this country has had in making it a safer place to live and work.

Since the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act was introduced, the number of fatal injuries to employees has fallen by 84 per cent, while the number of reported non-fatal injuries has fallen by 75 per cent. Yes, some of that improvement will be accounted for by the changing nature of the world of work in Britain, but the overwhelming part of the improvement was down to the comprehensive nature of the legislation and the tireless work put in by management, trade unions and workers to make Britain’s world of work a safer place. Of course, we will support many of the report’s recommendations. For example, simple risk assessments are needed by small firms. But this report is titled Common Sense Common Safety, and the coalition Government have missed a major opportunity to show the public their commitment to health and safety. Instead, we are being given what appears to be a rushed report, which seems to be more about pleasing the tabloids than a well researched and sober assessment of the changing nature of threats to life and limb in this country.

While the report is very strong on measures to deal with some unprincipled and greedy members of the legal profession, it has three major health and safety weaknesses: a lack of professionalism, a lack of in-depth understanding of health and safety, and a general lack of balance. The lack of professionalism is illustrated by the importance given to the examples of health and safety overzealousness, such as local authorities banning public events and people’s fear of litigation caused by aggressive advertising by personal injury lawyers. Of course, these are damaging to the image of legitimate health and safety but, instead of commissioning objective research to measure and understand the true extent of these problems, the noble Lord has relied simply on hearsay evidence, including alarming newspaper reports and personal anecdotes. There was no attempt to measure the true extent of this sort of problem objectively by commissioning surveys or other research.

However entertaining stories about “elf ‘n safety” silliness might be, safety policy needs to be based on proper evidence-gathering and good analysis. A lack of in-depth understanding of health and safety was shown when the noble Lord said that his report was not aimed at health and safety in industry. He goes on to divide the world of work crudely into low-hazard workplaces such as schools, shops and offices and high-hazard workplaces such as manufacturing and construction. The reality of health and safety in today’s economy is not quite so simple. Even in schools, shops and offices, while the hazard profile is much less than in manufacturing, there are still important issues to tackle such as fire prevention, musculoskeletal disorders, work-related stress and safe maintenance—and, as my colleague has mentioned, possibly asbestosis.

More worrying to us, the report ignores completely the question of work-related road crashes. Three to four times as many workers are killed while out on the road as part of their job as die in all workplace fatal accidents put together. Workers who travel 25,000 miles a year in cars and vans are more at risk of being killed on the job than workers in deep-sea trawlers.

Based on what he has heard, the noble Lord has concluded that health and safety consultants are a major source of bad advice. Some are, but to suggest from that that small firms should not seek outside help or advice on health and safety unless they really need it is just not helpful, when we, who work on a regular basis trying to improve health and safety, are trying so hard to spread the message about the national network of health and safety groups and the free advice and help that they and many others can bring to small and medium-sized businesses, where many accidents occur.

Throughout the exercise, the noble Lord was pressed to take a balanced view. Yes, we should bear down heavily on those who really are overzealous on health and safety but, at the same time, we should make a priority of the need for more action to deal with businesses that are still not doing enough and are still having accidents. The noble Lord has failed to get across the message that there is still a lot more to do on health and safety. The general underlying message that the report seeks to convey is that health and safety is a problem limited to industry, and essentially a problem that has now been solved. He puts a lot of emphasis on the alleged burden of health and safety regulation on business—and we back his emphasis on that. But he seems not to have chosen to balance that by looking at the costs of accidents and ill health on business and families. He has failed to promote the message previously adopted by all parties that good health and safety is good business, and that prevention pays. Ask the most efficient and profitable companies in this country. Last year, 152 workers were killed in workplace accidents and there were more than 230,000 reportable injuries, with 1.3 million people suffering from work-related ill health conditions and 36 million working days lost. The cost to UK society as a whole exceeded £30 billion.

With those frightening figures, the Government’s decision as part of the spending review to cut funding by 35 per cent for the Health and Safety Executive is as incomprehensible as it is dangerous. I hope that this debate gives the Government cause to reflect and, in contemplating any legislation, that the content of that legislation will leave the British public in no doubt about their commitment to their health and safety.

13:18

[Lord Black of Brentwood]

My Lords, I am delighted not only that we have an opportunity of an early debate on my noble friend’s compelling report but that I have the privilege of following the excellent maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Faulks. I should like to address the report’s recommendations that would have an impact on the media. I declare an interest accordingly as a director of the Telegraph Media Group and chairman of the Press Standards Board of Finance.

My noble friend’s report makes an unanswerable case for the reform of the system of conditional fee arrangements that are the genesis of the compensation culture. I am sure that those who constructed the Access to Justice Act 1999 that ushered in those arrangements had the best of intentions, but the law of unintended consequences, as the report perceptively highlights, has had a pernicious and deeply damaging impact on freedom of expression. I would go so far as to say that, even bearing in mind the highly unwelcome growth of the so-called super-injunction, I believe that there is currently no more serious threat to media freedom or the public’s right to know than the unfettered use by claimant lawyers of CFAs backed by the toxic combination of 100 per cent success fees and after-the-event insurance.

First, there is the question of cost. It is not uncommon, as evidence submitted to Lord Justice Jackson’s review revealed, that libel and privacy actions against newspapers end up with damages of as little as £5,000 with a cost of 20 times or more that amount. That is a frightening prospect, which could put some small publications out of business. I cannot overstate the deeply difficult commercial realities for much of the media. The perfect storm of profound structural change with a severe recession in advertising has left many publications battered and bruised. Too many local papers—the engines of local democracy—have closed and many more may do so. The issue of CFAs could be a significant component in that.

Even more important is the chilling impact on free speech. It is now too common that newspapers will fail to defend a claim, no matter how spurious it might be or how important the issue, because they cannot afford to take the risk. CFAs have become a seriously distorting factor in the editorial process, with issues often avoided because of fear of the consequences. The role of scrutineer, which is inherent in a free press, is undermined. My noble friend’s report rightly states that,

“the Government should adopt Lord Justice Jackson’s proposals as soon as possible”,

to end the recoverability of CFA success fees and after-the-event insurance policy premiums, which Lord Justice Jackson described as,

“the most bizarre and expensive system that it is possible to devise”.

I wholeheartedly agree with that, but my great concern is the question of speed.

The need for swift and decisive action is very real and urgent because the provision of news and information to the public is at stake, but for far too long there has been masterly inaction. The first government review of CFAs took place as long ago as 2003. Since then, there have been countless reviews about the crippling impact of the regime including annual official consultations, research, consultation papers and, to the best of my knowledge, at least two Select Committee inquiries. The first of this year’s crop of consultation papers, which seem to come round as frequently as the first cuckoo in spring, devoted an entire appendix of seven densely written pages to covering information about seven years of inquiries about proposals for CFA reform.

Your Lordships’ House backed interim measures, which did not require primary legislation, to deal with the issue of CFAs in the dying days of the previous Parliament, but the proposals failed at the final hurdle in another place. Now, as my noble friend has said, we have another review seven years after the first. The irony is that, with the exception of some of the claimant lawyers who have a vested interest, everyone seems to agree. Lord Justice Jackson supports reform. The Ministry of Justice and Select Committees have supported reform. Much of the senior judiciary—including the Master of the Rolls, who gave such a warm welcome to Mr Justice Jackson’s review—and the regional and national media support reform. This House supported reform. Yet we are still waiting as the problems grow ever more acute.

The latest consultation paper envisages that changes to the law and to civil procedure will be necessary to introduce these vital reforms. Encouragingly, the new business plan from the Ministry of Justice that was published recently states that the Government will bring forward the necessary primary legislation in the spring of 2011, immediately after implementation plans have been finalised in the light of the consultation response. As the Prime Minister rightly says in his foreword to my noble friend’s excellent report,

“Now we need to act”.

After seven years of prevarication under the previous Government, can we have a clear commitment to a timetable and an assurance that the necessary legislation will not be further delayed? There is a great deal at stake.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Can I ask the noble Lord to comment on the proposal in the Jackson report to replace conditional fees with contingent fees, whereby the plaintiff’s lawyer would take a slice of the damages?

[Lord Black of Brentwood]

It seems to me, my Lords, that that would be an admirable way forward. The Jackson report has had widespread support from within the media and I hope that it is implemented as soon as possible.

13:24

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. The report is interesting, although I have considerable reservations about some of its conclusions.

When I was very young, I worked in the accident claims department of a major insurance company. The claimants were often working people, who believed that their injuries arose from their working conditions. They had to submit to the most rigorous examinations by the doctors working for the company. I began to feel considerable sympathy for the claimants. I did not stay in that employment as, in those days, there were negligible career opportunities for women in insurance, as in much other employment. I left and went to work for a trade union, eventually became an official and, at senior level, became responsible for the legal aid scheme that was made available to members.

I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Young, took submissions from the TUC and from individual unions. I have of course spoken to the chief health and safety official at the TUC about the report. However, the noble Lord, Lord Young, has very little to say in his conclusions about the major and important role played by unions on behalf of their members. Health and safety is a major part of our function. We are not only concerned to ensure that our members are provided with support to enable them to pursue claims in court but anxious to ensure that health and safety at work is improved. We use all the means at our disposal to ensure that this happens.

One of my early experiences in this House was in connection with a Bill that I introduced with the backing and briefing of my union. The Bill arose from the appalling Piper Alpha disaster in the North Sea. At the Cullen inquiry, at which we represented our members, it transpired that many employees had been concerned about safety but, as they were on short-term contracts, they were afraid of being victimised—that is, not re-employed—so they had not drawn attention to the hazards that they had observed. I introduced a Bill in this House, which was originally drafted by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn, with the idea of protecting employees in the industry against victimisation when acting as safety representatives or members of a safety committee. I discussed the Bill with the then Minister—at that time the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, who was, I am glad to say, extremely supportive—and the Bill was adopted in this House and in the other place and became law. In due course, the provisions were incorporated into much larger and even more comprehensive legislation.

I refer to this to indicate that unions are concerned not only to secure compensation for injured members but to play a part in ensuring that the working environment is as safe as possible. We welcomed the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and we believe that its advent, and that of the Health and Safety Executive, is responsible for the substantial and very welcome decline in the number of accidents and injuries at work. Nevertheless, it is still necessary to ensure that safety representatives are elected and are able to perform their important work. Furthermore, legal services should be readily available to employees who feel that they have suffered as a result of negligence in their working environment. Certainly, we in my union always supported members in such circumstances.

I was not completely happy when no-win, no-fee arrangements were introduced. I understand that the reason for their introduction was to ensure that people who did not have funds should nevertheless have access to justice, although it seemed likely to me that the only cases that would be taken on by lawyers operating on that basis would be what might be called dead-cert cases. Yet some of the most important advances have been made when cases that looked doubtful—and in which there has been an element of risk—have been taken and been won. That is of course part of the function of the unions.

That brings me to an aspect of the report and, in particular, statements in the foreword by the Prime Minister, with which I am not at all in agreement.

“A damaging compensation culture has arisen”,

the Prime Minister says. He also says that,

“the standing of health and safety in the eyes of the public has never been lower”,

yet the report makes it clear that, although this may be a perception, the reality is very different. For example, under the heading,

“Annex D: Behind the myth: the truth behind health and safety hysteria in the media”,

some of the stories that appeared in the media are repeated and shown to be quite untrue. I hope that we do not have more legislation based not on fact but on perception created by media misrepresentation. It is in everyone’s interest that workplaces should be as safe as possible. That is also true of situations outside the workplace, which are dealt with in the report.

I do not believe that the report in any way justifies the introduction of legislation that would make it more difficult for people who felt that they had been damaged to attempt to secure compensation for their injuries. It is noticeable that many stakeholders who provided evidence did not believe that there was a growing compensation culture in the UK. That is certainly the view of the TUC. If an attempt is made on the basis of the report to introduce legislation that would make it more difficult for people who feel that they are justified in claiming for injury, I shall oppose it and so, I expect, will many of my noble friends.

13:30

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, I greatly welcome the balanced report of the noble Lord, Lord Young, as well as his declared belief that,

“our entire approach to risk assessments needs to change across the board”.

I want to make two points: one particular and the other general. First, bureaucracy is not confined to the application of health and safety regulations, as in some of the cases that other speakers have cited. The following are some questions that have been drawn to my attention from a form sent by the Care Quality Commission to dentists to complete:

“How do you ensure that the views and experiences of people who use services are listened to and acted upon when running your services? How have the views and experiences of people who use services, their carers and representatives influenced your service priorities … ? What are you doing to increase the influence people have on the planning or delivery of the services? How do you ensure people’s equality, diversity and human rights are actively promoted in your services?”.

This is one of the misapplications of human rights that that noble Lord, Lord Faulks, referred to in his delightful maiden speech. The questions continue:

“How does the promotion of equality, diversity and human rights influence how you deliver services across the range of regulated activities?”.

How are dentists to answer these kinds of questions? They are addressed to qualified professionals, cost many thousands of pounds and take many wasted hours to complete. In the words of the dentist who sent the form to me, “It’s barmy”.

My second, more general point is about the anti-risk society, which has been partly fostered by the so-called precautionary principle. The principle is now so widely accepted that it has almost become an 11th commandment: “Thou shalt not take unnecessary risks”. Tony Blair once declared in a major speech:

“Responsible science and responsible policy-making operate on the precautionary principle”.

In fact, the principle is either so obvious that it does not need stating, so vague that it is useless or—alas, more frequently—formulated in a form that is positively harmful to progress. A lot of the time it says, in effect, “If there is serious evidence that what you do may cause harm, be careful”. Who could possibly disagree?

The second form of the principle, contained in various laws and regulations, of which the Cartagena protocol solemnly signed by Governments is probably the most important, is so verbose, complex and vague that I defy anyone to explain clearly exactly what it says. It can be interpreted to mean anything. I will not cite the full protocol because of, first, lack of time and, secondly, tedium. The main use of the principle, however, is in the form with which I am concerned, defined in these terms:

“When an activity raises threats of harm … measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not … established scientifically”.

Note the absence of the need for scientific advice. As a result, it is usually requested that a new process or innovation be proved safe before it is licensed or permitted. That means that the principle can be invoked, as it often is, by press campaigns, by campaigns by green lobbies or by public fears and alarms.

No wonder that the principle is the favourite slogan of green fundamentalists—the Prince Charleses of this world who want to go back to nature, who are suspicious of modern science and whose cry is essentially, “Stop the world, I want to get off”. It has, for example, led to the near-universal ban on growing GM crops in Europe, despite overwhelming scientific evidence that in more than 12 years of their cultivation outside Europe they have caused no harm to health or the environment. They are now grown in an area of the world that is more than four times the size of the whole of the United Kingdom.

The principle has led to an anti-risk climate in which potential harm is no longer weighed against benefit. Carl Djerassi, the man who invented the pill, has said that in today’s climate the pill would never have been licensed. Aspirin, which has turned out in many ways to be a wonder drug, would also be banned because it can cause harm. These are only a few of many examples.

Generally, obeisance to the principle helps to foster the anti-risk society. Excessive caution is the watchword of pessimism. At a seminar yesterday, Matt Ridley, the author of many splendid books, reminded us of a Woody Allen joke. Mankind, he said, is at a crossroads. One sign reads “To despair” and the other “To extinction”. We must make up our minds.

It is high time that the principle was completely abandoned. It represents the triumph of the Jeremiahs. It is the victory of the Spartan spirit, fearful of the terrors that change may bring, over the Athenian spirit that looks for new worlds to conquer—the victory of the Luddites who want to stop innovation over those who want to try it out.

I welcome the paper that the noble Lord, Lord Young, has produced. The right to cross new frontiers of knowledge, which science stands for, should be promoted, but the anti-risk society would seek to stifle it at birth. That would mean a world without excitement, exuberance, imagination or innovation, doomed to gradual economic and intellectual decline. It would be a paradise, with the greatest respect, only for lawyers.

One of many good things that the coalition has started to do is reintroduce some common sense into the assessment of risks. I warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Young, on his report, which I hope will be the start of a more general common-sense revolution.

13:38

[Lord Monson]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Young, on what I found to be an exceptionally interesting and thought-provoking speech. One hopes that the Government will lose no time in implementing his recommendations. The Motion refers to both health and safety legislation and the compensation culture. Of the two, it is really the latter that is the villain of the piece; without it, schools, local authorities and so on would not be nearly so zealous in implementing health and safety legislation to the letter, and even gold-plating it, for fear of the financial consequences should anything go wrong.

With that in mind, it is right today to pay tribute to the late Michael Cocks, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, whom some of your Lordships will remember. He had previously been a Member of Parliament for Bristol South. Almost 15 years ago, on 20 December 1995, he introduced a debate highlighting the malign consequences of the litigious society that was taking root in Britain just as America was trying belatedly to curb its own. Lord Cocks, who emphasised that he was not being party political—this most surely is not a party-political matter—was chiefly concerned about the threat that this compensation culture posed to the NHS and to the medical profession generally but, of course, his words apply equally to businesses, particularly small businesses that do not run to a compliance department and whose directors or partners are far too busy running their businesses to take time off to spend a day or more fighting accusations of mis-selling or, more often, discrimination and so find it cheaper to settle out of court, even though they may be totally innocent, as the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, pointed out. In the main, such people cannot afford the understandably high premiums now demanded for litigation protection.

I was at that debate, and what was surprising and disappointing was the lukewarm response of both the Government and the then Opposition to Lord Cocks’s speech. Clearly, at that time, Britain had not learnt from the transatlantic experience and did not realise that the introduction of the no-win no-fee system, among other things, would encourage ambulance-chasers to flourish and the British public to become more and more litigious, thus making life much tougher for the medical profession and for honest, well run businesses, which constitute the great majority, as well as for a small minority that behave badly in one way or another.

In his speech, Lord Cocks quoted, in col. 1612, a headline in the Sunday Times of 12 November 1995, which read, “Huge legal suits threaten US firms. Litigate and make your fortune”. Indeed, we were just starting to hear about McDonald’s customers on the other side of the pond being awarded a small fortune for having been served coffee that was rather too hot and so forth. Now, it seems that litigants are making a small fortune on this side of the Atlantic. The Sunday Telegraph reported on 21 November that a 46 year-old woman had, in the space of 10 years, won half a million pounds from a variety of employers, having never held a job for more than 26 months. Almost the worst feature was a payment of nearly £21,000 for “hurt feelings”. Compare this award with the generally much smaller amounts awarded to our soldiers seriously wounded in Afghanistan. One has no quarrel with damages awarded by a tribunal for proven, properly calculated loss of earnings, but quite disproportionate awards for alleged injured feelings are another matter altogether.

Consider a case, justifiably slated in the press and on local radio a year or two ago, where a woman in a headscarf applied for a job with a small hairdresser’s near King’s Cross. She was told, “If we give you this job, you realise you’ll have to remove your headscarf while working—not while travelling to and from the shop—since our policy is that our customers should be able to see our various assistants’ beautiful heads of hair, made even more beautiful by the skills of our salon”. The applicant refused to contemplate doing so and sued for discrimination. Despite the tribunal acquitting the hairdresser of discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, religion and so on, the applicant was none the less awarded £4,000 for hurt feelings. The ways of the law are weird and strange.

Almost as curious is the case of a 19 year-old girl who had been working in a store for a year or so and applied for the job of manager. It was explained to her that a manager needed plenty of experience and the ability to deal with the unexpected and with a wide variety of people and that, regrettably, she was too young. She disagreed and took the matter to court; she was awarded several thousand pounds in compensation, a large proportion of which was, once again, for injured feelings. Naturally, in the whole spectrum of compensation culture, hurt feelings play a minor part, but the present state of affairs not only encourages people to magnify minor grievances that they might otherwise have shrugged off but encourages some people to try to get rich quickly by means of litigation.

Some years ago, during the Major Administration, a Conservative Front-Bench spokesman in this House expressed the view that £1,000 should constitute the maximum award for injury to feelings, a proposition that I welcomed then and still endorse today. I am certain that most members of the public would endorse that view, too. I suggest, without much optimism, that the Government should give serious consideration to such a cap.

13:45

[Lord Skelmersdale]

My Lords, as a result of my noble friend Lord Young’s introduction to this debate, it seems to me we ought to amend our Standing Orders to include the phrase “re-maiden speech”. I thank him for his reappearance and for agreeing to meet me towards the end of his inquiry.

Health and safety is a subject that concerns every one of us; it gets the blame for a whole range of activities being stopped, and all noble Lords have their own pet stories. These activities bear little or no relevance to the current law on which the Health and Safety Executive depends. The one good thing that the previous Government did in this area was to combine the commission and the executive. Their failure, however, was not to put a stop to the culture of blame which has pervaded this country for many years and stopped the incorrect attribution of no-risk policies to the HSE as the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, will know only too well.

Almost exactly a year ago, I received a letter in which my correspondent asked, “Why can’t we enjoy warming ourselves around the school bonfire on 5th November any more?”. She also asked, “Why can’t our children have a few sparklers?”. The answer in both cases was that someone might burn their fingers and sue. She was quite right, as is my noble friend’s report. He cites the reasons for this on page 19—the introduction of conditional fee agreements, the growth of after-the-event insurance and the proliferation of claims management companies, which my noble friend Lord Hunt described as claims farmers. I am not sure whether that is an accurate description; to me, farmers proliferate themselves and their crops, whereas I am not sure whether claims management companies do.

This report makes the point that the enormous number of claims management companies are a direct, if unintended, consequence of no-win no-fee legislation. Like any business, these companies are in it to make a profit; they clearly do, or they would disappear. Although they are regulated, my noble friend believes that more regulation is necessary, especially in the field of advertising, which is done in such a way as to make individuals believe that they can claim compensation for the most minor of incidents. In this connection, I was alarmed to find a text message on my mobile on Tuesday this week saying, “Our records show that you may be entitled to £3,750 for the accident you had. To claim for free, reply YES to this message”. Needless to say, I have not had an accident.

I believe that there are two reasons for successful claims—first, the leniency of the courts towards the claimant, and, secondly, the cost of court proceedings, which includes staff time and costs over and above those of instructing a solicitor and leads, in many cases, to out-of-court settlements. If the report of Lord Justice Jackson was acted upon, conditional fee and insurance claims would cease to be recoverable from the losing party in litigation. This would immediately put a damper on the number of court cases. My noble friend Lord Young told us that the Ministry of Justice is consulting on this report as a whole. That is important, because among Lord Justice Jackson’s proposals is the suggestion that lawyers’ fees should be capped at 25 per cent of the reward and that general damages should be increased by 10 per cent. We have been told of screams of anguish from some claims management companies and the solicitors in question, but it seems to me that here we have a carrot and stick proposal. As in the case of breaking the opticians’ monopoly on the supply of reading glasses almost 25 years ago, if the Government conclude that the proposals of Lord Justice Jackson are correct, they should get on with it. I am also told that although contributory negligence is well established in law, very often the courts do not give it enough weight in coming to their judgments. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on this when he winds up.

It may be a little provocative but we should consider two organisations—or rather aspects of organisations—that it should be impossible to sue directly. The NHS runs an insurance scheme that seems to work to a greater or lesser extent, but neither schools nor the police seem to be properly insured—and, if my somewhat off-the-wall suggestions are accepted, nor would they need to be. I do not see why teachers on school property or the policeman on the beat should be sued at all. I would continue to make teachers responsible for their charges on, say, a visit from Tunbridge Wells to your Lordships’ House, as occurred the other day; and the police responsible for the mistreating of arrestees in police stations. I am, however, convinced that the absence of a clip around the ear of a misbehaving youth is one of the reasons for youth crime. If parents will not or cannot control their children, or give them the sort of guidance that we were all blessed with from our parents, let us leave it to the people whom we, as a society, charge with keeping law and order.

Over the years I have identified two employees that exist in every local authority. The first is a planning officer, who has nothing to do with this debate. The second is the environmental health officer, who most certainly does. I believe he sees his job as preventing the local authority being sued. This is the wrong attitude and it is not what he is there for. I agree with the report that, if the environmental health officer bans such events as bonfires or playing conkers on school grounds, he should give his report in writing and, in extreme cases, have his actions referred to the local authority ombudsman. I also agree that it is ridiculous that parents should have to sign a consent form for every school outing. The ideal would be for the pupil to hand it in on the first day he attends a new school. The present situation is a complete and utter nonsense.

I have just time to refer to the adventure activities licensing scheme, which my noble friend in his report suggests should be abolished. I will not go into detail but I observe that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, agrees with me that it is not in the Public Bodies Bill. Since my noble friend says that his report is being considered favourably on the whole, could the Minister tell us what has happened to that proposal?

13:52

[Lord Haskel]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young, has done us a great service by bringing a common-sense approach to the so-called compensation culture. Yes, it is long overdue. He has prescribed the right medicine for many of the symptoms but I wonder if he has really understood all the causes of the illness. Other noble Lords have suggested that the causes are greedy claims farmers and vulture lawyers—not, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, whom I congratulate on his maiden speech. Are there any other reasons? Could it be that pressure at work causes people to act unreasonably when something unfortunate happens? Is it that people fear that there is an imbalance between pressure at work and the reward—not just monetary but in satisfaction? Do people feel that they are victims of injustice at work and the system is against them, as my noble friend put it? The compensation culture could just be a way of getting their own back.

It is many years since I ran my business but I certainly do not forget how difficult it was to get the right balance between putting undue pressure on people and the need for progress. It is not easy to get creative tension right. I was reminded of this the other day when a booklet called Stress at Work arrived on my desk. It is a useful publication by the British Academy Policy Centre. My noble friend Lord Jordan also mentioned this. The British Academy is not the only one concerned about this. The Health and Safety Executive is also concerned. It has produced a formula for measuring stress at work. In 2004 the Health and Safety Executive produced a guide for managers on how to reduce stress at work. Its US equivalent says on its website:

“The workplace is the single greatest source of stress”.

We all know why people get stressed at work. There is the nature of their work, the pressures from above and below, the competition, the interpersonal conflicts, the bureaucracy and the distorted work-life balance. It now takes two incomes in a family to pay for a home. There is the pressure to stay connected when away from work. Many of us have been there; many of us in this Chamber know what it is all about. Some of us can get out of the kitchen if we do not like the heat, but for most of us that is impossible. We need the income and, yes, we also need some job satisfaction. We also know the economic cost of absenteeism, high staff turnover and poor performance, and the social costs to health and family relationships. Why not add the cost of excessive claims when an opportunity presents itself when something goes wrong? It is hard to make legal claims for stress but far easier to make them for physical injuries that are apparent. Why not double or triple them to include stress?

Is this an unreasonable analysis? I do not think it is. The situation will get worse. There will be much more part-time and temporary work instead of full-time jobs. There will be cuts to staff, with the rest loyally taking on the extra work. There will be the stress and conflict of redundancy. People will feel that they always have to be present, even when there is good reason to be absent. The economic crisis might not reduce absenteeism but it will certainly increase stress. If there is a connection between stress at work and the compensation culture, it will only increase with the recession. Certainly, the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Young, need to be implemented but surely, at the same time, measures to reduce stress at work need to be implemented by both the private and public sectors.

There is nothing new in this. As I have said, the Health and Safety Executive laid this out in 2004. Well before that, most people knew of the need to be fair, to give people more say at work, and to give people the opportunity to have control over their future and a say over change, either through their union or their representatives, as my noble friend Lady Turner said. There is a need to be more flexible and more family-friendly over working hours, and to design jobs so that they are less stressful. We must also ignore those who say that these soft management skills are pointless. Indeed, the Minister had better take note. His boss, the Prime Minister, is touching on this today when he speaks about measuring general well-being.

My question to the Minister is: does he agree with me that there is a connection between stress at work and the unreasonable demands of the compensation culture? If so, will the Government ensure that the Health and Safety Executive’s recommendations to managers are implemented in the public sector, where the Government are a major employer? I am sure that many public sector and private sector managers already do this; after all, it is common sense and good management practice. If this is done, hand in hand with the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Young, we may avoid a lot of trouble, unhappiness and expense.

14:00

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I warmly welcome this debate and the report produced by my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham. It is pleasing to read that it has received broad acclaim as a distinctive catalyst for change in advocating a more measured, proportionate degree of protection from litigation for businesses, shops and schools. It is a start as a retraction from the current culture of fear of those who are too easily able to seek redress through compensation. As well as seeking to liberate businesses, particularly small and medium-sized ones that employ more than five people, the proposals will have a significant positive impact on the voluntary sector and on extra-curricular educational activities.

Of course, it takes only one tragic accident to give the impression that the law, particularly the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, is wanting. The press can misreport and exaggerate. However, accidents, injuries and work-related illnesses must continue to raise important questions in seeking always to prevent and protect under common and criminal law. The fact that in 2007-08 there were 2.7 fatalities for every 100,000 employees and more than 100,000 non-fatal injuries, although one of the lowest rates in Europe, still cautions us against complacency.

Critical to achieving the right balance is the proposed production of a code of practice that in its detail and clarity will not be prescriptive but will be a guide to allow a determination of what is reasonably practical in setting up sensible health and safety protection specific to individual cases. I applaud the idea in the report that a specific code for schools and colleges be implemented to replace the Adventure Activities Licensing Authority, to be highlighted separately within the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. This will assist schools in managing the safety aspects of outdoor activities, allowing for healthy and acceptable degrees of risk.

In the field of employment law, an employer has to be seen to be acting reasonably within the law in management and behaviour in the workplace. Just as tribunals sit to pass judgment on the reasonableness of the behaviour and actions of employers to their employees, courts can better pass judgment with reference to a code of practice in health and safety. The question can therefore be asked: did the employer, the shop, the school take all reasonably practical steps to assess and implement risk mitigation? The onus must remain on businesses and schools to understand the guidelines and comply with the code of practice.

Under the auspices of the Health and Safety Executive, the proposal for a network of properly accredited health and safety professionals is welcome. There is the prospect of better advice on the definition for customers of what is deemed to be reasonably practical, but there must be a significant change in culture in respect of low-hazard small businesses, sole traders and individuals in good Samaritan roles. These categories have most to lose from those who abuse compensation claims. Businesses whose turnover is modest can be disproportionately adversely affected, or even made bankrupt, if they are not covered by insurance.

As my noble friend Lord Faulks mentioned in his excellent maiden speech, the Compensation Act 2006 addresses some of these issues. In determining, and possibly reducing, negligence claims, courts are allowed to have regard to a sense of perspective on and a proportionate response to the nature of an activity, its future desirability and its benefit for society or the community. Such changes to health and safety regulation are highly desirable in developing the role of the voluntary sector. As I highlighted in my maiden speech, empowering and encouraging more individuals as volunteers to enlist for local tasks or projects is a crucial step in shifting responsibility from the state to the local level. It is a considerable disincentive to helping in the community, in offering care or running a pub, if the threat of civil negligence is prevalent. I hope that the Government will exempt from negligence those who have acted in good faith in helping others where an incident has occurred without deliberate cause, perhaps through extending the Crown Prosecution Service codes of practice where protection is offered to those who intervene in a crime.

In the spirit of sensible protection, I urge the Government to introduce a fast-track process for referral to the ombudsman of a perceived unfair decision by an authority not to hold an event such as a village fête or concert so that it can still have the chance to proceed and not incur cancellation costs. To echo the title of the report, common sense must be the overriding feature of health and safety protection. There must always be a “bottom line” defence: in other words, a necessary protection from unscrupulous employers or cavalier outdoor adventure managers.

The legal framework and new codes of practice must lead to a liberation: that is, to freeing up society to help itself, to being proactive, and to individuals taking personal responsibility. The changes will engender greater confidence to encourage creativity and innovation in new businesses and to encourage schools to stimulate and educate children in riskier sports and other activities outside the classroom.

14:05

[Lord Smith of Finsbury]

My Lords, I begin by declaring my interest as chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority and patron of the Mountain Training Trust.

The report of the noble Lord, Lord Young, is very valuable and welcome and gets most things absolutely right, although there are one or two areas where further thought and work are needed. I want to highlight two points, one in each category. First, I give the report more than full marks for its comments on the role and availability of adventure activities in education. Giving pupils and children a sense of adventure, a taste of the great outdoors and the opportunity to engage in climbing, canoeing, sailing or other potentially dangerous and risky activities is an absolutely essential and valuable part of their education. This is particularly true for children and pupils in our inner cities who have virtually no other access to the great outdoors. Adventure activities induce a sense of risk, responsibility, teamwork, self-reliance, self-esteem and the full development of a child’s potential and had a profound impact on my own upbringing. The two weeks that I spent on a school expedition in the north-west highlands of Scotland changed my life. The opportunity for other children to enjoy that sort of opportunity has diminished severely over recent years as a result of the risk averseness within the system, and we need to do something about it. Absolutely anything that can be done to implement the noble Lord’s proposals to free up opportunities for adventure for pupils and children will be enormously welcome.

The second area I want to highlight is that of no-win no-fee legal compensation claims, and especially the role that advertising plays. We need to do more work on the role of advertising because I venture to suspect that the principal problem here is the product itself rather than the way in which it is advertised. I have a number of observations to make. First, it is surely important that ordinary people of limited means have access to justice and remediation if they suffer the consequences of someone else’s negligence. Secondly, it is important that information about the availability of redress, and how to access it, is readily and prominently placed in the public domain. Thirdly, as the report itself acknowledges, the perception is that there has been an explosion in no-win no-fee compensation claims; in fact, the reality is that there has not. Fourthly, existing evidence on the role that advertising plays in stimulating unjustified claims is equivocal at best.

In 2006, the ASA, with the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, part funded comprehensive research into the effects of advertising on the compensation culture. It was an important piece of detailed work, because advertising is, of course, a complex medium. It works on many levels and it is not always easy to work out what role it plays, given that there might be a number of different influences on the behaviour of individuals and claimants. The research, The Effects of Advertising in Respect of Compensation Claims for Personal Injuries, aimed at discovering what effect this sort of advertising had on the perceptions and attitudes of its audience, and what detrimental or beneficial effects it had. The central finding of the research was that it appears that advertising cannot be blamed as the primary source for fuelling the compensation culture. The research shows that consumers receive information from a wide variety of sources, and it is a combination of those sources that gives rise to the false impression that there is an increased level of compensation claiming.

That research was carried out some years ago. It is important that before rushing to change we should probably update that research and find out more. As I have already said in reply to the generous letter of the noble Lord, Lord Young, to me as chairman, we at the ASA will very warmly welcome any new evidence that his team might have unearthed or might wish to unearth, and we will consider it very carefully indeed. Any regulation, as the Government rightly believe, must be based on sound evidence and be fair and proportionate. In the mean time, the self-regulatory system, of which the ASA Council is the independent arbiter, will robustly apply the current rules in order to provide protection for the consumer and to avoid any misleading or inaccurate selling.

I have time for just one other point. A particular issue might need addressing separately—the offering of inducements by claim management and claim introduction companies to entice people into claiming. This practice deserves early examination, and I suggest that the principal mischief is not the advertising of inducements but the existence of a system that allows the possibility of an inducement. That is what I urge the Government to look seriously at.

This is a valuable report. In many respects, it says enormously sensible things. On one or two things, we need to do more work.

14:13

[Lord Vinson]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Young, on introducing this debate on Common Sense Common Safety. I so hope that his positive mind will soon be back at the centre of government.

The more society is regulated, the less room there is for common sense. Regulation becomes so all pervasive in the official mind that there is no room for natural morality. I should like particularly to draw your Lordships’ attention to the effects on society of the safety regulations that are being introduced by the Independent Safeguarding Authority and the Criminal Records Bureau.

Unintentionally, and yet insidiously, we are developing an unhealthy culture of suspicion that is the antithesis of the big society which the coalition, and indeed the country at large, would like to be developed. CRB vetting now includes 16 year-olds teaching younger kids to read, parents volunteering at school, and foster carers and friends running after-school clubs. All are subject to more stringent security tests for those activities than for selling explosives. Why not include postmen, milkmen and van delivery drivers? Where will it all end?

Of course, no parent wishes to see their children damaged by the action of paedophiles, but, in overall national terms, the level of aggressive paedophilia is minute and the incidents are vastly overblown by the press. A parent might think that the work of the Criminal Records Bureau safeguards their children, but that is in fact a total delusion. The Criminal Records Bureau can record only those who have had a criminal record, not those who have tendency to criminality; such people still get the job. The fact remains that most cases of paedophilia are caused by near neighbours, close relations or online operators, none of whom comes under the vetting procedures. The whole vetting exercise gives an illusion of probity without actually achieving the serious ends that it purports to achieve.

While some may welcome this illusion as being better than nothing, we are building up a society of mistrust, which even discourages adults from stepping in to help children in trouble for fear of being considered potential molesters and being reported to the police. Increasingly, we live in a society where adults distrust each other, and children are taught to regard everyone with suspicion. Paradoxically, vetting schemes further undermine the concept that the best protection for children is the vigilance of other adults.

Millions of people now face checks—many of them volunteers who particularly resent being told that they have to register with the ISA before continuing to offer the service that they have been providing for years. Such vetting assumes that people are guilty until proven innocent, and is gravely undermining the voluntary sector just at the point where we need it more. The bureaucracy to which volunteers are subjected is completely out of proportion to the informal and low-key nature of their activities. Checks cover flower arranging in a cathedral, working on a local newsletter, visiting elderly people to chat and do crosswords, or listening to children read in a school.

Child protection rules mean that volunteers are treated with suspicion and are subjected to humiliating and invasive procedures such as being accompanied to the toilet in schools, being asked to wear ID badges including their CRB number, and even being asked to list all their places of residence for the past 10 years. It is no wonder that volunteers feel totally disrespected or find the procedures insulting. They do not want to reveal personal information or have someone rummaging through their personal details. They resent paying £64 to the registering authority when they are giving their time for free. No wonder the CRB checks are killing voluntarism; indeed, they are a dagger at its heart.

As things stand, imagine a school trip being cancelled when a vetted mother, who was to accompany the children, falls ill and another requisite character cannot be found. Well, the simple way around all this is, of course, for all adults to be registered, and that is precisely what will happen. The logic is that the majority of the adult population will sooner or later find themselves on the vetting database. That cannot make sense. The whole procedure is doing far more harm than good and destroys the very roots of a caring society. Indeed, it is more likely to put our children in greater jeopardy, because instead of relying, as we used to, on references or word-of-mouth recommendations and common-sense observation, we rely on the vetting and barring scheme which, by its very nature, is far from infallible. All the bits of paper in the world cannot predict what someone is going to do.

It is good that the Government are considering scaling back the whole procedure to common-sense levels. However, therein lies a problem. These schemes are doing immense harm to our whole way of life, our national psyche and trust between individuals. The Government should have the courage to scrap these schemes or society will destroy itself. However, if, in an effort to change, the Government have to take the route to abolition step by step, they could at least first exclude all volunteers from any vetting or barring scheme. A mother should not be required to register on a vetting database before she goes to her child’s school. The process of CRB-checking volunteers is a common policy of councils, voluntary organisations and sports bodies, which is enforced by official bodies such as Ofsted and the Child Protection in Sport Unit. The process leads to more than 700,000 CRB checks every year and probably achieves next to nothing. Councils should be told that this is unnecessary, harmful and wrong.

The Government must roll back the child protection bureaucracy from at least voluntary activity, which is currently obstructed by many over-the-top child protection rules. These are as off-putting and as damaging as CRB checks themselves; and therein lies the problem of excessive precaution and over-interpretation—a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, in his introduction.

In conclusion, I recommend a book that puts this far better than I can: Licensed to Hug by Professor Frank Furedi, published by Civitas. Its very title explains the damage that we are doing to our society, which between us we must try to prevent. The harmful futility of the work done by the Criminal Records Bureau, albeit with the best intentions, is another example of the damaging effects and the unintended consequences of overregulation. Sadly, it is only one example of the many hundreds of bad regulations that are not only destroying sensible and good human relationships but doing incalculable harm to our economy through the inefficiencies that they incur and the mistrust that they engender. We in this House all hope that the debate secured by my noble friend Lord Young will see a return to proportion and common sense in the regulatory world.

14:21

[Lord Rooker]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the board of the Food Standards Agency. I do not speak for the agency in this House—we are a non-ministerial government department and we have Ministers in the four Parliaments of the UK who do that—but I will say, on behalf of the board and staff, how grateful we are for this report and for the care and attention to detail that the noble Lord, Lord Young, has given to our proposals for the food hygiene rating system, which is covered at length in the report and is due to be launched next week. We had a short telephone conversation about aspects of the system in the summer. I hope that the rest of the report’s recommendations will also be implemented, but I will come to that in my final points.

I take second place to nobody on health and safety matters. I made my maiden speech in the other place in March 1974 on health and safety; I served on the standing committee for the current health and safety legislation; and, as a manager in manufacturing, I was red-hot on health and safety matters in all of the companies in which I worked. As a Member of Parliament, I used to get complaints about health and safety matters—indeed, the former coroner of Birmingham drew my attention to some of the construction difficulties—and I gave attention to those issues. We have heard some examples of such difficulties from these Benches today, but we have not heard about the catastrophic rate of accidents in the farming industry. I make these points because my noble friend Lord Jordan laboured the point that the report deals with some issues but ignores other areas that are fundamental to the health and safety of people at work. I see no contradiction whatever between the contents of the report and the need to take health and safety matters incredibly seriously in manufacturing, mining, construction and farming. In fact, you could implement the report as a way of being much harsher on sectors in which people are being killed on a daily basis. Those are the sectors in which the risk is high but sometimes ignored.

I will draw your Lordships’ attention to three items. First, the noble Lord produced his report, as I understand it, as a one-off before he became the business tsar. I looked at those two roles quite separately. However, if No. 10 has problems with noble Lords saying things, I invite your Lordships to check what Howard Flight, who has not yet joined us in the House, said this morning—these things happen. You can tell the truth of a story, but you may not tell the whole story. Why be hanged for telling only half the story? There are some people for whom things have never been worse and will get worse still, but it is also true that, for some people, things have never been better. Telling half the story cannot be a hanging offence—that is my defence of the noble Lord, Lord Young.

The noble Viscount, Lord Younger, has been the only speaker to mention the good Samaritan issue. Given that almost half the country is currently covered in snow, in my local town of Ludlow I have flashed the noble Lord’s report in front of the local council because of this nonsense about the clearing of snow. The report makes it absolutely clear that there is no evidence from the Lord Chief Justice that anyone has ever been done as a result of snow clearing. If you clear the snow and wash it out with water that freezes, that is negligence. If you clear the snow, sweep it away and it is dry, that is a voluntary Samaritan issue that you cannot be prosecuted for. I do not deny that we need clarity in the law. The issue of local authorities and their inconsistent approach, which is covered on page 26, must be dealt with.

I turn to the issue of low-risk establishments. A place may look low-risk, but just because people are not wearing boiler suits does not mean that things are not dangerous. Laboratories, shops and offices can be dangerous, depending on the nature of the equipment and the substances that you have to use. You have to be careful and use common sense. That is not the same as what we know are high-risk establishments. A drilling rig is a high-risk establishment. Do not lecture us about big blue-chip companies taking everything really seriously—go and talk to the directors of BP. These things must be looked at in the round to see where the risk is. We must assess the risk and then manage it proportionately. The point made in the report is crucial.

My final example from the report that I have not heard mentioned so far—I missed only two contributions when I had to leave the Chamber—relates to the important issue of voluntary activities, which are covered on page 29. I have a message for the Minister and the Government. Left as it is, the big society agenda will go straight down the plughole unless something is done. The Stalinists in local government, who do not want the big society agenda because they want to do everything themselves, will try to snuff out every local initiative that comes from residents and will hide behind health and safety legislation to stop the operation of the big society. If that is the Prime Minister's big idea, he must do something about that because such initiatives will disappear if this report is not implemented.

That leads me to my final point. The noble Lord, Lord Young, says in his introduction that these reports gather dust. From my experience of Whitehall, which lasted only 11 years and was very short, I say that his report will gather dust. The report cuts right across the piece, so nothing will happen unless somebody with get-up-and-go is charged with dealing with it. The noble Lord was supposed to be dealing with it, but the issue is quite separate from that of his role as business tsar. I say to the Prime Minister that letting the noble Lord, Lord Young, go is a sign of weakness. I am not accusing the Prime Minister of weakness; it is a sign of weakness in the Government. If the report is to be implemented, that will not be done by saying to each department, “Will you and your Ministers play your part, please?”. In my experience, such reports are not implemented but must be driven forward in a positive way. It will not cost a lot to do that, but everyone will benefit if it happens. Society will benefit, regulation will benefit and we will have a happier society, which was mentioned in the speeches this morning. However, if nothing is done about the management of this report, I say to the Minister in all sincerity that it will not get implemented. My central plea is that someone should be put in charge of ensuring that the report is implemented, because that is the desire of everybody.

14:28

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his overdue visit to our House and for introducing this debate in what cannot be the easiest of weeks. I am sure that he will forgive me if I on the Front Bench do not exonerate him in quite the same effusive way as my noble friend Lord Rooker did. I also offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, on a most impressive and entertaining maiden speech.

We welcome this debate, which gives us an opportunity to focus on health and safety and, in particular, to tackle the myths, exaggerations and half-truths that surround and undermine it. We will make common cause with the noble Lord, Lord Young, in his endeavour to improve the understanding of health and safety and the status of practitioners. However, we do so because we believe robust health and safety provision is a fundamental hallmark of a decent society and should be seen not as a burden on business but as an integral part of good business practice and a fundamental right for workers. My noble friend Lord Bhattacharyya made it clear that those companies with good health and safety systems have good management systems generally and good bottom-line performance. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, that I do not think that there is a conflict between good health and safety provision and liberating business.

Like a number of noble Lords, I celebrate the huge progress that has been made since the passing of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974—legislation that has stood the test of time. We have a good record, which is consistently one of the best in Europe. Since 1997, all measures of injury at work have shown improvement, yet the number of people who are still killed or harmed at work demonstrates how much more we need to do. We have heard the statistics. In 2009-10, more than 23 million days were lost through work-related ill health and some 5 million days were lost due to workplace injury. My noble friend Lord Haskel spoke about stress and the HSE’s management standards. We quote statistics but these are individual lives—careers interrupted, family finances put in jeopardy and aspirations dashed. Although no one should support an overzealous and disproportionate application of health and safety regulation, we also need to be mindful of non-compliance. It is disappointing that, so far as I can see, the report makes no positive recommendations on issues such as enforcement, prevention or, indeed, direct responsibilities.

Our approach must remain embedded in the principles of the 1974 Act, which rightly places the responsibility for managing risks on those who create them. We have to recognise that there are now many more SMEs and that fewer companies are unionised, which means that they miss out on the knowledge and worker engagement that has made a fundamental difference to many workplaces. In this context, we support what the HSE has encapsulated in its strategy: the importance of working together; the need for co-operation between co-regulators; and the essential role of leadership and worker engagement. We also need to be clear that those who fail in their duties are properly held to account.

We agree that these matters would be made easier in an environment where there was a better understanding of risk and where businesses were not frightened into seeking to eliminate all risk or to refrain from activity because of the fear of risk. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, about the tragedy of young people being denied opportunities because of risk aversion. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, took us into the area of GM crops, but I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow him down that path this afternoon. My noble friend talked with passion about outdoor activities and about how those could be prevented from happening if we create and sustain an environment that is too risk averse.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, seeks to improve the perception of health and safety by tackling what is described as the growth of the compensation culture, which he asserts drives risk-averse behaviour. It is asserted that the compensation culture is compounded by businesses—particularly smaller ones—seeking the advice of health and safety consultants, who are often unqualified and some of whom deliver excessive and costly advice. As we have heard, the report’s recommendations cover issues such as tackling compensation, providing simplified risk assessment for what are termed low-hazard workplaces and raising standards for health and safety advisers. The noble Lord recognises that the problem of a compensation culture is one of perception rather than reality. In that I believe he was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, but it seemed to be at odds with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who suggested that it was a reality. On the basis of perception, it is difficult to discern how pervasive the compensation culture is and to discern the evidence for such a judgment, although the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, had no doubt that it is pervasive.

However, I suggest that there is another side to this coin. The reality is that many people who are injured or made ill by their work never access compensation and, for those who do, the settlements are a million miles away from the amounts reported in the press and, indeed, from the example referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. On a very specific issue, perhaps in his reply the Minister would update us on progress in tracing old employer liability policies. Despite improvements, there are too many sufferers of long-latency occupational diseases who do not access compensation.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, is a little ahead of his Government on the recommendations in Lord Justice Jackson’s report, which of course was commissioned under the previous Government. We consider this to be an important piece of work, focusing as it does on the challenges of facilitating access to justice at proportionate cost. We look forward to the outcome of the consultation on abolishing recoverability of CFA success fees and ATE insurance premiums. We also await the deliberations of the Legal Services Board on referral fees.

A number of noble Lords—in particular, my noble friend Lord Sugar but also the noble Lords, Lord Skelmersdale and Lord Hunt—spoke about the problems, challenges and activities of claims management companies. We heard from my noble friend Lord Smith of Finsbury that we need to look again at the role of advertising and we need to test the earlier research, which suggested that advertising was not a major contributor to these matters.

We can certainly support efforts to dispel misconceptions surrounding the risks of litigation arising from voluntary acts. That is particularly relevant, as my noble friend Lord Rooker said, with what looks like the onset of snow. The noble Lord, Lord Young, is right to identify the challenges faced by SMEs and the role that the HSE has played in helping them to understand what is required. The development of pro forma risk assessments, awareness raising and education as well as engagement via trade associations have all contributed to improvements. There are recommendations for the HSE to do more: to produce simplified interactive risk assessment forms for offices, classrooms, and shops; to produce periodic checklists; to consolidate existing regulations; and to provide separate guidance for SMEs. Doubtless the HSE will respond in its usual highly professional manner, but can the noble Lord, Lord Young, or the Minister comment on the HSE’s capacity to cope with these and other demands that the report imposes in the light of the 35 per cent reduction in its resources? The HSE already has to cope with a difficult balancing act in allocating resources between its enforcement and prevention activities. I think that the HSE has about 1,300 frontline inspectors and, excluding nuclear and major hazard installations, these inspectors cover nearly 900,000 premises and 15 million workers.

The noble Lord’s report defines low-hazard workplaces as those where the risk of injury or death is minimal, but that seems totally to ignore health issues. Of course, the same health and safety laws do not apply to all workplaces. There are major hazard regulations, which rightly impose far more prescriptive standards on potentially dangerous sites. However, the general health and safety law that applies to all workplaces is designed to be proportionate to the varying risks. These risks might include threats of violence and abuse of shop workers, MSDs for office workers and exposure to hazardous substances for cleaning staff, and there is still plenty of asbestos around in schools. Therefore, we can support improved ways of helping businesses to understand the identification, management and control of risk but not any moves to remove them from the requirement to risk assess. Periodic checklists may help, but they must not just engender an unthinking tick-box approach.

We are supportive of the proposals to raise standards and the development of the health and safety profession. Indeed, that got under way on our watch, so why would we not do so? The challenges will relate to encompassing the technical and the practical, and low-level support as well as more sophisticated requirements. I say to my noble friend Lord Sugar that, as well as being a health and safety adviser without any qualifications, he can also call himself an accountant.

There are wider educational issues about embedding health and safety in the curriculum and in a range of professional qualifications, as well as creating awareness in our schools. We should also recognise the substantial and knowledgeable input from the trade unions and safety representatives, to which my noble friends Lady Donaghy and Lady Turner referred. I say to my noble friend Lady Turner that I think the “not required back” arrangements are still in operation in the offshore sector.

Local authorities play a vital role as co-regulators of more than 1 million workplaces. They have a strong partnership with the HSE and there is increasingly joined-up working among authorities. The report comments, in particular, on the primary authority scheme and notes its successes, but the report also suggests that the scheme needs strengthening to address inconsistent enforcement. I would support that. Like the HSE, local authorities will be under enormous financial pressures with cuts to resources of some 28 per cent, which are to be front-end loaded. The noble Lord’s recommendations for local authorities concern refusals to hold events. I accept that from time to time local authorities, like others, may prevent certain activities from taking place. We have heard about the St Albans pancake race and about problems with the hydrotherapy pools from the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. Sometimes such things come from the overzealous application of health and safety rules using health and safety as a shield, but that cannot be supported. I question how often that happens. I was unable to identify any data on how often events are banned by local authorities, but doubtless the Minister will be able to provide that in his winding up.

Like my noble friend Lord Jordan, I think that the most striking thing about the report is how little of it is actually about health and safety. Most of the proposals are about food safety or public safety—important as they are—but there is no awareness of the problems around occupational disease and no recommendations on issues of prevention. The noble Lord sees the matter only from a perspective of freeing business from the burdens. Nevertheless, I hope that the report will in some way contribute to bringing back a sense of proportion. I end by quoting IOSH:

“For every silly health and safety news story there are countless unreported stories of untimely death, terrible injury or debilitating disease. This is the reality of health and safety going wrong. We need to remember that an estimated 5,000 people’s lives have been saved since the Health and Safety at Work Act … Many thousands more have been saved from suffering serious injury and disease”.

We have a responsibility to argue the cause of health and safety as well.

14:42

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Young, on his work in investigating the concerns about the perception and application of health and safety legislation, together with the rise of the so-called compensation culture, resulting in the report that we have been debating this afternoon, Common Sense Common Safety. This report has been widely welcomed and is fully supported by the Government as a turning point for health and safety. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Faulks on his admirable maiden speech. I can expect to see this Chamber adopt the position of an old folks’ home if he continues in that vein.

Today’s debate has given the House an opportunity to discuss the operation of health and safety laws, and we have had a debate of great quality from many noble Lords. Interestingly, there has been general support—not unanimous support—for the report of the noble Lord, Lord Young. I can assure noble Lords that the Government are fully supportive of the report and individual departments are making progress in implementing the proposals. The great majority of them are included in departments’ published structural reform plans. Picking up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, about the need for a champion, I think the fact that these recommendations are now embedded reduces that need significantly. A small number of the recommendations do not fit neatly into a single government department’s purview and the review implementation team is currently working with the relevant government departments to ensure that these recommendations also are taken forward.

I particularly want to focus on the work of the Ministry of Justice and the Health and Safety Executive. The Ministry of Justice has a central role in the implementation of the compensation recommendations, while my department is the sponsor department for the HSE. That said, the recommendations impact on many other departments in government and I commend them all for their swift and positive response to recommendations and for their recognition of the need for change.

We must emphasise that this is not change for change’s sake. We need to build on the achievements of the past and recognise that, when responsibly applied, health and safety and the compensation system have an important part to play in making all our lives better. That is not in dispute. It is right that people should be protected from risk at work, whether in potentially dangerous environments such as oil rigs, construction and farm yards, or in lower-risk areas such as shops and offices. It is also right that those who, due to the negligence of others, are injured or made ill from their work or the work of others should have the right of redress. That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and we fully endorse it. The issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, so rightly brings out, is that we need to regain a sense of proportion.

The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which was pioneered by Lord Robens, was ground-breaking at the time of its introduction with the switch of emphasis from detailed prescriptive legislation to goal-setting regulations. However, his vision has now been distorted by overinterpretation, as my noble friend Lord German pointed out. Rules intended to protect workers in high-hazard industries have been overzealously applied to low-risk workplaces. Consultants encourage businesses to take unnecessary actions to avoid litigation. No-win no-fee adverts encourage people to seek compensation for genuine accidents, rather than to take responsibility for their own actions. These factors have led to pointless risk avoidance.

The Government have therefore welcomed the report of the noble Lord, Lord Young, as a milestone on the road to restoring proportionate health and safety. We need to push back against the use of health and safety and compensation, which become paralysing rather than protective. The emphasis should be on addressing real risks and preventing death, injury and ill health to those at work and those affected by work-related activities.

The Health and Safety Executive is already working to implement the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Young, especially those aimed at low-risk businesses. One example is an online risk assessment tool for those working in low-risk office-based environments which can be completed in 20 minutes. I hope that goes some way to satisfying the concerns expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Bhattacharyya and Lord Sugar. That particular tool will help employers to consider relevant hazards in their offices and think about how to control them. It will also help employers to avoid unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy. A similar tool is out now for consultation to ease the paperwork burden that teachers face; tools for low-risk shops and for charity shops will be put out for consultation next month and the HSE will consult on similar guidance for small firms.

There is also the new occupational safety consultants register, which will be launched in January 2011. The register will provide businesses with details of safety consultants who have met the highest qualification standard of recognised professional bodies and who are bound by a code of conduct that requires them to give only advice which is sensible and proportionate. That may help to stop the gravy train referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Bhattacharyya and Lord Sugar, and by my noble friend Lord German.

The Ministry of Justice has been equally as prompt as the HSE in addressing my noble friend Lord Young’s recommendations. I shall touch on two areas in particular. The first is the concern about conditional fee arrangements and the culture surrounding them. The noble Lord, Lord Sugar, referred to the rogues in the industry. This point was touched upon by my noble friends Lord Hunt and Lord Black. As the House knows, last week we launched a consultation on Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations on the reform of civil litigation, which will close on 14 February. It is in the structural reform plan of the Ministry of Justice, and the Government are very committed to this issue, which we will seek to implement rapidly, although it is up to the Secretary of State at the MoJ to confirm that.

Secondly, in March next year, the Ministry of Justice will launch a consultation on the reform of civil justice, covering the extension of the road traffic accident personal injury scheme. This consultation will address three aspects of the recommendations by my noble friend Lord Young. It will look at introducing a simplified claims procedure for personal injury claims similar to that for road accidents, explore the possibility of extending the framework of such a scheme to cover low-value clinical negligence claims, and explore the option of extending the upper limit for road traffic accident personal injury claims to £25,000.

These are specific examples of our response to the recommendations by my noble friend Lord Young, but noble Lords have raised a number of wider points that I will do my best to address in the time available. I shall start on a warmer note with the request from my noble friend Lady Thomas about hydrotherapy pools. I have to admit that I do not know off the top of my head what the situation is, but I do know that they are likely to be a lot warmer than the 6 degrees centigrade that Highgate men’s pond was this morning. I will put a letter in the Library when I have found out what the situation is.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked me about progress on tracing an employer’s liability policies. I cannot give him very much hard information. All I can do is assure him that this is receiving my full attention to get a satisfactory outcome. I know this is an important matter, I am in discussion with various bodies and I hope to get some resolutions, although the matter has not been made easier by the current court case about the definition of when a loss occurs.

My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale asked about the Adventure Activities Licensing Authority. The HSE is taking forward my noble friend Lord Young’s recommendation to abolish that authority. Its work will be replaced effectively by a code of practice.

[Lord Skelmersdale]

Does that require legislation?

[Lord Freud]

My noble friend will forgive me for not being able to answer him off the top of my head. I am not absolutely sure about how that abolition will happen. I will write to him and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

My noble friend Lord German and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about the SR settlement of the HSE and the reference to cuts among local authorities in this area. I hardly need to confirm that the HSE faces the kind of spending restraint that is seen in the rest of the public sector. Its current funding of £228.8 million will be reduced by 35 per cent over the SR period to around £150 million. The HSE is looking at how to maintain the position of health and safety in the country within that context and looking at its approach, and will report on how it will manage within that financial environment.

My noble friend Lord German and the noble Lord, Lord Smith, observed that there was a lack of evidence in my noble friend Lord Young’s report. I think I can speak for him in saying that there was wide consultation with stakeholders in the course of his review. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, raised whether we are talking about reality or perception. My noble friend Lord Young’s report said that perception becomes reality at a certain point. The fact that people read silly health and safety myths in the media on a regular basis affects behaviour, has an impact and does not encourage a sensible and proportionate approach to risk. This dialogue about what is perception and what is reality does not properly take that point on board.

Gold-plating was raised by my noble friends Lord German and Lord Vinson. It is at the heart of what the Government are doing in this area. We need to position health and safety as an enabler for business and citizens. The Government strongly support that approach. We know that it is central to the HSE’s new approach in the context of the financial rigours that we are facing.

The noble Lords, Lord Smith and Lord Sugar, raised advertising. The claims management regulator has already agreed to look at the code regarding offering inducements and plans to close this loophole by April 2011. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, in particular, will welcome that assurance.

My noble friend Lord Vinson and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, talked about bureaucracy and the criminal records check system. The clearly excessive bureaucracy adds little to our real safety and has become part of the perception problem. Such checks fall outside the HSE’s remit, but I will bring the concerns on that to the attention of colleagues.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, perhaps I may draw the attention of my noble friend to the fact that 100,000 people in this country are checked 30 times each and every year.

[Lord Freud]

I fully accept the concern of noble Lords on that issue and, as I say, we will push this point. In conclusion, good health and safety, particularly in low-risk areas, should be simple and straightforward. It should be about protecting people from real risks, not trivial risks. I believe that the approach of my noble friend Lord Young will help to put the focus back on managing serious risks and to dispel the myth that health and safety is a killjoy activity designed to place burdens on business, take the fun out of life and stop people from enjoying everyday activities. We will not make the United Kingdom a safer place by wrapping everyone in cotton wool and avoiding all risk. We will do it by being exemplars of a common-sense, proportionate approach to risk management, by giving people confidence to exercise judgment and by ensuring that advice and guidance is competent and fit for purpose. I commend the work and the report of my noble friend Lord Young, and I look forward to the successful implementation of his recommendations.

15:01

[Lord Young of Graffham]

My Lords, I am grateful to the House for this contribution to discussion on health and safety. I will not detain your Lordships much longer, but I would like to say just three things and to make one general observation. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, not only for his thorough endorsement of my report, but for the way in which we have worked together with his organisation. Next week, at Bluewater, the Scores on the Doors scheme will be introduced, which I believe will not only make a long-lasting contribution to the health of the nation but be a valuable boost to tourism.

I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, on his point about incitement to litigate, but I ask him also to look at the volume of advertising, which I believe has increased remarkably and markedly since 2006. The noble Lord, Lord Jordan, has the honour to be president of RoSPA. Perhaps I may say that I fail to recognise his description of my report. Furthermore, in the past three weeks I have had two meetings with his officials and none of those points was raised with me.

Finally—to give a general observation—the laws and the regulations are there. The one thing not dealt with is people and I am afraid that individuals, from time to time, take all these rules and regulations and assert petty authority or take extreme views. The only antidote to that is common sense and that I commend to your Lordships’ House. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion withdrawn.

Railways: Investment

Thursday 25th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Statement

15:04

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place. The Statement is as follows.

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the Government’s plans for investment in rail infrastructure and rolling stock. These plans build on the announcement by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the outcome of the spending review. As we have consistently said, tackling the deficit is our top priority. By taking tough decisions on current spending, we are able to secure our future growth by making vital infrastructure investments.

Over the next four years, we will provide £14 billion of funding to Network Rail to support capital maintenance and infrastructure investment, and £750 million for high speed rail. We will also fund the Crossrail project, the Tube upgrade programme, light rail projects in Birmingham, Tyneside, Nottingham and Sheffield, and provide additional funding to franchisees for extra rolling stock. I can also confirm today that we will fund and deliver the Thameslink programme in its entirety, virtually doubling the number of north/south trains running through central London at peak times. This huge investment will link Sussex, Kent and Surrey, through central London, with Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire.

The original programme for the rebuilding of London Bridge station, to increase through-running as part of this project, was always ambitious, with substantial risks around delivery and operation of existing services during construction. To reduce these risks, we have reprofiled the delivery of the programme to achieve completion in 2018. This will enable Network Rail to make the further efficiencies in the design and delivery of the programme that we require to ensure value for money. Passengers will start to benefit from incremental improvements on the Thameslink route from 2011.

As part of the Thameslink programme, we will procure a new fleet of trains, with up to 1,200 new carriages. This is in addition to 600 new carriages which will be provided for the Crossrail project. Together with the Tube upgrades, these projects represent a step change in rail capacity in London, providing a significant boost to economic growth potential in the capital. New Thameslink and Crossrail rolling stock will enable the redeployment of hundreds of serviceable electric carriages currently used on Thameslink services. These carriages belong to rolling-stock leasing companies, but we expect that they will be available at competitive leasing prices for use elsewhere, thus justifying further electrification of the network.

As a first step, I can announce today that Network Rail will electrify commuter services on the Great Western main line from London to Didcot, Oxford and Newbury over the next six years. Electric trains will speed up journeys, improve reliability and reduce the impact on the environment on these busy routes.

The Chancellor also announced on 20 October the electrification of the lines between Liverpool, Manchester, Preston and Blackpool, an investment of up to £300 million. I expect work in the north-west to begin next year and to be completed at around the same time as work on the Thames Valley commuter lines in 2016. Some sections will be completed well ahead of this, notably Manchester to Newton-le-Willows in late 2013, allowing new electric trains to operate between Manchester and Scotland. As with Thameslink, we will require Network Rail to keep a tight rein on costs.

The redeployment of electric rolling stock to these routes will, in turn, free up hundreds of diesel units for train operators to lease as they become available in the period after 2015. This will be welcome news to passengers. The Public Accounts Committee recently found that many services are unacceptably overcrowded, and I understand the frustrations of rail travellers who have to travel on packed trains. More investment is clearly needed. That is why I argued for additional rail investment in the spending review, and it is also why I have taken the difficult decision to allow regulated fares to rise by 3 per cent above inflation for the three years from 2012 in order to help us to pay for these investments.

In January 2008, the previous Government published a plan to bring 1,300 additional carriages into service by March 2014. This plan was never deliverable. In total, only 206 of those 1,300 carriages had entered service by May this year. My predecessors quoted a grand total of rail carriages, but never referred publicly to the fact that delivery of that total was subject to so many caveats and qualifications as to render it effectively meaningless. According to their published plan, the 1,300 carriages were not final and were subject to,

“value for money, affordability … linkages with other interventions or with other rail projects … infrastructure constraints … supply chain constraints”,

and even “credibility”. It went on to say in the document that,

“the final outcome could well be different”.

In other words, not so much a plan as a press release. So let me set the record straight: I can confirm today that an additional 650 carriages will have been delivered to the network between 6 May 2010 and March 2014. This is in addition to the Thameslink and Crossrail carriages I have already mentioned.

But it is not just about rolling stock. Network Rail has already started work on station improvements, with funding confirmed for developments at Reading, Birmingham, London King’s Cross and Gatwick Airport. Investments on the east coast main line, the Midland main line, improvements in Yorkshire on trans-Pennine routes around Manchester, and in south Wales will improve the line speed, reliability and capacity of services.

Beyond these investments, there are far-reaching decisions to be made about intercity services. In February 2009, the Intercity Express Programme, launched by the previous Government, identified the Agility Trains consortium as the preferred bidder to build a new fleet of intercity trains. Then, this February, my predecessor invited Sir Andrew Foster, former head of the Audit Commission, to provide an independent assessment of the programme. Sir Andrew presented his report to me at the end of June, recommending further work on the Agility Trains proposal and a detailed study of the alternatives. I can now tell the House that we have narrowed down the options from the four Sir Andrew identified to two. I have ruled out the option of requiring passengers to change from electric to diesel trains at a point in their journeys, recognising the value to passengers of preserving through-journeys. I have also ruled out the option of a wholesale refurbishment of the existing Intercity 125 fleet, some of which dates back to the 1970s.

The remaining options are, on the one hand, a revised lower-cost Agility Trains proposal that envisages a mixed fleet of some all-electric trains and some electric trains equipped with underfloor diesel engines, and on the other hand, a fleet of new all-electric trains that could be coupled to new diesel locomotives where the overhead electric power lines end. Both of these options would allow us to preserve through-journeys between London and those parts of the rail network which are not electrified. Both of them would deliver faster journey times. For example, we expect to see time savings of at least 15 minutes for the journey between Cardiff and London, bringing it to below two hours.

This is a major decision that will affect intercity rail travel for decades to come, and we must get it right. To address the outstanding issues on choice of train type and further electrification on the Great Western main line, additional work will be required within the department, with Agility Trains and with the Welsh Assembly Government on the business case for electrification into Wales. When this work and discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government and with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales have been concluded, I expect to announce a final decision on the Intercity Express Programme and on further Great Western electrification in the new year.

The package I have announced today has been possible only because this Government have been prepared to take tough decisions in order to protect investment in Britain’s future. This is a commitment to our railways which will benefit Britain for generations to come. I commend the Statement to the House”.

15:14

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for repeating this important Statement on investment in a crucial mode of transport in this country—the railway. I find a little tendentious the Government taking pride in investment decisions as if the groundwork had not been laid in the past. I hope the noble Earl is not suggesting, for instance, that there was a decision to be taken about continued investment in Crossrail or that Thameslink might have been abandoned, given the vital nature of both developments and the existing investment in these crucial services to the capital. When one is talking about long-term investment and the necessity for a Government to build upon the work of their predecessors—where often such investments are bound to span beyond the lifetime of any particular Administration—I hope the noble Earl will appreciate, as will the House, that tendentious criticism is ill placed. It is better that one should emphasise how the needs of the nation are being served.

I fear that an aspect of this approach may be reflected in the fact that the Statement contains some less attractive news as well as the confirmation of certain projects. Let me deal first with the projects which are being confirmed, both of which are subject to delay—Crossrail by one year and Thameslink by two. The adduced reason for this is that London Bridge station is subject to major reconversion, redevelopment and change. Whoever doubted that? The idea that the difficulties with London Bridge are a ready explanation for additional delay will not wash. What reflects the delay, of course, is the extent to which the Government are prepared to commit resources.

This is also true in areas where much greater disappointment will be felt. The limited commitment to the Great Western mainline development leaves adrift any commitment to electrification in Wales. In fact, the commitment to electrification does not go beyond Oxford in these proposals, and so south-west England will also be disappointed with this limited position.

It has been suggested that the Secretary of State for Wales is so concerned for her constituents with regard to the potential high-speed rail line that she is prepared to resign if it is not readjusted. She has her constituents’ interests properly at heart and, as Secretary of State for Wales, she has also the interests of a nation at heart. It would therefore behove her to think about the implications of the limited service and investment in rail in Wales in these proposals as well as her own constituency.

This gives me the opportunity to emphasise the fact—which is true with regard to the high-speed rail link, but perhaps more pronounced, as with all other rail investments—that we have to appreciate that delays cost heavily not only on the resources of the nation but also upon private citizens. If we are not clear about important routes, private citizens will sustain the costs of planning blight. I have no doubt about the difficulties involved in planning the route of the high-speed rail link and the noble Earl will know that we were committed to that development. I hope that when the Statement is made in the new year a similar commitment will be reaffirmed by this Government. I hope also that it will be recognised that it is important to define that route clearly and quickly. Whatever problems there may be for rural England—I do not underestimate the issues for an area of outstanding natural beauty such as the Chilterns—one must also recognise that uncertainty about the route going to Britain’s second city, Birmingham, has colossal implications for planning blight in that area and costs to citizens and businesses. After all, given that the high-speed rail link is predicated on the economic benefits that it will bring to the nation, we should be careful to minimise the cost. We shall scrutinise critically the new year announcement in those terms.

Tendentious reference was made to the 1,300 carriages planned by the previous Government—we also had £1.2 billion of investment scheduled for that. The noble Earl has reiterated the Statement, so I know where its origins lie—namely, with the Secretary of State. If it is contended that the previous Government had submitted a piece of paper rather than a plan, such conjecture is subject to parliamentary scrutiny and freedom of information. It is quite clear that the Permanent Secretary at the department thinks that the plans that were laid for 1,300 carriages were clear and were to be developed. Where does the figure of 650 come from? Well, I am not the leading mathematician in the House, but even I can work out that it is exactly half of a number which the noble Earl pretends had been plucked out of thin air. It had not been plucked out of thin air; it was part of a departmental plan for 1,300 carriages to which we were committed and of which this Government are prepared to commit only to precisely half. We will look at that with critical scrutiny as well.

Of course, we welcome the constructive parts of the Statement; for example, with regard to electrification in the area around Manchester and Liverpool. We recognise that these projects cost significant sums of money and we know that there are limits on public expenditure. There was anxiety on all sides that the Government’s commitment to reducing the fiscal deficit might lead to an abandonment of future investment in vital infrastructure. I therefore commend the Government on having made a Statement today which meets some clear objectives in those terms. However, it has been expressed in terms that scarcely bear any scrutiny that would be satisfactory to this House.

15:23

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the measured response of the noble Lord, Lord Davies. We will take on the baton of improving rail services for our people. I accept that a lot of the groundwork was done by the previous Government. I am also proud of the fact that we have avoided the trap of cutting infrastructure investment—the noble Lord touched on that. He referred to some of the slight delays, which I explained in the Statement.

It is important to remember that we have retained the full scope of the Thameslink programme; that is, 24 trains per hour in each direction. I am sure that the noble Lord understands that the decision on electrification to Wales is dependent on the IEP project decision. He needs to understand that all these schemes are interdependent; they are a jigsaw. Today’s announcement on the Thameslink project and its beneficial consequences is just one part of that process.

The noble Lord referred to the HS2 route. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is well aware of the difficulties, but he is extremely persuasive. Some people underestimate some of the mitigating measures that can be put in place. The noble Lord referred also to carriage numbers, and I am sure that he will table numerous written parliamentary Questions to drill down that issue. I look forward to answering them.

15:25

[Lord Snape]

My Lords, those of us who take an interest in these matters will welcome many parts of the Statement that the Minister has just made. The previous Government promised an electrified Great Western main line. That line has never ended at Oxford but goes a considerable distance further west than that. Will he give us some assurance that the Oxford of tomorrow does not become the Bedford of yesterday—namely, a terminus for electric trains—rather than the whole line being electrified?

Without getting into the argument between the two Front Benches on the exact number of new coaches, can the Minister give the House some assurance that he will do what he can to see that those coaches are constructed in the United Kingdom? Furthermore, does he accept that the one downside of his Statement is the proposal to allow train operating companies to increase fares by inflation plus 3 per cent? Is he aware that that was a favourite tactic of British Rail in the days of the nationalised industry under successive Governments? Such increases appear guaranteed to choke off new passenger demand, rather than, as the Government’s stated objective supposedly is, to increase the number of passengers carried on Britain’s railway system.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord referred to electrification past Oxford. He will have to be patient for our determination on the IEP project, but he will not have to wait too long. He asked where the coaches would be constructed. He will know that EU procurement rules prevent us from guaranteeing that coaches will be built in the UK. Personally, I hope that they will be built in the UK, but we will have to see what happens.

[Lord Bradshaw]

I congratulate the Minister on the Statement, which, over the whole country, will be gladly accepted by most railwaymen. I deplore the sentiments expressed on the other side of the House, as this seems to be a great day for railways.

I have a few questions, however. The Statement refers to electrification in the north-west. It is important that Leeds is also included, because services across the Pennines are much slower than they would be and electrification between the west and east coasts makes an enormous amount of sense. The overcrowding of existing services, particularly around Manchester, is a blot on the record of the previous Government, because the crowding standards there are totally unacceptable.

Will the Minister confirm my arithmetic that something like 2,450 extra carriages are included? Reference is made to investments on the east coast main line and the Midland main line. I should like to know the nature of those improvements, because it is not very clear from the Statement. I was concerned about the Secretary of State ruling out the option of a wholesale refurbishment of the Intercity 125 fleet, some of which dates back to the 1970s. I am reliably informed by people in the rolling stock industry that those vehicles and the Mark IV vehicles on the east coast main line are quite capable of being turned into new vehicles, as has already been done for the Wrexham and Shropshire railway. We ought to be quite certain that we cannot use them, because their owners—the rolling stock companies—may lease them to a large number of open-access operators. I believe that any big increase in open-access operations will undermine the franchising process.

The noble Lord talked about bringing the journey time from Cardiff to London to under two hours, but it was under two hours in the 1980s, so that does not amount to much of an improvement. It is the timetable that needs altering—it has been packed with stops here, there and everywhere, making the journey to south Wales much longer than it need be. While we are on the subject of south Wales, my most anxious concerns are about the Severn Tunnel, which is the only way in and out of south Wales. I know that my noble friend in another place will be seeing the Minister on Monday to talk to her about the urgent necessity of doubling the line from Swindon to Kemble, so that there is a viable route between south Wales and London.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, my noble friend makes several important points. I shall just touch on some of the more important ones. He talked about the future of the HST 125 trains, the possibility of refurbishing them and the possible undesirable effects of those trains staying in the market. There are uses for that rolling stock in the future. One difficulty about that rolling stock is that its operating costs would be higher, while there might be a reliability question. The noble Lord knows how damaging breakdowns are on the system.

The noble Lord talked about the redoubling of the Swindon to Kemble line. That is a good scheme but it is not in CP4. I am making absolutely no commitment, but it could be a CP5 issue. He also talked about the time saving that arises from electrification. He needs to remember that that route is much more intensively used but that electric trains will give greater acceleration, so there will be a big benefit. However, we will keep the timetabling issues under review and make sure that we are not losing any benefits that we could gain.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, the Statement is couched almost entirely in terms of the impact on passenger traffic on the railways. Can the Minister comment on the Government’s policy for increasing the use of the railways for freight and on what the relevance of the Statement might be to that?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, we are very keen to move as much freight as possible on to the railway system. The Thameslink project is not relevant to freight but the High Speed 2 project is, because the west coast main line will run out of capacity and, if we do not build High Speed 2, we will not be able to put more freight on to the west coast main line.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, first, I thank the Minister very much for repeating the Statement. I also thank him for the tone of his replies, particularly in his reference to the previous Administration. As he knows, I had a very minor part in the Department for Transport in that Administration and I welcome what he said. I am aware that, when a Statement is repeated from the Commons, we tend to hear rather more strident language than we normally would in this Chamber. I also endorse much of what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said. He is too modest. When the journey time between London and Cardiff was under two hours, it was when he was running the western region of British Railways. Indeed, that journey time is not that great an aspiration.

I obviously welcome the continued commitment to High Speed 2, to the electrification programme in the north-west and to the Great Western main line as far as Newbury and Oxford. I should declare an unpaid interest as a member of the First Great Western advisory board. I want to press the noble Lord a little bit about what the mechanism will be for reviewing the possibility of going further west than Didcot. Is there a possibility, for example, that electrification will reach Bristol and is it the case that electrification to Cardiff and Swansea is dependent on the Welsh Government making some significant financial contribution?

My worry about the Statement, which I would like the Minister to address, is the question of overcrowding. He will be aware that the figures from the Office of Rail Regulation show that services in London and the south-east are already seriously overcrowded, particularly on First Great Western, where they worsened from 6.5 per cent of passengers in excess of capacity in 2008 to 8.2 per cent in 2009. The consequence of the cascading of electrified stock from the existing Thameslink service to the new electrified services to Newbury and Oxford is that there will be a delay of four years. I am fearful that overcrowding will increase during those four years.

I hope that the point made by my noble friend Lord Snape about the fare increases pricing people off the railway will not come to pass. Like the Minister, I am anxious to see the railway used to the maximum extent. It would be disastrous if we went back to the sort of policy that existed in the 1970s and 1980s, when the response to passenger demand was simply to put up the fares to choke it off. Will the Minister comment on overcrowding as well?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord’s kind words about the difference between this place and another place, I could not possibly comment. The noble Lord talked about electrification out to Bristol. That is an important point. As I said, it is closely linked to the IEP solution and the development of the business case. He talked about a possible contribution from the Welsh Assembly Government. I think that he is thinking along the correct lines. I will talk to the officials and reflect on his points about overcrowding. The decision regarding fares was difficult, but we have to get some more income to pay for the improvements. However, it is certainly not a mechanism to choke off demand and passengers. We want people to travel by rail; we do not want them to travel by car.

[Lord Fowler]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the government Statement that he has made is important and will be widely welcomed throughout the country, not just in London but in many other parts as well? Is it not sensible, even in these times of austerity, that plans for capital investment should go ahead and be sustained? In the past, it has been the case that capital projects have been cut back. That is one of the most significant parts of the Statement. I underline the importance of the high-speed service to Birmingham; it is important not just to Birmingham but to commerce, industry and business in the whole of the West Midlands. I hope that he will take it that there is a great deal of support for that new service.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, it is an important Statement. I also look forward to making further welcome Statements about the development of our railway system. My noble friend is right about capital investment; we are spending for future growth. He talked about the benefits of High Speed 2 for the Midlands, but it would also give benefits much further north.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

I thank the Minister for his courteous replies, but is he aware that in our Welsh folklore there is the story of the dictionary that, under “Wales”, states: “For ‘Wales’, read ‘England’”? Is there not a danger here that Wales will be short-changed—just as we were, for example, when at the time of the introduction of HSTs we were given only the hand-me-downs from the east coast main line? Why is more work needed in Wales on this matter, not in the north-west? When the Minister refers to the discussions within the Welsh Assembly Government, does that not mean in effect that the aim of the Government is to force the Welsh Assembly Government, at a time when their resources are being limited, to pick up a substantial part of the bill for the electrification of the line to south Wales?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, we do not intend to short-change Wales. Wales will benefit from the electrification; indeed, Wales would benefit even if we electrified only to Bristol because the journey time to London will be reduced and the journeys will be more reliable.

[Lord Taylor of Goss Moor]

My Lords, as someone who travels regularly between Cornwall and London, I have to say that the Statement inspires rather less warm feelings in me than it may in those from some other parts of the country. Again, we see a decision delayed. Can the Minister give some indication of what a decision in the new year means in practice? How quickly will we see a decision on the replacement of Great Western intercity rolling stock? I express my deep concern that, while it is great that making passengers change train has been ruled out, changing the locomotive does not inspire great confidence. I hope that we will see a new diesel/electric hybrid able to run all the way through to Penzance.

[Earl Attlee]

The noble Lord talks about the difficulties faced by Cornwall and the West Country. I am well aware of the economic difficulties in that part of the country. He talks about the disadvantages of attaching a diesel locomotive to the front of an IEP train. It is an obvious difficulty, which will no doubt be taken into consideration when developing and assessing the business cases.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the decision on the Intercity Express Programme will be followed very closely in the north-east of England? The Agility consortium, particularly Hitachi trains, is looking to invest £660 million in a plant at Newton Aycliffe in the north-east, which is of course the home of the railway’s first steam engine and the location of the first railway line between Darlington and Stockton. While recognising that there is a great need to ensure that major capital investment programmes are well researched and offer full value for money, I urge my noble friend to bring that decision forward as quickly as possible. It is crucial for the north-east economy and for manufacturing; it would also be a tremendous boost to the north-east at a time when it is seeing lots of public spending restraint in other areas. Will he focus particularly on the point in his Statement on the revised bid put forward by Hitachi and the Agility consortium? I think that I heard him say that it had been resubmitted and was now lower than the other option. At times of fiscal constraint, that might be a clincher.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend’s contribution on the importance of the IEP to the north-east. That was no doubt very high up in the mind of the previous Administration, quite rightly. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is fully aware of all these factors and the importance of, as my noble friend put it, a boost to the north-east. My noble friend talked about a lower cost bid. That is welcome as well, but it is important that we select the correct technical solution to the problem of having a bi-mode capability.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, as one of the small minority of Members of this House who live in the north of England, I congratulate the Government on the large number of measures that are suggested, including electrification in the north-west and improvement to services across the Pennines and in the Yorkshire and Manchester areas, even though the much needed increase in rolling stock is yet again London’s cast-offs, which is what we normally get lumbered with. Nevertheless, it is better than nothing—cattle trucks are better than no trucks at all. Is the Minister aware of the need to reinstate a teeny-weeny bit of track in the Todmorden area, known as the Todmorden curve? That would allow trains going from Burnley over the Copy Pit line to join the old Calder Valley main line between Todmorden and Hebden Bridge to turn right as well as left, and allow us not to improve the rail service from the Burnley and Pendle area to Manchester but actually to introduce one.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am aware of the problem of London’s cast-offs, as the noble Lord put it. However, it is a sensible way of extracting all the capital value from the rolling stock. The noble Lord asked about the Todmorden curve. This was raised by a right reverend Prelate the last time I was asked a question on the railways in the north-west. It amused the House that I knew the answer. The snag is that I have forgotten that answer but I assure noble Lords that it remains the same.

Police

Thursday 25th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Debate

15:45

Moved By

[Viscount Bridgeman]

To call attention to the role of the police; and to move for papers.

[Viscount Bridgeman]

My Lords, it is a privilege to introduce this debate at this crucial time, ahead of the police Bill. The subject of the debate is widely drawn and I could not hope to do it justice in the 12 minutes available to me. I will concentrate, therefore, on more specific and, in my view, topical matters.

A matter currently of considerable topicality is that of elected police commissioners. This has excited a great deal of debate. There are those who argue that the present system of police authorities works well, with a structure refined by my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne when he was Home Secretary. They will no doubt argue that the accountability of the chief police officer to the authority works satisfactorily, and that any attempt at political control by the elected councillors is counterbalanced by the presence of the independent members of the authority. Against that is the argument that greater accountability can be enforced through one individual. This is but a summary of the respective standpoints but the arguments hinge on the question of accountability.

The coalition Government are emphatic in their commitment to the operational independence of police forces in England and Wales. In the Home Office publication Policing in the Twenty-First Century there is an assurance that this will not be meddled with. However, alongside this is the determination to elect individuals in the place of police authorities. This, as I have said, is a hotly debated issue both within and outside the police service. Questions have been thrown up on which I should welcome the Minister’s views. The first is: will one individual, replacing the 17 to 19 individuals that there are at present, be able to deliver oversight of the huge breadth that modern policing demands? Secondly, I seek reassurance that politics is not in danger of intruding into police operations; for instance, when an election commitment to which a policing and crime commissioner is bound places him at odds with a chief constable’s professional judgment. Thirdly, I understand that policing and crime panels are intended to act as a check on the commissioner. Will we not be in danger of replicating the present police authorities under another name? I look forward to my noble friend’s comments.

I also touch on the somewhat sensitive subject of special entry. I am aware that there has, to date, been considerable resistance to this within the service. However, there is in place a scheme of accelerated promotion where time on the beat is confined to two years. This is a kind of halfway house to the Trenchard scheme, which was abandoned after the Second World War. However, I suggest that the Minister takes a close look at the outstanding success of officer training in the Armed Forces. Take one example: Sandhurst. Until comparatively recently its cadets were drawn from what is loosely called the “officer class”. Now entry is drawn from all strata of society. The excellence of the end product and the leadership it displays—and leadership is what this is all about—is so impressively visible in Afghanistan. The armed services’ socially broad-based intake makes it, I suggest, a more appropriate template for the police service than has been the case in past years.

There are, of course, differences. A member of the Armed Forces is likely always to have the support and camaraderie of his unit, however small. The police officer, on the other hand, for much of his time on duty is absolutely alone. I accept this, which is why an essential component of any direct entry should be a minimum but meaningful time on the beat. I hope simply that the police service and the coalition Government will keep this matter under review.

It is all about leadership, which brings me to ACPO. It is an admirable organisation and the structure of specialisms by individual chief officers is particularly valuable in making its case to the public. It is also an essential link between the police service and the Government. However, there is a perception out there that ACPO is in practice accountable to no one. That is why I am particularly pleased to learn that Sir Hugh Orde, chairman of ACPO, is on the case. If I understand him correctly, he sees its future not merely as a forum for chief police officers but rather—these are his words—

“to act as the professional voice of policing, that develops the profession from cradle to grave”.

I refer briefly to the amalgamation of police forces. It is an ongoing subject of debate but I detect no great enthusiasm for it at present. But whichever way this goes at national level, this, together with the current financial stringency, has encouraged a positive approach towards the sharing of services such as traffic, forensic, crime, helicopters and so forth, which must be wholly to the good.

We await with some anticipation the publication of the forthcoming Police Bill, but it is worth recalling that the last attempt to stand back and consider the delivery of policing in its entirety was the Royal Commission of 1962 when, incidentally, “Dixon of Dock Green” was in its heyday. People look back to that model of policing with nostalgia but things have moved on and crime has become more sophisticated and more international. “The Bill” picked up where “Dixon of Dock Green” left off and the enormous popularity of that programme showed how much the public identified with a civilian police serving the community. It is true that there is less evidence of the bobby on the beat but times have moved on. Mobility and communications ensure that police officers are able to cover substantially wider areas. However, let it be noted that the 9.6 million crimes measured by the British Crime Survey in 2009-10 represented a fall of 9 per cent from the previous year. Some 4.3 million crimes recorded by the police over the same period represented an 8 per cent drop. The British Crime Survey estimates that the risk of becoming a victim of crime is the lowest since it began in 1981.

A widely aired criticism is that front-line policing is supported by an overly heavy tail, but modern crime is a sophisticated business and child abuse and sex offences are regrettably prevalent. A snapshot of one force showed that in the past 50 years the number of officers in CID rose from 42 to 490, plus 131 in specialised crime units. Then it had no staff at all engaged in domestic abuse, child abuse or sexual offences; now it has 153. Sir Denis O’Connor, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, has estimated that the police service is divided roughly 50:50 between those dedicated to visible policing and those delivering specialised services. However, let us not be blind to the realities. The savings that the police service is required to make are considerable. There will, of course, be some gold-plating of back office jobs which will have to be addressed. As we have seen from recent announcements from Greater Manchester, West Midlands and Kent, there will inevitably be some reductions in the uniformed force.

As I have said, the last Royal Commission on the police was in 1962. Since then there have been radical changes in virtually everything that affects the working of the police service: its relations with the public, government and cybercrime terrorism, to name but a few. Is it not time for another Royal Commission, which would, I hope, pre-empt the need for a succession of piecemeal police legislation to which we have been subjected in the recent past? As an indirect result of this, the police service is engaged in its third pay review in seven years. The previous Government vetoed the idea of a Royal Commission, I suspect on grounds of cost and time. I hope that the coalition Government will take another look. I hope that I may make a suggestion: would its incorporation into a wider defence review ease the logistics? It is sorely needed. Perhaps that is another question for the Minister.

It has been well said that every country has the police it deserves. Two hundred-plus years after Trafalgar, we take for granted Nelson’s hold over the Royal Navy. Talking to police officers of all ranks, I am reminded that their hero and role model is Sir Robert Peel, who conceived a civilian force within and at the service of the community.

That is what this nation still essentially requires of the police. Of course, the challenges in the 21st century are ever-more resourceful criminals, the breakdown of the family, the onward march of technology, terrorism and so on, but there is a basic public confidence in a still-largely unarmed police service. Whether this is, in fact, what we deserve may be a matter for debate, but policing in this country remains something in which we can indeed be proud.

We shall, of course, await the police Bill with interest, and I look forward to the contributions from other noble Lords and to the reply from my noble friend.

15:55

[Lord Bradshaw]

My Lords, I should declare my background. I was a member of the Thames Valley Police Authority for 10 or 12 years, and I saw some of the changes to which the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, referred.

The make-up of a police authority is now quite good. It has members from an independent background, representatives of political parties and some magistrates, although their number has been reduced. The duty of a police authority is to set the budget, which gives the authority a lot of leverage over the chief constable in the way that he operates, and there is a requirement for a policing plan which is built up from ground level. In addition, there is wide consultation with various interest groups, such as the business community, ethnic minorities and farmers. All are well focused on the police authority. It does not attract much newspaper attention, unless something goes very wrong. The public never come to watch and listen. However, the influence of the independent members has completely changed the nature of police authorities since they came into being. One thing that has been brought into police authorities is proper ethnic-minority representation. When I left Thames Valley, four out of the 19 members of the authority were from ethnic minorities.

We received regular updates from the chief constable, who was immediately in contact with the chairman, the vice-chairman or a local member of the authority if an incident was in their area. However, the chief and the team made the operational decisions. They were not above criticism if those decisions went wrong. I can remember one or two cases when we received pretty poor reports regarding things which should have been done. There is an independent police complaints authority, which is extremely thorough in its investigation of any complaints, and a professional standards committee makes sure that officers are doing what is right and it investigates complaints. Operational independence did not mean that the chief constable was above criticism but, crucially, no decision was made for political reasons.

The noble Viscount mentioned elected commissioners. I am very worried as to who would stand and, more particularly, who would vote, because when considering the idea of elections—which is very fashionable and is postulated as a future for this establishment—you always have to ask yourself: when will the elections be, who will vote, and on what platform will they campaign? There is a great danger of people putting forward fairly extreme views, being supported by a few newspaper editors and getting a small percentage of the electorate turning out to vote for them. We would then find that a very professional chief constable would be made subject to the direction of somebody who knows nothing about policing, probably does not know a great deal about anything else and may be propelled simply by prejudice into the role that he adopts. Will the Minister confirm whether there is any body that will control the elected police commissioner; and, if he has to report to somebody, will the Widdecombe rules apply so that the proportion of representation of each of the parties, including independents, will be maintained? That is the basis for running a proper police authority. If there is such a body, will the commissioner have the right simply to brush it aside?

The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, also touched on the effect of relationships between the police authority, the Association of Police Authorities and ACPO. Will the police commissioner be independent of these bodies or subject to them? If he or she is subject to them, how will this work? I am very worried also about how an elected commissioner will manage a large and diverse area. We have talked about police commissioners in small areas, but the authority of which I was a member— Thames Valley—covers a vast area that is hugely different from place to place. People in north Oxfordshire might be concerned about hare coursing, whereas people in Slough or High Wycombe might have concerns nearer the other end of the scale.

What will happen to the police commissioner if he is not up to the job? How will one get rid of an incompetent police commissioner? There are procedures for dealing with a chief constable who is not up to the job, but we need to know what will happen to a police commissioner who patently is not. Lastly, will the Minister say whether the police commissioner will be subject to inspection by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary? Will he really be a free agent who will bring something new to the post, or somebody who is not responsible to the members of the community who elected him?

16:03

[Lord Condon]

My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, for this debate to call attention to the role of the police. I declare my registered interest as a life member of the Association of Chief Police Officers and the deputy chairman of a major security company. I will summarise briefly the importance of the history and legacy of policing. I will then say a few brief words about the current concerns over policing. Finally, I will add my thoughts about the Government's proposals for police reform.

I turn first to the legacy. At 6 pm on Tuesday 29 September 1829, the first group of Metropolitan Police officers marched out from a still-being-converted building not far from here called Scotland Yard. They were dressed in blue cloaks and black top hats—deliberately not in red so that they would not be confused with soldiers. They were not in elaborate uniforms like those of the continental gendarmeries. They carried no pistols, swords or knives—merely small wooden batons and wooden rattles to call assistance. They marched out to be greeted with derision and hostility by the London public. Four years later, it was still possible for a coroner's jury to record a verdict of justifiable homicide when Constable Robert Culley was brutally killed by an angry mob simply because he was carrying out his duty. Within a few short years of PC Culley’s death, hostility and derision became acceptance and admiration.

Why am I talking about these things from the past? I do so because I think that they still have enormous resonance for the challenges that police officers face today. Who were those early police officers and what were they asked to do? They were not asked to be soldiers; they were ordinary men drawn from their community for the community. They swore an oath in the office of constable. They were Crown servants with powers and discretion which they had to exercise as individuals. They were accountable as individual constables, not an anonymous group of soldiers taking orders en masse.

The first joint commissioners, Sir Charles Rowan and Richard Mayne, in consultation with Robert Peel, who had been arguing for these reforms for seven years as Home Secretary, wrote what I guess today we would call the mission statement for those early police officers. It was very simple and enduring, and it was the mission statement that I had to learn almost as my first act as a new constable in 1967. It read:

“It should be understood, at the outset, that the principal object to be attained is the prevention of crime”.

The men with this role won over a doubting and hostile public within a few short years of policing the streets of London.

If we fast-forward the history through a number of royal commissions and public inquiries, we arrive at the royal commission, already referred to, which reported in 1964—the last and most influential royal commission on policing. It set out the police role as follows:

“First the police have a duty to maintain law and order and to protect persons and property. Secondly they have a duty to prevent crime. Thirdly they are responsible for the detection of criminals”.

It then said some things about prosecution which have since been transferred to the Crown Prosecution Service. However, lastly it said that the police have,

“a long tradition to befriend anyone who needs their help and may at any time be called upon to cope with minor or major emergencies”.

So to modern policing. I know from my professional roles, from debates in your Lordships’ House and just as a member of the public that there is growing concern and confusion about the role and performance of the police. What has contributed to this erosion of trust in what I might call the policing covenant? The breadth and range of the policing role has been stretched almost to breaking point. Greater Manchester Police recently placed all its reported incidents on Twitter over a 24-hour period. It revealed complex, unpredictable demands from the public which had as much to do with agencies from health, education and local government as they did with policing, and certainly the demands on the police were far more extensive than merely preventing and detecting crime.

The barrage of new legislation in recent years from all shades of government has created hundreds, if not thousands, of new criminal offences and police powers, and an expectation of police action. Every inquiry into something that has gone wrong in policing, every inspection of a police force and every inspection of a major theme such as domestic violence or children at risk, vital though these issues are, generates enormous new demands, new procedures, new forms and new bureaucracies. That is part of the explanation for more police officers being on duty on a Monday morning in warm offices than on a Friday night in city centres; it is partly why, in 2009, 2,600 pages of new guidance setting out how police officers should fulfil their duties were issued in a single year; and it is partly the explanation for some police forces currently recording anti-social behaviour under 48 separate categories of form-filling and box-ticking.

It could be argued that all this has led to what, in other environments, would be described as mission creep and confusion. We now have the following symptoms: a can-do mentality of policing is in danger of being replaced by a risk-averse, criticism-avoiding mentality. In certain circumstances, it is safer to do nothing than to do something. Too often, bureaucracy and box-ticking replace patrolling and response and, in an attempt to do everything, many things are not done particularly well by the police service. Public confidence that the police will respond well has been replaced by much lower, sadly cynical, expectations of the police.

The police covenant with the public and the police legacy are certainly not broken, but they are strained and under challenge. The police service continues to attract and retain some of the finest, bravest men and women in our country. There is no shortage of able, well educated recruits; we could have an all-graduate police service, if that were what we wanted. Because of my links with the police service, I am constantly reminded and humbled by outstanding acts of courage and professionalism, literally on a day-to-day basis. However, we are now on the verge of a major programme of police reform and we have the opportunity to reset and recalibrate the police covenant and police legacy which I have described.

Three interlinked issues will generate those changes and have the potential to improve or undermine policing. First, the police service budgets will be reduced by more than 20 per cent over the next four years, with more than 14 per cent of the savings being front-end loaded and coming in the next two years. That cannot be achieved by salami-slice savings. Many thousands of police and civilian jobs will go and tough and necessary decisions and tough choices will have to be made. The police service cannot be exempt from public sector savings, nor should it be. Mature decisions will have to be made about what can and cannot be done, but there must not be a dishonest pretence that the status quo can prevail or that front-line policing will be unaffected.

The second issue which will affect policing is a fundamental review of police pay and conditions which has been commissioned by the Government. It will report in early 2011. That report must not destabilise police morale and performance, but equally some long, overgrown nettles must be grasped to provide modern, flexible and fair pay and conditions for the police service.

Thirdly, the Government have set out in the Home Office document, Policing in the 21st Century, their programme for police reform. I know that very soon those aspirations will be fleshed out in a Bill before Parliament. I assume that it will, as others have said, contain provisions for directly elected police and crime commissioners, a new national crime agency and many other important provisions. Today is not the day for detailed discussion of those proposals and I look forward to participating in your Lordships' House when we examine the proposed legislation. However, it is important today to flag up some of the issues and criteria that I will be testing and examining when the Bill comes before your Lordships' House.

First, there must be an honest appraisal of the core functions of the police against the available budgets and foreseeable resources allocated to policing. Tough choices will have to be made by police, by politicians and in consultation with the public. We must face up to those tough choices.

Secondly, the historic office of constable and operational police independence must be enshrined within the new overall framework of political accountability, locally and nationally. With or without locally elected police commissioners, police constables and chief constables must not feel that the independent exercise of their historic office and powers is being undermined in some way. Operational independence is vital and I hope that the Minister will confirm that he agrees with that.

Thirdly, if the chosen way forward is to retain more than 40 local police forces with more than 40 new, inexperienced, elected police commissioners, they must be embraced within an effective and integrated network of policing. They must not become, as I fear they could, a disorganised patchwork of policing. Even with a new national crime agency, there will remain a significant requirement for co-ordinated action between local forces big and small to combat terrorism, organised crime and many other issues. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that however the Bill looks in its shape and form, we will be presented with a network of policing, not a disorganised patchwork of policing.

The fourth issue is value for money. Value for money, economies of scale, procurement of goods and services, outsourcing, the development of a cadre of effective police leaders and combating terrorism are vital issues that suggest to me, and have throughout my career, the need for national and regional police organisations and structures. This is in no way to denigrate or detract from local policing and neighbourhood policing being delivered by very local police officers. The Government will have to show how their devolved patchwork of policing will measure up to the operational needs and financial constraints of 21st-century policing.

In conclusion, the office of constable and the historic legacy of policing must be understood and respected, but not fossilised. The role of policing should be reset and recalibrated for the far more complex modern world we live in and in which the police operate locally, nationally and internationally. By all means let us be bold and innovative and let us change, but in doing so, let us renew and strengthen the police covenant with the public and not undermine it.

16:16

[Lord Freeman]

My Lords, it is a real privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Condon, who was a very distinguished senior policeman. In his speech, there were many excellent pearls of wisdom, and I know that when we come to debate the Bill, we will return to them.

I hope the noble Lord will agree that it might be appropriate at this moment to express a personal opinion, with which I hope many noble Lords will agree. I have great admiration for the way in which the Metropolitan Police handled the events of yesterday and the past 24 hours. Like many of your Lordships, I was inconvenienced, but I talked to a fair number of the officers on duty, and I thought they had tremendous patience and good nature and were extremely efficient. I hope that your Lordships will allow me to pay that tribute now.

We should be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, for initiating this debate. His experience and interest in this field will be valuable in the progress of legislation. I shall make a brief contribution based upon my experience as an elected Member in the other place for Northamptonshire and my experience of dealing with the Northamptonshire police force, the chief constable and the police authority.

I welcome the forthcoming Bill. I note that in 2008, the previous Labour Government were on the verge of delivering a very similar Bill, and it was a shame that it did not proceed. I think there is—I hope there is—broad agreement between the parties on at least the accountability elements of the draft Bill. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, with his local experience in Oxfordshire and Thames Valley, wearing many hats, not least of which is working with the police authority and supporting the police, will debate what needs to be in the Bill not just from national principles but from local experience.

I strongly support the concept of police and crime commissioners throughout the country. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Condon, that there has to be some mechanism of co-ordination and exchange of views, but their responsibility, as with elected individuals, would be to help with the strategy and the relationship between the police force and the local community. They should not be involved in controlling operational matters.

It is my understanding that Sir Hugh Orde, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, is now largely convinced that there is a clear divide between operational responsibility, which is for the chief constable and senior police officers, and the elected commissioners, who should be able to express concerns, worries, issues and suggestions about policing in their local area or neighbourhood. The Bill should ensure that there is this clear division of responsibility.

We should compare and contrast what is likely to happen under new legislation with the control that Home Secretaries for many years have had in influencing and policing in the United Kingdom. In 2009, for example, more than 50 documents of central policy control were issued by the Home Secretary. Another 60 were under consideration. It might be relevant to quote Paul McKeever, chairman of the Police Federation. He said:

“We need to be accountable, but we appear to have such an unnecessary number of quangos and bodies created to check on us that one wonders if this is merely to create jobs than fulfil any useful function”.

A new structure to make it absolutely clear that chief officers will deal with operational matters without interference from those who are elected politicians and that elected commissioners will reflect the views of the local community and are best able to communicate their worries is a sensible and necessary division.

The experience of my noble friend Lord Bradshaw in Thames Valley might vary a little from mine in Northamptonshire. In knocking on doors over 14 years, I found little knowledge and understanding of the role and composition of the local police authority. A commissioner who is directly elected—I hope that independents will stand, and that minorities and those with past political experience will be represented—would be better able to reflect concerns and to make representations. Certainly, the electorate would be better able to understand some of those generally expressed concerns.

My final point has already been made by my noble friend Lord Bradshaw. With constraints on expenditure and the problems of reducing budgets for police authorities, it will be helpful to have elected commissioners because not only will they be able to reflect local concerns rather than simply those of the police themselves or of elected Members of another place, but they will, as the elected representative, be responsible for indicating where the priorities should be and how the police have adapted the resources that are available to them in providing the cover that is valued and necessary. I thank my noble friend Lord Bridgeman for initiating this debate, and I look forward to participating in proceedings on the Bill.

16:24

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bridgeman for instigating this debate. I should like to speak about issues of governance and, in particular, to comment on the recent government consultation paper, Policing in the 21st Century: Reconnecting police and people, in the context of forthcoming legislation. My simple question is: will directly elected police and crime commissioners deliver the Government’s aims? That question presupposes, of course, that police and people are disconnected. I cannot speak for the country as a whole, but I have no evidence that in Newcastle or in the Northumbria Police Authority area—here I declare my interest as a councillor in Newcastle and as a one-time member of the Northumbria Police Authority—there is any meaningful disconnection. For the most part, local people are happy with the policing that they receive.

I support the Government’s general direction to improve communication, to make people feel safer and more secure, to enable them to hold the police to account and to ensure that people have a real say in how their neighbourhoods are policed. However, there is no reason to suppose that, if we have directly elected commissioners, the Government’s desired outcomes will be delivered. How does the direct election of an individual covering a very large geographical area or population make the police more accountable—day in, day out and week in, week out—to its constituent neighbourhoods?

There is also an unanswered prior question: to what problem is a police and crime commissioner a solution, and why is it assumed that a single election and a single person will reconnect people and police? I am afraid that I find the proposal deeply unconvincing. Is the proposal designed to reduce crime? Well, it might be, but actually the answer is “Hardly” because crime has been dropping with the current governance structures. Is it designed to improve governance? Well, in my view it will not, for two reasons. First, having directly elected police and crime commissioners will concentrate power rather than disperse it. Secondly, the proposal would build in implicit strains between democratically elected councillors—and perhaps elected mayors—and the commissioners as well as between the commissioners and chief constables. Is that what we want?

What exactly is wrong with the current system? My police authority area has a police authority made up of nine democratically elected councillors, who are answerable to the community at large and to their own electorates, plus eight independent members, including a magistrate, who bring a wealth of different experience to that police authority. The structure is not perfect, but it is certainly more accountable than what is likely to be proposed.

Three major concerns have been raised by the Northumbria Police Authority, whose views will be shared by many other authorities. First, key constitutional changes are proposed that have not been subject to assessment or consideration in the same manner as the constitutional changes made by the Police Act 1964, which were informed by a Royal Commission. Secondly, proposals are being made for a system that has not been tried and tested in the United Kingdom through the operation of a time-limited pilot scheme. Thirdly, the consultative paper makes no reference to a corporate legal entity or statutory body that the commissioner will work within and which will hold the budget, act as employer, and own the real property necessary for the chief constable to deliver an effective policing service. The paper also fails to identity the fundamental requirement of the chief executive and/or monitoring officer role, which is a key role that was introduced as part of the 1994 Act to ensure propriety in the use of powers.

One possible way forward that could meet the wishes of the Government would be to have an independent police board, with the chair taking the title of police and crime commissioner and a board of assistant police and crime commissioners made up, as now, of local councillors and independent members. The board would work together to set the strategic direction for policing within local priorities and budgets and to hold the police to account for performance in all the geographical areas within its police area. To be clear, a purely advisory role for such a board would be unsatisfactory, because that would simply deny it the real teeth needed to maintain its independence.

The extent to which all these proposals are relevant to neighbourhood policing also needs to be considered. The truth is that they matter little. What matters to local people is how effective policing is in their neighbourhoods. People need structures to enable them to communicate directly with police officers and to get solutions speedily for their neighbourhoods. Police authorities and councils already have structures in place to achieve that, which are led by the councillors elected in their neighbourhoods.

The Home Secretary said that commissioners will ensure that police forces will meet local rather than Whitehall targets. That is good, but it begs the question of what is meant by “local”. Many police authorities cover large geographical areas, but what people want is access to police officers at their neighbourhood level to discuss policing issues. That is where accountability must be realised. Neighbourhoods talking to their own police officers—that is how the police can build safer neighbourhoods and build public confidence in them. By comparison, police and crime commissioners could be a diversion. They will spend their time juggling competing demands from the different parts of their police areas. They will court displeasure when they fail to deliver and when they are felt to favour one area rather than another.

The basic flaw in the Government’s proposal is that the commissioner will set priorities for the police force but it is not clear how the commissioner will know what those priorities should be. Will the commissioners have powers, formal or subtle, to interfere in the day-to-day running of the police? Sir Hugh Orde, head of the Association of Chief Police Officers, in responding to the Queen’s Speech, said:

“One of the great strengths of the British style of policing is the balance between … robust accountability at local level and operational independence. The police service is more effective through the freedom to make professional judgments about how we keep people safe, free from political interests”.

I agree with him. For me, this is a fundamental issue when considering how security and policing are best delivered across the country.

As things stand, a police and crime commissioner would appoint the chief constable, set the budget of the force and set the strategic police plan for the area. There would be advisers in the form of councillors and independent members, but they would have no formal powers. I cannot believe that this is wise, for where are the checks and balances that should be a central requirement of our governance of policing? I sincerely hope that the Government will think long and hard about trying to introduce such an untried system of governance.

Many questions arise. Is it wise for community safety partnerships—which, in most cases, have done a very good job in preventing and reducing crime—to be accountable not to their local area but to the commissioner of a much bigger area? Are we in danger of politicising the police in a way that could fuel accusations of partiality? How does the localism agenda fit with having one commissioner per force area? What are the accountability arrangements among the councils, elected mayors and elected commissioners? What budgets will commissioners hold and how will that money be raised? Overall, how will national and local policing be enhanced?

The Home Secretary said that the consultation paper Policing in the 21st Century is the most radical reform of policing for 50 years. That may well be true, but it does not make all of it wise. The Home Secretary went on to say that the police have become too bureaucratic and too much accountable to Whitehall rather than to the people whom they serve. That is also true, but cutting bureaucracy does not require police commissioners; it only requires the Home Secretary to act. Dismantling Whitehall targets is also simple to deliver and does not require police commissioners either. To make police more accountable to the people whom they serve is most simply delivered by neighbourhood governance structures and an independent police board with real powers, as I have suggested.

The Government are proposing many things in policing that can be welcomed. However, the proposal for police commissioners is, in my view, ill thought-out and should be reconsidered.

16:34

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to those already expressed to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, on securing this debate, the subject matter of which changed, for reasons unexplained, from the role of the security services and the police in national security to solely the role of the police.

I was fortunate enough recently to be able to take part in the Police Service Parliamentary Scheme. I spent more than 20 days with the Metropolitan Police seeing and learning at first hand what the police in London do and the breadth of responsibilities and activities that the force undertakes. The impressions that I formed are obviously mine and mine alone. I spent a number of shifts with officers in the immediate response cars. It was not as dramatic and action-packed as you see in the numerous carefully packaged television programmes broadcast nowadays of police activity in different towns and cities around the country.

A significant percentage of the emergency calls responded to were more to do with what one might describe as a semi-welfare role: numerous incidents arising from domestic arguments and disputes, elderly people convinced that an intruder was in their home or children allegedly locked out of their homes. However, the officers driving as fast as they safely can to respond to an emergency call do not know exactly who, or what, will confront them when they get to the scene. It could be a domestic argument where the parties have already started to simmer down or where one party has already left the scene. It could be someone with a knife or other weapon that they are prepared to use, or, indeed, it could be more than one person in that category.

I saw a wide variety of incidents, including stop and search, fights in the street, anti-social behaviour, motoring offences, searches of premises for drugs, checks that home curfew orders were being obeyed and street prostitution, as well as the procedures and processes at the police station for dealing with those brought in following arrest. I was struck by the outward calmness of the officers whom I was with—I was with a number of them—and the high and consistent degree of civility that they showed towards those whom they had to talk to, question, challenge or arrest at the scenes of the incidents to which we were called. That civility was, needless to say, not always reciprocated. Police officers do get provoked; they have to deal on many occasions with people whom most of the population would not wish to meet. What is surprising is not the number of incidents where police officers lose their cool, but rather how few such incidents are.

I was struck also by the importance of decision-making by officers when first arriving at the scene of an incident in response to an emergency call. They may be confronted by people who are distressed or aggressive, have had too much to drink, are under the influence of drugs, irrational, highly emotional, prepared to use violence or just plain unco-operative and obstructive. The initial assessment by officers of the position and people with whom they are faced when they arrive at the scene can be crucial in determining whether a potentially explosive situation is calmed down and controlled or whether it simply gets out of hand. The officers have no higher-ranking officer or other manager on hand to whom they can turn for advice. They have to make instant decisions and they have to get them right.

I also had the opportunity to see the full range of responsibilities and activities undertaken by the police—the work done by officers and civilian staff, referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, who are not out on the streets but who play a key role in investigating and solving crime. Those engaged in fraud and IT crime do not tend to be caught by officers patrolling the streets or responding to emergency calls; they are apprehended by those doing painstaking and thorough work pursuing leads, seeking and analysing data, interviewing victims and putting together a case that will stand up in court. The same goes for the work of those who attend the scene of a crime and collect possible evidence, seeing whether there is a similarity with evidence from previous crimes or whether it is evidence that, when checked against records, will help to identify the perpetrator. They are not officers and staff who spend their time out on patrol.

There are also specialist units dealing with child abuse and rape cases. They are staffed by officers who do not spend their time patrolling the streets but who seek to provide support for victims at a time of great distress and trauma and to secure the necessary evidence to bring cases to court. There are officers dealing with the threats of terrorism. Once again, they do not spend their time out on patrol but are engaged in collecting and analysing intelligence, working with other agencies and keeping track of the activities of those about whom they have suspicions, with a view to preventing acts of terrorism and, if appropriate, apprehending those who they have good reason to believe are about to act. Many other activities carried out by the Metropolitan Police and, to a less wide-ranging extent, by other forces are directly related to solving and preventing crime but do not in the normal course of events directly involve officers patrolling the streets or driving in immediate response cars, visible to the public.

That brings me to the impact of the Government’s comprehensive spending review and the associated reductions in expenditure on police forces. Claims have been made, not least by the Government, that reductions in expenditure should not affect the front line of policing, but that raises the question of the definition of “front line”. Does it mean officers out on patrol, on foot or in cars, on the streets, or engaged on other activities, such as yesterday outside Parliament, when they are visible to the public? Alternatively, does it mean any officers or civilian staff whose work and responsibilities are directly related to solving and preventing crime, many of whom, as I saw during my time with the Metropolitan Police, are primarily working inside and are not normally visible to the general public? If the Government claim that reductions in expenditure will not affect front-line police involved in solving and preventing crime, I must ask the Minister to give a clear definition of what the Government regard as front-line policing. The Government may believe that too many civilian staff are employed by the police, but there is no question of a reduction being achieved in this area simply by transferring work undertaken by civilian staff to police officers, as this would mean that police officers had less time available to spend on duties and responsibilities that the public might normally expect them to undertake. One reason for civilian staff in the police force is to help to ensure that police officers are not spending their time undertaking duties that do not need to be dealt with by fully trained officers, so that such officers can spend their working time carrying out the role and responsibilities for which they have been trained.

It was with some interest that one read in the press the recent expression of considered opinion by the Minister with responsibility for police matters, Mr Herbert, that more police does not mean less crime. The parallel argument to that is presumably that the Government do not believe that having fewer police runs the risk of more crime, which is a very convenient U-turn in approach for a Government who are significantly reducing the amount of money available for policing. During the election campaign, Mr Clegg said that he would put 3,000 more officers on the streets, so presumably he does not agree with Mr Herbert, who also referred to a previous increase in the numbers of police officers, only a small proportion of whom, he said, were visible and available to the public at any one time. That comment relates to the point that I made earlier that to be engaged actively in solving and preventing crime does not mean that an officer has to be clearly visible to the public, which seems to be what the Minister thinks. Indeed, the Home Secretary appears to think the same, as a Home Office spokesman commenting on the cuts in expenditure said:

“The Home Secretary has been clear from the beginning that it is possible to maintain the visibility and availability of the police on the streets”.

That carries the obvious implication that police officers and civilian staff engaged in solving and preventing crime who are not on the streets are not making an important and decisive contribution. Hence the importance of the Minister’s response, which I hope will be forthcoming, to my direct question as to the Government's definition of the front line when it comes to police work.

A recent survey has suggested that nearly all police forces in England and Wales have frozen recruitment, which, taking account of the existing turnover rate, would lead to a reduction in officer numbers of some thousands. Greater Manchester Police has announced plans for 3,000 job losses over the spending review period, including some 1,500 police officers. The chief constable said that, while there would be a significant reduction in the size of the middle and back offices, it was clear that,

“over the four year period there will also need to be a reduction in frontline police officer numbers”.

Funding for the West Midlands Police is to be cut by 20 per cent in real terms, as is funding nationally, although for the West Midlands the impact is likely to be greater than elsewhere since that force depends on central government for a higher proportion of its funding than any other constabulary in the country, except, interestingly enough, the City of London’s.

Accountants KPMG have estimated that around 18,000 police officers could be lost nationally by the end of the four-year spending review, while the Police Federation has suggested that around 20,000 officers would be lost. At the same time as the numbers of police officers are to be significantly cut, the Government can apparently still find the resources to throw at establishing elected police commissioners. I sensed a certain lack of enthusiasm for elected police commissioners from the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and rather more than a lack of enthusiasm from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley.

I am sure that some savings can be made through greater efficiency and through changing structures, processes and procedures. It would be stretching it a bit to say that police forces, particularly large forces, are already so efficient that they cannot make further savings in this way. Yet to argue, as the Government appear to be doing, that savings of the magnitude announced can be made without any real impact on the quality and effectiveness of solving and preventing a crime is, at best, a breathtaking statement of unsubstantiated hope about a service where such a high percentage of costs are labour costs.

Fewer police are unlikely to improve communications and contact with the public. This Government will be held to account for the outcome of their decisions on police funding, which they appear to be claiming will not affect what they define as front-line policing—and we await the Minister’s definition of that. I listened with real interest to the thought-provoking speech from the noble Lord, Lord Condon, as I am sure the Minister did. Our policy in government was to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of the crime. The measures that we took helped, along with other factors and thanks to the police, to bring down the level of crime. No doubt this Government also want to be tough on crime but, frankly, their approach to police funding so far smacks rather more of being tough on the fighters of crime.

16:48

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, this is the first of many debates that we will no doubt be having on the future of policing in this country as the police reform and social responsibility Bill, which we expect to be published shortly, begins to move through both Houses. I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for that very interesting speech on his own involvement and how he has seen the different dimensions of policing. As someone who is new to this dossier, I was reflecting on how much policing has changed since I first had contact with police forces as a junior lecturer in Manchester. I was dealing with the Irish Government and therefore, for the first time, coming to terms with Special Branch, which in those days was concerned with Irish terrorism. Special Branch today has to deal with a far wider range of terrorist threats.

Some 20 years ago, I was at Chatham House and was asked to chair a seminar of senior policemen about the international dimension of domestic policing. This was early 1989 and it was fascinating to have a number of policemen who thought that this was a small and specialised dimension of what they had to do, although I recall a policeman from north Wales saying that he really needed to train some of his policemen in Dutch because so many Dutch holidaymakers crashed their cars in north Wales every summer.

When, some years ago, I was the chair of EU Sub-Committee F, I was astonished to discover that there were by then police liaison officers in UK embassies throughout the European Union and beyond, that SOCA had been created to deal with the international dimension of British policing and that, according to the national intelligence model, we now have three levels of policing: level 1, the area that the public care most about and are most conscious of, which is local policing; level 2, which is the national policing of cross-border crime by different cross-border police forces; and the increasingly important level 3, which is transnational crime.

The increasing sophistication of crime is something with which we are now all familiar. Organised crime has ceased to be predominantly domestic; it is increasingly cross-border. Forms of international crime include drug-smuggling, international financial fraud, human trafficking—we had an interesting debate on that the other week—and now also cybercrime, on which I was given my first briefing the other day. We are in another world and the pace of change is increasing. I was struck when I read an HMIC report from July this year that said that there is no time for a royal commission, and that the police leadership needs to rise to the challenges of a cessation of the rapid increase in funding that has come in the past few years and the changing tasks that are required of it. The pace of change requires us to respond.

Many people here have talked about the changes in democratic accountability which the Government are proposing. We will have plenty of time when the Bill is presented to discuss in more detail the role of police and crime commissioners and their relationships with chief constables and with the police and crime panels that will, in turn, hold them to account.

I assure the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that the intention is that police and crime panels will consist predominantly of representatives of local authorities. There is, as he rightly points out, a large question about what we mean by “local”. The current structures of police forces and that of local authorities, as we well know, do not fit. That is part of the problem, and part of the reason why the Government are proposing police and crime commissioners to fit these separate entities that are now our largely regional police forces.

My noble friend Lord Bradshaw asked a number of questions about who will stand, who will vote and what they will all campaign on. American experience, which has been prayed in aid in this House as a horror story, has actually led to some rather good police commissioners and indeed elected mayors arriving. We must not necessarily assume that democracy is a dangerous thing that might lead to disaster.

The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, asked about the future role of ACPO. It will continue to play an important role in providing professional leadership to the police service but, again, discussions are under way about the way in which this association of chief constables will continue to drive value for money and improve the quality of co-operation among different police forces. Noble Lords will be familiar with the discussion over the past few years about whether another round of police mergers was necessary. The decision has been taken that the structural solution of further mergers itself carries costs, and that we wish to promote as far as possible—the previous Government believed this, as well as the new Government—closer co-operation among different police forces. A range of areas, from sharing police helicopters to co-operation across many other areas, can be improved.

The move from SOCA to the national crime agency is also intended to pull further together the different abilities of different police forces and the specialised tasks that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has been talking about, while trying as far as possible to maintain the historic principle of local responsibility for local civilian police forces.

We are concerned about value-for-money savings. Police budgets have increased rapidly over the past five years, and we recognise that they will cease to do so over the next four to five years. Government core funding of the policing will reduce by 20 per cent in real terms over the next four years. Taking into account our precept for local budgets, that amounts to an average—I stress, an average—for police forces of 14 per cent in real terms. In December, we will set out to Parliament exactly what this settlement will mean for each police force. However, I stress that real costs have been imposed on police forces by the previous Government through the central targets and the very detailed guidance. As the HMIC report states:

“In 2009 alone 2,600 pages of guidance were issued to officers setting out how their work should be done; and there are now 100 processes in the criminal justice system, requiring 40 interventions by police officers, staff and specialists. The cost to policing is estimated at £2.2 billion per year”.

Significant savings can be reached through reducing this sort of central top-down bureaucracy. On average, only 11 per cent of total police strength is visible and available to the general public at any time. We are confident that reducing some of these reporting and bureaucratic elements will enable us to maintain the police front line while reducing costs.

Others have raised questions about political leadership.

[Lord Rosser]

The Minister has referred to the police front line. Will he define what the Government mean by the front line as far as policing is concerned?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

The police front line is increasingly sophisticated because, as I was saying earlier, if we look at what we want the police to do, the police front line is not just what is visible on the street. It is the policeman dealing with domestic violence in a sexual assault referral centre; it is the policeman dealing with financial fraud in the City of London Police which, as the noble Lord knows, is a specialist force for international financial fraud. The front line has become rather more sophisticated in that area, as crime itself has become more sophisticated. The public think of the front line as the police they see on the street. Very often, the public see the front line in police community support officers, who command a great deal of confidence because they are visible. The public see special constables as part of the front line. We pay tribute to our predecessors in government in that the number of special constables has increased from 11,000 to 15,000 over the past four or five years, and we would like to see it increase further. We all recognise that the front line has to include these more specialised and sophisticated areas as well.

[Lord Rosser]

Can I be clear: is the Minister saying that the reductions in policing expenditure will not affect the quality and effectiveness of the front line of policing as he has just described it?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That is our aim and intention. We are looking at how far we can reduce costs by reducing reporting requirements, the time spent in the station, and so on. It will be tough, but we will do what we can. That means slashing the bureaucracy that gets in officers’ way. There are a number of reports from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary; I am sure that noble Lords have seen the two reports on policing in an age of austerity and valuing the police. They show us the direction in which to go. I think the first was commissioned by the previous Government, so I am not being entirely partisan in this respect.

The noble Lord, Lord Condon, introduced me to a phrase with which I was not familiar before—the policing covenant. I am much more familiar with the military covenant. The idea of the policing covenant is very interesting, and I look forward to debating it further. We want a police force that has the confidence of the public and is highly professional but which feels itself to have, in the broadest sense, public confidence. The management of the demonstration yesterday was a good illustration; we all recognise how difficult it is to maintain this balance. I look forward to hearing whatever the noble Lord would like to feed to me on what he has on that very interesting concept.

The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, talked about recruitment and accelerated promotion. Recruitment to the police has been affected by the rising proportion of young people going to university. Many of my children’s friends have gone to university with the intention of joining the police and have then done so as graduates. That is part of the way in which the police themselves are changing.

The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and the noble Lord, Lord Condon, raised the question of police pay and the report of the Winsor review. This is not an easy issue. The Government are committed to maintaining the current settlement until its completion. After 2011, however, the Government intend that pay across the public sector for civilians should be frozen for two years after the end of the current agreement.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked about ethnic representation. I am happy to say that there has been, under the previous Government, a gradual increase at all ranks in the number of ethnic minority police. It is now approaching 5 per cent among the professional and warranted officers. Among special constables, who are volunteers, it is now approaching 10 per cent. Similarly, 25 per cent of full-time police are now female, as are a third of specials.

The noble Lord, Lord Condon, raised the concept of a network of policing. I have already said that we see ourselves resisting further police mergers but encouraging closer co-operation in specialised units and the sharing of facilities wherever possible. The Home Office business plan sets out that, with a national crime agency, police forces will be encouraged to network as closely as possible. Collaboration is the way forward.

We all recognise the vital importance of this topic. Domestic order is the basis for a stable democratic society. Public confidence in how the police maintain that public order is vital, and civic engagement with the police is the basis for a stable society. I look forward to many future debates on the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, and on many other aspects of policing. We face a range of future challenges to the maintenance of our borders. I have not mentioned the establishment of a UK police border command, which we will, perhaps, turn to another day. There is the developing use of the internet, with cyberfraud and other matters. There are links to many other themes, such as active citizenship and the greater engagement of the public in taking control of order and anti-social behaviour in their own communities.

We welcome the increase in the number of volunteers from within local communities in recent years. Alongside this, we value enormously the role that professional and highly trained police provide, often in specialised groups, linking across different forces, working through SOCA now and the national crime agency in the future, and working internationally with forces in other states through Europol and Interpol. How best to balance all these competing demands and tasks within a civilian police force is a constant concern to us all. We all appreciate how well our police attempt to do that. We all also understand how difficult a balance it is to strike.

17:04

[Viscount Bridgeman]

My Lords, I start with an apology to Sir Hugh Orde, whom the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, has reminded me is the president, not the chairman, of ACPO.

When I saw the list of speakers I was rather alarmed by the small number, but the shortage of numbers has been well outweighed by the quality of the expertise and experience that has been brought to the debate. I am most grateful to noble Lords who have taken part. I am also grateful to the Minister for the attention he has given to answering the many questions that were raised in the course of the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion withdrawn.

National Assembly for Wales Referendum (Assembly Act Provisions) (Referendum Question, Date of Referendum Etc.) Order 2010

Thursday 25th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

17:04

Moved By

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 21 October be approved.

Relevant documents: 5th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)]

My Lords, for convenience I shall refer to the National Assembly for Wales (Legislative Competence) (Amendment of Schedule 7 to the Government of Wales Act 2006) Order 2010 as the Schedule 7 order; the draft National Assembly for Wales Referendum (Assembly Act Provisions) (Referendum Question, Date of Referendum Etc.) Order 2010 as the referendum order; and the draft National Assembly for Wales Referendum (Assembly Act Provisions) (Limit on Referendum Expenses Etc.) Order 2010 as the expenses order.

The draft referendum and expenses orders make arrangements for a referendum to be held in Wales on further law-making powers for the National Assembly for Wales, and the draft Schedule 7 amendment order makes changes to Schedule 7 to the Government of Wales Act 2006, which sets out the subjects on which the Assembly could legislate following a yes vote in a referendum.

The circumstances in which a referendum can be called, and the parameters of the referendum question, have been prescribed in legislation already passed by Parliament—the Government of Wales Act 2006. That Act provides for primary law-making powers for the National Assembly for Wales in devolved areas of policy, if and when the people of Wales decide in a referendum that that is what they want.

On 9 February this year, the National Assembly unanimously passed a resolution calling for a referendum in Wales. When the First Minister wrote to the previous Secretary of State on 17 February giving formal notice of the Assembly’s resolution, he triggered the process under the Government of Wales Act 2006 which meant that the Secretary of State had 120 days from the day after receipt of the notification either to lay the draft referendum order or set out the reasons for not doing so.

Following the general election, it fell to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales to respond to the Assembly’s call within the statutory deadline. This she did on 15 June, confirming that she would lay a draft referendum order as soon as practicable and, as agreed with the First Minister, work towards a referendum in the first quarter of 2011.

The coalition Government have taken seriously our commitment to hold a referendum. Since we have been in office, we have driven forward working with the Welsh Assembly Government and other key stakeholders to ensure that we would deliver on that commitment. There has been good co-operation, showing that the respect agenda continues to work well.

First, I should like to explain the rationale for bringing forward the draft Schedule 7 amendment order, which, I think it is fair to say, is the most technical of the three draft orders before the House this afternoon. Schedule 7 to the Government of Wales Act 2006 sets out the subjects on which the Assembly could legislate following an affirmative vote in a referendum on full law-making powers and the Assembly voting to commence the provisions in Part 4 of the Government of Wales Act 2006. The subjects cover a broad range of areas over which the Welsh Ministers currently exercise executive functions, including housing, planning, local government and the environment.

Schedule 7 also lists exceptions and general restrictions to the Assembly’s legislative competence. Subjects such as economic policy and social security would remain non-devolved in the event of the schedule coming into force. The Assembly’s current powers to legislate are set out in Schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act 2006. The schedule lists these powers as “matters” under 20 fields, which correspond to the subject areas in Schedule 7. Matters have been added to Schedule 5 incrementally in recent years by legislative competence orders—LCOs—and framework powers in Acts of Parliament. The effect of this devolution of powers is that the Assembly can now legislate in relatively specific areas in many of the fields listed in the schedule, but its current powers to legislate are narrow when compared with the range of subjects which would be devolved in the event of a yes vote in the referendum. However, some of the amendments which have been made to Schedule 5 enable the Assembly to legislate on specific issues which go beyond the competence in Schedule 7.

The last order updating Schedule 7 was made in 2007, and there is now a need to update the schedule in advance of the referendum to take account of the powers the Assembly has accrued in recent years. There are three main reasons for making the changes set out in the draft order: first, to make clear the full range of powers which would be devolved to the Assembly in the event of a yes vote; secondly, to ensure that the Assembly would not lose any of its current powers if Schedule 7 comes into force; and, thirdly, to ensure that exceptions to the Assembly’s legislative competence accurately reflect the boundaries of the Welsh devolution settlement.

Many of the changes to Schedule 7 made by the draft order insert powers the Assembly currently exercises under Schedule 5. For example, it inserts a new subject on the provision of automatic fire-suppression systems in residential premises, to reflect a matter which is currently included in Schedule 5 and on which the Assembly is currently considering draft legislation. The draft order also amends subjects and exceptions in Schedule 7 to take account of the Assembly’s current powers in areas such as waste, educational transport, the protection and well-being of young adults, and trunk road charging schemes.

The draft order inserts a limited number of exceptions to the Assembly’s competence, where they relate very clearly to areas which would remain non-devolved following an affirmative vote in the referendum. It also makes some minor and drafting changes to simplify the schedule, update references to other legislation and rectify errors in the original drafting.

The Welsh Affairs Committee in the other place undertook scrutiny of the draft order. The committee concluded that the Government are right to ensure Schedule 7 is amended in advance of the referendum on full law-making powers for the Assembly.

The Government worked closely with the Welsh Assembly Government to agree to these changes. The draft order was approved by the National Assembly for Wales on 9 November and by the other place yesterday. The order makes sensible changes to Schedule 7 in advance of the referendum to ensure that the schedule accurately reflects the current Welsh devolution settlement.

I move on to the two other draft orders, which would make arrangements for a referendum to be held in Wales on further law-making powers for the National Assembly for Wales. The draft referendum order consists of 28 articles and six schedules and makes the bulk of the provision relating to the arrangements to hold a referendum on further powers for the National Assembly for Wales. Provisions contained in the 2006 Act and in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 also apply to the referendum, but the draft referendum order is necessary to fill out the detail of the arrangements, including the key provisions on the date of the referendum and the referendum question.

The purpose of the draft expenses order is to specify the limits on spending by those campaigning for a particular outcome in the referendum. Both draft orders are subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament. The draft referendum order is an Order in Council which must also be approved by a majority of at least 40 Assembly Members before it can be recommended to Her Majesty in Council. The requisite approval was obtained in an Assembly debate on 9 November.

I turn first to the draft referendum order. The provision that has possibly attracted most attention to date, perhaps not surprisingly, is the referendum question and its preceding statement, as set out in Article 4. There was relative silence before the general election relating to the referendum question. Work had commenced on the drafting of the detailed provisions in the legal instruments. However, at the request of the First Minister, no work had taken place on the key provision within the draft order relating to the question. It is fair to record that in just five weeks following the general election, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales met her statutory obligations, as set out in the Government of Wales Act 2006, reached agreement with the First Minister and referred the question to the Electoral Commission on 23 June.

The commission required 10 weeks to assess the question and report to the Secretary of State. During that time, the commission conducted a thorough assessment of the preamble and question, including carrying out public opinion research, inviting and gathering views from interested parties, including political parties, and seeking advice on both the English and Welsh versions. The commission produced its report on 2 September and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State discussed the findings with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, agreed to the commission’s recommended revision of the question and its preamble, and confirmed the legality of the question as set out in the Government of Wales Act 2006. It is my understanding that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, the Presiding Officer of the National Assembly for Wales, had also indicated his agreement to the decision to use the revised question.

Apart from the referendum question, the other aspect of the proposed referendum which has attracted attention is the date on which it is to be held. Article 3 provides for the referendum to be held on 3 March 2011. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave careful consideration as to the date of the referendum. The First Minister had made clear representations that he would not be in favour of holding the referendum on the same date as the Assembly elections and that he favoured a referendum in early spring. The coalition Government are committed to working with the Assembly Government in a spirit of mutual respect, and the Secretary of State was prepared to consider carefully any reasonable request from the First Minister in relation to the referendum date.

The Assembly Government had made a commitment to hold the referendum on or before the Assembly elections in May 2011. In October this year, the First Minister announced that his preferred date was 3 March and asked the Secretary of State to agree to this date. The Secretary of State considered the request and agreed that it was feasible to hold the referendum then. A yes or no vote on 3 March would provide certainty on the extent of the law-making powers available to the Assembly in advance of the Assembly elections on 5 May. It was also believed that a 3 March referendum would put enough distance between the campaigns for the referendum and for the Assembly elections to allow arrangements for both to be administered efficiently. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales considered that the request to hold the referendum separately was reasonable, and agreed to the date.

While the other provisions in the draft referendum order have not attracted much attention, they are none the less important, as they deal with how people can vote in the referendum, and set out the rules for how the referendum will be run by the chief counting officer and local counting officers.

I turn now to voting. All those registered to vote in the Assembly elections will be able to vote in the referendum. Schedules 1 and 2 make provision for absent voters—those who vote by post or by proxy—and for the issue and receipt of such ballot papers. These provisions are similar to those that apply for elections. With regard to the running of the referendum, the provisions relating to the chief counting officer, deputy chief counting officer and counting officers are relevant. The chief counting officer will be the chair of the Electoral Commission. Under Article 9, she must do all such acts and things as may be necessary for effectively conducting the referendum in the manner provided for in the draft order.

A counting officer will be appointed for each voting area in Wales, which will be the same as the local authority area. Under Article 11, the chief counting officer can direct counting officers on how they should discharge their functions relating to the referendum, or direct them to take specified steps to prepare for it. Counting officers must also conduct the referendum in accordance with the detailed rules set out in Schedule 3 to the draft order.

The timing of the count itself is not yet decided. The default position is that the count should take place as soon as reasonably practicable after the close of the poll. However, the chief counting officer may direct that the count should take place on the following day. The Electoral Commission has invited views from interested parties, including broadcasters, on when the count should take place. The commission has not yet announced its decision on the timing of the count, but will do so as soon as possible after taking account of all views submitted to them.

There are two further points relating to the draft referendum order that I will make briefly. The first relates to the costs of the referendum. While the costs of the Electoral Commission will be met by the coalition Government, all other costs will be met by the Welsh Assembly Government through the Welsh Consolidated Fund. The bulk of these costs are those of the local administration of the referendum by the counting officers. It will therefore be for Welsh Ministers to make an order dealing with the counting officers’ fees and charges, subject to the draft referendum order being approved and made by Her Majesty in Council.

Secondly, the commission’s report on the intelligibility of the question highlighted the low level of awareness in Wales of the proposed referendum and its subject matter. While of course it will be a matter for the yes and no campaigns to make the case for either vote, there is value in having available an independent and impartial source of information on the subject matter of the referendum. To this end, Article 16 of the draft order provides for the Electoral Commission to take such steps as it thinks appropriate to promote public awareness in Wales of the referendum, its subject matter and how to vote in it. The Government of Wales Act 2006 already gives powers to the Assembly Commission to promote awareness of the system of devolved government, and the commission has launched its Vote 2011 awareness campaign.

The expenses order is a short draft order that sets the spending limits for campaigners who have registered as permitted participants spending more than £10,000, and whose expenditure is therefore subject to regulation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales consulted the Electoral Commission on what those limits should be, as she was required to do under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. She accepted the recommendations, so the spending limits specified in the draft order are as recommended by the commission. Of course, they are set at a significantly lower level than the statutory limits set for a UK-wide referendum campaign. The 2000 Act provides a framework for the referendum and enables the Electoral Commission to ensure that it is run fairly. This draft order varies the time period for individuals and organisations to register with the Electoral Commission and apply to be the lead campaign organisation to campaign for either the yes or no vote by increasing the period to five weeks, taking account of the Christmas and new year holiday period.

This period will be followed by a further two weeks, during which the Electoral Commission will decide whether to appoint a lead organisation for each side. The remaining period of four weeks up to the poll will be for the campaign proper.

I emphasise that what we are talking about here are the limits imposed on spending by campaigners from their own funds, not the spending of public money.

Finally, the draft order makes it explicit that media coverage is not to be regarded as a referendum expense, and therefore broadcasters and newspapers need not register as permitted participants in the referendum in Wales.

I hope the House will agree that it is important that these draft orders are approved and that the people of Wales are given the opportunity to vote and have their say in the referendum next March. I commend them to the House.

[Baroness Gale]

My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for bringing these orders before us today and for his clear explanation of the quite technical but very important details.

These orders represent an important milestone on the long devolution road which I and many others have been travelling for a number of years. Therefore, I can say today that I am a very happy traveller, seeing us go one step further along that road.

However, even with a successful yes vote, it will probably not be the end of the journey. As the Welsh Affairs Committee in another place said in its report, published on 22 November, on Schedule 7:

“We note that the nature of the Welsh devolution settlement is quite different from those relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Schedule 7, in the form it would have after this draft Order was approved, is unlikely to be the last word on the shape and nature of the constitutional arrangements for Wales. We have sought and received assurances that Parliament and the Welsh Affairs Committee will be properly involved in the examination of any future changes to the constitutional arrangements for Wales”.

Following a successful yes vote on 3 March, we are sure to be asked to look at other constitutional matters regarding Wales in the future.

The question to be asked in the referendum, and its timing, have been debated and agreed by the Welsh Assembly, and prior to its drafting the question was subject to significant assessment and revision by the Electoral Commission, as the Minister said. This has now resulted in widespread agreement that the question on the ballot paper is clear and simple to understand.

The date of the referendum has now been agreed. After significant discussion in Wales, it will be held on 3 March 2011—a date that will take us clear of the campaigning period for the Welsh Assembly elections in May. There was concern over holding them on the same day, so it is very good that the referendum will be held on 3 March. However, there may of course be another referendum on the day of the Welsh elections after all.

The order relating to expenses did not need to be approved by the Welsh Assembly. However, it has been subject to scrutiny by the Electoral Commission, whose recommendations were accepted by the Secretary of State for Wales.

The formula for calculating the level of expenses based on the percentage of the vote for each political party is, again, simple and clear, as it is for other permitted participants. That is important as it will enable political parties and other organisations to know what the funding is, as well as ensure that the electorate is fully informed of both the yes and the no campaigns. I think that that information is really needed.

I also welcome the clarification on expenses relating to media coverage, which the Minister mentioned, as there has been some ambiguity about that in the past. It is now clear that such coverage is excluded from declared expenses. In the past, that has been a worry for political parties and those responsible for election returns.

On the order that deals with Schedule 7, if there is a successful yes vote, that part of the Act spells out the full range of subjects over which the Assembly has full legislative competence. The order under debate today is designed to secure that the amended Schedule 7 takes full account of all the changes to the powers of the Welsh Assembly that have been conferred on it by various means since the passing of the Government of Wales Act 2006. This will be a much more effective and less expensive way of legislating across the full extent of the devolved subject areas than the present system of legislative competence orders.

The All Wales Convention has concluded that the changes will save around £2 million per year, which is money that is currently being spent by the rather lengthy process of LCOs. More importantly, they will allow the Welsh Assembly Government to respond to changing circumstances that may require legislative action. I believe that the Welsh Assembly Government and the Assembly Members will be able to deal much more effectively and respond much better to the needs and requirements in the devolved areas, for the benefit of the Welsh people, than they can under the present system. As the Minister said, these three orders were agreed to in another place earlier this week, so agreeing to them today will enable the people of Wales to have their say on whether they want the National Assembly for Wales to have legislative powers in the 20 subject areas.

I am very pleased to support these orders on behalf of my party, as I have campaigned for devolution for many years; I played an active role in the 1997 successful referendum that brought devolution to Wales, and I saw the establishment of the National Assembly of Wales in 1999. Today is an historic day for Wales, and I am pleased to have played my part on behalf of my party, which first gave devolution to Wales. I thank the Minister once again for bringing these orders before us today.

[Lord German]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing these historic orders to the Chamber this afternoon. I declare an interest as I am an executive member of the company, limited by guarantee, known as Cymru Yfory, which translates as Tomorrow’s Wales. It has been the campaign organisation for a yes vote in any referendum to come. Obviously, that nails my colours very firmly to the mast. I am very proud to be able to do that because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, says, this is a journey which many of us have travelled for most of our lives and shall continue to travel, but this is an historic step. It is also an historic moment for me because I am probably in the unique position of having been able to vote in the very first trigger vote that took place to set this referendum on its journey in the National Assembly for Wales, and now I am voting on the last vote that sends it on its journey.

I wish to raise a number of issues with the Minister. Clearly, two of the orders are very practical and deal with how a referendum should be held, which is quite right. If we were to measure the matter by the weight of the orders, clearly one of them is very weighty indeed; in fact, the real substance of the order is what will happen after a successful vote in a referendum—and that is Schedule 7. That order will tell the people of Wales what they will be voting for: the powers that Wales will have as a result of a yes vote in the referendum.

I have watched the current Government of Wales Act grow. Schedule 5 to the 2006 Act deals with the powers that are currently held by the National Assembly. However, this document has four pages; at the moment, the same schedule has 38 pages, which deal with the powers that the National Assembly has accrued by steps since 2007, when the Act came into being for the new National Assembly. In the space of three years, those powers have grown step by step, and it has been a very expensive and time-consuming process.

17:30

I have been engaged in both ends of the LCO process that provides the framework powers, which is an easier way of getting powers into Wales. A successful yes vote in the referendum will make this process far more efficient and effective and will allow Wales to get on with the job of legislating for itself. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, said, the present process is expensive. Noble Lords who have been involved in the Constitution Committee of this House may remember that the environment LCO was the subject of a substantial report from that committee, which was very welcome to the National Assembly. I think that that was part of the process of hurrying along the move towards the implementation of Schedule 7, which will be the next step in the process.

The approach in Schedule 7 is quite different from that of the Scotland Act and the Northern Ireland Act. The Scotland Act lays out the areas in which the Scottish Parliament can operate and lists exceptions where it cannot operate, whereas the Government of Wales Act states the areas in which the National Assembly can operate and gives a very specific list of powers. Therefore, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, that the order before us will not be the end of the journey because Schedule 7 will have to change over time as the world around us changes.

However, a unique point for both Houses at Westminster is that, for the first time, future amendments of Schedule 7 will need to be made by co-decision: there will have to be a decision by the National Assembly for Wales and by both Houses here in Westminster. That will be a major shift because it means that there will be a dialogue about any future changes. It is therefore quite right that these orders should be approved today to try to expand and lay out the powers under Schedule 7. It is obvious to many of us that, if Schedule 7 has had to be amended in the way it is to be amended today—after being on the statute book, but not in operation, for just a few years—other amendments to it will be required in future. Some of us would have preferred the Scottish solution, but we are where we are, and we need to move on.

I have specific questions about Schedule 7. It seems to me that the powers listed are at the heart of what we can do and what can be done within Wales. First, will the Minister reassure me and the people of Wales that no restriction is being made to the current powers of the National Assembly? In other words, will Schedule 7 in any way delimit powers that already exist under Schedule 5? I hope that the answer is no and that the order takes all the powers that we currently have in Wales and moves them into Schedule 7.

Two things concern me. The first relates to highways and transport. For reasons of simplicity, the current Schedule 7 wording has been broken up into four sentences. The first starts:

“Traffic regulation on special roads”

then there are separate sentences: “Pedestrian crossings”, “Traffic signs” and “Speed limits”. I would like some reassurance that all four powers relate to special roads, given that the National Assembly for Wales currently has power over pedestrian crossings, traffic signs, trunk road speed limits and so on.

I mentioned earlier the report by the Constitution Committee of this House on the environment LCO, which took something like two and a half years from its gestation to its being fully put in place. That LCO provided significant powers under the environment field of Schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act. I know that there is a move to get powers over, for example, energy generation of over 50 megawatts in Wales. Will the Minister tell me whether there have been any requests for such powers to be added to Schedule 7, so that the people of Wales might know that during the coming referendum?

This has been a substantial journey, in which there have been many milestones. Today is a milestone in setting in train the opportunity for the people of Wales to make their own decisions on whether they would like to have the ability to deal with their own law making—in the specific 20 areas of life over which they have powers at present—without having to come to this House and the other place to seek permission. The order will save a considerable amount of money and time and will give a real opportunity for the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Assembly Government to bring about the legislative changes which best suit Wales and the needs of the country and which clearly will make the decisions about the life of Wales better.

I hope that the Minister will be able to convince me that there is no clawing back of powers, that there are no delineations and that we can move forward to a referendum campaign on 3 March 2011 in the certainty that a clear set of powers will be available to the National Assembly for Wales.

17:36

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, and my noble friend Lord German, for their contributions to this important debate. As the noble Baroness said, this is a milestone debate. I also thank them both for the positive support that they have given to these orders. That reflects the fact that whatever side people take in the referendum campaign—it is my recollection that there was unanimity in the National Assembly for Wales that the referendum should take place—it is important that the orders give substance to that aspiration.

My noble friend Lord German asked me some specific questions, which I will attempt to answer. With regard to whether the powers over signs and pedestrian crossings relate only to special roads, the answer is no. They relate to all roads because that is the current position in Schedule 7, and that will not be changed by the order.

With regard to energy generation, as has rightly been pointed out, electricity generation is specifically excepted from Schedule 5 and Schedule 7. The amendment order before us today does not change that. The Welsh Assembly Government have made regular representations to the United Kingdom Government in respect of the boundary to the Welsh settlement on energy generation. This Government have considered those representations carefully, but we do not propose to change the boundary in respect of energy generation at this time.

The noble Baroness and my noble friend talked about their experience as regards LCOs and framework powers. In my short period as spokesperson with responsibility for the Wales Office in this House, I recall debating in Grand Committee in the Moses Room the LCO on housing. I certainly became aware of the path that an LCO takes to reach the House for approval. It will remain to be seen, with the outcome of the referendum, whether that process will continue or whether it will require the co-determination to which my noble friend Lord German referred.

It is important to mark that, while we are amending Schedule 7 today, there is also a legislative proposal before the House for framework powers in relation to the National Audit Office for Wales and the Auditor-General for Wales. There are also two current LCOs on organ donation consent and on highways and transport for cycleways and walkways. It would be wrong today to anticipate what the progress of those LCOs will be, but it may be that Schedule 7 has not yet finished being amended. Nevertheless, I can reassure my noble friend Lord German that the provisions in the draft order amending Schedule 7 ensure that there will be no restriction on the current powers of the Assembly. There will be no loss of powers for the Assembly as a result of the order.

The noble Baroness and my noble friend both referred to this important milestone and the journey. They are in the slightly advantageous position of being able not only to vote—which, obviously, I will not be able to do—but to express their view on the outcome of the referendum. The position of the coalition Government is neutral on the outcome. Through these orders, we are facilitating the referendum. However, perhaps I may conclude by saying that, as a Scot who had the privilege of serving in the Scottish Parliament when it was first established again in 1999, it is a great privilege for me to be able to move these milestone orders. I ask the House to support them.

Motion agreed.

National Assembly for Wales Referendum (Assembly Act Provisions) (Limit on Referendum Expenses Etc.) Order 2010

Thursday 25th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

17:40

Moved By

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 21 October be approved.

Relevant Document: 5th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

Motion agreed.

National Assembly for Wales (Legislative Competence) (Amendment of Schedule 7 to the Government of Wales Act 2006) Order 2010

Thursday 25th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

Moved By

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 21 October be approved.

Relevant Document: 5th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

Motion agreed.

Local Government Bill [HL]

Thursday 25th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Returned from the Commons

The Bill was returned from the Commons agreed to.

House adjourned at 5.41 pm.