House of Commons

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 8 December 2010

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Mrs Siân C. James (Swansea East) (Lab)]

1. What recent discussions she has had with the Welsh Assembly Government on the implementation in Wales of the Sunbeds (Regulation) Act 2010.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

The Secretary of State and I have a wide range of discussions with Welsh Assembly Government Ministers on a range of issues relevant to Wales. The Sunbeds (Regulation) Act 2010 will come into force in England and Wales on 8 April 2011. It will prevent people under the age of 18 from using sunbeds on commercial premises by making it an offence for sunbed operators to provide access.

[Mrs James]

I thank the Under-Secretary for that answer. As he is aware, my former colleague, Julie Morgan, the previous Member for Cardiff North, and I fought long and hard for the Act. It is vital that we stop under-age use of sunbeds. The Minister for Health and Social Services in Wales is determined to introduce the principle as a matter of urgency. The introduction of the Act on an England and Wales basis is vital. I urge the Under-Secretary to press UK Ministers for action and to keep the issue at the forefront of the public health debate.

[Mr Jones]

I commend the efforts of the hon. Lady and Ms Julie Morgan in drawing this important public health issue to our attention. As the hon. Lady is aware, the Welsh Assembly Government intend to introduce regulations in 2011 further to regulate sunbed businesses in Wales only, on which they are consulting. This significant measure is aimed at protecting young people, but it also concerns a public health issue for older people. Sunbeds pose a cancer risk and, to be frank, frequently do not produce a very good look.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

2. What recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on the level of employment in Wales.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

7. What recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on the level of employment in Wales.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Mrs Cheryl Gillan)]

I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on the level of employment in Wales. I am pleased that for the past three months in Wales, unemployment figures have fallen while employment has risen—positive signs that our approach is working.

[John Howell]

Nobody would wish to be complacent, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the good news on employment in Wales is an indication that the hard choices we have made about the economy are working for Wales?

[Mrs Gillan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have had to make hard choices. We are rebalancing and strengthening the economy by cutting the mountain of debt that the previous Government left us, in order to improve our economic prospects and ensure that more jobs can be created in Wales and across the United Kingdom.

[Stuart Andrew]

My birthplace of Anglesey is no stranger to the difficult economic times we have had, particularly given the loss of hundreds of jobs at Anglesey Aluminium Metals. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to encourage employment on Anglesey and across north Wales?

[Mrs Gillan]

I am sure that hon. Members from all parts of the House agree that the job losses at Anglesey Aluminium Metals were a great blow to the Anglesey economy. I am delighted—and, as an Anglesey boy, my hon. Friend will know—that the life of Wylfa power station has been extended by two years. The site is one of eight across the UK that have been shortlisted for future nuclear generation. That would ensure good employment for the people of Anglesey and north Wales, and I am sure that all hon. Members hope it will come to fruition.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

Of course, those decisions about Anglesey were taken by the Labour Government and supported by the excellent MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen). I wish the Secretary of State and all at the Wales Office festive greetings. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates show that the actions of her Government will result in tens of thousands of public sector job losses in Wales. How many of those will involve women?

[Mrs Gillan]

I wish the shadow Secretary of State a very happy Christmas and a prosperous new year, and I thank him for his kind greetings. We are certainly not complacent and any job losses are to be regretted. We were pleased, however, that the OBR’s original 490,000 forecast for the reduction in public sector staff came down to 330,000 in last week’s forecast. I am sure that he will want to welcome that reduction of 160,000.

[Mr Hain]

I find it astonishing that the Secretary of State has no idea of the number of women in Wales who will lose their jobs as a result of the public sector cuts implemented by her Government. Women make up fully three quarters of public sector workers in Wales, including at Newport passport office, which is being so shamefully closed. The highly respected Fawcett Society is so incensed at the punitive impact on women of Government cuts that it even tried to challenge them in the High Court. As the first woman Secretary of State for Wales, is she proud of her Government’s attitude to Welsh women?

[Mrs Gillan]

The Government have considered all the possible impacts on women, and many of the changes that we have made to support small companies, for example, will help women, because women are much more likely to work part time. The shadow Secretary of State has misled the House, and—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Secretary of State must not accuse any right hon. or hon. Member of misleading the House. She has a lot of experience, and I know that she will correct what she has just said.

[Mrs Gillan]

Of course I will correct it, Mr Speaker. The shadow Secretary of State is possibly in danger of misleading the House, because he knows quite well that Newport passport office has not yet been closed and that we have already secured the front-of-house services for it, which will save up to 45 jobs. In 2008, his Government did exactly the same thing to the passport office in Glasgow, so I will take no lessons from him.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

3. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on policing in Wales.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

4. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on policing in Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

Effective policing in Wales is of the utmost importance to the coalition Government. Both the Secretary of State and I have had regular discussions with Cabinet and ministerial colleagues on matters affecting policing and law and order in Wales.

[Simon Hart]

The Minister will be aware of the crucial strategic importance of the Milford Haven waterway as an energy hub serving every constituency in the land. Will he assure the House that Dyfed-Powys police will have the long-term resources necessary to protect that vital asset?

[Mr Jones]

The Government recognise the strategic importance of Milford Haven and indeed of all other Welsh ports, and we will work closely with ministerial colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that appropriate support is provided in future. Future funding for counter-terrorism policing has been protected as far as possible in the spending review because of the nature of the threat.

[Steve Baker]

I am sure that Welsh police will welcome the Government’s refreshing approach. What else will the Minister do to liberate Welsh police from bureaucracy and get them back on the beat?

[Mr Jones]

The Government are indeed keen to throw off the legacy of bureaucracy. As a result of the bureaucratic element of Labour policing policy, police officers were left impotent behind desks. Last year under Labour, just 14% of all police officers’ time was spent on patrol, compared with 22% on paperwork.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Does the Minister recall the Prime Minister saying during the election campaign that he thought police community support officers did a good job and that we should have more of them? Does he agree, and if so, what representations is he making to ensure that Wales does not lose out on PCSOs?

[Mr Jones]

The Government do indeed recognise the importance of PCSOs, but the employment of them must be a matter for individual police forces. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the policing settlement is due shortly.

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

The chief constable of Dyfed-Powys police recently wrote to me outlining the fact that the consequence of the comprehensive spending review for the force would be at least a 20% cut in real terms—a £10 million loss to the budget. With 83% of costs relating to staffing, will that inevitably lead to cuts in front-line policing and a reduction in the quality of service provided in the communities I represent?

[Mr Jones]

Again, I have to say that the issue of staffing must be one for individual police forces. The Government are trying to be sensitive about the cuts that are necessary as a consequence of the appalling economic legacy that has been left to the country by the Labour party.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

Further to the previous question, what representations has the Minister made on the future of the rural policing grant as it affects Dyfed-Powys? The grant is currently £2.64 million and there are real concerns about the implications of any change for the delivery of front-line protection.

[Mr Jones]

I am sure that that will be a matter of particular concern to my hon. Friend. The Home Office is considering the matter, which will be the subject of an announcement shortly.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

The Minister and the Secretary of State say that individual police forces will be responsible for the cuts that they have to make. However, they will know that North Wales police—overall crime in the area reduced by 40% under the Labour Government—now faces cuts of perhaps 230 officers from 1,600, and 160 police community support officers. If crime increases from the current record lows in north Wales, will the Minister and Secretary of State blame the chief constable?

[Mr Jones]

Before I answer that question, may I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being awarded the accolade of “one to watch” in the ITV Wales political awards? I can assure him that I am indeed watching him.

The hon. Gentleman’s point has been well rehearsed, but I would rather rely on the chief constable of North Wales, who has given an assurance that the force will continue to protect the public and provide a service in which the public can be confident.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

5. What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport on arrangements in Wales to mark the diamond jubilee of HM the Queen.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Mrs Cheryl Gillan)]

The Government are closely involved in the plans to celebrate Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee in 2012. A special four-day jubilee weekend will be held over the first week of June 2012, and other events will be announced in due course.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Does the Secretary of State agree that all parts of the UK should play their part in ensuring that the celebration of the Queen’s 60th anniversary as head of state is a momentous occasion? Will she outline what her Department is doing to work with the Welsh authorities and others to ensure that the jubilee is truly a momentous occasion?

[Mrs Gillan]

The jubilee will be a truly historic occasion, and certainly a great testament to the hard work and dedication of Her Majesty the Queen to this country and her people. The people of Wales will be able to play their full part in it. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we are working closely with Buckingham palace and the Welsh Assembly Government to ensure that the Welsh public are given every opportunity to celebrate the jubilee.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am absolutely certain that large numbers of people in my constituency will want to celebrate the 60th anniversary, just as they did the 50th anniversary. However, I urge the Secretary of State to speak to the police and health service in Wales, because on the last long weekend when we had two bank holidays together several young people in the Rhondda died from drug overdoses, many of them because they were given their methadone for the Monday and Tuesday on the Friday beforehand. Will she ensure that we do not repeat those problems?

[Mrs Gillan]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that problem, because I was not aware of it. Certainly, that would be sad at a time of celebration. He will be aware that the Government are publishing our new drug strategy, and I will ensure that that problem is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is responsible for the strategy. We will take action on that front, but perhaps he could help me by writing to me so that I can take the matter up properly.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

6. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on welfare reform in Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues about a range of issues relevant to Wales. The Government have set out our plans to introduce legislation radically to reform the welfare system by creating a new universal credit, which will simplify the system, make work pay and combat worklessness and poverty in Wales and throughout Britain.

[Mr Turner]

Does my hon. Friend accept that it would be far better to have a small number of benefits that make sense rather than a huge number of benefits that are complex and confusing, and that no one could possibly understand?

[Mr Jones]

Yes—that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions proposes to replace six benefits with one universal credit. That will not only simplify the procedure, but encourage people to get back into work.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

With simplification, there is always the danger of people falling outside categories, and therefore of gross injustices. Will the Minister have a word with the Work and Pensions Secretary about boosting the face-to-face advice that is available from the Department for Work and Pensions, especially in rural areas? That would be a great step forward.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. As he knows, the matter is the subject of a White Paper and no doubt he will feed into the process. Overall, it is considered that the new benefit will be simpler and easier for people to understand.

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

I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to know that the number of claimants for jobseeker’s allowance in Brecon and Radnorshire has dropped by 25%. Does he agree that that is to do with the resilience of small manufacturing companies such as Beacon Foods—which I visited on Monday—coming through the recession in the way they have?

[Mr Jones]

Indeed, and one must never forget that small and medium enterprises are the backbone of the Welsh economy. The measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has put in place should do much to ensure that they have a successful future.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware of the impact on constituents of mine in Bridgend of the lowering of mortgage interest relief for those on benefits from the previous rate of 6.8% to 3.67%? A constituent of mine who has a mortgage at a rate of 5.85% has a shortfall of £236 a month, which is getting him increasingly into debt and he faces losing his property. What help can be offered to people such as my constituent?

[Mr Jones]

I am sorry to hear of the predicament of the hon. Lady’s constituent. If she writes to me, I will pursue the matter further.

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

8. What recent discussions she has had with the First Minister on the proposed referendum on law-making powers for the National Assembly for Wales.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Mrs Cheryl Gillan)]

I have had regular discussions with the First Minister on the proposed referendum. I can confirm that this Government have delivered on their commitment to hold a referendum on further powers for the National Assembly for Wales in the first quarter of next year. The legal instruments setting out the arrangements for the referendum to take place on 3 March 2011 were approved by Parliament and will be considered at the Privy Council meeting later this month.

[Mr Amess]

In the light of that answer, what consideration has my right hon. Friend given to the outcome of the referendum?

[Mrs Gillan]

The Wales Office will remain strictly neutral throughout the referendum process, but it is right to consider and prepare now for the outcome, whether it be a yes vote or a no vote. Clearly, a yes vote will transfer primary powers to the Assembly over those areas already devolved, and that will mean a changed relationship with Westminster, including the impact of legislation made in Cardiff on this House and this legislature. If there is a no vote, we will retain the existing legislative process. In that eventuality, I will examine how we can make the system more effective and more efficient, because it is broadly agreed that the legislative competence order process, as it currently operates, is cumbersome and time consuming.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I welcome the referendum on greater law-making powers for the Assembly, and I will campaign and vote for a yes. While the Secretary of State does not have a vote and wishes the Wales Office to be neutral, can she indicate what the Under-Secretary, who is a Welsh MP, will do? Will he vote yes or no, or will he sit on the fence?

[Mrs Gillan]

Ministers in the Wales Office will remain neutral. Unlike the hon. Gentleman’s party, the Conservative party in Wales will allow members a free vote. That is the sensible way to proceed.

[Mr Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)]

9. What recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on support for the aerospace industry in Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

My right hon. Friend and I have had regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on support for the aerospace industry in Wales. I am pleased that we will take forward our order for A400M transport aircraft and the future strategic tanker programme, safeguarding hundreds of highly skilled jobs in north Wales.

[Mr Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend regret the pre-election scaremongering, especially in Wales, that we would scrap the A400M, project?

[Mr Jones]

I do. The A400M is of crucial importance to the aircraft industry in north Wales. Although the wings are not made there, the technology that produces the wings is based there, and it is of extreme importance to the aerospace industry in Broughton.

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

I was talking to the managing director of GE Aviation in Nantgarw on Monday and he said that he was willing to work with the Government to encourage other inward investors—for example, Boeing—to add to the aerospace cluster in Wales. Will the Minister take up that offer and work with stakeholders in Wales to increase inward investment and the number of jobs?

[Mr Jones]

I am very pleased to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

10. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the likely effects on Wales of spending reductions in respect of police forces.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

Effective policing in Wales is of the utmost importance to the coalition Government. Both the Secretary of State and I have had regular discussions with Cabinet and ministerial colleagues on matters affecting policing and law and order in Wales.

[Chris Ruane]

North Wales police force is one of the best in the country. Under Labour, it had record investment, a record number of police officers and a record drop in crime. Under the Con-Dem Government, all that will be reversed when North Wales police will be forced to sack 250 officers and 484 civilian staff. Will the Minister and his team do what they should be doing, stick up for Wales and stop these dastardly cuts?

[Mr Jones]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the cuts are necessary entirely as a result of the Labour party’s incompetent management of the economy. I reiterate that the chief constable of North Wales has sufficient confidence in his force to say that it will continue to protect the public and provide a service in which the public can be confident.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

11. Whether she has discussed with the Secretary of State for Transport the electrification of the London to south Wales railway line; and if she will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Mrs Cheryl Gillan)]

I have had, and continue to have, discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about that matter. We have already announced £7 billion of rail infrastructure improvements that will reduce journey times to Cardiff by 15 minutes. The next step is to work with the Welsh Assembly Government on the business case for further electrification. I have recently spoken to both the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to agree how best to take that forward.

[Mr Llwyd]

People in Wales will be very disappointed by such a response. Network Rail has allocated no expenditure whatsoever to Wales for the next 12 months. Does the right hon. Lady realise how vital that is to the Welsh economy?

[Mrs Gillan]

I think I heard that question. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on receiving at the ITV Wales Welsh politician of the year awards the “campaigner of the year” award for his work on aftercare for military veterans. We all congratulate him heartily.

I assure him that I fully support electrifying the great western main line, but the process is not simple and a range of factors must be considered. If he thinks it is such an easy matter, he should ask the people he sits on the same side of the House with why not a single centimetre of line was electrified in Wales under the Labour Government. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. It is very discourteous to Members and, indeed, to Ministers.

[Mr Llwyd]

The assurances that the right hon. Lady gives that she will fight her corner for Wales are becoming rather empty—a bit like the situation with tuition fees and the Lib Dems.

[Mrs Gillan]

It is unusual for the hon. Gentleman to be quite so sour. As he knows, the Department for Transport is considering new inter-city rolling stock to replace the existing InterCity 125s. The two options that remain under consideration are the revised bid from Agility Trains for a mixed fleet of some all-electric trains, and a proposal for a fleet of new all-electric trains that could be coupled to new diesel locomotives. He knows the decision is complex and I reassure him that I am working with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on the business case. My officials are constantly in touch with the Department for Transport. We need to take our time and get this decision right for Wales.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has said that she will resign if the high-speed main line goes through her constituency. Will she resign if she fails to secure the electrification of the line to south Wales?

[Mrs Gillan]

The hon. Gentleman knows that the Prime Minister is well aware of my constituents’ objections to route 3. If the preferred route on the high-speed rail is route 3, he will expect me to argue against it, not least because we will be holding a proper consultation. He also knows that, when he was in Government, many Cabinet Ministers made representations on post offices in their constituencies after they had supported—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to hear Karen Lumley.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

12. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on policing in Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

I refer my hon. Friend to my earlier response to my hon. Friends the Members for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) and for Wycombe (Steve Baker).

[Karen Lumley]

Having lived in Wrexham for most of my adult life, I notice that North Wales police force has one of the lowest crime rates and the highest percentage of uniformed officers on the streets compared with other forces in England and Wales. Does my hon. Friend think, as I do, that we could learn something from the North Wales police force?

[Mr Jones]

Yes, indeed, we can. Principally, what we have in north Wales is a chief constable who has displayed a tremendous can-do attitude and is prepared to live within his financial means.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 8 December.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Private John Howard from 3rd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment, who died on Sunday 5 December. He was an incredibly gifted and popular Paratrooper. We should send our condolences to his family, his friends and his loved ones at this very sad time. While I was in Afghanistan, I also met the two brave Paratroopers who were wounded at the same time that he was tragically killed. They were in the excellent Camp Bastion hospital, and I know that their families will be relieved to know that they are doing well and are in extremely good spirits.

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

[Mark Menzies]

I would like to associate myself with the condolences expressed by the Prime Minister. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we invest in the future of the unmanned aerial vehicle programme that has been developed at Warton in my constituency, and will he accept my invitation to come and see first hand the outstanding work force who are driving innovation and skills at that plant?

[The Prime Minister]

I would be delighted if I could take up the opportunity of seeing my hon. Friend’s constituency and that facility. The truth is that the UAV programme is exactly the sort of defence asset that we should be investing in. It plays an absolutely vital role in Afghanistan—we are increasing our spending on that project—and it shows the point of having a defence review, as it is vital to start spending money on the weapons of the future, rather than on legacies of the past.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Private John Howard, from 3rd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment? He showed enormous courage. We pay tribute to his sacrifice, and our thoughts and deepest condolences are with his family. I join the Prime Minister also, as he recently came back from Afghanistan, in paying tribute to all our troops serving in Afghanistan and their families.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that after his changes are introduced, English students will pay the highest fees of any public university system in the industrialised world?

[The Prime Minister]

The figures are well known for what students will pay. They are much lower than what students pay in the United States, for instance, but I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that in the end, we have to make a choice. If we want to see university education expand and universities well funded, we have to work out where that money is going to come from. Our proposal is that graduates should make a greater contribution, but only if they are successful. They will start paying back only when they are earning £21,000. That is better than the system that we inherited.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister did not answer the question. This country will have the highest fees for going to a public university in the whole industrialised world. He says that his plans are about properly funding universities. They are not: he is cutting public investment in universities and loading costs on to students and their parents. Will he admit that the reason fees are being trebled is to make up for an 80% cut in the university teaching budget?

[The Prime Minister]

The reason these contributions are going up is because we were left a completely unsustainable situation. That is why, before the last election, the Labour Government put in place the Browne commission, and why the Conservative party backed it. One party has had the courage of its convictions to see this through. [Interruption.] To be fair to the Liberal Democrats, they never signed up to the Browne review. The right hon. Gentleman did, and he is the one guilty of rank hypocrisy.

[Edward Miliband]

The right hon. Gentleman has given it away: one party. There are 57 Liberal Democrats, and they are split four ways. That is something, even for the Liberal Democrats. Things are so bad that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) is offering his own unique solution to the votes tomorrow. He says that if you run quickly, you can vote both ways. I have to say that if the Kremlin were spying on the Liberal Democrats, we would know why: they want a bit of light relief.

Let us have the Prime Minister answer another question, because he did not answer the first two. He says that he does not want the next generation to be in debt, so does he not understand the anxiety that students and parents have about starting their adult lives with a debt of £40,000?

[The Prime Minister]

You cannot attack a plan if you do not have a plan. The fact is that Labour went into the last election with a 25% cut planned for the Business Department. The right hon. Gentleman has absolutely no way of making the numbers add up. Everybody knows that they said that they would not introduce tuition fees; they introduced them. They said that they would not introduce top-up fees; they introduced them. They said that they supported the Browne review; he wrote it into their manifesto. Why are they breaking their pledge about the Browne review? Why? The fact is—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. All this finger-pointing is very unseemly. I want to hear the response of the Prime Minister.

[The Prime Minister]

The leader of the Labour party saw a big crowd assembling in the Mall, and he just decided, “I am their leader, I must follow them.” That is his idea of leadership.

[Edward Miliband]

A week really is a long time in politics—not so much waving but drowning. Let us talk about social mobility, because that is at the heart of these proposals. Let me quote someone whom the Prime Minister used to trust on social mobility—the person he appointed to head his social mobility taskforce: the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). He said:

“I’m concerned about the effect this would have on social mobility and the huge level of debt we are encouraging young people to take on.”

I know that the Prime Minister does not have much time for the right hon. Gentleman these days, but why does he not listen to him on this issue?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what has happened in terms of social mobility. Last year, there were 80,000 students on free school meals; only 40 of them went to Oxford and Cambridge. That is the situation with social mobility. What we are introducing—[Interruption.] I know that the Opposition do not want to hear the details. We are introducing a situation where nobody pays fees up front, including part-time students—which is 40% of students—and nobody pays anything back until they are earning £21,000. Under the new system, everyone will pay back less than they pay under the current system—[Interruption.] They will pay back less every month; that is the case. The poorest will pay less, the richest will pay more. It is a progressive system, but the right hon. Gentleman has not got the courage of his convictions to back it.

[Edward Miliband]

Only the Prime Minister could treble tuition fees and then claim that it is a better deal for students. No one is convinced, frankly. Is it not absolutely clear that this policy is in chaos? The Education Minister refuses to answer questions on it, and the Government rush out proposals on it daily. Is it not the most sensible thing for the Prime Minister to go away, think again and come up with a better proposal?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman has absolutely no idea what he would put in its place. He supported a graduate tax, which his shadow Chancellor does not back. He was the person who wrote the manifesto suggesting the Browne review. He is just demonstrating complete political opportunism—[Interruption.] Yes, total opportunism. He is behaving like a student politician and, frankly, that is all he will ever be.

[Edward Miliband]

Mr Speaker, I was a student politician, but I was not hanging around with people who were throwing bread rolls and wrecking restaurants. Is it not the truth that all the Prime Minister can offer us is “you’ve never had it so good” on planet Cameron? What does he have against young people? He has taken away the child trust fund; he is abolishing the education maintenance allowance; he is scrapping the future jobs fund; and now he is trebling tuition fees. Is not the truth that he is pulling away the ladder because he does not understand the lives of ordinary people up and down this country?

[The Prime Minister]

The fact is that if you introduce a graduate tax, you are going to be taxing people on £6,000, £7,000 and £9,000. Where is the fairness in that? The truth of the matter is that we examined a graduate tax and we know it does not work; the right hon. Gentleman’s party examined a graduate tax and knows it does not work; the Liberal Democrats had a look at a graduate tax and they know it does not work. The only reason he is backing it is because it gives him a political opportunity. I know what it is like: you can sit there for year after year; you see a political opportunity, but you will never be a party of Government. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is far too much noise in this Chamber; the public absolutely detest and despise it. The House must come to order.

[Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con)]

The Prime Minister may be aware that a young constituent of mine, Connor Rankine-Christ, was stabbed in an unprovoked attack at the weekend and has been battling to overcome life-threatening injuries this week. The suspect was released on bail just 24 hours after the attack, which has understandably upset and worried the victim’s family. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the courts should still be able to remand individuals in custody in the most serious cases where there is a risk that the defendant will cause injury by reoffending?

[The Prime Minister]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right: the courts must have this power. If they believe that someone is dangerous and could offend again, it is absolutely right that that person is not given bail. That happens under our system and it should go on happening under our system.

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

Q2. What assessment he has made of the likely effects of proposed reductions in expenditure on the programme partnership agreement on the effectiveness of organisations assisted by the Government in the overseas voluntary sector.

[The Prime Minister]

Expenditure through the programme partnership agreement is not being reduced. We expect to allocate £120 million every year to this programme from 2011 to 2014. At the same time, we are increasing overall levels of support for the most effective organisations working overseas, and we are keeping the promise to reach 0.7% of gross national income for aid by 2013.

[Mr MacNeil]

Many colleagues on both sides of the House, including myself, have seen at first hand the great work that Voluntary Service Overseas volunteers do worldwide. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that he will continue to provide the necessary and expected support for VSO to continue to improve the lives of 26 million people around the world?

[The Prime Minister]

I can do that. Voluntary Service Overseas is an excellent organisation and I know it has widespread support across the House. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is in discussions about how to ensure that its programme goes on succeeding and expanding. Fundamentally, with a growth in the Department for International Development’s budget, there is every chance that that could happen; that is what I expect to see.

[Mr Speaker]

Would a Government Back-Bench Member like to contribute on this closed question?

[Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

Voluntary Service Overseas provides valuable experience opportunities as well as giving people a connection with development. I welcome what the Prime Minister has said, but can he give an assurance that VSO’s current concern that its budget might be cut will be overcome by giving it access to other budgets within the Department for International Development?

[The Prime Minister]

I believe that the discussions are going extremely well and that it will be possible to guarantee that. One reason why people are asking this question about programme partnership arrangements is because the Government want to ensure that organisations are not wholly dependent on Government money, but seek sources of funding elsewhere. As my right hon. Friend says, there are opportunities through other budgets within DFID, and VSO could also make applications to the global fund to combat poverty.

[Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

Q3. While temperatures drop across the UK, profit margins for the energy companies have risen by an unacceptable 38%, compelling people on limited incomes to turn their heating down. What will the Prime Minister do to force these privatised companies to pay back some of their excessive profits to customers before more pensioners freeze to death?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is right to ask this question. Two things need to be done. The first is that the regulatory authorities need to be tough with the energy companies—and that is exactly what I expect Ofgem to do. The second thing that needs to happen is that the cold weather payments need to kick in. We have already spent £173 million since the start of the particularly cold weather. One reason why this is working so well is that we have made permanent what was only a temporary increase from Labour before the last election.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

This morning, I spoke to one of my constituents—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] It might come as news to Labour Members, if they were quiet, and they should try it. Mrs Lowther, who is 76 years of age, is disabled and has been housebound for 11 days now, because of the snow and ice in Stapleford. Does the Prime Minister agree that in such inclement weather it is imperative that we are good neighbours, especially to the elderly and the frail?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Of course the Government should be there with cold weather payments, and we are. We should be there with winter fuel payments, and we are. It is also important that local government plays its role, ensuring that grit supplies are there. By being good neighbours, we can all help those who could suffer in the cold weather, and she is quite right to raise the point.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Q4. As someone who claims to be an avid fan of The Smiths, the Prime Minister will no doubt be rather upset this week to hear that both Morrissey and Johnny Marr have banned him from liking them. The Smiths, of course, are the archetypal student band. If he wins tomorrow night’s vote, what songs does he think students will be listening to: “Miserable Lie”, “I Don’t Owe You Anything” or “Heaven Knows I’m Miserable Now”?

[The Prime Minister]

If I turned up, I probably would not get “This Charming Man”. If I went with the Foreign Secretary, it would probably be, “William, It Was Really Nothing”.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is simply too much noise. It is very unfair. I want to hear Mr Stewart Jackson.

[Mr Jackson]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a badge of shame, for which the Labour party should apologise to taxpayers, parents and pupils, that having doubled education spending during their term in office, they managed to drive down educational attainment standards to the bottom of the international league, according to the OECD?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The tables published today make depressing reading. We are falling behind countries such as Poland and Estonia, which we should be well ahead of. Frankly, this comes down to the choice we have to make. We made the choice of putting an extra £3 billion into the schools budget during this Parliament, because we want more done in early years and primary education so that we get the social mobility about which the Leader of the Opposition was posing earlier.

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

Q5. Over half the students at the university of Wolverhampton come from disadvantaged backgrounds. This morning, the University and College Union said that Wolverhampton was one of the universities at high risk, owing to the Government’s massive 85% cuts to its teaching grant. Will the Prime Minister explain to students and local businesses exactly why he is putting Wolverhampton university at risk in that way?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady stood for election on a manifesto that supported the Browne commission—[Interruption.] She did; she can deny it now, but that is what the manifesto written by the Leader of the Opposition said. The fact is that we have to make a decision. Is it right for taxpayers to continue providing the predominant support for university education? [Hon. Members: “Yes.”] They say yes now, but that is not what they stood on at the last election. Many taxpayers do not go to university or benefit from a university education, so it is fairer and better to ask students to contribute, but only when they are successful. No one will contribute until they earn £21,000, which is £6,000 more than under the system that the hon. Lady’s party introduced.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as concerned as I am about absurd health and safety legislation, which has reached such dizzy heights in this country that the chief executive of Sainsbury’s told me last week that Christmas crackers are now category 1 fireworks, and cannot be sold to anyone under the age of 16 without the risk of a six-month sentence of imprisonment? Will he put a firework up the health and safety legislation?

[The Prime Minister]

That would give me enormous pleasure, and I look forward to doing so.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

Q6. The Prime Minister told the House in June that he had been treated not too badly on his last visit to Gateshead—we are, by nature, a very friendly bunch. Will he return to discuss with regional political leaders of all parties their real concerns and fears that the Government’s current strategy is undermining the potential for economic recovery in our region, particularly through the slashing of support for the tourism industry? Before he mentions it, we are already trying to squeeze a few gallons out of a pint-sized regional growth fund pot.

[The Prime Minister]

There is big Government support for the north-east. There is big support for Nissan and its electric car, and we are supporting the National Renewable Energy Centre, which is building the world’s biggest testing facility for wave and tidal technology. We have also awarded a £7 million contract for the construction of the first advanced bioethanol plant in the Tees valley. So we are investing in the north-east.

The hon. Gentleman talks about a fragile economic recovery. If we had listened to his party, there would not be a recovery; we would be queuing up with Ireland to go to the International Monetary Fund.

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

Drunks and binge drinking have fuelled an economy that has sadly seen people the victims of knife crime. May I ask my right hon. Friend to stiffen the Justice Secretary’s resolve in dealing with those who carry knives and those who commit knife crimes?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has made an important point. If she reads the Green Paper, she will see that adults committing a crime with a knife should expect to go to prison. That is absolutely right, because there are far too many people committing knife crimes today who do not go to prison, and they should.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Q7. The dissident terrorist threat is a continuing problem in Northern Ireland, and we have seen some evidence of the terrorists’ capabilities in recent months. Will the Prime Minister ensure that if additional resources that were not previously envisaged are deemed necessary by the Chief Constable to deal with such a threat, he will ensure that they are provided without delay?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course we keep a very careful eye on the situation in Northern Ireland, and on whether additional resources are required. We stuck to the pledges made by the previous Government about properly funding the devolution of policing and justice. I think that decisions are better made locally, which is why that was the right step to take. I know how difficult the security situation is in Northern Ireland, and I pay tribute to police on both sides of the border for the brilliant work that they do. Of course we always stand ready to help, but we did make quite a generous settlement in terms of devolving law and justice, and that should be the first call for resources.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

In Afghanistan on Monday, the Prime Minister said that British troops could start coming home from Afghanistan as early as next year, which is a major policy shift. With which of our allies did he discuss that decision, and does he envisage the gap being filled by the Afghan army or the US army?

[The Prime Minister]

What I said in Afghanistan was what I said before I went to Afghanistan and what I will happily say again today, which is that the whole of NATO and all the nations of the international security assistance force that are involved in Afghanistan are committed to transition to Afghan control between the start of 2011 and the end of 2014. As that happens, there will clearly be opportunities either to reinvest troops in training missions or, indeed, to bring them home. What the Chief of the Defence Staff and I both said at a press conference in Afghanistan was that it might be possible to bring some of our troops home next year.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Q10. Tomorrow the Deputy Prime Minister will vote to break his election promise on tuition fees. This Prime Minister has also broken his election promise to maintain the child trust fund for the poorest in our society. What message does that send to young people about trusting Government?

[The Prime Minister]

I seem to remember that the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the last Government, who commissioned the Browne review. [Interruption.] Yes: the Government who went into the election committed to cuts of 25% in the budget of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. If they were committed to that, what were Opposition Members going to do? Were they going to cut the number of people in universities, or were they going to cut the money going to universities? We have had absolutely no answer. The people who are actually behaving in a way that I think drags politics through the mud are people who introduced tuition fees, introduced top-up fees and commissioned the Browne review, and who then, as soon as they are in opposition, behave irresponsibly and run away from it.

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

Q11. There are currently plans to regenerate Camborne and Redruth, which would create 6,000 new jobs and allow the building of a modern, state-of-the art mine in Redruth. However, the work depends on transport infrastructure improvements which are currently being reviewed by the Department for Transport. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in difficult times when capital is scarce we should prioritise projects that create jobs and deliver growth, and that the Department for Transport should review its assessment criteria?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend speaks very well for his constituency and fights very hard for the economy in Redruth and Camborne, and he is absolutely right that of course we should give priority to transport projects that have the greatest economic return. That is what the Department for Transport does; it also has to look at environmental and other factors, but decisions should be based on where we can show economic benefits from transport—and remember that we are putting more money into transport capital infrastructure than the previous Government planned to do.

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

In light of his experience of the World cup bid in Zurich last week, can the Prime Minister tell us what his view now is of an organisation that engages in the most convoluted and bizarre voting arrangements, that says one thing and then votes exactly the opposite way, and that has a leader who seems more interested in power and prestige than accountability—and after he has finished with the Lib Dems, can he tell us what he thinks of FIFA?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly learned one thing: when it comes to breaking promises, politicians have got nothing on football management—there is no doubt about that. [Interruption.] Before Labour Members all start pointing, we should just remember who it was who said, “We will never introduce tuition fees.” Who said, “We will never introduce top-up fees”? Who said “We will back the Browne review”? Who is now an organised hypocrisy?

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

Q12. Following the Prime Minister’s visit to Afghanistan and the review of the military covenant published today, will he reassure me that his Government will go that extra mile to support our troops, who have given so much to our country?

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure the whole House is grateful for what my hon. Friend said about our troops. On my visit to Afghanistan, I was again struck by just how hard these people are working, and how courageous, professional and brave they are. They are genuinely the best of British, and we owe it to them that we support not just them, but also their families. One thing I am pleased we have been able to do is introduce a pupil premium for the children of forces families. I know from my own constituency that many children at schools dominated by forces families leave and go to a different school within each year. I think giving extra support to forces families in this way is absolutely right, and I am sure it will be supported by all.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

In a tragic incident yesterday at the Sonae factory in my constituency, two people working at the plant were killed. I am sure the Prime Minister will join me in expressing deepest condolences to the families of those who were killed, and does he agree that when the Health and Safety Executive and police investigations into what happened have been completed, whatever action is necessary will be taken?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly join the right hon. Gentleman in what he says about his constituents and the dreadful accident that took place. It is important that we have procedures in place for the HSE and others to investigate these issues and, as he says, they should follow the evidence wherever it leads.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

Q13. Does the Prime Minister agree that foundation schools are already free from local authority control, and will he meet me to discuss the cancelled innovative project to join foundation school Redcar community college with Kirkleatham Hall special school, to replace their dilapidated classrooms and provide facilities for the community?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary will be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss that. The point is that all schools now being given this greater level of independence—whether as foundation schools or the new academy schools—should have greater ability to get together and collaborate to invest in their future, rather than always having to rely on a drip-feed from Government Ministers.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that Parliament may have been infiltrated by an imposter? The Deputy Prime Minister—[Interruption.] The Deputy Prime Minister has said he will vote to treble tuition fees and abolish the education maintenance allowance. Before the general election the leader of the Liberal Democrats said he would vote to abolish tuition fees and keep the EMA. [Interruption.] Can the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to finish his question without chuntering and shouting from a sedentary position. The last sentence please.

[Jack Dromey]

Can the Prime Minister tell the House this: are there two Nick Cleggs?

[The Prime Minister]

I have to say that the hon. Gentleman has the unique qualification of being one of the brothers who was selected on an all-women shortlist—next time he comes in he should dress properly.

[Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)]

Q14. Within the next couple of years the Ministry of Defence will relocate a further 1,300 jobs away from Bath, allowing two major sites in the city to be redeveloped. Given the urgent need for 3,000 additional affordable homes within the city, will the Prime Minister give me the assurance that the MOD will work with the Homes and Communities Agency and the local council to ensure that the sites can be used for those houses, rather than merely to get the best price in the sale?

[The Prime Minister]

I discussed this with my hon. Friend this morning, and I certainly agree that the Ministry of Defence should work with the HCA to try to bring this about. Sometimes the wheels can turn quite slowly when it comes to Defence Estates. I know that he will work hard, and I will ask the MOD to work hard, to get this fixed.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister will be aware that a week is a long time in politics. Having had all that time, could he now update the House on his rethink on the future of school sport partnerships?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that there is quite a common position between both sides; I read the debate where the shadow sports Minister said that clearly we could not afford the current level of commitment. He also said that the current way of doing things was not particularly efficient. So we are reviewing it and making sure that we do provide money for school sport from the centre, but that we do so in a better way because, frankly, too many children in too many schools do not have access to sport after 13 years of a Government who talked an awful lot about it.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Q15. The Browne report states that only just over 1% of UK graduates gave gifts to their former universities, compared with at least 10% in the United States. Does the Prime Minister agree that those of us who received free university education and are in a position to do this should be encouraged to do some serious giving to universities to support current students?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is that other countries do better at endowing their universities and making sure that they have a wider source of income. But the fundamental issue is this: if we are going to look at how we are going to fund universities in the future, it cannot be right, and we will not get a proper expansion of higher education, if we just ask taxpayers, many of whom do not go to university, to fund that expansion. It is right that students—only when they are successful, only when they have left university and only when they are earning £21,000—should make a contribution. They should do so in the progressive and fair way that Browne and we have set out.

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

The Prime Minister will be aware of the Arctic conditions sweeping across central Scotland. Constituents of mine have been trapped in cars and buses overnight, they have been trapped in their own homes, and schoolchildren have been forced to spend the night in temporary accommodation. Can he assure me that the UK Government are offering all possible assistance to the Scottish authorities, up to and including the use of military personnel and equipment?

[The Prime Minister]

I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we stand ready to give any assistance in terms of how we are doing these things. Ministerial meetings at, in effect, the Cobra level, are going through what actions need to be taken. There is a bigger strategic supply of grit than there has been in previous years, the military stand ready to help and I can guarantee him that whatever needs to be done will be done.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the statement by the Minister for pensions, Steve Webb. May I appeal to Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, so that we can hear from Minister Webb?

Petition

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I am presenting a timely petition to the House tonight. It was gathered by school students across Wirral, who recently demonstrated peacefully outside Wallasey Conservative headquarters and marched to the town hall to register their strong objection to the Government’s proposals on the educational maintenance allowance and tuition fees. It is signed by 875 pupils, and I strongly agree with it.

The petition states:

To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.

The Humble Petition of Sarah Smith and students from schools across Wirral,

Sheweth, that the Petitioners believe that the Government’s abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowance and the proposals to lift the cap on University fees will prevent students from poorer backgrounds having full and fair access to education.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House rejects any proposals to remove the cap on University tuition fees and urges the Government to enhance equality of opportunity and equal access to education instead of cutting off support for students and creating some of the most expensive tuition fees in the World.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.

[P000869]

Benefits Uprating

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

12:34

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the uprating of pensions and benefits for 2011-12. I shall place in the Vote Office full details of the new rates that are due to come into force from the week of 11 April 2011 for each pension and benefit, and arrange for the figures to be published in the Official Report.

As the Chancellor said in his autumn statement, we have taken

“decisive action to take Britain out of the financial danger zone.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 530.]

Our decisions today about uprating are part of the plan to ensure we both get on track and stay on track, now and in future.

The Department for Work and Pensions is continuing its comprehensive review of social security policy, including pensions and benefits uprating. As many hon. Members will know, an important component of the future plans for uprating pensions and benefits is the move to the consumer prices index—the CPI. For 2010, additional pensions and benefits were held at their 2009 levels because the retail prices index—the RPI—was negative, at minus 1.4%. In those circumstances, many people saw no increase in their pensions or benefit. Why did the RPI fall? It was mainly because of falling mortgage interest payments, but only 7% of pensioners have a mortgage. People with earnings-related pensions lost out because of a fall in costs that did not benefit them. Had the CPI been used to measure the change in prices last year, benefits such as additional state pension would have been increased.

The CPI is the headline measure of inflation in the UK as well as the target measure used by the Bank of England, and it is internationally recognised. The CPI uses a methodology that takes better account of consumer behaviour in response to price increases. The Government believe that it is right to use one appropriate index for uprating additional state pensions, public and private pensions and social security benefits, and that CPI is a more appropriate measure of changes in the cost of living of pensioners and benefit recipients than RPI. In addition, the House may be surprised to learn that the RPI excludes the spending patterns of the poorest pensioners.

For all those reasons, the Government have decided to move to the CPI. I acknowledge that over the long term the CPI tends to rise more slowly than the RPI. However, the question is not which is the higher or lower number but which is the most appropriate way to track and measure the changes in average prices. The coalition will ensure that the value of many important pensions and benefits is maintained through a rise of 3.1% even in these tough economic times. In addition, steps have been taken to protect low-income families with children through above-indexation increases to child tax credits. Such measures are better targeted on low-income families and will ensure that the measures in the Budget and spending review, of which the move to CPI was a part, will have no measurable impact on child poverty in the next two years.

For consistency, we also announced on 8 July that we would move to CPI as the basis for calculating the statutory minimum increases for revaluation and indexation of occupational pension schemes. Hon. Members will wish to note that the annual revaluation order, which implements the decision, is being laid before Parliament today, together with our consultation document which sets out proposals and seeks views on the impact of using CPI for private sector occupational pension schemes.

The consultation document includes three main proposals. First, we propose legislation to ensure that schemes that choose to stay with RPI do not have to pay CPI in those years when CPI is greater than RPI. We do not intend to put an additional burden on schemes. Secondly, we plan to include indexation and revaluation on the list of changes where employers are required to consult with their employees. I was surprised to learn that schemes had been able to change indexation and revaluation without any duty to consult employees. We will change that. Thirdly, we need to consider what to do when schemes specifically state that RPI should be used and when they do not have the power to amend scheme rules.

I know that many people will have been alarmed by press speculation that we were planning to override scheme rules. We were tempted to respond to the inaccurate reports in this morning’s press, but we were keen that this announcement should come out in a formal, structured way and to the House first of all. However, I am pleased to announce to the House that, contrary to press speculation, we do not plan to grant schemes a modification power to make it easier to use CPI when they do not already have the power to amend scheme rules. We believe that members’ trust in schemes and the scheme rules could be severely damaged if we intervened to give schemes the power to change their rules when the scheme does not already have such a power. Trust in pensions is important and I believe that intervention demands strong justification.

Finally, I should like to turn to one of the early actions of this coalition Government: the restoration of the earnings link for the basic state pension. Unlike the Opposition, who had 13 years to make that important change but failed to do so, the Government made good on the pre-election promises to restore the link with earnings and delivered that promise within months of coming into power. In fact, we have gone further. We have protected the future value of the basic state pension with a triple guarantee that it will rise by the highest of the growth in earnings, the growth in prices or 2.5%. The triple guarantee means that even in times of slow earnings growth, we will never again see a repeat of small rises such as the 75p rise in 2000.

The new rate for the basic state pension will be £102.15 a week for a single person—an increase of £4.50 a week. From April next year, single people on pension credit will receive an above-earnings increase to their minimum guarantee of £4.75, taking their weekly income to £137.35. For couples, the increase will be £7.30, taking their new total to £209.70 a week. Separately, to help manage expenditure, the Chancellor used his spending review statement to announce that we will freeze the savings credit maximum. Over time, the savings credit has resulted in more and more pensioners being caught up in the means-tested system. Freezing the savings credit maximum helps us to focus resources on the poorest pensioners.

At a time when the nation’s finances are under severe pressure, the Government will be spending an extra £4.3 billion in 2011-12 to ensure that people are protected against cost-of-living increases. We have protected the basic state pension with our triple guarantee and we have confirmed that most people on pension credit will benefit in full from the cash increase enjoyed by those on the basic state pension. Our move to CPI for the uprating of the majority of other pensions and benefits will result in an uplift of 3.1 per cent from next April and will set the future of uprating on a more appropriate, consistent and stable basis that is fair to individuals and the taxpayer. Throughout this statement, I have outlined our firm commitment to ensure that no one is left behind, and I commend the statement to the House.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of the statement today. Both sides of the House agree that we need to cut the Budget deficit, even if we differ in our approaches, but let us be clear from the outset that what is set out today is not about deficit reduction. Making this permanent change from the use of the retail prices index to the consumer prices index, the impact of which will be felt long after the deficit is long gone, is an ideologically driven move that Labour opposes. If it were a time-limited change, we would consider whether it was a fairer alternative to deep cuts in departmental expenditure and would be willing to work with the Government on it. We would have supported a time-limited change to uprating, but why would the Government change the uprating of benefits in a way that will have an impact after the deficit has been reduced if not for ideological reasons? I agree that we need to get the economy back on track, but why will we be punishing the poorest in society and our pensioners even when the economy is growing again? Can the Minister confirm just how much worse off people will be over the next 10 years as a result of the switch and, correspondingly, how much money it will save the Government?

The Minister has conceded today that CPI will rise more slowly than RPI, but he says that the question is not about which index is higher or lower. That might not be the question that he wants to focus on, but for millions of pensioners and low-income families up and down the country, that is exactly the question to focus on. They will be asking how they will make ends meet following these changes. What advice would the Minister give to people who will be worse off year in and year out as a result of his decisions today?

Let us look at the detail. The Minister has outlined the Government’s commitment to continue Labour’s policy of restoring the earnings link for the basic state pension with a triple-lock guarantee. [Interruption.] The Government Front-Bench team may laugh, but they know that we committed to doing that and they are doing nothing more than continuing with our policy. Given that the Government are usually so intent on regressive cuts, the announcement in the Budget sounded too good to be true. The Minister’s statement has confirmed that when something seems too good to be true, it usually is. His statement means that millions of pensioners will see the value of their pension fall every year, and that will be compounded by the increase in VAT, which will leave couple pensioners worse off by £275 a year and single pensioners worse off by £125 a year. To what extent will the Government’s combined measures on the change in uprating of the state second pension, the state earnings-related pension scheme, public sector pensions and the VAT increase wipe out any benefit to pensioners from the triple-lock guarantee?

What of the Government’s previous promises? Before the election, the Minister said:

“We are very clear that all accrued rights should be honoured: a pension promise made should be a pension promise kept…we would not make any changes to pension rights that have already been built up. I have confirmed that I regard accrued index-linked rights as protected.”

That is quite clear, I think, but today the Minister has confirmed that people who have paid into the state second pension, the state earnings-related pension scheme or a public sector pension throughout their working life will see their pension in retirement uprated by CPI, not RPI, as they had thought, which changes the rules of the game for pensioners and those coming up to retirement.

In just one week, we have seen the Lib Dems break their promises to students and to pensioners. The Minister will know, but for the benefit of others I shall remind him, that I have written to him to ask him to set out why he believes that CPI is a better measure of inflation for pensioners. I have copied that letter to the UK Statistics Authority, which on 6 October said:

“We believe that the CPI should become the primary measure of consumer price inflation but only when the inclusion in the index of owner occupiers’ housing costs has been achieved.”

I have not had a response to that letter, and given his attempt at explaining today, it is clear why.

The Minister has not produced any evidence to justify the change in indexation. Indeed, for pensioners and low-income families, average inflation is more than RPI and CPI, because of fuel and food costs. It is entirely disingenuous for him to claim that CPI is a better measure of inflation for pensioners when, in reality, pensioner incomes will be lower as a result. It is disingenuous as well to argue that CPI is a better measure of inflation than RPI for those on benefits. Those in that group spend more on food and fuel, so the average inflation is higher, not lower, than either RPI or CPI. Age UK says that CPI is not better, and that evidence is backed up by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It adds that older people tend to spend more on essentials such as food and fuel, and still spend on housing costs such as council tax. I ask the Minister now, what evidence—not assertion, but evidence—is there that CPI better reflects inflation for pensioners and low-income families?

It is not just pensioners for whom this uprating makes no sense. The Government have said that, from 2013-14, they will uprate local housing allowance by CPI, rather than local rents, meaning a total disconnection between local housing markets and the housing allowance. The long-term consequences are likely to be dire, so will the Minister confirm whether that will be a permanent shift and whether he is comfortable that pensioners and low-income families risk losing their homes because of changes in rents over which they have no control?

The Government enthusiastically talk about making work pay—we would all support that—but we also hear today that they have said that they will freeze working tax credit but uprate jobseeker’s allowance. Does that not mean that the gains from moving into work will shrink every year? Will the Minister explain how that is compatible with the drive to get people back to work?

Finally, does the Minister agree with the Child Poverty Action Group, which says that the

“effective inflation rate for the poorest households was higher than RPI in recent years when the cost of basic essentials like food and domestic fuel rose much faster than other prices”?

It adds that CPI uprating will make inequality and poverty worse.

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her questions. The CPI

“is more reliable because, taking account of spending by all consumers, this consumer prices index gives a better measure than the old RPIX measure of spending patterns. It is more precise because… it takes better account of consumers substituting cheaper for more expensive goods.”—[Official Report, 10 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1063.]

How right the previous Prime Minister was when he said those words.

There is a sensible debate to be had about the most appropriate price index. The hon. Lady said that pensioner inflation is always higher. I did not notice the previous Government using a higher inflation measure for pensioners in the 13 years during which they decided these things. In fact, over the past 20 years—not the past five, which Age UK used—the average pensioner inflation and the average non-pensioner inflation were the same. In other words, there are times when it is higher and times when it is lower, as we would expect, but in the long run they are the same. Previous Governments never used pensioner-specific inflation rates; nor do we propose to.

It was good of the hon. Lady to say that she would consider the CPI for this Parliament. Obviously, we are announcing today the benefit rates for next April, so I am assuming that, in the event that the House comes to vote on these matters, she will support the benefit rates that we are proposing. It was not entirely clear to me whether she was for them or against, but I hope that, in due course, it will be clear.

The hon. Lady asked about the use of the RPI and felt, I presume, that it is a better measure of inflation. Does she believe that in the year to September 2009 pensioner inflation was negative? I have never met a pensioner who thought that their inflation was negative. The goal is to use an index that matches inflation experiences, and that is what we have done.

The hon. Lady mentions the IFS and its views on the issue. The main difference between the CPI and the RPI is not the basket of goods but how the two indexes respond to price increases. The IFS found that the substitution effect used in the CPI is a better measure for lower-income households, so its judgment is that, on that key difference, the measure that we are using better fits the inflation experience of lower-income households. I am glad she cited the IFS, because it was right on that point.

The hon. Lady raises the issue of people meeting their fuel bills, and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, the cold weather payment is one of Labour’s ticking time bombs. This winter, it was due to fall to £8.50 a week. That was in the spending plans, but my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions agreed that it was not fair—that paying people £8.50 a week this year would not be acceptable. So, we found the money to set it at £25 a week not just this winter, but for the whole Parliament, and pensioners on low incomes are better off as a result.

The hon. Lady asks about the net effect of the changes, glossing over the earnings link, which, mysteriously, was Labour policy but never implemented in 13 years. It is funny how things become implementable in opposition but not when one controls the levers of power. The earnings link on average gives about 2% a year above prices; the CPI change on average gives about 1% a year less than the RPI. So for those with low and modest occupational pensions, the net effect on pensioners of the two taken together will be positive.

We have a package of measures to protect the interests of pensioners. The earnings link over the long run will give a newly retired pensioner an extra £15,000 in state pension over their retirement, compared with the prices indexing that Labour, when it had the levers of power, applied for 13 years. That is what it applied in office for 13 years: the prices link. Within months, we have gone to the earnings link, and pensioners will appreciate what we have done for them.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend have constituents like mine, who are looking forward to increases in SERPs, and who have looked at what they received last year when the RPI was negative and the CPI was positive? Labour Members back then proposed no increase whatever in those pensions. At the same time, looking over 10 years, is it not a little disingenuous to fail to take into account what has happened to house prices over the past decade? It is unlikely to be replicated in the next decade.

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. Many of the letters that I signed as a new Minister were to people complaining about the April 2010 non-increase in pension rates because they were linked to the RPI, which was negative. One of the worst things about using something that is so heavily affected by mortgage interest rates is that a pensioner with savings not only fails to benefit from falling mortgage rates, but is penalised by falling savings rates, so they get a double whammy. Neither factor will affect the CPI.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

The Minister in his statement said that he will continue to freeze the savings credit maximum, and the reason he appears to give is that over time the savings credit has resulted in more and more pensioners becoming caught up in a means-tested system. Is not another way of looking at the situation the fact that, in future, fewer pensioners on low income will be eligible for pension credit?

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. She is right: last year the savings credit maximum was increased—by 12p, and by 6p for a couple, so it is important to keep what we are doing in context. If, however, she is accusing us of shifting the balance between means-tested benefits and universal benefits such as the state pension, I plead guilty. We have chosen to focus scarce resources on the basic pension through the earnings link and to constrain the rise in savings credit, which is a relatively ineffective way of reaching poorer pensioners. It has a take-up rate of barely 50%. Half the people who are entitled do not even have it; everyone claims their pension.

[Jenny Willott (Cardiff Central) (LD)]

As the Minister said, the move from RPI to CPI will lead to much more stable increases in the uprating of benefits and pensions, and the triple lock will ensure that pensioners do not fall behind the rest of society. Some concerns have been raised, however, because the CPI does not include any costs associated with housing. The Government have announced plans to consider including some housing costs in the CPI calculation, but when does the Minister expect that to be done, and what impact is it likely to have?

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right that CPI rises tend to be more stable compared with the surges and freezes that we had with the RPI. On the point about the inclusion of housing in the CPI, costs in the form of rents are in the CPI already, so that is covered for lower-income renters. The CPI advisory committee is undertaking a two-year programme to see how housing costs might be included, but it has already ruled out directly including mortgage interest payments specifically, which will help with the issue that we have raised. As and when the Office for National Statistics comes up with alternative measures, we will certainly look at them, but that is without prejudice at this stage, because the work is ongoing.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

The Minister draws attention to the restoration of the earnings link and to Labour’s failure over 13 years to make that important change, but does he not feel a little uncomfortable about being in cahoots with the party that broke that link in the first place?

[Steve Webb]

What is a great source of pride to me is being part of a coalition Government who are restoring the earnings link. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, although the measure was certainly in the Liberal Democrat manifesto, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been happy with the plan, it would not have happened.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one real benefit to pensioners that will result from today’s statement is that it gives them certainty and stability, something that, to their frustration, has been lacking over the past couple of years because of the measly and in some ways insulting changes that were made to their scheme?

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend is right. The nature of the triple guarantee is that, whatever happens to earnings and prices, pensioners will be guaranteed a 2.5% rise. Picking up on one of the points that the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), made, I should say that the previous Government, in their spending plans, pencilled in a 2.4% rise in 2012. I have no idea what prices or earnings will be next year, but I do know that 2.5% is bigger than 2.4%.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

If a private company alters its contractual obligations to pay its customers, it is likely to end up in court on a charge of fraud. The Secretary of State admits that CPI increases at a slower rate than RPI. Is not the measure just a simple theft of money from pensioners?

[Steve Webb]

No, it is not. Each year the Secretary of State has a duty to assess the general increase in prices; that is what the law requires him to do. If the law required him to link state pensions, for example, to RPI, that would be a different matter, but that is not the duty. The duty is to assess inflation fairly, which is what we are doing. I also announced today that, when companies have RPI written into their rules and no provision for changing those rules, the Government will not allow schemes to change them, precisely for the sorts of reasons that the hon. Gentleman mentions.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend rightly identified in his statement that the upratings policy forms part of a much wider review of social security policy, which will include major investment in the radical universal credit. Which elements of the Government’s programme does he think will have the most impact on people of working age?

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for stressing that, as well as setting benefit rates, the Department, led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is looking at major structural reform to ensure that work pays. The hon. Member for Leeds West asked about making sure work pays, and we need to ensure that the move into work is seamless, people know what they will get and there are not the complexities of multiple withdrawal rates. I think that history will judge this Department and my right hon. Friend’s record very favourably for putting in place the structural reform that has been overdue for far too long.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The Minister is very good at giving long, process answers to our questions, but I should like to ask him one simple, factual question. How much does he forecast the average pensioner losing over the next five years due to the switch from RPI to CPI?

[Steve Webb]

My forecast is that the average pensioner will gain from our announcements today. I understand why the hon. Lady wants to pick out one little bit, but she knows that the average pensioner draws a basic state pension, which we have restored to earnings, which more than offsets any change to CPI.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

The Minister rightly reminds the House about the importance of the triple guarantee, which will protect the value of state pensions. What feedback has he had on that important announcement?

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I regularly meet pensioners groups throughout the country, and he will be reassured to know that the restoration of the earnings link has been universally well received.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Minister will be aware that some of us who now sit on the Opposition Benches never believed that CPI was a better measure because of the fact that it tended to give a lesser increase. However, we do not deny the worth of the triple guarantee. If his concern is to protect the basic state pension, will he address the needs of those people who do not receive its full value because of the high rate of contracted-out deductions? Many people suspect that the rate of deductions is excessive and punitive, and some say that it represents a marginal tax rate of 80% or 90% on their basic state pension.

[Steve Webb]

Obviously, contracted-out deductions apply not to the basic state pension, but to the additional state pension. The idea of contracting out is that a scheme that offers to provide earnings-related pensions must promise to match the benefits that the state would otherwise have provided. That may not be well understood, but such schemes and the employees who use them pay less national insurance, in return for which, the scheme promises to match what the state would have provided. I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s description, but if he writes to me with specific examples, I am happy to look at them.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

I have been contacted by a large number of constituents who are public sector pensioners, because they are extremely concerned that the pensions to which they have been contributing and which they thought were guaranteed to increase in a certain way should be changed by the Government without any justification. Why is it felt necessary to do that? If it is so good to triple-lock the basic state pension, why is it not equally good for public sector pensioners?

[Steve Webb]

To take the hon. Lady’s second point first, if we were to earnings-link all public sector pensions in payment, it would cause a massive increase in unfunded pension liabilities. She has just spent billions upon billions of pounds, apparently casually, but I am afraid we are not in a position to do that. We have done what Governments have always done, which is to assess the general increase in prices, make a figure for inflation and apply it consistently—in this case, to all social security benefits, tax credits and earnings-related pensions. By statute, public sector pensions are linked to what we do to additional pensions. What we are doing for contracted-out public sector pensions is therefore exactly what we are doing for contracted-in additional pensions.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) asked about pensioners. What pensioners and this House need to know is the difference that is made in monetary terms when pensions are calculated using CPI rather than RPI.

[Steve Webb]

Under the triple lock, the increase will be determined by whichever is highest between earnings, prices and 2.5%. In the long run, the earnings figure is almost invariably higher than the prices figure, so regardless of which measure of prices is used, we will use the earnings figure. As I have said, CPI for additional pensions is about 1% a year lower. The average occupational pension in payment is about £70 a week, 1% of which is 70p a week. Under the triple lock, as I have just announced, the pension is going up by £4.50. That shows the great advantage of the triple lock.

Bill Presented

Armed Forces Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Liam Fox, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Secretary William Hague, Secretary Kenneth Clarke, Secretary Theresa May, Secretary Vince Cable, Mr Secretary Mitchell, the Attorney-General and Mr Andrew Robathan, presented a Bill to continue the Armed Forces Act 2006; to amend that Act and other enactments relating to the armed forces and the Ministry of Defence Police; to amend the Visiting Forces Act 1952; to enable judge advocates to sit in civilian courts; to repeal the Naval Medical Compassionate Fund Act 1915; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 122) with explanatory notes (Bill 122-EN).

Points of Order

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

13:02

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are widespread reports that the Government will adopt the policy, which seems completely anti-intellectual and irrational, of removing the obligation to have scientists advising the Government on drugs policy. The suggestion is that it will be scientists out, and bigots in. Is it not extraordinary that there has not been a statement in the House so that we might question the Government on that policy? Will you use your good offices to ensure that a statement is made tomorrow, when there is nothing of great significance on our agenda?

[Mr Speaker]

I fear that the hon. Gentleman overestimates my influence, although I am grateful to him for doing so. He has registered his concern forcefully and it will have been heard by senior Whips on the Treasury Bench. I have a feeling, knowing the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman, that he will return to this matter, and more than once.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister, I am sure unintentionally, misrepresented the position of those on the Opposition Front Bench with regard to a constructive offer that we made to discuss the future of school sport with the Government. He said that we had said that the current system was unaffordable and not working. That is not the case. You will remember, Mr Speaker, that last week the Secretary of State for Education agreed to meet us to talk about school sport. That has not happened. I raised this point of order to put those facts on the record and to say that I am seeking an apology for the misrepresentation of the Opposition’s position on school sport that occurred at Prime Minister’s questions.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice of his point of order. He has put his point very clearly on the record and I dare say that he will want to share it more widely. As an experienced Member and a former Cabinet Minister, he will be aware that a variety of ways are open to him further to pursue this matter and, as appropriate, to seek a correction. I hope that that is helpful.

Council Housing (Local Financing Pathfinders)

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

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

13:05

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

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to begin negotiations with certain local authorities with a view to those local authorities leaving the current national housing subsidy system and becoming Council Housing (Local Financing Pathfinders) by April 2011; and for connected purposes.

I am sure that most Members from all parts of the House share the experience that I have in my surgery each week of meeting constituents who do not have a good-quality and genuinely affordable home in which to live. Across the country, tens of thousands of families need a home—homes that councils such as mine in Cornwall would like to build. I am in no doubt that we must continue to invest in upgrading existing council housing, but we must also enable councils to build new homes. The ability to deliver the housing and welfare reforms that our society so badly needs is the prize for serving in this Parliament. Together with a good education and a decent job, those reforms will enable millions of hard-working families on low incomes to improve the quality of their lives.

To enable councils to build more homes, we must reform the way in which council housing is financed. Along with Members from all parts of the House, I support the coalition Government’s plans to do so. As the Minister for Housing and Local Government said in October:

“For far too long councils have been left hamstrung in their efforts to meet the housing needs of their residents by a council house finance system that is outdated and no longer fit for purpose. The Housing Revenue Account subsidy is in urgent need of reform.

That’s why I can confirm that we intend to scrap the current system, and instead replace it with something more transparent that will serve the needs of local communities without interference from Whitehall.”

He went on to say that

“we will offer councils the opportunity to keep the rents…This is a key step to transfer powers to councils and communities, so they are free to improve their local services in a way that best meets the needs of local people.”

It is anticipated that the decentralisation and localism Bill will provide for the new system. We also anticipate a revised debt settlement, plans for the allocation of debt between authorities and proposals for the system’s day-to-day operation.

It is worth recapping the previous Government’s work that brought us to this point. In summer 2006, the Housing Quality Network was appointed to undertake business plan modelling with six councils. The six authorities produced model 30-year business plans, based on a one-off settlement with central Government that would allow them to leave the national system. The modelling demonstrated that self-financing could bring improvements in efficiency, long-term planning and asset management. It could attract private investment and provide opportunities for local authorities to add new homes to the housing stock.

In December 2007, the then Minister for Housing announced a full review of the housing revenue account subsidy system to examine further the case for change. That was launched jointly by the Treasury and the Department for Communities and Local Government in March 2008. In June 2009, the then Minister for Housing announced a consultation on the dismantling of the subsidy system and on replacing it with a devolved system of responsibility and funding. The consultation, “Reform of council housing finance”, concluded in October 2009. In March 2010, the findings of the consultation were published, along with a set of proposals for further consultation. Following the general election the Government have confirmed that self-financing will be introduced for all local authorities by 2012.

The Bill will create self-financing pathfinders to contribute to the coalition policy of ending the national subsidy system for council housing finance. It will give central and local government the chance to learn lessons on debt redistribution and to evaluate the impact before allowing the remaining local authorities to leave the national subsidy system. It proposes that three councils, Cornwall council, the London borough of Wandsworth and Stockport metropolitan borough council, be offered the opportunity to negotiate terms of exit with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and to leave the national subsidy system in April 2011. To enable that to happen, a minor amendment needs to be made to section 80B of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

The proposed establishment of a pathfinder programme for housing revenue account reform, to be undertaken at the three authorities that I mentioned, could have significant benefits for Government, the council housing sector and wider social housing policy. There would be no cost to the Treasury, which in fact would gain. Although it is impossible to be exact about the final formula, receipts to the Treasury during the pathfinder year would be substantial.

HRA reform is about turning local authorities from state-dependent administrators of council housing in an outdated national system into bodies that are locally financed and develop real long-term plans for more sustainable housing with local people. By working through the complex and detailed processes that are required to transform authorities in that way, we will learn valuable lessons that will minimise the risks of unforeseen problems when the legislative deal is done with the whole sector and 160-plus authorities in 2012. An agreement will need to be signed on a voluntary basis by each of the authorities involved and the Government, and it will need to include the debt settlement for April 2011.

It is worth recalling the housing sector’s responses to the July 2009 review, which show its reactions to the self-financing proposals. Although only 6% expressed disagreement with the principle of self-financing, of the 64% who agreed with the proposals, only 10% did so without expressing significant reservations or caveats. Some 49% offered support for the proposals and accepted the redistribution of debt on condition that the amount of debt to be allocated at local level was acceptable. Clearly there is still work to be done with some councils to build consensus and momentum on the proposed reforms. The Bill offers the Minister an opportunity to work with the evangelists and to help him with the doubting Thomases.

The overriding objective is to use the pathfinders to support preparation for national HRA reform, not to divert resources away from the overall project. Such a process should be seen as complementary and beneficial, because it would provide a live testing environment for the detailed proposals as they continue to emerge. For example, the pathfinder councils would be able to participate in the forthcoming Charted Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy consultation in a live situation and provide detailed technical feedback.

The process would clearly be seen as a pathfinder process so that technical, regulatory and financial lessons could be learned. It would not be to the advantage of the three local authorities concerned, save for the de facto benefit of being out of the HRA subsidy system a year early. The pathfinder councils would produce a report, with input from any of agencies that had been involved, such as CIPFA or the Public Works Loan Board, and that report would be made widely available to inform the ongoing preparations for self-financing.

The three authorities in the programme are included on the basis of their high performance, their high standing in the sector and the capacity that each has to take on the work early. There is a geographical mixture of debt take-on and debt write-down, of arm’s length management organisations and retained management, and of stock sizes. That will provide an opportunity to maximise learning from the process.

I should like to end by thanking colleagues outside the Chamber from the local authorities, who have been generous with their time and very patient with my questions, particularly the housing officers at Cornwall, Wandsworth and Stockport councils and Steve Partridge at the Chartered Institute of Housing. Finally, I thank my colleagues from the official Opposition and the coalition who are supporting the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Sarah Newton, George Eustice, Sheryll Murray, Andrew George, Dan Rogerson, Stephen Gilbert, Jane Ellison, Ann Coffey and Mr David Nuttall present the Bill.

Sarah Newton accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 January 2011 and to be printed (Bill 124).

Estimates Day

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[1st Allotted Day]

VOTE ON ACCOUNT 2011-12

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

HOME OFFICE

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

Police Funding

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Relevant Document: Oral and written evidence taken by the Home Affairs Committee on 23 November on the Effect of the Comprehensive Spending Review on the Home Office, HC 626-i.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2012, for expenditure by the Home Office—

(1) resources, not exceeding £4,490,851,000, be authorised, on account, for use for current purposes as set out in HC 593,

(2) resources, not exceeding £225,450,000, be authorised, on account, for use for capital purposes as so set out, and

(3) a sum, not exceeding £4,601,101,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Stephen Crabb.)

13:15

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for allowing us the opportunity to discuss this very important issue. As I did not have the chance to say this yesterday, I hope you had a very happy wedding anniversary.

On 20 October, the Chancellor announced the outcome of the 2010 spending review. The budget of the Home Office will fall by 25% in real terms from 2010-11, and within that the resource budget will fall by 23%, or £2.2 billion. Administration costs are due to fall by 33% and the capital budget by 49%. Taken as a whole, the Home Office has received a settlement with cuts more than twice the average of all Departments, which is 11%. Even ignoring the protected Departments of International Development and Health, the average cut for all other Departments is 17%, or 5% a year.

The comprehensive spending review document states that the Home Office settlement includes support for major policing reforms; a reduction in police resource funding by 14% in real terms by 2014-15; £1.8 billion of capital investment over the spending review period; spending for the delivery of a new national crime agency; and overall resource savings of about 23%. In real terms, central Government funding for the police is due to fall by 20% by 2014-15. As the House will know, part of the police’s funding comes from the police precept, and if the police authorities decide to increase the precept at the rate forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the overall level of police funding will decline by 14% by 2014-15. There is therefore widespread concern about the level of funding for the police and the Home Office over the next five years, and about the way in which it will be achieved.

What has been described as front-loading—the cuts happening in the first few years—has already caused concern. I understand that the Association of Police Authorities recently wrote to the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, whom I see on the Government Front Bench, to express that concern. It stated that

“a sensible, realistic approach is necessary to realise the savings objectives and avoid long-term damage to policing capability”

and that its members were

“deeply concerned that front-loading cuts will strip out the required financial flexibility police forces need to transform their working practices in order to make savings.”

The CSR document, about which I am sure we will hear more from the Minister, expresses the hope that the savings will be achieved through reducing bureaucracy, modernising pay and conditions for staff, introducing directly elected police and crime commissioners, abolishing the National Policing Improvement Agency and cutting counter-terrorism by about 10% in real terms. After the CSR was published, KPMG was reported as estimating that 18,000 police officers could be lost over a four-year period. The Police Federation was reported as estimating that the number would be 20,000. At Home Office questions on Monday, the Minister said:

“By cutting costs and scrapping bureaucracy, we will save both money and man hours, so I am confident that the spending review should not lead to any reduction in police officers visible and available on the streets.”—[Official Report, 6 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 14.]

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend might like to know that this morning a number of my hon. Friends and I met the Minister to discuss the impact of the cuts on the West Midlands police force, which is 80% dependent on central Government funding. My right hon. Friend talks about the impact of the cuts on police numbers, but where police authorities are wholly or mainly dependent on central Government funding rather than the precept, the impact on local communities and police visibility will be that much worse.

[Keith Vaz]

The Home Affairs Committee has already heard from Chief Constable Sims of West Midlands police. It organised a seminar in Cannock Chase, which is not a million miles from my hon. Friend’s constituency, where those concerns were raised. The problem is that individual police forces are currently unable to tell us precisely what effect the cuts will have locally. We will have to wait for the publication of the settlement, which we anticipate in early December. When the Minister speaks, I am sure he will tell us precisely when the provisional police settlements will be announced and placed before the House. He is smiling, so perhaps he will announce the figures today and we can question him on them. I am sure that we will hear soon. Until we do, we will not know precisely what is happening.

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

Apart from the cuts, which will reduce the overall number of police, I understand that the CSR will mean a freeze on recruitment, the likely application of regulation A19, which will get rid of the more experienced officers, and a freeze on pay. Do they sound like the conditions for a highly motivated, well performing police force?

[Keith Vaz]

My hon. Friend asks almost a rhetorical question to which the answer must be, “No—people will not be motivated if those cuts take place,” but he is right to raise those concerns. That is why this debate is important. The Home Affairs Committee is of course aware of the deep concern in the west midlands, which is demonstrated by the number of west midlands MPs in the Chamber this afternoon.

A number of police forces have already issued statements on how the CSR will affect them. In a statement on 22 November, the chief constable of Greater Manchester police and the treasurer of the Greater Manchester Police Authority said:

“Final spending details are not expected until the end of November or early December but if the headline reductions in spending totals for the Police Service are ultimately reflected in GMP’s Formula Grant and Specific Grants, the Force and Police Authority will need to find savings of £134m over the four year period…Savings of £52m will need to be found in 2011/12.”

They estimate in their report that GMP will lose approximately 2,950 posts from a total of 12,000 over the four-year period, and BBC News has reported that 1,387 officers and 1,557 civilian posts could go in Greater Manchester.

Northumbria police also issued a statement, saying that the likely impact of the cuts would be the loss of 450 members of the civilian staff out of a total of 2,500. As my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) said, it looks as though 2,000 jobs will be lost in the West Midlands police force, including 1,050 police officers over the four-year period.

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

I should declare an interest, because my son is the chief executive of a police authority. Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the large numbers of police officers that will be lost? The Government imply that the loss of police officers will not be seen on the streets because people can somehow be pulled out of back offices, but many officers who are not on the streets investigate internet-related crime and child abuse, and undertake intelligence and scientific activities to prevent crime. They investigate a range of crime, the evidence for which is not to be found on the streets of our towns and cities.

[Keith Vaz]

My right hon. Friend is extremely knowledgeable, as a former Police Minister. He will know that, depending on the police authority or station, 85 different functions could be performed every day in a police station by people from IT experts to those on the switchboard and reception. Of course, the temptation is to remove the back office, but if we do so, those in the front office—the visible police officers—will have to go there, because there will be nobody else to do that work. My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the problems caused by the suggested front-loaded reductions.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that West Midlands police assume in their planning that they will be unable to cope with cuts on the scale being forced on them by the Government without compulsorily retiring up to 400 of the longest-serving police officers under A19, and without a significant reduction in visible policing on the streets—fewer bobbies on the beat—in the west midlands generally and Birmingham in particular?

[Keith Vaz]

My hon. Friend is rightly concerned about that. I will be going to Birmingham in a week’s time at the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak to see how the CSR will affect visible policing.

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

In response to an earlier question about the functions of police officers, it has to be said that many were affected by the previous Government’s ill thought out, badly drafted legislation. For example, the short-term, knee-jerk reaction dispersal orders simply moved one problem to a different street in the same area, which I often saw as a cabinet member for safety in Medway. Of course we must consider the various functions of police officers, but in the past 10 years the police have been tied up with functions they should never have been dealing with.

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. One thing I hope we can avoid at all costs is the kind of knee-jerk reaction that he mentioned. I would hate the police service to be subject to the same kind of reorganisation that we have had in the NHS in the past 20 years under the previous Government and the one before that.

I do not intend to go on for long, because many right hon. and hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. The Home Affairs Committee hopes to assist the Government in this difficult process—we want to approach the proposals in a comradely and constructive way. I am glad to see so many members of the Committee in the Chamber. Our longest-serving and most distinguished member, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) is here, as are my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak. The hon. Members for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) and for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) are members of the Committee, and sitting behind them on the Government Benches is a non-member, the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti). The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) is also in the Chamber. She was a member of the Committee but was poached within weeks of her appointment by the Minister to become his Parliamentary Private Secretary. I am sure she is doing a great job.

The Committee has decided to undertake a trilogy of reports on three different aspects of the proposals to assist the Government. It is rather like “The Lord of the Rings”. We have just published our report on police and crime commissioners. As the Minister knows, members of the Committee have different views on the desirability of police and crime commissioners, but I hope he found our report helpful. It outlined a number of issues that we feel could be of value to the country.

We were very concerned that the figures for the cost of police and crime commissioners came out only after we had published our report. Indeed, the proposals came out on the very day that we published our report. Perhaps we can improve our co-ordination. I am not saying that we should be like “Strictly Come Dancing”, but if the Government and the Committee communicated a little bit better, we might be able to see the proposals before we commence our reports, which would make what we say more valuable.

The second report was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, and we will look at the CSR in the light of the decisions that the Minister will make imminently about how much police forces will have as part of that second report on a reduction in police bureaucracy. There is common ground on both sides of the House about the need to reduce police bureaucracy. When my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) was the Minister with responsibility for the police, he also said that he wanted to cut red tape. In the 23 years I have been a Member of Parliament, Ministers have always said that they want to cut red tape, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and we need to ensure that it actually is reduced. That is why I hope that Jan Berry will have her term as the police bureaucracy tsar renewed, so that rather than just writing a one-off report she can continue to monitor the situation.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that savings would have to be made whichever party was in government? Will he give us a preliminary figure that he—personally or as the Chair of the Committee—would accept for the reduction in police budgets and numbers?

[Keith Vaz]

I am afraid that I cannot give him a personal figure. The Committee has not met and has not discussed this matter, nor have we conducted our report. Members of the Committee would be most concerned if I started speaking on behalf of the Committee on a matter that we had not considered. I know that the hon. Gentleman has a great interest in policing matters, and we will look at this very carefully. We will of course take evidence from the police and from others.

The final report that we intend to produce is on the new landscape of policing. The Government have not finally decided precisely where every bit of the old landscape will fit in the new landscape and we hope to help by setting out a landscape that will be accepted by the Government and the Opposition, so that whatever happens on 5 May 2015—or whenever the fixed-term election will be held—and if the Labour party is returned to power, we will not have another reorganisation, as we have had in the health service. Let us reach a consensus about how to proceed.

To that end, I was very pleased that the Minister was able to come to the summit meeting that was organised in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase a few weeks ago. I hope the Minister took away the message that there are stakeholders in the policing process who want to be engaged in what the Government are doing. We heard an excellent speech from my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, and other Members of Parliament attended. We now have, in people such as Hugh Orde, Denis O’Connor, Paul Stephenson, Paul McKeever and others, some truly outstanding leaders in the profession, but we—Parliament and the Government—need to work together to ensure that we have a permanent landscape and to deal with the reductions in a particular way.

I am very concerned that there will be a reduction not only in the number of police officers but in the number of police community support officers. I was deeply concerned by the press statement issued by the chief constable of Lancashire police—which covers the area of Chorley, if my geography is correct, Mr Deputy Speaker—to the effect that every PCSO has been put on notice that they may lose their posts. They have been a terrific addition to policing.

I recently went to a residents meeting in London—I normally speak at residents meetings rather than attend them, but I was attending as a constituent of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr Offord). The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) was also there. We heard an excellent presentation from a local PCSO about the work that he does, which includes reducing the work load of police officers, enabling them to do their jobs effectively.

[Lorraine Fullbrook (South Ribble) (Con)]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that of the 427 PCSOs who received the at-risk notice from Lancashire constabulary, only 149 are completely funded by that constabulary?

[Keith Vaz]

I did not know that and I am most grateful to the hon. Lady, who is another member of the Committee. However, that still does not address the reductions. If we are to proceed with a view to reaching a consensus—people have strongly held views—we must agree that there is of course a need for an overall reduction in the police budget. However, that hurts us as local MPs when it affects our local areas.

The public want to be able to pick up a phone to report a crime to a police officer and to ensure that that crime is dealt with as quickly as possible. If that is the bottom line, I hope that this debate can be conducted in a way that achieves that purpose. Let us put our party political differences to one side and concentrate on the fact that if a reduction in resources means fewer police officers—as I think it will—the Government will need to think again, and possibly ask the Treasury for additional resources so that we match the spending on the national health service and education. Law and order—the prevention and detection of crime—is a key issue for our constituents and we need to do everything that we can to ensure that it remains at the forefront of people’s concerns.

13:37

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and this is the third time in seven months as a Member of Parliament that I have spoken on this issue. It is also a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), a fellow east midlands Member. I am sure he will agree that the east midlands forces have generally fared relatively badly in terms of funding in recent years. We all hope that, as the Minister finalises his funding settlement for the individual forces, he will look favourably on our local forces.

I commend the police for work they do in my constituency and across Derbyshire. I also commend their positive approach in responding to the anticipated level of cuts. They have not thrown their toys out of the pram and panicked that they will not be able to deliver effective policing across Derbyshire. Instead, they have looked at sensible steps that they can take. To be fair, they have been taking such steps in recent years in preparation for this situation, which they knew was likely to arise. Earlier this year, they reduced their control districts from four to three, moving the control district that covers my area from my constituency to Chesterfield, a move that has been achieved without any real damage to the quality of policing in the area.

We have to be realistic about police funding and accept that there is only so much that forces can do if they do not have the right money in the first place. Making straight-line cuts from the wrong starting position will not leave us in the right finishing position. Derbyshire police estimate that the impact of the comprehensive spending review will result in their needing to make straight-line savings of £6 million in the next financial year. However, they have lost roughly £5 million a year from the damping mechanism, which has cost them some £26 million in the last five years. It is a little much to expect a force that is already £5 million behind where it should have been—which is the equivalent of some 200 police officers compared to how many they would have had with the right amount of formula funding—to be able to absorb a straight-line cut in the same way as other forces that have received much more generous funding. Such a cut is bound to have a serious impact on local policing. It is a little over-ambitious and I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that he will look to reverse some of the negative impact of the damping mechanism, especially during the CSR period. By the end of that period, our police forces need to be in a fair funding situation; otherwise some of them will have received far less money than they should for an entire decade.

It is worth mentioning that forces can do things to save money that do not rely on cutting front-line officers. I have had meetings with people who have given me information about the waste that exists in police forces, and there is scope for tackling that. I have concerns about how a uniformed, qualified officer has to supervise specialist functions within the police force—for example, on forensics. Somebody in a managerial role ends up trying to supervise something that they are not really an expert in and to which they add little value. That is not a necessary part of the structure. I also question whether it is necessary to have quite so many different silos considering different areas of responsibility. It is a struggle to integrate them and bring together a joined-up seamless force. There must be huge scope for making savings but, fundamentally, there is only so much blood we can get out of a stone before we end up without an effective force.

We are in a bit of a strange position in terms of timing. The review of police conditions is ongoing, yet we want forces to start to make significant savings before they have had a chance to work through the impact of that. It would be unfortunate for forces to lose skilled and trained back-office staff or PCSOs because that is the only way they can make head-count reductions as forces cannot currently make uniformed police officers redundant. If we change the rule halfway through the process and decide that having uniformed officers performing back-office functions is not a great idea, we will find we will have already put ourselves in that position by having to proceed too quickly.

I hope that the timing of the spending reductions will be consistent with the pay and conditions review. It is hard for the public to understand why police officers enjoy an almost unique protection from redundancy whereas PCSOs and skilled back-office staff do not. I do not think the uniformed officers in the constabulary in my constituency will be desperately keen on changing that or on hearing such a change being advocated, but such an approach would give a level playing field for all employees of the police authority.

I do not wish to detain the House for much longer. However, when the Minister considers funding, I urge him one last time—this is the third time I have done so in the Chamber—to acknowledge that straight-line cuts on average will not deliver a fair outcome for forces across the east midlands, especially in Derbyshire. I hope that, over the CSR period, that will be taken into account and that we can move towards having the fairer funding that the formula states Derbyshire police ought to get.

13:42

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

It is my turn to follow the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills)—the sequence is normally the other way around—and I am very pleased to do so.

I recognise that the Minister has a tough job on his hands. Although I do not agree with a number of his proposals, I accept that his instincts are to try to make the police more efficient and to achieve a better level of performance with the resources he has. His difficulty is that the Home Office did rather badly out of the recent settlement. It is evident that, while other Cabinet Ministers went to bat for their Departments and secured good deals, the Home Secretary did not achieve quite as much. We must now live with the consequences of that. I genuinely and sincerely fear that crime will rise and that we will have terrible difficulties in some of our major cities in trying to combat the particular types of crime that we have been able to bear down on so successfully in recent years.

I do not oppose the Minister’s ambitions to achieve efficiencies and use more modern methods. In fact, I agree that change is needed. I support the better use of IT and better procurement, and I believe there is a clear argument for the police shift system to be changed, which would release more officers. We argue about the statistics—the Minister is very keen to gloat about the 11% figure—but the reality is that the police shift system is part of the problem, and I am in favour of changing that.

I welcome civilianisation where it frees police to do policing jobs. However, such an approach means there can be no benefit from the mass sacking of civilians. That is the conundrum. If civilianisation is a good process because it frees police officers to carry out policing functions, it logically follows that the mass sacking of civilians will mean that police officers are taken off front-line functions and sent back to doing civilian tasks. The Minister will have to address that problem. It is likely—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) made this point—that the initial response of police chiefs will be to sack civilian staff, which will impact on front-line policing. As they struggle to continue to make the budget match up, they will be forced to consider how to sack police officers. The easiest way to do that will be to apply regulation A19, which will mean that some of our more experienced and senior officers will have to go. We will have the double effect of losing civilian staff while officers are taken off the street to do their work and, simultaneously, losing senior and experienced officers.

As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), it seems that that will happen when there is also a freeze on recruitment and a freeze on pay. Those are not the conditions in which we can expect to get the best out of people, or motivate them to embrace change and improve performance; they are the conditions most likely to produce exactly the opposite effect.

I am particularly worried about the west midlands, because our gearing ratio means that we are highly dependent on grant. Earlier today, we met the Minister to discuss that very subject. If we experience a uniform cut in grant without any changes to the damping regime, we will lose out unfairly as a result of an exercise that means we must forgo money and resources, which will be transferred to other police areas. We will have to forgo those resources so that the council tax precept can be kept down elsewhere in the country.

That is a very good argument for what the Treasury want to achieve, and for what the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government might want to achieve. However, it is not an argument that someone who is worried about law and order and police resources should be too willing to embrace. Even at this stage, the Minister should consider whether he still has time to go back to his friends in the Treasury, explain the dilemma and see whether they can help him out of the hole that has been dug for him.

Project Paragon in the west midlands has shown that successful efficiency and reorganisation measures can be taken. However, such measures take time to deliver. Project Paragon cannot be turned on and off like a tap. If such things are to be done successfully, they need a long lead-in time. It takes a long time to deliver efficiencies. One of the by-products of such a change is that crime may rise during the reorganisation period, and there is some evidence in the west midlands to show that that is happening. I see that the Minister is nodding, because I think he also accepts that that is the case.

My concern about these very substantial front-loaded cuts is that such a reorganisation will occur far too fast in forces all over the country, at the very time when we are gearing up for major events, such as the Olympics. That is not something that we should be remotely complacent about. It screams out for re-examination, because the obvious dangers are right in front of us. We still have time to look into this issue, but if we delay too long, things will be upon us and our forces will be in chaos at the very time when demand for policing is at its highest.

I agree with the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. My view is simple: law and order always has to be our No. 1 priority. I genuinely feel that the Government have got the balance wrong. I am delighted that they have selected areas of other budgets that they feel should be protected, but there are times when I would like to hear a more convincing case for those decisions. However, I am disappointed that so little emphasis seems to be placed on law and order. Yesterday we detected the dangerous cocktail of police numbers dropping, crime rising and the courts prevented from sending offenders to prison when that is exactly where they should be, along with a promise of community punishments, albeit without the resources to make them work. That is a recipe for problems.

[Rehman Chishti]

The hon. Gentleman makes an assertion about allowing offenders to get away, but between 2007 and 2010, under the previous Government, some 80,000 prisoners were let out of prison early. Surely that was completely unacceptable, and if the hon. Gentleman’s previous comment is right, he should accept that that was wrong.

[Steve McCabe]

Actually, the reality is that under the Labour Government there was a huge rise in prison numbers. It is true that some people were allowed out one month early, but the Justice Secretary proposed yesterday that there should be a threshold in order to reduce the numbers who go to prison in the first place, which means that the courts will be hampered. Indeed, he went on to say that his preference was that people should serve half the sentence in prison and half in the community. I should tell the hon. Gentleman that his constituents will find that much less acceptable than the situation when we were in power. If he does not believe me, I would be happy to go with him to his constituency and talk to them about it, because from what my constituents tell me, I am pretty certain that I am right about that.

[Rehman Chishti]

The statement by the Secretary of State for Justice was quite clear: those who commit crime should be punished with the efficient force of the criminal justice system, and that includes going to prison. Can the hon. Gentleman show where in the Secretary of State’s statement it said that they should not be sent to prison?

[Steve McCabe]

I can show the hon. Gentleman where in the statement the Secretary of State gave the estimate for what he expected the reduction in the number of people going to prison to be. He stood at that Dispatch Box and said it, and everyone who was in the Chamber heard it—unless they have selective hearing.

I shall now return to what I was saying. There is a difficult balance. Perhaps the cuts are just too much, and the Home Office has got a particularly poor deal. I was surprised to discover, from the evidence that the permanent secretary to the Home Office gave to the Home Affairs Committee, that the Department has not carried out any research into the impact of the cuts on crime. That came from the very same permanent secretary who three years ago ordered a report on the potential impact of a recession on crime. It seems slightly strange that the man who feared then that a recession could lead to a rise in crime, and who said that we should investigate the potential outcomes, does not seem remotely troubled that a background of massive cuts and far too rapid reorganisation could have a similar effect. Perhaps it is just as well that he is planning to retire.

[Keith Vaz]

The point to emphasise is that the outcome of the research commissioned by the permanent secretary for Jacqui Smith when she was Home Secretary was that crime would rise during a recession, and that was assuming a level playing field for the number of police officers.

[Steve McCabe]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that point. He is absolutely right.

I have one last point to make. As I said at the outset, I am in favour of the Minister’s plans to try to modernise the police force and get greater efficiency. I genuinely wish him well, and I think that some of the things that he talks about are things that we should try to do. I also think that they need a longer lead-in time. Time will tell who is right about that. However, there is one priority that I would not adopt at the moment, especially against the background of the cuts and the reorganisation and efficiency changes that we are about to experience. I would not totally change the management and accountability structure of the police at the same time. It seems ludicrous that we should be subjected to the idea of elected police and crime commissioners now. It might be a good idea—although I think that the Minister is wrong about that as well—but what on earth is the pressing need for something that will have a further destabilising effect on the police, at the very time when they have all those other issues to contend with? If the proposal is a good idea, surely there is plenty of time to discuss it, and to pilot it and see what the consequences—the benefits and downsides—are.

[Guy Opperman]

In 2008, when the previous Government made the proposal and were considering it in their draft legislative programme, was my hon. Friend in favour of it or against it?

[Steve McCabe]

I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman is now my hon. Friend. I do not know whether that means that he shares some of my concerns about policing, or whether I have at least one ally on the Government Benches who will talk to the Minister about such issues. Actually, it was never the Labour Government’s proposal to have directly elected police commissioners, so no, I was never in favour of that.

This is not the time for that experiment. The Minister has enough on his plate. He needs to get on and get the best deal and the best arrangements that he can from his Treasury colleagues, in order to prevent some of our worst fears from being realised. He would be better off concentrating his energy on that. We can deal with the question of police commissioners another time. What is proposed sounds like a Government in too much of a hurry, with too few resources and too few of the right priorities. If the Minister gets this wrong, not only will he suffer personally in a ministerial capacity, but our constituents throughout the country will suffer as a consequence of reckless behaviour that damages the police.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Just before I call anybody else, let me say that there have been quite a few complaints about the temperature in the Chamber. I can assure hon. Members that, as always in this Chamber, the temperature is now rising. The problem has been fixed.

13:58

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

It gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), because it gives me an opportunity to express some concern about the fact that I listen to the same statements and participate in the same debates as him, yet I hear different things being said. If he looks carefully at what the Secretary of State for Justice said yesterday about prison sentences, he will see that he was clear that prison is entirely the right place for criminals to be. However, there are a limited number of cases, involving non-violent prisoners who have been given very short prison sentences, in which if it can be proved that a community sentence would more effectively address their reoffending behaviour, that is the appropriate course of action. That, the hon. Gentleman will find, is what the Secretary of State said yesterday, and there is broad agreement in all parts of the House that it is a sensible thing for him to have said.

I am pleased that we have the opportunity to hold this estimates day debate today. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) referred to “Strictly Come Dancing”, and said that he was a little worried that the timing of Government announcements was not in keeping with the publication of his Committee’s reports. One could perhaps make the same comment about the timing of this debate in relation to the police settlement. Clearly, Ann Widdecombe and Anton du Beke have had some involvement in the timing of this particular choreography, and I suspect that we will have to have a further debate once the police settlement has been announced.

[Keith Vaz]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. Unfortunately, this was not in the hands of the Select Committee, although we did ask for the debate. May I also take this opportunity to acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s presence at the seminar in Cannock Chase, and the contribution that he made to those deliberations, for which we were very grateful?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I commend him and his Committee for their excellent work, and for the advice, recommendations and guidance that they provide for the Government.

The recent report produced by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, the Audit Commission and the Wales Audit Office on police spending, and the ways in which efficiencies can be achieved, is pertinent to the debate. It shows that police spending has grown significantly—by nearly half—since 1997-98. During that same period, the council tax contribution towards police expenditure has gone up by nearly 150%, so the increases have clearly had a big impact on council bills. It is also worth pointing out that only half of the efficiency savings achieved by the police in 2008-09 were used to reduce budget pressures. There is clearly a potential for more efficiency savings to be achieved, and for those savings to be put back into dealing with budget pressures.

All this has to take place while maintaining public confidence in the police. The report is helpful in pointing out that the forces that have achieved the highest cashable efficiencies do not have lower levels of public confidence. One would therefore hope to be able to square that circle, and the report supports that proposition. A priority for police forces must be to ensure that their threat, harm and risk assessments are finely tuned to value for money considerations and to the savings that they need to achieve, so that there is a clear linkage between them.

For me, the strongest point in the HMIC report was that forces are going to need strong leadership to achieve those transformational changes. If they are going to get beyond the typical 3% annual efficiency savings that have been made in recent years, that will require transformational change and significant leadership. The report goes on to state that this is perhaps not always recognised by chief constables. It states that less than a third of chief constables identify leadership skills as important in securing better value for money. I hope that the Association of Chief Police Officers will look into that, because transformational change will clearly need to involve collaboration with other organisations, other forces locally and other partners, and that is not easy to achieve. It will require significant leadership behind it. The report also flags up the fact that more than half of chief constables said that local police unit commanders lacked the financial skills to deliver the savings. Again, that illustrates the need for additional support to ensure that the necessary training is given, so that the significant savings that some forces have already achieved can be achieved by all of them.

Another important barrier highlighted by the report relates to the need to reassure the public that what matters is not the number of police officers, but what the police do. I have to confess that I am a recent convert in that regard. I am sure that there are Members here who received campaign literature from the Liberal Democrats that talked about additional police numbers. That is something that I cannot disguise, and I will not attempt to do so. However, recent reports have made it clear that we need to improve on the figure of only one in 10 officers being visibly available at any one time, and it is surely not impossible for forces to look into that in greater detail. The public are worried about the perception of police numbers and the availability of police on the streets, but that concern can be addressed if we can achieve a better turnout of officers, even if there is a requirement to reduce force numbers.

Others have talked about police overtime. I do not want to overemphasise what can be achieved by reducing overtime, because there are clearly occasions when police forces do not have control over that factor. Tuition fees demonstrations spring to mind. By allowing overtime to be used, local police forces are often in a position to provide additional tasking to hit a particular problem at a particular time. Having said that, it is clear that some forces are achieving significant savings by reorganising the way in which their overtime works, and one would expect other forces to be doing the same thing.

Members on both sides of the House will support the need for more sensitive and more effective procurement. The fact that 14 forces will have managed collectively to save £18 million by 2012-13 through the national forensics consortium leads me to hope that the other 29 forces that are not part of the consortium will actively consider participating in it, because of the potential collective saving of up to £40 million if they were to join it.

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman was part of the Select Committee when we published the report “Policing in the 21st century”, in which we mentioned procurement. This is a no-brainer, is it not? Why do all those police forces still buy on their own, even if it is in collaboration with 14 others? Surely there should be more effective leadership, whether from the National Policing Improvement Agency or from the Home Office, to ensure that they buy in bulk.

[Tom Brake]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. That is indeed a no-brainer, whether it involves vehicles or IT systems. We need to be careful, however, particularly when the “no-brainer” centralised procurement involves taking existing IT systems and moving them on to a common platform, as that can be quite a complex undertaking. Certainly, projects of that nature in the NHS have proved technically challenging, and such projects need to be dealt with very carefully.

The report identifies up to £1 billion of savings that could be derived without hitting the front line. I take the point made earlier, that it is wrong simply to say, “Front line, good; back office, bad,” particularly if the work going on in the back office involves officers engaged in detection and investigation. It is not possible to achieve a simple transfer. However, Members who have seen the HMIC report will know that there are currently 200 officers working in human resources departments. That might be a police role in some shape or form, but I find it difficult to imagine that all 200 of those officers working in HR are working on tasks that require a trained police officer. There is therefore scope for savings in those areas, and in others.

I have mentioned the fact that between the point at which a crime is reported and the final appearance in court, about 100 different processes take place. Some of those involve the police, and it is clearly a labour-intensive process. Anything that can be done to simplify it, while keeping all the usual safeguards in place, will, I am sure, help to improve efficiencies for the police, for the court system and beyond.

The report makes a number of recommendations; I shall highlight a couple of them before finishing. It underlines the need for police authorities to set savings targets for their forces that are more ambitious than those of previous years. I know that that will be a tough call for police authorities at the moment, and it is fair to say that they are not unanimously behind the coalition Government’s proposals for elected police and crime commissioners. I know that the police are all professional in their approach, however, and a number of them want to put their names forward for election as police and crime commissioners, so I am sure that they will want to demonstrate their commitment to achieving significant efficiency savings.

I have underlined the importance for the police of making sure that the threat, harm and risk assessment is closely linked with any financial or business planning, and I have also underlined the need, if these transformational changes are to be made, for some clear leadership from senior officers. The changes are not going to happen by themselves; they will need someone to drive them. The Government’s role should be to ensure flexibility to allow partnerships between forces and other partners to develop so that substantial savings can be achieved. If a carrot were provided by introducing a linkage between future grant allocations and the efficiency savings that forces achieve, I believe that that would help.

[Steve McCabe]

On that point, does the hon. Gentleman think that individually elected police and crime commissioners all pursuing their own individual political agendas is more or less likely to encourage force co-operation?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which I think makes a strong point. It has been put—no doubt by him, by me and by others—to the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, who is well aware of it. The legislation will clearly need to set out the requirement for police and crime commissioners to collaborate and co-ordinate activities with others. When they take on this role, they will also have to bear efficiency savings in mind, so making them will also be in their interests. We are watching that issue closely, and we will want to ensure that elected police and crime commissioners understand the need to co-ordinate effectively with their neighbours.

I believe that the report by HMIC, the Audit Commission and the Wales Audit Office provides a substantial body of evidence to support the case that opportunities are available to make significant efficiency savings. I think that they can be achieved, so long as those at the head of the forces provide the necessary leadership to drive the changes through.

14:13

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

I decided to join some of my colleagues in speaking in this debate because of the deep concern in the west midlands about the impact of reductions in police officers and support staff.

I apologise for missing one or two speeches, but I pay tribute to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) who, as we all know, chairs the Home Affairs Committee in such a distinguished manner. He made an effective speech, although he will not be surprised to hear that I cannot go along with his taking an “apolitical stance”. I am not aware that I have ever taken an apolitical stance, and it is rather late in the day for me to start! I am not point scoring today, however, although I am happy to do so on many other occasions.

I said in my opening remarks that people are very concerned in the west midlands, and it is for Members and Ministers to decide whether that feeling is genuine. I have had the privilege of representing my constituency of Walsall North for 31 years, and I have always been concerned—as one would expect of every hon. Member—that the police should be able to deal effectively and promptly with my constituents’ complaints about criminality.

The Minister states that there is no, or hardly any, correlation between the number of police officers and tackling criminality, but, like many Members, I simply do not accept that for a moment. There is a correlation. Common sense dictates that if we have fewer police officers, it is far more likely that crime will go undetected.

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

The hon. Gentleman, like me, is a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee. Bill Bratton, who appeared before our Committee on 30 November this year, said:

“As a police chief for many, many years, I would always like to have more police, but the reality is it is not just numbers but, more importantly, what you do with them.”

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that argument from someone who spent 40 years heading up the two biggest police forces in America?

[Mr Winnick]

It is common sense that a senior police officer will take the view that the way in which police officers are deployed is very important. No one disputes that for a moment, but did not Bill Bratton say on the very same occasion that he would have liked to have more police officers? The hon. Gentleman just said that.

Between 1997-98 and 2010-11, central Government funding for west midlands police rose by 36% in real terms. Let me ask those who are critical whether I am justified in raising concerns. No Conservative Member suggested at the time that less should be spent on policing in the west midlands. The money was spent not for the sake of it but to reduce criminality, which it did. We know that under the comprehensive spending review, police forces in England will receive 20% lower funding by 2014-15, and it is not likely that the west midlands will be any different.

I take it from the intervention of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) that some Conservative Members—not, I hope, all—do not consider police numbers important. Let me nevertheless cite the numbers for west midlands police, comparing the time Labour first took office with now. In 1996, there were 7,145 police officers. There was then a steady increase, and this year’s figure is 8,536. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Cannock Chase or any other Conservative Member would argue that those increases were unjustified and that there should not have been such a substantial increase.

If necessary, I could provide statistics to show that in the west midlands, as in the rest of Britain, crime has reduced—indeed, the Justice Secretary conceded the point yesterday. I find it difficult to believe, even though the Minister shakes his head in disagreement, that the reduction in crime in my region is not somehow connected with the 36% real-terms increase in police funding and the correlative increase in the number of police officers. There has also been a steady increase in the number of police community support officers since they were first established.

I am not one who always defends the actions of the police. I might well be critical of some aspects of policing the demonstrations today and tomorrow—so be it; we shall see. On one point, I am absolutely certain, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East also made it abundantly clear: when our constituents phone the police to report criminality they want effective action, not a prerecorded message with no action being taken for days. I do not suggest that all has been well, but spending less on police, with fewer police officers, will make our constituents’ problems much more difficult.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, in the west midlands, in the black country—not just Birmingham, but my borough, surrounding areas, and the other three black country boroughs—Members have been very pleased, on behalf of our constituents, first and foremost, by the reduction in criminality. Hon. Members may say that we are being too pessimistic, and I obviously hope that a reduction will not to lead to the reversal that many of us fear, but we have a duty and a responsibility to ensure that the progress of the past few years is maintained, that our constituents are protected from criminality as much as possible, and that the police take effective action against criminality when it occurs.

14:21

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

May I say what a privilege it is to follow the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), a distinguished Member of the House? I must say that I agreed with much of what he said. I also thank the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) for his eloquent opening of the debate. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) made the point that law and order is a top priority, and that is a view with which I, and all hon. Members, concur.

We will hear shortly how much our police forces will get. The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, who is on the Front Bench, has received a letter from me, listing a lot of ideas, following a long meeting I had with my chief constable, on how to save on procurement, duplication of effort and needless bureaucracy. Although I will speak in the main from the perspective of my constituency, Dorset is a very large area with a number of MPs, but it has a small police force and low funding. Consequently, we are probably braced more than most for the cuts announcement.

Over the past decade, Dorset police authority has received chronically low levels of Government funding. To make up the funding, it has had to rely increasingly on the council tax precept. In addition, perhaps the Minister would note that our budget for police community support officers is ring-fenced at £3.2 million, which the police feel is unnecessarily restrictive. If they cannot change their financial organisation to meet the cuts and future requirements, they have much less flexibility.

According to benchmarking studies, Dorset police have been praised for cuts in back-office services such as finance and personnel, and their costs are way below the national average. My concern is that, following the announcement, Dorset police will experience further cuts, following year-on-year cuts over the past 10 years, despite being told that they are doing an excellent job—every time they were told that they were doing an excellent job, the chief constable had less money with which to do it.

If police officers on the beat in Dorset are to be reduced, we will have problems. In my constituency, the island of Portland is a case in point. Portland has a population of about 15,000 people, but some years ago it had a population of 8,000 or 9,000. In those days, it had 13 police officers based in a police station. It now has two mobile police officers, with two PCSOs backing them up. Those officers are based near the island—they share the office that the police are using to organise for the Olympic games. Let me give all credit to those two brave officers and the two PCSOs—I have been out with them on patrol on two occasions, and they do a remarkable job. However, the people on the island of Portland are not convinced that the police have a high enough profile. If cuts come, I am concerned that places such as Portland will be affected.

As Portland and Weymouth will host the Olympic sailing events in 2012, let me touch on Dorset’s projected budget of just under £64.5 million in that year. In an Olympic year, therefore, Dorset police will face a £6.4 million shortfall in their budget. We know that there is a budget for the Olympics, and we are assured that the money is there. However, there is no definitive funding amount. Manpower costs for the Olympics are difficult to estimate, and Dorset police suggest that they will need 600 additional officers to provide security for the games. Will Dorset police meet all the costs of those extra officers, or just their overtime? The costs are not negligible. The police presence will be needed for 64 days, from pre-Olympic training, throughout the games, until the Paralympics afterwards. The Olympic policing budgets are centralised, in 16 different silos, which makes planning and preparation difficult and drawn out. For example, deciding whether to place a man or a camera on a strategic corner can take weeks, wasting a lot of money.

Finally, I agree with the coalition Government’s stance—I believe that the stance is shared across parties—of wanting more neighbourhood policing. When I ask my constituents whether they have seen their neighbourhood sergeant or constable, they say, “Yes, he was here last week, but for the last two months he’s been taken off on other duties.” No doubt there is a shortage of officers on the ground, but may I suggest to the Minister, who will probably pale at the additional cost, that we turn back the clock, in a positive fashion, and have police officers based in local communities? I am talking about reopening police stations, which will allow police officers to get to know—and literally smell—their community. They will know when young Jimmy or Jack is about to commit an offence at six or eight years of age, and prevent him from becoming a hardened criminal when he is 18. We must get officers back into our local communities. At the right moment, a firm word and gentle guidance can head off a life behind bars. In the long run, the cost of reopening local stations would be offset against reductions in crime and imprisonment, and would allow police to reconnect with the communities they serve.

CCTV has its place. I am an ex-soldier, and have experience of using technology to get intelligence and so forth. However, CCTV cannot tell us the demeanour of a young man or woman intent on committing crime. A police officer on the beat is able not only to deter such a person from committing crime, but if the crime is committed the police officer can respond immediately. That boosts confidence in the community and helps a raft of other things, not least tourism, which brings in much-needed cash to South Dorset.

As the Minister will announce the figures imminently—I believe at the end of this week—may I ask him, most humbly, and with the Olympics in mind, please to consider Dorset police—[Interruption.] And other constituencies, as many Members are also concerned about their police. To get police back into the local community, let us reinvest in police stations, to save in the longer term and fight crime.

14:29

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

It is a privilege to speak after the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), who represents an area that I know very well. For many years I led all the unions at the Portland naval base, and I know that it is a fine community and a fine town.

The hon. Gentleman spoke with passion and conviction about the importance of police officers on the beat to both detection and deterrence. My experience of them, in the west midlands, is very similar to his. I have seen at first hand the outstanding work done by the police service there, and, while I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) that the police do not always get it right, I know that the community in the west midlands value their police service. There have been real improvements in recent years, and I have seen the consequences at first hand. Let me give three brief examples.

The first example is this. Nine months ago, in Stockland Green in my constituency, there was a serious increase in crime, including robberies and violent crime. The police mounted a major operation involving not only police officers on the beat, but the highly effective intelligence work behind the scenes that was described by the hon. Member for South Dorset. As a consequence, a number of arrests were made and the problem was dealt with very efficiently.

Secondly, I have seen at first hand how quickly the police respond to serious crimes in my constituency. I say with some sadness that there have been three knife murders in Erdington over the past nine months. It would not be appropriate to comment on the outcome of legal processes that are yet to be concluded, but I will say that the sheer scale of the operation that was mounted, quickly and effectively, in all three cases was hugely reassuring to a community who were rightly concerned about what were very serious offences.

Thirdly, I have seen at first hand the work of the local tasking groups. In Castle Vale, a very fine community in my constituency, the police sit down together with representatives of the local community, and they work together in a highly effective way to target issues of real concern such as antisocial behaviour.

I pay tribute to the work done by police community support officers, whom I have seen on the beat in the Erdington high street area. They are an immensely reassuring presence and they do a very good job, not least in freeing police officers to concentrate on what police officers are best at. I also pay tribute to our chief constable, Chris Sims. Chris is an able leader of the West Midlands police service, although he has had to deal with some problems in it. He is also the national champion of the Association of Chief Police Officers on the issue of bureaucracy—it is common ground that we can reduce back-office costs, for instance—and gives a national lead in the vital areas of forensic science and detection.

Not only is the West Midlands police service of great importance in the west midlands, but it performs those major national functions, as well as supporting other police services. It will play an important role in the run-up to and during the Olympics, and—as the Minister knows—it also plays an important role next door in Warwickshire when big problems arise. Time and again, the Warwickshire police service can count on the tried and tested West Midlands service.

I welcomed this morning’s meeting with the Minister. I hope that, for all the reasons that I have given, he will accept the real concern that is being expressed in the west midlands about the potentially serious consequences of a reduction of up to 2,500—including 1,200 police officers—in the West Midlands police service over the next four years, and of a potential reduction of 400 police officers before 1 April next year.

At the heart of the dilemma facing the police service in the west midlands is the fact that the financial structure in an area of high demand and high need is very different from that in Surrey. More than 80% of the funding of the West Midlands service comes from central Government, as opposed to 50% in Surrey. I hope the Minister will accept that if the Government apply quick and deep cuts indiscriminately to all police services, there will be particularly serious consequences in the west midlands.

The police service in my constituency, in Birmingham and in the west midlands, is already having to plan for the consequences of what it faces—including the compulsory retirement, under regulation A19 of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987, of some of the best long-serving police officers, several hundred of whom may have to go before April next year unless the Government change their mind. It is also planning for a significant reduction in the visibility of policing on the streets in the west midlands more generally and in Birmingham in particular, because it believes that it has no alternative. All that is a result of the scale and speed of what is being expected of the police service in the west midlands.

I know of no police service that is incapable of improvement. Yes, there is a debate to be had about how to reduce back-office costs. When our party was in government, it made clear that it considered that to be necessary. However, I ask the Government to accept a simple reality. Unless they change course, and if in 2011 we see a toxic combination of rising unemployment and falling police numbers in Birmingham, crime will inevitably increase. The first duty of any Government is to ensure the safety and security of our communities, in the midlands and throughout the country. Even at this late stage, I urge the Minister, the Home Secretary and the Government to hear the strong concerns expressed by the people of Erdington, Birmingham and the west midlands.

14:37

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I have a background in criminal law, and have spent a large part of my time down the years prosecuting and defending people in various trials, including murder trials.

I have been out on the beat with members of the Hexham constabulary, who do an amazing job in supporting the police and the community. They undoubtedly need our support, and we should provide that support unequivocally—for the police force and for the operational command—if at all possible; but if we are to do that, we must change the position that we acquired on 7 May. There is currently a significant financial deficit, and that means that we must make choices. Whether we like it or not, we have had to make cuts. That gives no one any pleasure, but we have been forced to do it by our present position.

We are adopting a good procedure in attempting to do a series of things at the same time. There will be a settlement. My local chief constable, who has done an amazing job, wrote to me outlining the cuts that she might have to make, which are undeniably significant. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) and others have pointed out that the cuts are a problem that we must address, but choices need to be made, and the chief constable is dealing with them very well. There will be a reduction of 450 officers or civilian staff. In this context, I should remind the House that she was the chief constable who looked after Raoul Moat and all the difficulties and problems that followed on from the events in the summer. She has done a sterling job in trying to hold everything together, but when I asked the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs what he would cut and what his approach would be, he initially said, “I can’t really answer that question,” but at the very end of his speech he said, “This will require the Home Secretary to go back to the Chancellor and ask for more money.”

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

Like the other Departments.

[Guy Opperman]

That is an interesting observation, but when the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) was Home Secretary he famously said there would not be enough money to pay for various things, and the home affairs budget would clearly have gone down. It is not in dispute that that will present the Department with a significant problem. Efforts are being made, but a choice had to be made, and I applaud the Government on the choice they made and for going ahead with it.

I asked the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) whether he supported the police and crime commissioner changes. We find from talking to our constituents that the centralisation of control under Labour over the past 13 years is a significant problem. The legislation that the Labour Government brought in put ever more work under Whitehall control. The Home Secretary was given ever stronger powers to intervene and to direct police authorities. Labour’s approach failed to recognise the fundamental problem of policing, which is that those who should be in the driving seat, and those who suffer when things do not work, are the public, not the Government.

In the last year prior to the change in Government there were 52 documents of central policy guidance, and a further 60 on planning. The average length of the manuals was just under 100 pages, and they included 4,000 new promises. The principle is very simple: the police are there to serve the local community, not Whitehall, but for too long they have been serving Whitehall.

[Jack Dromey]

The hon. Gentleman’s esoteric dissertation on central Government diktats is all very interesting, but does he not accept this simple reality: as a consequence of what Whitehall is now doing in front-loading major cuts to the police service—7% and 6% in the first two years—local police services generally are faced with a nigh-on impossible problem and the West Midlands police service in particular will lose 400 police officers by 1 April next year?

[Guy Opperman]

I make this simple point: what would Labour have cut? All parties would now be facing this difficulty and, frankly, it is fanciful to argue there would not have been any cuts whatever to, say, the Birmingham or Northumberland police forces.

I want to turn now to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill. When under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), Labour planned for elected representatives. In the 2008 draft legislative programme it announced that its Policing and Crime Bill would include proposals to provide

“a clear and powerful public voice in decision making through directly elected representatives”.

To my untutored mind, having done nearly 20 years at the Bar, that sounds remarkably similar to what we are introducing now. Labour referred to elected representatives in a policing Green Paper published in July 2008. I accept that I was in another place.

[Chris Ruane]

The House of Lords?

[Guy Opperman]

No, you are wrong. The promotion is delightful, but it is premature. Mention has been made of “Strictly Come Dancing” and other things, but I was not in the House of Lords then. Instead, I was probably somewhere near the Old Bailey. My point is that even Ed Balls has conceded that there is more to do on accountability.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. When Members are mentioned they must, of course, be referred to by their constituency not their name, and there must also be no references to “you” or to “me”—after all, I have made no decisions in this area.

[Guy Opperman]

The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), has said that there is more to do in respect of accountability, and there is more we can do to deepen local and force-based accountability in policing.

[Mr Winnick]

If I understand correctly, the hon. Gentleman was criticising the previous Government for having proposed elected police commissioners and for then abandoning the idea. That is what happened, but that is part of the democratic process. The Home Affairs Committee—which by no means has the final say in such matters—heard representations from the police authorities and senior police officers. We discussed the matter and we came to the conclusion that the Government should not go ahead with the idea. That was not decisive in influencing the Government, but there is nothing wrong with a Government listening, and in my view they made the right decision.

[Guy Opperman]

There were two efforts in respect of this particular proposal, and it is right that certain people have had reservations as time has passed, but let me give one particular example. Sir Hugh Orde was previously a very vocal critic, even predicting that some officers would resign, but following the Queen’s Speech he has changed his position. He now welcomes a commitment to local accountability and says he would work with the Government to protect operational independence. As he put it:

“Policing has always been about serving and answering to local communities. Those are the origins of policing in this country and chief officers”—

and I stress this point—

“welcome the commitment towards local accountability.”

I should also make the point that this proposal has not come from out of the blue. It has been proposed in the past, and it has also been tried in different contexts in America. If we can harness this new proposal and reform the justice system in the way that, without a shadow of a doubt, it requires, we can make a genuine effort to engage in a three-pronged attack to take this matter forward.

14:48

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

I should first declare an interest: I am a member of the Kent police authority.

It is a pleasure to follow my hon.—and perhaps learned—Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), and I particularly welcome the emphasis he placed on the need for the localisation of policing decisions, as opposed to the centralisation that went on before. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who I have not previously had the pleasure of hearing make a speech. There has been strong representation from the west midlands in today’s debate, and Members representing constituencies in that area have put their case well. The Conservative party was welcomed by chief constable Chris Sims in October when he organised the security for our conference, and we were very impressed with the service we received.

May I first tackle two propositions put forward by Labour Members? The first is that morale in the police is plummeting and that this settlement will lead to a worse service being provided by them. That is not my experience; I am consistently struck by the professionalism of officers in Kent and elsewhere in the country where I meet police officers. In Kent, we have been planning for many months for these grant reductions. The work that has been done and the engagement of every different area of Kent police in finding substantial savings has been extraordinarily impressive. I have not detected any reduction in morale. Officers and staff appreciate that there has been a very serious recession across the country and in the private sector, where many people have lost their jobs, had pay freezes or had severe pay cuts, and that the police family have come through that period very well. In addition, this Government kept to the third year of the pay review that had been agreed, and I know that that was greatly appreciated in many quarters.

The second proposition relates to the debate about police numbers and the level of crime. I heard the interview that the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice gave on Radio 4, in which he made perfectly sensible remarks, and I do not understand the excitement of Labour Members about this issue. The hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) said that the number of West Midlands police officers had increased from 7,135 in 1996 to 8,536 this year. The level of crime did decrease over that period, certainly according to the British crime survey, which Labour Members particularly like to cite. What the hon. Gentleman did not say is that nationally quite a reduction in police numbers took place during part of that period—until about 2002-03—and thereafter those numbers rose. According to the British crime survey, there was a consistent reduction in the level of crime throughout the period—that started in 1994, as we heard from Labour Members yesterday. That does not correlate with the trend in police numbers over that period, so there is no simple link and it is very difficult to show such a correlation statistically.

What I know from my constituency is that police officers, effectively placed and doing the right thing, can make an enormous difference. For example, we introduced neighbourhood task teams to support neighbourhood policing. Medway has had two teams, comprising a sergeant and five or six constables, which support the neighbourhood policing teams, concentrating on particularly difficult high-crime areas. One huge success has been that, through working with other agencies, they have almost eradicated street prostitution in Chatham, which has been a problem for centuries. This is about working with other agencies. A particular team has helped bring about that success, but overall it is not possible to demonstrate a direct or simple relationship between police numbers and crime, and we need to recognise that.

Decisions on police numbers should be taken by local communities. The single most important change that we are about to see in policing is that, for the first time, this will not be about the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) suggesting that the Home Office commission research to decide what to do, or even about this House debating what we want police numbers to be and where we want them to be; this will be a decision for each local community to take, through the commissioner who they elect to oversee and organise their police force locally. That will be a hugely healthy change from the current situation.

I have always found, both as a councillor and as a member of a police authority—and in this House, to an extent—that democratic oversight is one of the key drivers of value for money in public services. This is about scrutinising what the employees, the officers and the people delivering the service are doing and ensuring that they are delivering value for money for the taxpayer. I am not convinced that the same savings have been made in national Government as have been made in areas where there is more direct democratic oversight: in local government and, to an extent, in police authorities. If each Department were to report to the relevant Select Committee and the permanent secretary were to put his budget before that Committee for approval and discussion, item by item, that would help us to find savings.

The Government have set out a strong savings programme, but what I see when I participate in the budget review group and the audit and finance committee of our police authority in Kent is that members of the authority, a majority of whom are elected—it is the elected members who must pass the police precept every year—subject the police officers to an enormous degree of scrutiny. Through that process we have made much more substantial savings than we have been ordered to find by the centre. When we examine the reductions in police grant that are coming, the decision will be taken locally as to what the level of precept will be.

Kent’s new chief constable, whom we brought in from Norfolk, where he had been deputy chief constable and had done fantastic work in improving public confidence, making significant savings and restructuring the force, said that he sees these grant reductions as an opportunity to deliver a more efficient and effective force. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members say that he has no choice, but very often when the money is increased by year and there is not the great pressure to find savings and be efficient, it is human nature for people occasionally not to act as efficiently as they might. Perhaps more people are employed in a particular area or perhaps the focus is on something that needed to be done some years ago when things have moved on and it is not necessarily the priority it once was. It is by finding such savings and having proper democratic oversight of that process that we should be able to make our policing more efficient and effective.

[Jack Dromey]

The constant quest for efficiency and effectiveness is common ground between us, but what has the hon. Gentleman got to say to the people of the west midlands who are led by a chief constable who is the national champion on bureaucracy and they have a police service that has already made very significant changes to promote efficiency and effectiveness, but it now says that because of the scale and speed of what it is being asked to do, there will be significant cuts to front-line policing and some of the best, long-serving officers in the police service will be compulsorily retired?

[Mark Reckless]

Having a national champion on bureaucracy in the way that it has been organised by the Association of Chief Police Officers, which is an organisation that does not entirely respond to this House and has little if any statutory basis, is not the way to tackle bureaucracy. We have had far more success in finding savings in Kent by having a majority of elected members who sit down with the officers who spend the money.

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman rightly says that the work is best done locally, and he showed me the good work being done in Kent when I went to visit his constituency, but there is a need to share good practice. What I saw in Rochester and Strood ought to be rolled out in other parts of the country. So even though the savings are made locally, there needs to a mechanism—it could be the Home Office or this could be done through Jan Berry—that will make sure that other police authorities can follow what Kent is doing.

[Mark Reckless]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, the Chair of our Home Affairs Committee, for his comments. He has kindly arranged to use our website to promote some of that good practice, such as the safe exit scheme and our offender management unit, in which we are working closely with probation and other agencies. There is enormous scope for savings through such collaboration.

I do not understand why most forces in the country are not making significant savings through collaboration. I know that Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire have quite a strong programme, but I have not seen any other forces that have anything like the level of collaboration or are making the savings that have been delivered in Kent and Essex. That might be because the forces and counties of Kent and Essex are of a similar size and there might not be the sensitivities about one force being perceived to be taking the lead. It might also be because the personalities and individuals involved are particularly committed to the process. We now have, however, one single directorate to deal with all organised, serious and major crime. A substantial number of police officers have been transferred from each force into a joint directorate that reports to a single assistant chief constable. We have a single director of IT and we procure all our services through a joint procurement centre, and I do not understand why other forces have not taken the opportunity to find savings so that they can reinvest them in the front line. It is happening to an extent, but collaboration elsewhere has been very disappointing.

I am speaking about collaboration not just between forces but between different agencies, such as working with councils—a point we heard about from my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti). In Medway we have a basic command unit that is coterminous with the unitary council. That might have assisted us, but it is by working as a team and focusing the resources on the areas where the public want to see them used that we have managed to find savings, to cut crime and to improve confidence at the same time.

Although the process is different in policing from elsewhere in the public sector, there will be the introduction of directly elected police commissioners alongside the front-loading of the reductions, the potential pay freezes for two years and the review of terms of conditions—and I greatly welcome the work that Tom Winsor is doing. I made the point in my ten-minute rule Bill about the importance of police forces’ being able to make a rational decision about how many officers, PCSOs and other civilians they need—that issue has also been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak—and it is essential that forces should have the freedom to make that decision. I am delighted that Tom Winsor is working so hard on that and we look forward to his interim report in February. We must knit together the democratic control and the greater efficiency through collaboration, as well have as a sensible review of terms and conditions while recognising how much the police do and what they do to serve this country and our communities. These estimates and the proposals for directly elected police commissioners are the way forward. They will lead to a revolution in policing in our country that will put the public in charge. It is possible for that to happen even in the tightened financial environment in which we find ourselves.

14:59

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

In the current economic climate, the police must play their part and do more with less. That is not an unreasonable request. The private and public sectors have had to make significant reductions and changes in working practices. Opposition Members constantly cite cuts of 20%, but taken over five years that works out as a 4% cut each year over the next four years, taking into consideration the fact that some funds can be raised under the local council tax precept.

There have been references to cuts in front-line officers, and I would like to offer some solutions. Politicians often come up with problems and talk about them in this Chamber for many hours, but they do not always come up with solutions. It concerns me when I hear chief constables and Opposition Members talking about cuts to the number of front-line officers.

Since I was elected for Weaver Vale, which is a mid-Cheshire seat, I have spent as much time as I can with the Cheshire constabulary, going out on night shifts in Runcorn on a Friday night and, last Friday night, in Northwich.

[Steve McCabe]

I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s comment about a rise in the precept. Obviously it varies across the country. What level of increase does he think he would be able to persuade people in his part of the world to accept?

[Graham Evans]

It varies from community to community. When I was a local councillor, there was much concern about antisocial behaviour. Despite many attempts to get the local police to spend more time on the street corners, as there was concern about youths allegedly causing trouble, they could never afford the time. The parish council made a decision significantly to increase the precept to pay for the new police community support officers. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise figure, but it could be significant if that community decided to increase the precept to allow a dedicated community support officer for that particular area.

The police do their best to meet the public’s expectation of having officers on the beat, but no police force can have officers on street corners every Friday, Saturday or Sunday night. The public expect to see officers on the beat, walking around, but that is not always physically possible. Credit should be given to the previous Government for the way they introduced police community support officers, because they made a difference to the perception as well as the quality of life of many citizens. Local communities can get together to pay for PCSOs.

Front-line cuts have been mentioned many times. If there is a freeze on recruitment and pay, over a few years there will be a reduction in the number of regular police officers. However, I do not hear the role of special constables mentioned in this House. I can only refer to Cheshire constabulary, but for many years the chief constables of Cheshire have spent a lot of time training and recruiting special constables.

Last Friday we had a particularly long and frosty evening. A dozen officers were on duty from 7 o’clock in the evening to 3 o’clock in the morning, half of them special constables. I was a special constable in the 1980s, so before I went out I tried on my old uniform. It fitted where it touched, so I quickly put it back in its suitcase and back in the attic. Before I went out, I looked at the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and various police reforms that were made in the ’80s so that I could prepare myself for what is going on in the 21st century.

In fact, I was pleasantly surprised by the professionalism of the special constables. Half a dozen were on duty on that evening. Each one is a volunteer and an unpaid volunteer, which is not often mentioned. I hear Opposition Members talking about the big society, and there is no better example of it than the special constabulary. It comprises ordinary members of the public serving their community and they are unpaid. That is not to say that members of the special constabulary do not have the ambition to join the regular force—they do.

My point is that we have a wonderful opportunity to recruit special constables at this difficult time, when there is a freeze on regular recruitment. The training for specials is exactly the same as that given to regular policemen. If an individual wants to join a police force, they can join the special constabulary, although they will not be paid, and can train over the next two or three years while there is a recruitment freeze. During those two or three years, they can learn the ropes and how to become full-time policemen. I am sure that when they submit their CV and application to become a regular police officer in two or three years’ time, their experience will be taken into account by the chief constable. That would enable the communities I serve and represent to have front-line policing, because special constables carry warrants and can make arrests. Indeed, they can do everything that regular police officers can do.

On Friday night, I went out with the police in a minibus, in a Panda car and on foot—walking the main streets of Northwich. Policing is not straightforward. I often hear comments from the public and Members about wanting officers not in cars but on the beat, as though one could simply wave a magic wand to achieve that. If the police are to serve the whole community, there will be times when they need to be in patrol cars and times when they need to be on the beat.

[Steve McCabe]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s view that special constables make an important contribution; I have seen it for myself when I have been out on patrol with them, so I totally agree. However, they are additional officers and the average borough commander cannot place them on the rota because he is never sure how many might be available. There is a difficulty with the suggestion that the hon. Gentleman seems to be coming close to making which is that the specials should substitute for the officers who have been lost through cuts. If that approach were taken, it would become harder to plan basic policing operations because the commander would not know how many specials would be available at any given time.

[Graham Evans]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I agree with him, but the situation varies from force to force. The leadership and management of individual forces are important; best practice has been mentioned in that regard. Cheshire constabulary has invested a lot of time in special constables because the force is relatively small, and I respectfully suggest that other forces—I am not thinking of any particular force, but perhaps the metropolitan and larger forces—could learn a thing or two about recruiting specials.

The hon. Gentleman says that the officer in charge of his constabulary is never sure how many specials will be on duty at a certain time, but this comes down to leadership and management. The senior officers in my constituency know exactly how many special constables will be there on the all-important Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights, which is when additional help is strongly appreciated. I have spoken to special constables who have ambitions to become regular policemen. They work during the day and volunteer their time in the evenings, including Thursday, Friday and Saturday. I do not say that they could be a long-term replacement, but merely point out that in the short term I do not accept what I hear chief constables say about front-line cuts in officers. There are creative ways in which specials can be used as a solution in the short term, rather than talking about headline cuts.

PCSOs also play an important role and really involve themselves in the community. I have heard worrying stories about many PCSOs being lost across the country, but they can be paid for through local precepting in town and parish councils. I also find that moneys are held in town and parish council accounts for emergencies. I encourage all chief constables and senior officers to look around their communities to see whether any funds have been siphoned or hidden away for a rainy day. I get very concerned when I hear about those vital officers being made redundant, because I do not accept that it is necessary, especially in the short term.

When I went out on Friday night and in Runcorn previously, I was struck by the fact that Cheshire force sends its police out singly. They go out on their own but have significant and efficient back-up available at a moment’s notice, which means that there are many police officers on public view. Earlier, I heard it said that 11% of officers are available at any one time, but in Cheshire a significant number of officers are out on the beat working on their own, and support is there for them very quickly if need be.

Cutting the amount of police time spent on paperwork has not really been mentioned. A previous Prime Minister talked about being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. One thing that we could do as a society and as a country is to tackle the abuse of alcohol. Virtually every call on Friday evening involved people who were badly intoxicated and reliant on alcohol. They had lost structure in their lives and it was quite pitiful to be called to the streets or their homes to assist them.

I cannot help feeling that local authorities that grant long, late-night licences to clubs in town centres and elsewhere, enabling alcohol to be served at 2 and 3 o’clock in the morning, put huge pressures on police authorities and forces. Things might be relatively quiet until 11 o’clock at night, but at 2 o’clock in the morning there is mayhem on the streets with intoxicated people brawling. On Friday night—I was told that it was a relatively quiet night—PC Frost was out in force but there were still several arrests of people fighting in the streets of Northwich. Local authorities have a big role to play and they need to communicate better with the police regarding recommendations on late licensing.

[Mark Reckless]

My hon. Friend refers to PC Frost and the need for other agencies to work with the police as appropriate. Is he aware of an incident in Kent in which the police control centre received a call—this has been publicised—from a woman asking the police to come out because someone had stolen the snowman she had built in her front garden?

[Graham Evans]

Yes, we were laughing about that on Friday night. The Kent accents were particularly distinct and we had a laugh about it. There are still plenty of snowmen in Cheshire—at least there were when I left on Monday. [Interruption.] Snow joke indeed.

Local authorities will grant late night licensing to pubs and clubs on the one hand, but on the other they are particularly restrictive regarding new businesses. In my area, a new application has been submitted for a restaurant bar in a particularly pleasant location, but because it is a continental-style restaurant—it has no taps on the bar and serves continental lagers and wine by the glass—the local authority restricts its licence. People have to drink up by 8 o’clock and the doors have to be closed, which makes the business unviable. We need to look at our licensing laws and help the police do what they are supposed to do, which is to protect us from violent criminals.

To sum up, police forces do not have to cut front-line policing but should utilise the special constabulary. If people want to become police officers, there is no better way of showing commitment than by volunteering their time and serving their community in the current difficult economic climate.

15:18

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

It is a pleasure to contribute to this constructive and well-mannered debate. Members on both sides of the House have expressed their genuine concerns in a fairly non-political way.

There has been much speculation today and in the past few weeks about the possible effects of the cuts. It is pure speculation because we still do not know what the individual settlements will be. It is disappointing to Members on the Government side that the Opposition still have not had the good grace to tell us where they would make their cuts. I thought that the answer given by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) when he was pushed on this issue was very interesting. Essentially, he said that he would go back to the Treasury to ask for more money, so perhaps the Opposition do not accept there should be any cuts whatever in policing. It would be interesting if that point were addressed in the winding-up speech.

I want to address an issue at the core of this debate—the effect that the reduction in funding will have on police numbers. I know that that is a totemic issue for the Opposition, and it is easy to understand why, because the Labour Government, in their 13 years in office, were very successful at one thing: persuading this country that only by pouring more money in can we get better results out. That is why the debate about policing has always focused on the number of police rather than what they do all day. [Interruption.] We have a record number—140,000—as someone shouts from a sedentary position, but seemingly, simply because we have record police numbers and PCSOs, Labour Members think we have record effective policing. That is simply not an equation that works.

Labour Members do not care whether police officers are on patrol, filling in forms or responding to jobs. They seem incapable of acknowledging that having more and more police officers doing more and more administrative and bureaucratic tasks does not mean better policing. Sadly for the Opposition, the debate has moved on. They need not take my word for it; they can take that of someone who knows more about policing and fighting crime than all of us in the Chamber put together—Bill Bratton, who was chief of police of the Los Angeles police department, of New York city and of Boston. He is famous across the world for putting the broken windows theory into practice. He introduced the CompStat system of tracking crimes, which is still in use today and massively reduced crime in New York city, where he devolved decision making to precinct level and got rid of a backlog of 50,000 unserved warrants. When he was chief of police in Los Angeles, crime within that city dropped for six consecutive years. In 2007, the LA police commission reappointed Bratton to a second five-year term, which was the first time it had made such a reappointment in almost 20 years.

It is fair to say that that guy knows what he is on about, and here is what he said to the Home Affairs Committee on 30 November. The Chair, the right hon. Member for Leicester East, said:

“There is a debate at the moment, obviously because of the current economic climate that will result in the numbers of police officers in a local area being reduced. Do you think there is any correlation between the numbers of officers in a particular area and the level of crime?”

Bill Bratton replied:

“As a police chief for many, many years, I would always like to have more police, but the reality is it is not just numbers but, more importantly, what you do with them. More is fine, but if they’re just standing around or if they’re not focused on issues of concern to the public, then those numbers are not… going to achieve what you would hope to achieve, which is improve public safety and reduce crime.”

[Steve McCabe]

It is only fair to say that Bill Bratton went on to caution the Select Committee against drawing too many conclusions from the American experience, because policing is organised very differently in the United States.

[Mr Burley]

I shall give another quote from what Bill Bratton said to us:

“So, I had 38,000 police officers in New York City. In Los Angeles I had 9,000. Los Angeles: 500 square miles, worst gang problem in America, 4 million residents. New York: 38,000 police officers, 300 square miles, 8 million residents, a drug crime problem. To have the equivalent of what I had in New York City in Los Angeles, I would need 18,000 police officers, I only had 9,000 but, over a seven-year period, every year crime went down in Los Angeles… the public perception of police and their effectiveness improved”,

which reinforced

“the adage: it’s not so much the numbers but how you use them, how you inspire them, how you direct them and what their priorities are.”

If it is not a matter of numbers, it is about what the police do all day, and the fact is that in this country the police spend a huge amount of time filling in forms. On 15 March 2007, I went out on the beat in Paddington with the Met, one of the more advanced forces in this country. This is what Met police have to fill in for a single domestic violence incident: a124D paper booklet in the victim’s house; an evidence and actions booklet, which is the same as an old pocketbook, but with structured questions; a custody record, in the station if someone is arrested, with the same details as are in the EAB, which they give to the custody sergeant to rekey into his computer system; a CRISS report, which is an electronic crime report filled in by the officer at the station and that is used for Home Office statistics; a MERLIN report, which involves a national computer system with details of vulnerable children from domestic violence backgrounds—the same details as in the first two forms; a CRIMINT report, which is a Met police-wide intelligence system; and the case papers—that is, the MG forms, which are Word documents that get sent to the Crown Prosecution Service for court. It is not uncommon in the Met and other police forces for officers to be off for the rest of the shift following one domestic violence incident arrest. That is what they are spending their time doing—this mad bureaucracy and paperwork. It is not about the number of police officers; it is about what they do all day on their shifts.

As we have heard recently, Home Office figures have revealed that officers now spend more time on paperwork than on patrol—just 14% of their time on patrol compared with 20% on paperwork. That is why I am delighted that this coalition, like Bill Bratton, is dealing with the reality of the cuts by focusing not on police numbers, but on what the police do all day. Only by clearing away this bureaucracy and these inefficient, wasteful practices will we get the police service that this country deserves.

15:25

[Keith Vaz]

With the leave of the House, I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for letting me speak at this point in the debate. I shall explain why I am doing so. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley), who is the youngest member of the Home Affairs Committee. That is my cue to say that the second Wednesday in December is the date of the annual Westminster children’s party for the children of MPs and staff. I am the host, as I have been for the past 14 years; my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), the shadow Home Secretary, is Santa Claus, so please do not detain him for too long. Unfortunately, I am therefore unable to be present for the end of the debate, although I wish I could be. I will certainly read with great care the report of the speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), the shadow Minister, and by the Minister.

The debate has been outstanding, with some excellent speeches, and I commend the hon. Members for South Dorset (Richard Drax), for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), for Hexham (Guy Opperman) and for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). I also commend the four members of the Home Affairs Committee—my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), and the hon. Members for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) and for Cannock Chase—for their contributions.

This debate gives us the perfect setting for hearing what Front Benchers have to say about these issues. I can pledge to Parliament—we have been elected by the whole of Parliament, with members of the Committee elected by their party groups—that we will look at the policing issue very carefully indeed. We will produce thoughtful reports. Sometimes, obviously, we will have to be critical of the Government. When they are doing the right thing we will praise them. I can promise the Minister that we will ensure that the reports are thorough, and that they help him and the rest of Parliament to deliberate on these very important issues. I shall now hand over to those on the Front Benches.

15:27

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) has said, this has been an interesting and thoughtful debate, with a large number of contributions from both sides of the House. Before my right hon. Friend rushes off to his important engagement, may I say to him that his chairmanship of the Select Committee over the past few years has been a model of how to chair a Select Committee? There are difficulties sometimes, because we all have party allegiances, but he knows that one of the strengths of the Select Committee system is the way in which it tries to bring some independence of thought to proceedings. That is particularly important when it comes to the Chairs of those Committees. He has chaired the Committee exceptionally well, and I look forward to reading its further reports on policing matters.

I also congratulate my hon. Friends from the west midlands, my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), who met and made representations to the Minister about their concerns regarding the policing reductions that we will see over the next few years. I hope that when he makes his winding-up speech he will comment in particular on the points that they made.

I shall not pick out every Government Member who spoke, but I found it interesting that the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), for example, should make a plea for opening police stations—because the Minister is going to close them. I am sure he will have an interesting debate with the Minister about that, but he made an important point about the need for community and neighbourhood policing, and let us hope that, whatever happens over the next few years, neighbourhood policing and police presence on the street will be effectively maintained.

The hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), whom I cannot see in the Chamber at the moment, made an important point when he said that this is all about choices. Indeed it is. He defended the choice before us on the basis of economic necessity, but our view is that the police have fared particularly badly in the budget settlement and comprehensive spending review. Other Departments have fared significantly better, so somewhere along the line a choice was made about the budget settlement for the police, as opposed to the budget settlement for other Departments.

I should like to praise the police service, police officers, police community support officers, police staff and, indeed, police authority members for the excellent work that they do. We have seen it in London, in particular, over the past couple of weeks, but in other parts of the country, too. When we have these debates, it would be remiss of us not to put on the record every time the wholehearted support of all Members for the police throughout the country, and for their hard work. To be fair, I know the Minister does that. There might be differences between us over how we provide that support, but we need always to recognise their dedication and public service, and the duty that they perform on behalf of all of us throughout our country.

Helped by a record number of police officers, crime fell by 43% under the previous Government, and the chance of being a victim of crime is at a 30-year low, but the Government’s cuts to policing, starting next year as the estimates for 2011-12 show, will put that progress at risk. By cutting police funding by 20% over the next four years, the Government are taking big risks with the public’s safety and undermining the fight against crime and antisocial behaviour.

The speed and scale of the Government’s cuts have put police forces and chief constables in an impossible position. A number of forces have already announced plans to lose thousands of police officers and police staff, blowing apart the Government’s claims that the front line can be protected. Indeed, many of the most experienced officers in our police forces will have to go.

People will be rightly worried that, at the same time as cutting funding for front-line police, the Government want to spend more than £100 million on bringing in directly elected police commissioners—a sum that, according to the Association of Police Authorities, is equivalent to 600 police officers. That controversial experiment risks politicising the police at huge cost to the taxpayer, and it will do little to improve police accountability.

The coalition’s spending review announced that central Government police funding will be cut by 20% in real terms by 2014-15. Funding allocations for individual police forces are expected to be announced in the next few days, so perhaps the Minister will enlighten us on when that will be. Following consultation, a further debate will be possible, as we will know more about the impact on all individual forces. The hon. Member for South Dorset and others, including the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), made the point about what that will mean for individual police forces throughout the country.

The biggest cuts will be next year and the year after, with funding reduced by 6% in 2011-12 and by 8% in 2012-13. Front-loading the cuts will make it even more difficult to minimise the impact on front-line policing through efficiency savings. The Minister has just received a letter from senior Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Labour and independent members of the APA, urging him to reconsider the front-loaded cuts in 2011-12 and 2012-13 in order to

“avoid long-term damage to policing capability”.

The letter warns that the current cuts timetable will also mean fewer police community support officers and could affect the

“safe and secure delivery of the Olympics”

in 2012.

Those cuts go way beyond what experts believe can be achieved through efficiency savings and better procurement. In other words, a 6% cut next year is too much. Coalition Ministers have regularly quoted from the report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, “Valuing the Police: policing in an age of austerity”, which was published in July, and it says that a “re-design” of the police system could

“at best...save 12% of central government funding, while maintaining police availability”.

The front-loaded cuts of 20% that will start in 2011-12 go significantly beyond that.

A number of Government Back Benchers have said that police forces across the country can make efficiency savings without impacting on the front line. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) asked what the Opposition have said about that. The previous Home Secretary made it clear that he accepted the 12% figure and the HMIC report. However, the present Government propose to go beyond 12% to 20%.

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

indicated dissent.

[Vernon Coaker]

The Minister will hide behind local precepting and councils raising money to make up some of the gap, but that is smoke and mirrors—a sleight of hand. There is a 20% reduction in central Government funding to police forces across the country. That goes beyond the HMIC recommendation. Hon. Members must understand that although some money can be saved through efficiency, that amount cannot be saved without impacting on the front line.

[Mark Reckless]

rose—

[Vernon Coaker]

I will give way after I finish this point. The Home Secretary failed to fight the police’s corner in the spending review negotiations, so it falls to Parliament to stand up for the law-abiding public against these reckless cuts.

[Mark Reckless]

Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the difference between 20% and 12% that he describes makes no allowance for savings from things such as a pay freeze and changes in terms and conditions?

[Vernon Coaker]

I am quoting the Green Book and the HMIC report. We will see over the next one, two, three and four years whether the hon. Gentleman is right in the statistics that he has quoted from this book—that saving and this saving. We will see whether what he says stands up in police forces in Kent, Nottinghamshire, the west midlands and elsewhere across England and Wales, or whether we will see massive losses of police officers, police community support officers and police staff. Then we will see who has understood the statistics and figures correctly, and who is actually right. I will have a side wager with the hon. Gentleman, and it will not be me who is out of pocket, but him.

I repeat the call that has been made to the Home Secretary and other Ministers to go back and say to the Treasury that the police spending settlement is not acceptable, that it must be reopened and improved. Will the Minister give us that commitment in discussing the estimates for 2011-12, or does he just intend to carry on with the settlement as it stands? As the hon. Member for Hexham said, choices are available to the Government. The Minister can try to argue for a better deal, like those for schools, hospitals and the Ministry of Defence. The big casualty in the comprehensive spending review was the Home Office, and therefore the police service and police forces of this country. I know that the Minister says that there is no link between levels of crime and police numbers, but that is not what the public say.

Let us look at some examples. The hon. Member for South Dorset is already getting cold feet about reductions in police officer numbers in his area, and he will not be the only one. Hon. Members will have to go back and say that things will be tough. There will be police officer cuts across the country: Greater Manchester police have announced a cut of 1,387 officers and 1,557 staff; North Wales police have announced that 440 posts will be cut, made up of 230 police officers and 210 staff; Northumbria police have announced a cut of 450 civilian staff; Thames Valley police have announced 800 staff cuts, but there is no breakdown between police officers and police staff; and West Midlands police have announced a cut of 2,200 posts, made up of 1,100 police officers and 1,100 staff.

Whatever the book says, and whatever Government Members say, I am willing to go to each and every one of their constituencies and ask the public whether they want fewer police officers or more police officers on their streets. I will ask them whether they believe that the Government should have prioritised police spending more in the Budget so that police officer posts, police staff and PCSOs could have been protected, or whether they were a price worth paying.

A few months into this new Tory-led Government, I believe that people will be astonished that police recruitment has been frozen, thousands of police officer posts are to be lost and experienced police officers will be forced to retire, including in my own area of Nottinghamshire.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Could the hon. Gentleman help us by telling us what percentage of the budget his party would have cut had it been returned to government, and what the consequences would have been for police numbers? It is a fact, is it not, that Labour would have cut the budget by 20% and made as many reductions in police numbers?

[Vernon Coaker]

That is not the case. The hon. Lady will know, as I pointed out earlier, that we would have accepted what the HMIC report says. The previous Home Secretary made that clear. That report is clear that the level of savings set out in it can be made over four years without having an impact on the front line, but that if cuts go beyond that, they will have an impact on front-line and visible policing.

On top of what I have just mentioned, the number of police community support officers will go down and police staff numbers will fall dramatically. Coalition Members will have some explaining to do when they go back to their constituencies. The estimates for 2011-12 will be just the start, unless the Minister and his colleagues start to stand up for the police. They should stop defending the cuts and start defending the police and the communities that they serve.

15:41

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

I welcome the opportunity to join in this debate, and I welcome the introduction to it by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), and the report that his Committee has just published. I am sorry that he is not here to listen to these final contributions, but I understand why he has had to leave. The Committee’s report was very helpful, and we look forward to its further reports.

There have been a number of important and useful contributions to the debate, and I hope to address them during the course of my remarks. I am afraid I did not think that the shadow Minister’s response did justice to a number of the serious points that were raised by Labour Members as well as by coalition Members about the importance of police deployment, how savings are to be driven in the police and the value of leadership. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) particularly mentioned the important role that police authorities will have in the next few months in driving value for money and helping police forces deliver leadership.

Let us begin by discussing what we agree about. We all agree about the importance of the police and of valuing them. The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) was absolutely right to take the opportunity, as I always try to do, to thank the police for what they do. I am sure that they are in action once again just outside the House in relation to the protest that is being run again today. Every day, police officers act to keep us safe and many of them take risks in doing so, and we should thank them for their work. They are an immensely important public service.

I apologise to Members of all parties, because I am afraid I will not be able to indicate the provisional grants for individual forces today. We will announce them before Christmas, and there will be the usual parliamentary debate on them next year. As all Members will understand, I cannot therefore comment on individual forces’ specific grant issues. I can say that I am paying the closest attention to hon. Members’ representations, including those from the West Midlands force area. I will continue to do so after the provisional allocations are announced.

The backdrop to the debate is the spending review. Given the contributions of most right hon. and hon. Members, I do not think it appropriate to rehearse at great length why the Government have to take the action we are taking. I would just point out that we believe it necessary to deal with the largest deficit in our peacetime history, and that debt interest payments alone this year, at more than £40 billion, are far greater than the combined spend of the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice.

We announced a reduction in police spending in the review because we believe that dealing with the deficit is essential, and that the police can and must pay their share—

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

Share?

[Nick Herbert]

The police must pay their share in reducing the deficit. Contrary to what the Opposition suggest—that a poor deal was secured for the police—the deal was rather better than expected in relation to non-protected Departments.

It is important to point out that the fact that the reduction in central Government spending on the police is 20% over four years—that is clear from the settlement—does not mean a 20% reduction in the amount of money that forces will have over the period. That is an immensely important point, but I am not sure that the Opposition have fully grasped it. There is a straightforward reason: forces do not raise all their money from central Government—on average, they raise getting on for a third of their money from central Government, or nearly £1 in every £3—and the money that they raise locally is not being cut.

As has been pointed out, that means that if we assume both the OBR forecast of reasonable rises in the precept based on—[Interruption.] The OBR forecast is based on the historic trend and the precept freeze, which the Government are funding next year. That reduces the cut in police force funding over the four-year period to 14% in real terms. The Opposition must explain why they believe that the 12% cut that they concede they would have made to policing, based on HMIC advice, would leave forces strong and secure—I assume that they would not otherwise have proposed that—but that a 14% cut is Armageddon, with all the consequences that the hon. Member for Gedling says will flow?

The difference between a 12% cut in real terms and a 14% cut at the end of the four-year period is £200 million, and the Government are making specific additional proposals, to which my hon. Friends referred, including the review of pay and conditions, which is being set up by Tom Winsor. We also expect the police to take part in the two-year pay freeze, subject to the agreement of the police negotiating board, which will close that £200 million gap. Labour Members simply have not answered the question. Why do they feel able to go around campaigning on, and scaremongering about, the impact of the spending reductions that forces are being asked to make? They are clearly and simply seeking to make political capital out of the situation, yet they would have cut the police budget themselves, in precisely the same order of magnitude as that which the Government have announced—the availability of resources to the police would have been precisely the same. They are perpetrating on the public a great fraud about their position.

[Steve McCabe]

I do not think that the Minister is deliberately trying to mislead the House, but is it not fair to say that the 12% cut that the former Home Secretary mentioned would be subject to exactly the same precept conditions, so it would have been reduced in the same way as he has reduced his 20% cut to 14%? He has therefore inadvertently misled the House on that point. Of course, he also completely misleads the House in relation to the west midlands—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman may disagree with the Minister, but he cannot accuse him of misleading the House because he is using figures that the hon. Gentleman does not agree with.

[Steve McCabe]

I am happy to apologise. I was suggesting that the Minister was inadvertently misleading the House by quoting figures that do not stand up to scrutiny.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I heard the hon. Gentleman very clearly and he said it twice. I am glad that he has clarified that he believed that it was not deliberate.

[Nick Herbert]

I repeat that the Opposition proposed cuts of exactly the same magnitude. Indeed, the shadow Chancellor—when he was shadow Home Secretary—told the House on 8 September that as Home Secretary he had set out savings of £1.3 billion over the next four years, or about 12% of the Home Office budget. He also said that the HMIC report confirmed that, with a lot of effort, it would be possible to save 12% without affecting front-line services—[Interruption.] Those are not my words: they are the words of the shadow Chancellor.

As I pointed out on Monday, the shadow Home Secretary told the Home Affairs Committee seminar in Cannock on 22 November that this is a tighter environment for police spending and would be under any Government. Let us nail once and for all the idea that the Opposition would not have cut police spending. They would, and they have admitted it. The order of cuts that they would have made in police spending is exactly the same as we are asking the police to make now—

[Richard Burden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Herbert]

No, I am going to make some progress if the hon. Gentleman—whom I met this morning—will forgive me.

The hon. Member for Gedling referred to the letter that the Association of Police Authorities sent me asking for a re-profiling of the cuts. I note that it did not ask us to revisit the overall level of the cuts. I am afraid that it is not possible to revisit the spending review. The settlement, which did not presume that the deepest cut would be in the first year—[Interruption.] It will not be in the first year. The settlement fully takes into account the savings that we expect to be made as a consequence of the pay freeze that we expect the police to undertake, which the Opposition have unfortunately discounted in all their considerations.

One of the signatories to the letter is Ann Barnes, the independent chairman of Kent police authority, who is also, I believe, a vice-chairman of the Association of Police Authorities. She is no fan of the Government’s proposals to introduce directly elected police and crime commissioners. Nor, by the way, is she one of the hon. Gentleman’s friends who oppose the policy while secretly planning to run for office. Ann Barnes issued a news release about that letter in which she said—and it is important that hon. Members hear this—

“I do not think police capability in Kent will be compromised. Neighbourhood policing is the bedrock of policing in Kent and despite the reductions, we are confident that people will see little difference in the level of policing delivered locally.”

She was very much reflecting the views that have been put sensibly by my hon. Friends—who have been discussing these issues with their chief officers—that, across the country, chief constables are making every effort to protect front-line policing and that some are guaranteeing that they will protect neighbourhood policing. There is an enormous discrepancy between what chief officers are saying about the impact of these spending reductions on service delivery and the Opposition’s claims that there will be some catastrophic collapse in policing.

[Richard Burden]

rose—

[Nick Herbert]

I will make a bit of progress because I am short of time, and then I will give way.

We are confident that these savings can be made because, in part, of the evidence of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, backed up the Audit Commission. HMIC has said that it is possible for forces to make savings of more than £1 billion a year—12% of the annual budget—through things such as improving productivity, cutting costs, sharing services and addressing savings in the back and middle offices of police forces. In addition, further savings can be realised through areas such as better procurement, although some of those savings were included in the HMIC report.

It is significant that the hon. Member for Gedling and the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) never refer to those issues. They never talk about the savings that could be made by forces, and they are simply unwilling to engage in the necessary debate about how to increase and improve deployment, given the fiscal constraints that confront us.

[Ed Balls]

To avoid any further inadvertent misleading of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, first, that the HMIC report that refers to 12% deliverable cuts refers to cuts over four years and, secondly, that it refers to cuts in central Government grant? The HMIC report referred to 12% cuts in central Government grant; the Government are proposing a 20% cut in central Government grant. Will he confirm the difference in those figures and that that was what HMIC recommended?

[Nick Herbert]

I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman understood this. The HMIC report was not referring to grant; it was referring to the savings that can be made by police forces. I strongly advise him to read the report again. It is important to understand the savings that could be made by police forces. Hon. Members could then work together sensibly and constructively, as urged by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East, to support forces in delivering savings.

Police forces and authorities spend about £2.8 billion every year on equipment, goods and services. Ending the practice of procuring things in 43 different ways could drive down the costs of goods, services and equipment by £200 million annually by the end of the spending review period. Furthermore, there is the issue of IT. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman knows how many different IT systems there are across our 43 forces. There are 2,000 different systems and 5,000 staff involved with them. The information systems improvement strategy programme on savings in IT could save another £180 million annually by transforming how police information systems are developed, procured and implemented. We are convinced that further savings could be made.

It is important for hon. Members to reflect on the fact that half of all spend by police forces is on the middle and back office. The people in those offices are not involved directly in crime fighting activity—although they do important things, such as providing direct support for the front line or keeping the organisation running. Not only is half of all spend made in those areas, but a quarter of all police officers—I am talking about sworn officers—are employed there. HMIC believes that significant savings can be made in the middle and back office by better management while, at the same time, protecting the front line.

[Richard Burden]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the chief constable in the West Midlands force is looking at all those kinds of savings and more. However, he will also know that that will not do the job in West Midlands. Why not? That is because of the disproportionate reliance in West Midlands on the central Government grant, which we have urged the Minister to address time and time again. I am pleased that he is listening to us on that. However, I would like an assurance from the Minister today not only that he will listen, but that when he comes back to the House, he will do something about the problem.

[Nick Herbert]

I cannot pre-announce the grant determination. I met the hon. Gentleman this morning, and I will of course pay attention to the particular circumstances of West Midlands police if they are receiving less funding from local government. However, I would also like to draw his attention to what the chief constable of West Midlands has said:

“I remain absolutely confident that we will continue to protect and serve people in the West Midlands in the way they expect.”

That is a familiar message, because it is also the one being sent out by chief constables up and down the country, who are rising to the challenge of delivering services.

While the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood is here, I wonder whether he will take this opportunity to apologise for what he said on Monday, when he described the figure of 11% of force strength being visible and available to the public as a “smear” and a “corrupt and erroneous statistic”. That was a reference to the report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary. I find it difficult to believe how the right hon. Gentleman could describe something in such a report as a “corrupt and erroneous statistic” or say that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary was seeking to “smear” police forces.

There is an issue about the visibility and availability of police officers, and we have to address it. The report said that

“general availability, in which we include neighbourhood policing and response, is relatively low. Several factors have combined to produce this ‘thin blue line’ of which shift patterns, risk management, bureaucracy and specialisation are the most significant”—

bureaucracy being one of the factors that needs to be addressed. The real question for this House is why, at a time when we had achieved record resourcing for policing, a record number of police officers and a record size of the police work force, we had visibility and availability at only about 11% of force strength. I agree with the inspectorate of constabulary that that figure is too low. We need to have a sensible debate about how we can address shift patterns, bureaucracy and the drift of officers into specialist units, so that we can protect that visibility and availability, which all my hon. Friends—indeed, all Members of the House—want to improve.

[Ed Balls]

I will happily take this opportunity to say that I wrote to Sir Denis O’Connor yesterday on the matter, and I copied the letter to the Policing Minister. In that letter I say that I have not criticised—and will not criticise—the 11% statistic, which was drawn up by HMIC. What I have consistently criticised is the way in which that statistic has been used, in a misleading and smearing way, by Ministers—the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Policing Minister—to do down the important work of the police. The Minister says that 11% of the time is spent on visible policing, with the other 89% wasted on bureaucracy. That excludes people working on organised crime, in CID, on domestic violence, or on child abuse. That is the smear.

Also, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I just read out the HMIC report, which says:

“A re-design of the system…has the potential”—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am sorry to have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that he was making an intervention. I think that he has made his point, and the intervention was getting a little long. It would be very helpful if when putting forcefully the arguments on either side of the House, all Members could avoid casting any aspersions on the correctness of another person’s view.

[Nick Herbert]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I strongly agree with that. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has been caught out—

[Ed Balls]

indicated dissent.

[Nick Herbert]

He has been caught out. I note that, in his letter to the chief inspector of constabulary, the right hon. Gentleman did not apologise for describing the chief inspector’s report as a “smear” or “corrupt and erroneous”, but that is what he said on Monday. I hesitate, after Monday, to advise hon. Members about using their words carefully, but the right hon. Gentleman should learn that he needs to choose his words more carefully when talking about the inspector’s report. I am sure that he will do so in future.

It is essential that we address the bureaucracy—

[Vernon Coaker]

I should like to quote from the HMIC report, because the Minister disputed the 12% figure that I used in relation to central Government funding. The report stated:

“A re-design of the system…has the potential, at best, to save 12% of central government funding, while maintaining police availability. A cut beyond 12% would almost certainly reduce police availability”.

The 12% referred to central Government funding, so the Minister was wrong.

[Nick Herbert]

No, the Audit Commission and HMIC said that the savings that could be made available to police officers were more than £1 billion a year—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood is in no position to criticise anyone for misquoting people—[Interruption.] No, I did not.

The Opposition simply do not focus on the importance of reducing bureaucracy or of changing shift patterns. I want to give two quick examples. The action that we are taking to scrap stop forms and to limit stop-and-search reporting, with all the unnecessary bureaucracy that that has imposed upon officers, will save 800,000 hours of police time. Yesterday, the Assistant Commissioner of the Met, Ian McPherson, told the Greater London authority in an evidence session at which I was present that changing shift patterns in the Met will effectively increase staffing levels by an equivalent of 20% on Friday and Saturday evenings. There are things that we can do to improve the efficiency and deployment of police officers within the availability of constrained resources. That is why it is so important that we continue to reduce interference from the point of view of central Government, and why we have scrapped the remaining targets and the pledge. It is also why we intend to give more discretion to police forces so that they can make these important management decisions.

I want quickly to comment on what hon. Members have said about the use of the A19 procedure to enforce retirement for officers who have served for more than 30 years. There are only 3,000 officers to whom A19 might apply, out of a total in England and Wales of 143,000. It is not the ideal procedure, which is why we have set up a review of pay and conditions by Tom Winsor, which will report in February. It is important that we address issues such as the number of officers on restricted duties—more than 5,500—and the institutionalisation of overtime, when overtime costs are still in the region of £400 million a year. These are all areas in which considerable savings could be delivered to help to protect front-line policing.

Finally, I want to address the issue of police numbers and crime. I want to put on record what I actually said in the interview on “The World this Weekend”, which, by the way, was heavily edited. Nevertheless, as stated in the transcript of the interview that was broadcast, when asked about the link between reducing crime and police numbers, what I actually said was this:

“I don’t think that anyone, and no respectable academic would make a simple link between the increase in the numbers of police officers and what has happened to crime. There is no such link.”

The right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood is not stupid, and he will know that I was quite clearly referring to that simple link. That was my point and I believe it was a correct point—one also made by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw). It was also made by one of the world’s greatest crime fighters, Bill Bratton, who was quoted earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley). If hon. Members believe that there is such a simple link, perhaps they can explain why police numbers have increased in Sweden and Spain, but crime has increased, too. Perhaps they can also explain why police numbers in the United States have fallen, yet crime has fallen, too.

It is obvious to anybody who thinks about it that there is not a simple link, and that what we should be concerned about is how officers are deployed, whether they are available and visible to the public and whether they are there on the streets when the public want them. What therefore matters is not the total size of the police work force, but the efficiency and effectiveness of their deployment and how much they are tied up by bureaucracy. That is an issue that the Opposition simply will not address.

Opposition Members talked about the cost of police and crime commissioners. May I point out that the £100 million costing by the hon. Member for Gedling for police and crime commissioners was for a period beyond that covered by the spending review. The annual additional cost of police and commissioners is reflected only in the election cost and there will be no greater cost for the police authorities themselves. The money will not come out of police force budgets. It represents £12.5 million a year on average—less than 0.1% of police spend. Pointing out that an election will cost too much money and should not be held in the first place is not a good argument for any hon. Member to advance against a democratic reform. That is a very weak and poor argument.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) that we are determined to ensure a safe Olympics and that we will make further announcements about the police funding for the Olympics in due course. I would be happy to meet him to discuss any concerns about that.

While Labour Members continue to play politics, continue to criticise cuts, even though they would have made them themselves, and continue to criticise democratic accountability, even though they would have introduced it themselves, Government Members know that we must tackle the deficit. It is in our national interest to do so, not least for the sake of the future funding of police officers generally and of individual officers. We are determined to make the savings by reducing bureaucracy, giving forces more freedom and driving out cost. In so doing, we are sure that we can protect the front line and the visible and available policing that the public value. The public want to know that the police will be there for them, and we are absolutely determined that they will be.

Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54(4)).

Department for International Development

Zimbabwe

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Relevant Document: The Eighth Report from the International Development Committee, Session 2009-10, on DFID’s Assistance to Zimbabwe, HC 252, and the Government response, Cm 7899.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2012, for expenditure by the Department for International Development—

(1) resources, not exceeding £2,498,978,000, be authorised, on account, for use for current purposes as set out in HC 593,

(2) resources, not exceeding £700,200,000, be authorised, on account, for use for capital purposes as so set out, and

(3) a sum, not exceeding £2,962,928,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Angela Watkinson.)

16:13

Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD): I am extremely pleased to have the opportunity to debate the subject of Zimbabwe, particularly the UK Government’s aid programme to that troubled country. I am sure that the debate would have taken place earlier, had not the election intervened, and it is important to recognise that there is genuine interest in what is happening in Zimbabwe, in what the UK Government’s engagement is doing for the people of Zimbabwe and in how that might most constructively be taken forward. It will obviously not be possible to strike a wholly optimistic note in a debate on this topic.

Eight members of the International Development Committee and two staff visited Zimbabwe between 1 and 4 February this year. I would like to pay tribute to our ambassador, Mark Canning, both for his constructive help and assistance in preparing for the Committee’s visit and, perhaps more fundamentally, for the remarkable role he is playing—not just on behalf of the UK, but in reaching out, as leaders of other missions testified, to a number of parties engaged in trying to get some positive forward momentum within Zimbabwe. It is worth noting that, prior to being in Zimbabwe, he was our ambassador in Burma. He certainly gets the pick of the appointments. Clearly, he has experience of dealing with countries where the situation is extremely difficult.

The Committee found a fragile and fraught political situation. I am grateful that the ambassador has today given a timely briefing—I will not read it all out, because I suspect that the Minister may have a copy—which tells me, and the House, that the situation that we perceived in February still pertains. Although some things may have deteriorated, the tensions are similar, the ups and downs are still there, and there are still some positives, with lots of negatives attached.

The UK Government are channelling $100 million- worth of aid into Zimbabwe, and the Committee had an opportunity to see how that was being used in action and in practice. We visited a number of projects—schools, hospitals and other activities—in and around Harare, and did similar visits in and around Bulawayo. We met Morgan Tsvangirai, and Ministers and officials from ZANU-PF and the Movement for Democratic Change, and we were invited to meet the President, but the invitation came about 15 minutes before we were due to leave for the airport to fly home, so we were not able to accept it.

Although the purpose of the debate is not to focus on the politics of Zimbabwe, it is impossible to ignore the political aspect. Observance of the global political agreement—the basis of the Government of national unity—is highly dysfunctional, but, however imperfectly, it did help to create some space in which positive things can happen. My belief, and I think, the Committee’s belief, is that if the agreement were not there, or if it failed or was abandoned, much, if not all, that space would rapidly disappear. The situation is not perfect, and no one would suggest that it was. It requires compromises, which, to some extent, are unacceptable. However, we saw genuine benefit to people who had been in abject hopelessness prior to that agreement.

Let us remember that inflation was of astronomical proportions, literally—I think there are billions of stars nearer to planet Earth than the multiplier effect of the Zimbabwe dollar to any other known currency. Almost at a stroke, the US dollarisation of the economy enabled a degree of normal economic functioning to be restored to the country. As we travelled around Harare and Bulawayo, the shops looked much the same as those in a good, modern city anywhere. For most of the people, of course, the problem was that the goods were beyond their reach, but at least the goods were there. For people who could get hard currency, a variety of things could be bought.

The fact that the finances were under the control of the MDC had a significant effect on ensuring that significant parts of the budget could be directed precisely where it was supposed to go, rather than to where it might have gone alternatively, which creates frustration in parties in government that are not comfortable or happy with that situation.

I draw the House’s attention to our visit to a hospital outside Bulawayo. The matron who showed us round said that, 18 months before we visited, the hospital was abandoned—no patients, no staff, no drugs, no activity. On the day of our visit, however, she said that it was fully operational, fully staffed, had all the drugs it needed, and was operating as well as any hospital anywhere could be expected to operate. That is a fantastic transformation. Indeed, many parts of Africa with functioning Governments have less well-functioning hospitals than the one that we saw. That is, perhaps, the biggest frustration of all. The capacity of Zimbabwe to deliver what its people need, if it were only given the chance, is probably without equal in Africa.

Although the Department for International Development is employing a rather complex mechanism—we expressed some concern about its complexity as well as its cost—it is nevertheless able to engage with locally based non-governmental and other organisations that can deliver the services that people need. We saw the delivery of health, education and livelihoods. We saw that really happening now, and we saw that there was substantial potential for it to happen on a far greater scale. Of course the Committee was not able to visit large parts of the country, and we were led to believe that had we done so, we would not have seen such a positive picture. The no-go areas are, by definition, unknown, but the implication is that they are receiving no services, or at least no adequate services.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the excellent work that he does as Chairman of the Select Committee. I also congratulate the other members of the Committee, and I welcome the debate.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned human resource. It is, of course, the most important resource in Zimbabwe, but many people have fled Zimbabwe for a variety of reasons. Some have come to the United Kingdom, while others have gone to South Africa, Zambia or other countries in the region. Does he agree that a sign of real political progress and stability in Zimbabwe will be people returning from those countries and others to such places as Harare, so that they can make a real contribution to the country’s future?

[Malcolm Bruce]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The vast majority of Zimbabweans who are not in Zimbabwe would rather be anywhere except where they are. They would like to be back in Zimbabwe, but, for a variety of reasons, it is difficult for them to go back. It is not just a question of whether they are under threat, whether they can return to any assets that they have, or whether those assets are still there; it is a question of whether they can do anything functionally or economically useful.

We found that some doctors and teachers who had left the country had come back, but they were working for a fraction of the money that they could obtain in neighbouring Botswana or South Africa, let alone the United Kingdom. They were returning because they wanted to help, but they were making sacrifices. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that. One of DFID’s activities was trying to supplement those people’s salaries, just to add an extra pull, but that still left them earning well below the market rate for the southern African region.

I have no doubt that if only peace and normality could be returned to Zimbabwe, within a very short time the people would come back, economic activity would return and, indeed—this is what is surely so frustrating for everyone—Zimbabwe could provide a shining example for the rest of Africa. People have the capacity to bring that about, given the chance, but clearly they are not being given that chance.

Obviously I want to focus predominantly on DFID’s activity, but the ambassador has highlighted the difficulties that were apparent in February and are plainly still in existence. There has been very little progress towards any kind of constitutional settlement, and there are mutterings about when an election may take place. The ambassador made it clear unequivocally that

“The constitutional process needs to be completed in an orderly and well-paced way”.

He said that the Zimbabwe electoral commission and the other commissions needed “to be capacitated”, and that

“technical changes need to be made to the voters’ roll”

—and to, for instance, the electoral Acts—

“as well as the putting in place of thorough and comprehensive monitoring arrangements. All this is going to take time if it is going to be held as it should.”

This is the crunch:

“If a poll was held prematurely, it would be most unlikely to be either free or fair”.

It is important for the House to take note of that fresh advice from our ambassador.

We are in a position of compromise—a sort of limbo. The Library note refers to “limping along”. However, the position is better than it was. Few analogies stick for very long, but a slight comparison can be made with some of the hiccups along the way in Northern Ireland. The longer even a small improvement continues, the harder it becomes to go back to the situation as it was previously. There is no guarantee, however, and the big fear is that too many people in powerful positions in Zimbabwe would like to take the country back and they have the capacity to do so. We need to rely on the genuine friends of the people of Zimbabwe, and although the United Kingdom stands among them, I acknowledge that we have a difficult role to play and that we have to play it from a distance. We need to work discreetly and to recognise the legitimate role of the neighbours in Africa, especially South Africa, but also the Southern African Development Community states. In this context, it would be nice if SADC became a more effective and coherent organisation. The fact that the tribunal judgments of SADC have been denounced and ridiculed by Zimbabwe, which says it does not recognise SADC, is clearly a weakness to the south African states in the region.

The continuing situation in Zimbabwe is not only a disaster and a frustration for the people of Zimbabwe; it is a drag anchor for the whole of southern Africa. If the situation is not resolved, the capacity of many other countries in southern Africa to fulfil their potential will be comprehensively weakened. That is perhaps understood more than it was, and the mood is changing, although perhaps too slowly.

We made some specific points in our report, and I would be grateful for an update on them from the Minister. I am sure he will tell us about current DFID activities in the country. The figure was $100 million, much of it spent on health. Has there been any change in that, or any consideration of whether we could, or should, be doing more on education, or do we feel that others are doing that satisfactorily? Also, do we feel we have the capacity to increase funding?

I think the Committee was in agreement that where we saw funds being effectively spent, they were delivering real results. If we could find comparable projects on a wider scale, we would certainly support additional funding. Again, I would appreciate the Minister stating the Department’s view on that. So far as we were able to gauge, the money was going precisely to where it was intended. Great precautions were taken to ensure it did not get into the wrong hands and was not misappropriated, and that it delivered results.

The point about precautions raises the issue of the mechanism or agency used. A number of the partners, both international, local and national, said it led to bureaucratic delays, and to inflexibilities and extra expense, which for some small organisations were disproportionate to what they were trying to achieve. There was an understanding of why the precautions were in place, but if anything can be done to simplify the process and make it more flexible without losing the certainty that money is not being misappropriated, that will be widely appreciated by the partners with whom we are engaging.

There was considerable concern about the extraction of diamonds and the ownership of those diamonds by people very close to the President, and the apparent inability of the Kimberley process to function. One or two of the interlocutors we engaged with said this might be the single issue that would give ZANU-PF the mechanism to destroy the Government of national unity and to re-establish itself as a dominant one party in control, so it is important that they—whoever they may be—are unable to trade illegally in illicit diamonds and thereby secure funding for programmes of expropriation and violence that threaten the state itself. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could say what action is being taken if not to enforce the Kimberley process, then to isolate the illicit diamonds from Zimbabwe and deny them access to the markets, where they could be used to fund the undermining of the current arrangements.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

The House has been done a great service by the Select Committee’s report. What my right hon. Friend has just mentioned raises a dilemma for everyone involved with Zimbabwe. We want to persuade the international community to start to invest in Zimbabwe and to get financial institutions to start to engage with it, but responsible companies, investors and financial institutions are clearly going to be very concerned about engaging with the extractive industries and some of the other key industries in Zimbabwe, for exactly the reasons that he just outlined. How does the Committee see us squaring that circle of encouraging responsible investors to get back into Zimbabwe but doing so in such a way as not to prop up or enrich those who would continue to subjugate Zimbabwe for their own political glory?

[Malcolm Bruce]

That is a very relevant and pertinent question. The practical thing that people can do is talk to our ambassador, because he has both views on this and indications about what to do.

The next item that I was going to discuss was investment and selective sanctions. The first thing to make clear is that it suits the ZANU-PF dimension of the Zimbabwean Government to make out that the economic failures of Zimbabwe are entirely a result of the application of selective sanctions and that they are targeting the poor people of Zimbabwe and preventing economic activity. The point that the ambassador made is that only one in 70,000 Zimbabweans is at all affected by the sanctions. Of course, he also points out in his statement today that the economy of Zimbabwe has been growing since dollarisation was reinstated. So that particular argument has been nailed. I shall return to my hon. Friend’s question, but I just wish to say to the Minister that I understand that some dialogue with the EU is taking place about selective sanctions and it would be helpful if he could update the House on the current position and what the UK’s engagement is. My impression is that there is no general view, apart from among the obvious sources, that those sanctions should or deserve to be lifted. However, to be fair, Morgan Tsvangirai said that they were a constant source of friction when he was trying to engage with his ZANU-PF co-Ministers.

There is no restriction on investment in Zimbabwe. There is nothing to prevent companies from outside Zimbabwe investing, apart from one thing that was introduced earlier in the year: the “indigenisation” of business. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could update us on the position that has been reached. That measure fundamentally said that people could not do business in Zimbabwe other than through a company that was 51% owned by Zimbabweans—those Zimbabweans would, of course, be those approved by the stronger part of the Government. That may not be a total cast-iron restriction, as there is a Government of national unity and there are Ministers who are trying to offer, with some success, a growth strategy, a development strategy and a rebuilding strategy for Zimbabwe. Businesses may therefore have opportunities to find partners who are not going to subvert the money, but clearly nobody could invest in Zimbabwe without having an assurance. The Minister may be able to provide that or our excellent ambassador may be able to give advice. My instincts are that doing business is difficult, but may not be completely impossible.

That raises an interesting dilemma in the whole issue of development. We engage in states where there is conflict, in post-conflict states and in states with dysfunctional regimes, and the easiest thing is to say, “Let’s have nothing to do with them.” Yet the one thing that might just break the cycle of poverty, repression and tyranny is some kind of economic opportunity. I do not have an answer to that point, but I am sure that we should not say that there should be an absolute block on doing businesses with countries with dubious regimes. We should find out whether there are ways of doing business that are reputable and safe.

Let me make a somewhat exaggerated comparison. People do business in Russia, which has huge question marks over it and vies with the Democratic Republic of the Congo in terms of corruption. There are probably business opportunities in Zimbabwe that have less risk and they might be worth exploring.

I believe that we should ask people to understand that there will not be a quick and easy solution in Zimbabwe. The Committee’s observation was that, imperfect though it is, engagement with the Government of national unity was able to deliver health, education and infrastructure improvements to significant sectors of the people of Zimbabwe who were denied them before. Frankly, that Government are the only thing that stands between Zimbabwe and chaos and we must use whatever influence we have to try to persuade people, wherever they are, that there is a better place for Zimbabwe to head for than back to where it was.

We might need to acknowledge that not everybody in ZANU-PF is entirely self-seeking—we met one or two of them—and that some of them realise that their country has a place to go and that they need to be part of it. That was the other issue that was made quite clear to us. Experience in government, knowledge, contacts, communication and political capacity are mostly controlled by ZANU-PF and not by the MDC. The MDC’s members might have learned something in the past year and a half—I hope and am sure they have—but if Zimbabwe is to have a longer-term future, some of the people who have been part of the problem must be part of the solution.

That point was made to us on a few occasions and at the same time it was pointed out that, for example, every Minister was allocated a 24/7 personal “bodyguard” appointed by the President. I am quite certain that that was not an entirely comfortable experience. Interestingly, one politician said that the funny thing about that was that it created a dialogue between two groups of people who had had no connection or communication with each other before and some started to understand that the other side had a more multidimensional aspect. The avenues of communication are only beginning to open. The report from the ambassador today does not suggest that things have changed very much, and they could get worse.

What is clear is that we should not collude in any early rush to an election. An early election would almost certainly bring the present inadequate partnership to an end in favour of something worse. It could not be free and it could not be fair. The measured words of the ambassador disguise the fact that there is no electoral register, which means that those who control the polling stations can write their own register. That is no basis for any kind of election. It would be a total fiction.

In conclusion, the Committee came away impressed that good things were being done that were bringing real benefits, that it was possible to reach people, that the longer we could create such space the more chance there was of people seeing a better future, and that we had to put up with setbacks, pitfalls and compromises and not walk away. Nothing can be guaranteed, but we must do nothing that allows this troubled partnership to be brought to an end and the re-establishment of a one-party state. That would set back not just Zimbabwe but the whole of southern Africa for another generation.

16:39

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

I, too, thank the House for this brief opportunity to debate some of the International Development Committee’s reflections following our visit to Zimbabwe in February. I endorse what the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) said about it being important that we went. Before we went, there was nervousness in some quarters about whether we would be sending mixed messages simply by going there. We were conscious that if things went wrong our visit could be seen as some kind of endorsement of the Mugabe regime or a weakening of the international community’s resolve; we were firm that we could not let that be the case, and I do not think it was.

It is important that we have a clear position on the gross abuses of human rights that went on there and are still going on, and that we make our position absolutely clear. However, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, and as the report underlines, Zimbabwe has huge potential as a country, but also has huge needs in human terms. In October, the United Nations Development Programme released its annual human development index, which puts the country last on the indices of education, health and the income of nations. According to UNICEF’s mid-year report, which was published in July, Zimbabwe had the most severe health-related emergency of 2010—a major measles outbreak in which there were 7,754 suspected cases and 517 people died. That was reported in 61 of the country’s 62 districts. The report states:

“Basic social services, such as access to safe water and coverage of immunization programmes, remain a cause for concern.”

We spent some time looking at those areas when we were in Zimbabwe in February. The report also notes that although schools remain open, the quality of learning “continues to be compromised”, often by

“teachers’ low morale, lack of teaching and learning material, and the poor infrastructure of most schools.”

In a whole range of areas, it is absolutely clear that the country has considerable needs.

UNICEF projects a final funding gap of $44,260,863, which is 40% of its needs. It states:

“If funding requirements are not met the following critical activities may not take place: improving the management of pneumonia and diarrhoea in children under five years, community-based management of acute malnutrition (CMAM), nutrition surveillance, emergency safe water and sanitation, life skills for HIV/AIDS prevention and health promotion in schools, and the protection and promotion of the rights of children within IDP and migrant-sending communities.”

Zimbabwe is an area of massive need and the evidence of our eyes suggests that we are right to be in there. We have made some suggestions about how the Department for International Development’s programmes could be improved or tweaked, but by and large the impact there is positive and we are focusing on the right things.

Let me endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said about the protracted relief programme. We saw various projects for which funding had started through that programme and it is clear that an impact is being made, but a number of interlocutors we came across were clearly concerned about the administration and costs of the programme. They had other concerns too, and this is where our report almost argues against itself. It says that we want to be clear that the audit procedures for the programme are robust enough, but one concern that was raised with us was whether, given the use of intermediary organisations, funding was being mediated in the right way and whether the voices of grass-roots community organisations that really know what needs to be done, and how it should be done, are getting through the bureaucracy so that programmes can be approved and money got to where it is needed. I do not think we have any great pearls of wisdom that enable us to say this or that must be done to the protracted relief programme—overall, I am comfortable with the shape of it—but I hope that DFID looks at whether the mechanisms for operating the programme are as good as they should be and whether they are getting resources to the places they need to go, and in the best way.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I have only just arrived in the Chamber and realise that this issue may already have been addressed. While in Zimbabwe, what information did members of the Committee garner from the ambassador about the potential for the neighbouring states to increase their role in effectively achieving a better solution for Zimbabwe? Those states are nearby and have a deep interest in doing exactly that.

[Richard Burden]

I hope to conclude my remarks by saying something about neighbouring states, because their role is crucial. The hon. Gentleman asks about the ambassador’s views on the matter. He has provided a briefing, but I have to confess that I have not seen it. Perhaps the Minister will give us a few ideas about the ambassador’s views during his winding-up speech. I shall return to some of the issues on the role of neighbouring states.

We need to engage and we are engaging. By and large, the focus of that is positive. However, it absolutely must be accompanied by our ensuring that measures are taken that express the international community’s—I was going to say displeasure, but it sounds a bit weak—views on what the ZANU-PF regime has been doing and continues to do. We must be clear about that.

Again, the right hon. Member for Gordon made it clear that this is an area where Mugabe uses the media inside Zimbabwe completely to distort what the measures that the international community is adopting are all about. While we were there, it was put about time and again that, somehow, the international community is taking action against the people of Zimbabwe. In many ways, the term “sanctions” is a misnomer for what we are doing there. There are targeted measures against individuals and organisations with a direct and responsible role in what goes on. Large amounts of cash and aid go in—probably not enough, as we have heard from UNICEF—that are directed, in the best way we can achieve, to assisting the people of Zimbabwe.

It is important that the measures taken against individuals who are responsible for some quite ghastly acts in that country remain in place and should be removed—indeed, there is an argument that they should be increased—only when we see clear and demonstrable steps towards democracy and respect for human rights. All the indications are that we are a long way from that.

Many of us who had not been to Zimbabwe before were quite surprised that in many ways we did not see the chaos that we perhaps thought we would see. Not only does that country have massive natural resources and massive potential, but we could see in Bulawayo and elsewhere that if the country were able to get itself together, had an economy that worked and had the right kind of governance, it could turn around really quickly.

The infrastructure that had been built up over many years was still there in many instances. There have been major steps forward. Since the dollarisation of the economy, the work of Tendai Biti has been really useful in putting Zimbabwe’s economy on a more rational basis. However, again, there is a dual view of what is going on there: the chaos that perhaps some of us expected to see was not there, yet we could see that the impact of the land seizures had undermined the economy and caused genuine suffering on a scale that is unacceptable. Just before we went to Zimbabwe, some Committee members saw the film “Mugabe and the White African”, which I recommend to hon. Members because it very graphically illustrates the human cost to and, indeed, bravery of some Zimbabweans in standing up to the Mugabe regime.

The land seizures continue, and a recent report by ZimOnline exposes the reality of them. The President and his wife Grace are said to own 14 farms, spanning at least 16,000 hectares. All ZANU-PF’s 56 politburo members, 98 MPs and 35 elected and unelected senators were allegedly allocated farms, and 10 provincial governors have seized farms, with four being multiple owners. Sixteen supreme court and high court judges own farms, too.

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

Not only is there violence against farmers but all farm workers have been driven away, so there is now almost no production on those farms which, like Zimbabwe, were massively productive. I urge the Government, wherever we can, to help to obtain an audit so that we can get those farms moving. The issue is not only who owns those farms but getting production going, because Zimbabwe should not be starving when it is such a fertile country.

[Richard Burden]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The way the land seizures have worked is wrong in so many respects. It makes make little economic sense, for the reason that he mentions, and it goes under the title of “land reform”, which is another huge misnomer. It invokes an image of land being taken from people who should not have it, do not use it properly or got it illegitimately and then redistributed to the people of Zimbabwe, but all the evidence is that that has just not happened. It has been redistributed to an elite, who have not used the land’s capacity as they should.

All that does not take away from the fact that land reform is a real issue, and that it needs to be confronted. I suspect that if my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, he will say something about that, because the all-party Africa group has looked in some depth at the complicated questions of what land reform needs to be, and at the challenges that we have to face.

The land seizures are unacceptable, wrong and, as we saw in the film to which I referred, in many ways inhuman both to the owners of the land and, yes, to the workers who owed their livelihood to it. That is a challenge for us in the international community and, to return to the point that the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) made, to Zimbabwe’s neighbours, in particular. When Mugabe just ignores and cocks a snook at the decisions of the SADC tribunal, that is a problem not just for the people whose farms and livelihoods have been taken away, but for southern Africa as a whole and for the credibility of SADC itself. SADC countries need to face up to that, but most of all South Africa needs to face up to the fact that, in terms of securing leverage and change in Zimbabwe, its role is absolutely crucial. So far, it has not exercised that role as assertively as many of us would like.

Zimbabwe is a country with massive potential, and I endorse what the right hon. Member for Gordon says about elections. I want to see elections in Zimbabwe, but they must be free and fair. We are a long way from that, and it is not always easy for everybody to talk about the impediments to it. In September, an article in The Guardian mentioned how in a recent interview Morgan Tsvangirai seemed to have rather more confidence in the coalition of which he was a part than the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Liberal Democrats has in his. It was quite an amusing article, but it had a serious point, which was that Morgan Tsvangirai and the MDC have to walk a tightrope. In the ministries for which they are responsible, they must deliver for the people of Zimbabwe as best they can. Walking that tightrope keeps them there and active, and for some of their supporters and members, it keeps them alive. They must work with people who have been responsible for their persecution for many years and, at the same time, they must retain their independence, build their base and try to build a functioning democracy in Zimbabwe. That is a pretty fearsome tightrope to have to walk. They and the people of Zimbabwe need our help to do so.

I am convinced that we must maintain the dual approach that we have adopted of targeted measures that are appropriate and effective against members of the ZANU-PF regime that have brought the country to ruin, combined with an aid and assistance programme that focuses on the real needs of the people. That programme must be responsive to the voices of the people of Zimbabwe and must address their very real humanitarian problems. It must boost the economy of Zimbabwe so that it can achieve its potential. If Zimbabwe achieves that potential, its role in southern Africa will be very positive and it really should have that role. It behoves us all to do what we can to ensure that that happens.

16:56

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I am delighted to follow two people who have visited Zimbabwe pretty recently and who have guarded optimism about its future, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). It is good to hear from people who have a lot of knowledge of what is happening now.

The attention of the global community has recently been drawn to the forthcoming referendum in Sudan, which in all likelihood will create a new country. However, while the international community looks towards Sudan, the problems faced by other African countries continue. That is particularly true of Zimbabwe.

There is a southern African proverb that states, “Don’t look where you fell, but where you stumbled.” When reviewing the recent tragedy seen in Zimbabwe, it is right that we should look to where the country stumbled, before we look at where it now lies. Disgruntled war veterans invaded a small number of farms in the run-up to 2000, because they were annoyed with Mugabe’s progress towards his promise to redistribute the land back to the people of Zimbabwe. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), not only were white South Africans chucked off the land by Mugabe, but many Zimbabweans lost their jobs. A few months later, Mugabe passed a law to make it legal to take land without compensation.

I believe that it was the violent events at that time that led to Mugabe’s legislation between 2002 and 2006 that entrenched his position. The media were stifled by the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The Opposition were stifled by the Public Order and Security Act, the Criminal Law Act and the Miscellaneous Offences Act, which worked together to curtail the activities of organisations that posed a threat to the President. Most worryingly, that legislation allowed police and persons assisting the police to use all necessary force to stop all unlawful gatherings. Finally, the Private Voluntary Organisations Act impinged on the freedom of domestic and international non-governmental organisations to carry out vital aid work, which led to many NGOs leaving the country.

Since 2000 we have seen the breadbasket of Africa turn into the basket case of Africa. The commercial farming sector and the economy have collapsed, even though Zimbabwe used to export produce all over the world, and to neighbouring countries, as well as feed all its people. It is a tragedy that that situation is not returning at the moment. The lack of food resulted in the spread of chronic poverty, with about 2 million Zimbabweans depending on food aid. At poverty’s highest point, more than 80% of the Zimbabwean population were living on less than $1 a day. With cholera, malaria and HIV/AIDS at the worst level of any country in Africa and on the rise, and with Zimbabwe’s infrastructure on a sharp decline, the country fell into dictatorial despair.

The Movement for Democratic Change has done well in fighting elections against the ZANU-PF Government, despite the unfair playing field and its internal split in 2005. The international community has condemned the Zimbabwean elections as undemocratic, and cited the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission’s bias in set-up and actions, and we must do more to entrench democracy in Zimbabwe, as we have heard today.

Zimbabwe stumbled in 2000, and for almost a decade it carried on falling. We must hold our hands up and admit that we and the rest of the international community did not do enough to stop it. Even the Zimbabweans’ closest ally, the President of South Africa, achieved very little via his quiet diplomacy.

Thankfully, Zimbabwe has had something of a bounce in recent years, and switching currency has meant goods returning to the shops and the economy making a slight but important step towards recovery. I even note that property prices in Harare are increasing, and many displaced Zimbabweans are returning home.

The global political agreement and the resulting Government of national unity represent a step in the right direction. Some critics have said that the GPA was badly drafted legislation, but the GNU was the only option that offered Zimbabwe a lifeline out of crippling economic and social poverty. The GNU have remained working and—if I may be so bold as to say so—stable for more than a year, and green shoots of recovery really are visible. Schools and hospitals are reopening, and the cholera epidemic that claimed more than 4,000 lives has been brought under some control. Government-led human rights abuses have dramatically reduced, and a new short-term economic recovery programme has been well supported by the international community and the Bretton Woods institutions. I would be interested to hear from the Minister how Britain intends to support that programme, if indeed it intends to do so.

Despite continuing political trouble, including internal power struggles in both ZANU-PF and the MDC, and unemployment that is still at 80%, the creation of the GNU and the change in economic fortunes, although small steps to recovery, are indeed steps. Zimbabwe and the international community must now see what led Zimbabwe to stumble in the past, so that it does not fall again in the future. I am sure that the Department for International Development will play a central part in rebuilding Zimbabwe, and I should like to outline what I see as the key roles that it can play.

It is well documented that President Mugabe loathes Britain. He is documented as having said:

“we must dig a grave not just six feet but 12 feet and bury Mr Blair and the Union Jack”.

Despite his reluctance to accept help from the UK, I agree with DFID’s assessment that the formation of the GNU has changed the balance of risk and opportunity and justified a structured and incremental re-engagement with Zimbabwe. I am very happy that the UK continues to be one of the top three donors to Zimbabwe, having donated $89 million in overseas development assistance in 2008, but it is slightly concerning that that is a reduction of almost $5 million on the 2007 commitment, and that there has been a decrease of almost 10% in our commitments to overall donor aid since 2006. I hope that future donations from the UK to Zimbabwe will increase year on year until Zimbabwe’s crisis issues are dealt with. Increasing our commitments to Zimbabwe would demonstrate to its people that although we will not work with Mugabe, we have not forgotten them.

It is not how much money we spend, but how it is spent, that will make a difference. The Secretary of State has said that a lot since taking office. Between 2004-05 and 2008-09 the balance of DFID bilateral aid to Zimbabwe shifted. At the beginning of the period, most aid was delivered by NGOs, but at the end, most was delivered via multilaterals. The optimist in me hopes that that shift was made not out of choice but out of necessity, and that aid spending via NGOs has decreased as a percentage of bilateral aid because more and more NGOs have moved out of Zimbabwe. Will the Minister tell us whether that trend is likely to continue, or whether, as NGOs such as Voluntary Service Overseas, whose first staff will relocate at the end of this year, return to Zimbabwe, DFID will look to spend more via them? NGOs are often better able to access communities on the ground and spend money where it is really needed.

Although I recognise the importance of the co-ordination that multilaterals such as the UN offer, I agree with critics who cite inefficiencies at ground level. I hope that as NGOs move back into Zimbabwe, we will see the role of multilaterals change from humanitarian to crisis management to overall strategic country growth. It is not often that I agree with the TUC, but I concede that as Zimbabwe’s economy grows and the need for humanitarian relief declines, DFID should look to move away from humanitarian relief and towards core development-oriented interventions.

With that in mind, and with the NGO community returning to help to solve Zimbabwe’s humanitarian problems, will DFID consider future engagement with the private sector to help to develop the economy? The Secretary of State has on more than one occasion said that economic growth is the foundation of development. It is a major concern, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon mentioned, that an Act was passed by the President in March that requires white-owned companies with an asset value of more than $500,000 that want to invest in Zimbabwe to surrender 51% of their shareholdings to black Zimbabweans. That is not a great inducement for people to invest. Britain must take an active role in trying to repeal that Act, which was passed without consulting the GNU, because it creates a vacuum of foreign investment. Without that, Zimbabwe’s economy will inevitably falter. The British Government have a big challenge on their hands to promote investment in Zimbabwe to support the work of Britain, civil society and the international community.

At the moment the UK spends 43% of its aid on the provision of basic health programmes, which Zimbabwe desperately needs. I commend that spending and recognise that it has been crucial in the past decade, because the state’s finances could not cope with need. However, I hope that as the overall health of Zimbabwe increases, DFID will move away from health and towards other long-term aspects of development. I also hope that health spending will move from direct health aid to building the capacity of the Zimbabwean health system.

One of the two most important ways in which DFID can help with the redevelopment of Zimbabwe is helping to fund the land audit. The GNU Finance Minister has allocated $30 million for a future audit, but previous Zimbabwe Government land audit findings have not been released, and I am sceptical that without the international community’s involvement, the findings will be unfair. It is not for me to suggest what conditions the international community should impose on funding for the land audit, but as the DFID Minister at the time of the International Development Committee report stated, a land audit would be the first step towards reform, but it cannot be carried with the current President and his cronies blocking international efforts.

Finally, DFID has a role in developing the political system. I understand the view that the inclusive Zimbabwe Government is not yet the partner that we require to sustain a full development relationship. The global political agreement and the resulting GNU are steps in the right direction, but unfortunately, as Tsvangirai pointed out, things have not radically altered, and Mugabe continues to act without consulting other GNU members. As a result, I believe that DFID’s strategy on providing technical assistance and policy support will strengthen the political process in Zimbabwe. I hope that the desired outcome of political change will take place, but if the recent Act concerning white-owned businesses is anything to go by, we have some way to go, as we heard from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon.

I also applaud the Department’s drive for the GNU to adopt policies in line with The Hague principles. Strengthening democracy in Zimbabwe is the key to getting Zimbabwe back on its feet, but I fear that President Mugabe will fight the changes all the way. In 2008 he was quoted in a paper as stating:

“We are not going to give up our country for a mere X on a ballot. How can a ballpoint pen fight with a gun?”

While the President remains in a position of power, I fear that Zimbabwe’s future will remain on the precipice. However, if the political institutions of Zimbabwe are strengthened, I hope that unrestricted democracy can flourish. If this is so, the UK and the international community can take greater strides towards building stronger, more long-term development policies in league with the truly democratically elected Government of Zimbabwe.

The problems of Zimbabwe are so varied and complex, and I shall finish where I started. Since 2008 Zimbabwe has started to pick itself up from where it fell. It is right that we should now take this opportunity to see why Zimbabwe fell in the first place, and ensure that the work carried out on behalf of the UK is channelled into programmes that will help to bring true democracy, a stable and diverse economy and, most importantly, a healthy and poverty-free society to Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe has a long way to go, but I hope our actions can help get it there.

17:11

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I concur with the comments made about the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) and the excellent work of his Committee, including on its visit to Zimbabwe in February. I have long taken an interest—since my arrival in the House in 2001—in events in the African continent. There is universal good will from political parties across the United Kingdom towards Zimbabwe and a hope that matters will improve there. However, the problems that Mugabe has created in Zimbabwe continue, as he enters his 88th year in a couple of months and shows no sign of being about to release his stranglehold on the Zimbabwean people.

Some of the facts and figures have been outlined by other hon. Members, and the helpful documentation supplied today shows us that while life expectancy is improving generally in sub-Saharan Africa—albeit, of course, from a very low base—it has actually worsened in Zimbabwe in recent years. It is difficult to obtain reliable and well informed statistics, but between 80% and 90% of the citizens of that nation state could be described as being unemployed.

Some comment has been made about what might be regarded as a precipitate move towards elections, which are due to be held at some point in the next six months. A referendum date on the new constitution is scheduled for 30 June next year. However, the portents are not good. We hear that the Commercial Farmers Union in Zimbabwe has said that intimidation is increasing.

I shall just mention a couple of examples from within the past month. A prisoner who spent two months with his intestines hanging out has finally been taken to hospital for treatment. The Harare remand prison superintendent said that the suspected bicycle thief was given medical assistance after his condition was noticed during an appearance in court, and the chief superintendant said that the suspect was shot in the stomach when police tried to arrest him in September. He has been using colostomy bags to cover his intestines, and taking painkillers. His trial has now been postponed. That report is dated November 2010.

Another report—similarly, from within the past eight or nine weeks—suggests that 1,000 adults are newly infected with HIV every week in Zimbabwe. A similar number of people are dying of AIDS. DFID is doing excellent work, particularly in funding the work of the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, to reduce transmission from pregnant mothers to their babies, so that children can be born HIV free and can go on to lead healthy lives. The scale of the problem is quite staggering. I have given two examples to demonstrate the massive problems in Zimbabwe and the scale of the task that lies ahead.

We understand that the EU’s restrictive measures come up for renewal in February next year. Various hon. Members have outlined the scale of our assistance to Zimbabwe. It is important that we try to ensure, as far as possible, that the aid is well targeted. It is difficult, if not impossible, to ensure that every last dollar—or every last cent or penny piece—of the $90 million or $100 million of aid to Zimbabwe is not misappropriated by the regime. In so far as practical steps can and have been taken, such an approach needs to be continued to ensure that the regime does not take advantage of the assistance being offered.

Figures show that Zimbabwe is way off target in reducing child and maternal mortality rates. Despite all the efforts of DFID and others internationally to ensure that the carefully targeted assistance reaches those in need, statistics prove that the situation has improved only marginally in the past year or 18 months. I am reminded of an example that was used some time ago in relation to Zimbabwe. If the United Kingdom had an average household debt of £100,000 and it was reduced to £95,000 would it be argued that things were improving or would people say that we had a long way to go? Unfortunately, that appears to illustrate the position in Zimbabwe.

There has been a marginal improvement, but whatever steps and measures we take—at least one, if not two, hon. Members have made this point—neighbouring states can bring considerable influence to bear on Zimbabwe. It is absolutely clear that however much we rail and rage against Mugabe, he is impervious to the protest, the opposition and the condemnation heaped upon his head. There are neighbouring states with which we can have considerable influence, and we need to ensure that such influence is deployed constructively to get a better conclusion.

South Africa bears a considerable responsibility in trying to ensure that Zimbabwe moves in the right direction. We have influence with South Africa and other neighbouring states. I trust that the good work that DFID has been doing—and will continue to do—will receive the widespread endorsement of Members across the Chamber; indeed, I have no doubt that it will. However, we need to remain focused on the fact that the problems in Zimbabwe are monumental. They are of Everest-like proportions, however insignificantly they have been reduced in the past year or two. We must keep the pressure on through those third party nation states that are close to Zimbabwe and that can apply pressure. We must do what we can to ensure that the people of Zimbabwe have a better future than they have had a past.

17:20

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

We have heard a lot this afternoon, and about a number of issues. As the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) said, it is important not to ignore the politics of Zimbabwe in our debate today. The global political agreement—the GPA—was a step in the right direction for Zimbabwe, but, as a number of speakers have acknowledged, it was not ideal. A lot more is required from the Government of Zimbabwe on addressing the health care and education problems that were so eloquently outlined by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell).

The right hon. Member for Gordon also pointed out that the people of Zimbabwe have a tremendous capacity for resilience. That is absolutely right, and it has already been shown. He mentioned the example of the hospital in Bulawayo, but there is another issue that we have to acknowledge in this debate. The infrastructure of Zimbabwe—a country that had one of the leading economies in southern Africa, boasting some of the best universities and hospitals—has been destroyed and degraded by Mugabe over a number of years. Although we want to see teachers, doctors and nurses returning to Zimbabwe, whatever we do with our aid, the key challenge is to help to rebuild that infrastructure, and particularly that university and hospital infrastructure. We still see a great rural-urban divide in health care—something that I want to talk about a little more—especially in women’s health, which the hon. Member for East Londonderry also mentioned.

Other Members have talked about the need for a southern Africa-based solution to the problems in Zimbabwe, and that is absolutely right. Other countries, particularly South Africa, have a role in addressing the issues in Zimbabwe and taking responsibility for their region. However, we have to be wary of that, given the example of what happened in the Congo. We must ensure that those African countries are not exploitative in their interactions with Zimbabwe. Although it is absolutely right that those countries should take a more active role, there are examples from history, including in the Congo, that indicate that such interest from neighbouring countries is not always benevolent.

One thing that we need to stress is that all the aid to Zimbabwe from DFID needs to be results orientated and target driven. We need to ensure that the aid gets to the people. The right hon. Member for Gordon mentioned Zimbabwe’s indigenisation restrictions, which prevent many companies and organisations from taking an active role in helping to build up the Zimbabwean economy, because of the need for the state to have a 51% share in those companies. That forms an important backdrop to the debate, because the restrictions prevent the engagement and interest of overseas companies in the Zimbabwean economy. When we focus our aid and our attentions through DFID, it is important to look at where that aid can be effectively targeted. A particularly important aspect of that is health, which I want briefly to talk about now.

As Members will be aware, I have a background in obstetrics, and I have always taken a keen interest in improving women’s health, not only in the United Kingdom but overseas. The leading cause of death among women in many countries in Africa is the problems associated with childbirth, including haemorrhage and eclampsia. The single most important focus of intervention in any health care system in many African countries is to ensure that assistance is available at the time of delivery. The World Health Organisation tells us that one of the great problems in Zimbabwe, particularly in rural areas, is the fact that, since the collapse of the health care system, the infrastructure of midwives and obstetricians has been completely degraded and destroyed. If we are going to focus aid effectively, we need to ensure that we provide assistance around the time of childbirth.

I want to highlight a few of the problems that exist. The WHO tells us that, in 1997, the maternal mortality rate in Zimbabwe was 700 per 1,000 live births. In 2005-06, it had more than trebled to 2,500. That is a significant increase, and it dramatically demonstrates the degradation of the health care service in Zimbabwe. Rates of HIV are also increasing. The hon. Member for East Londonderry made the point very well that some of the targeted interventions are working when dealing with the vertical transmission of HIV from mother to child. The rate of contraception use, particularly in urban areas of Zimbabwe, is also rising. Having said that, the HIV rate in Zimbabwe is 15.3% at the moment. The life expectancy for women in many parts of Zimbabwe is only 47, and the primary reason for that is HIV and AIDS.

I alluded earlier to the rural-urban divide. The problem is particularly pronounced in many rural areas of Zimbabwe, where women—and people generally—have difficulty accessing health care. Part of the reason for that is the breakdown of the hospital structure, but there is also a need to improve people’s knowledge about health care services through education.

We have seen models of health care developed in many other countries in Africa, such as Rwanda, where maternity and other health care services have been built up. Part of that has involved insurance coupons schemes that people can buy into in order to insure themselves against ill health. Another part of the access to health care involves teaching the population to have an awareness of when someone is ill—for example, in maternity, when someone is having an obstructed or difficult labour—and when they need to go to hospital or seek further help. Even when they do that, however, we need to ensure that the vital expertise that they need is available in hospitals. That involves not only supporting the development of the universities but ensuring that doctors and nurses feel safe enough to travel back to Zimbabwe to work there. At the moment, despite all the efforts, that is not happening.

Although we can agree that the Government in Zimbabwe are better than they were, that having a joint Government is a good thing and that steps are being taken in the right direction, a lot still needs to be done. Having a global political agreement is all very well, and it is good that the economy is improving, but the health and education infrastructure is still very much lacking. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that the targeted aid that goes into Zimbabwe will be focused on the health infrastructure, and particularly on issues such as maternal mortality and training midwives in rural areas, as they will really make a difference to the people there.

17:25

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

This has been a good debate, with lots of well-informed speeches, but I particularly admire the speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), who spoke with a great deal of knowledge as an obstetrician. What struck me most about his speech was his understanding that health problems in Zimbabwe are fundamentally constrained within the political environment, and that unless there is a political solution to the crisis that Zimbabwe faces, basic human needs will continue to be poorly met.

I spent a great deal of my time in the 1970s campaigning for change in southern Africa. I was a member of the executive committee of the Anti-Apartheid Movement. I spent quite a bit of time standing outside Rhodesia House, as it was then called, demanding an end to the unilateral declaration of independence and calling for true independence for the country.

I am delighted that Zimbabwe is free and has been free for 30 years—independence in Zimbabwe gave a significant boost to the momentum for independence in Namibia and South Africa—but I am sad that true freedom, human rights, the rule of law, peace and, above all, prosperity for the people of Zimbabwe are yet to come.

The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) mentioned a southern African proverb: “Don’t look where you fell, but where you stumbled.” That is good advice. She talked about one stumble being the cave-in by Mugabe to the unreasonable demands of the so-called war veterans and the subsequent land invasions, but we would misunderstand the situation in Zimbabwe if we felt that that was the first stumble that took place.

The British colonial period did not cover our country in glory. The Jameson raid was a putsch by a white colonial adventurer. The independence process in the late 1950s and 1960s was botched and led to UDI in 1963. Then there were 17 years of an illegal regime—in defiance of this country, the legitimate authority. That delayed independence and created very serious problems for an independent Zimbabwe in 1980—not least a legacy of nearly two decades of war.

The problem of human rights abuse in Zimbabwe was clearly illustrated in the remarks of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). The country is still plagued by appallingly bad governance and by an absence of the rule of law. When Morgan Tsvangirai as Prime Minister seeks to challenge illegal and unconstitutional appointments to top jobs—for example, the appointment of Gideon Gono as director of the central bank of Zimbabwe—he is unable to use the courts to set them aside and make new appointments, despite the fact that the official procedures should allow that.

Unemployment in Zimbabwe is currently about 90%. The country used to be better off than most African countries. The latest figures I have been able to dig out show that gross domestic product per capita stands at some $450. That figure is several years old and it is possible that the position has improved, but that $450 per person in Zimbabwe compared with $618 per person in sub-Saharan Africa as a whole.

The HIV infection rate, as we have just heard from the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, is extremely high—one of the highest in Africa and about three times the average for sub-Saharan Africa as a whole. Some 15% of the population are infected compared with a still appallingly high average for sub-Saharan Africa of 5%. Life expectancy at 44 years has fallen dramatically from more than 60 years, which applied at the time of independence. Again, it compares unfavourably with other sub-Saharan countries, for which the average is 52 years.

[Dr Poulter]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Swaziland in the early 1980s the HIV infection rate was about 1%, but by 2000 it was nearly 40%? Although we live in an age when there is better access to HIV drugs, even in many parts of Africa, targeted interventions to deal with HIV—given the high rate in Zimbabwe—should form an important part of any aid strategy for the country.

[Hugh Bayley]

Yes, I strongly agree with that. During the Committee’s visit to Zimbabwe in February, we spent some time looking at HIV counselling and testing programmes and other measures funded by DFID that were delivered largely by NGOs. Most certainly, we should be providing aid. Even with a framework of poor governance, it is possible for British aid to make a difference. The availability of antiretroviral drugs, for instance, has improved because of the help of outside donors, such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

Some indicators are good. Health expenditure in Zimbabwe is higher than the average for sub-Saharan Africa, as are sanitation rates. In Zimbabwe, 69% of mothers are attended by a skilled childbirth attendant, compared with 46% elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa. Therefore, Zimbabwe has the capacity to recover, when it finds the political leadership to enable it to address problems of catastrophically bad governance. Some of its infrastructure—literacy levels, for instance, are better than in many other countries in Africa—provides the country with the opportunity to bounce back.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and for his work on the all-party Africa group. He talks about the country’s great potential, but the problem is its political system and governance. Unfortunately, the depressing fact is that what comes after Mugabe may be no improvement. Is it not the case that the urgent issue to address is what South Africa and other neighbouring countries can do to deal with the country’s political governance?

[Hugh Bayley]

That issue must be addressed by all the neighbouring countries—South Africa being the biggest and most powerful and having the most interdependent economy, given that many South African companies still have plant and operations in Zimbabwe. As the country with the greatest number of Zimbabwean refugees on its territory, South Africa also has the most to gain from achieving political progress. We should do everything that we can to encourage and support the South African Government, and the Governments of other neighbouring states, in their efforts.

It would be wrong, however, to make it sound as though nothing has been achieved. After the last election, the global political agreement was brokered and delivered by political pressure from South Africa and neighbouring states.

Several Members have mentioned the catastrophe in agriculture. In 1998, commercial farmers’ output was 2.3 million tonnes of beef, grain, tobacco and other crops. In 2007, after the farm invasions, that had fallen to fewer than 1 million tonnes. Equally important, however, is the collapse of rural peasant agriculture. The staple crop in Zimbabwe is maize, and average production throughout the 1990s was 1.7 million tonnes a year, but in 2007-08 it fell to only a third of that—650,000 tonnes. As the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire and other Members have said, Zimbabwe went from being a food-exporting country to a food-importing country.

The Zimbabwean people show tremendous courage and resilience, as members of the Select Committee saw during our visit. We saw nurses getting on and providing health services in a remarkable way. The hospital that our Committee visited looked and felt better than many hospitals I have seen in Africa. Ultimately, what makes a good hospital is good, well-trained staff who are well managed and well led. Wards are clean, and equipment is repaired.

We also saw good local government officials looking at ways of extending sanitation systems, and brave performers and artists at the Book café in Harare who were prepared to challenge the regime in ways that they could get away with—through culture and music.

The last election was, of course, deeply flawed. Independent observers appointed by other African countries—members of the east African community, the East African Parliament and the African council of churches—reported that it was fundamentally flawed. Morgan Tzvangirai received more votes than Mugabe in the first round, but then the level of intimidation was such that he was driven out of the country and did not compete in the second round. As I said earlier, the global political agreement that was created after the election would not have been created had it not been for pressure from neighbouring African countries.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

There is some concern about Mugabe’s appointment of six ambassadors —that is, six tribal leaders—across Rhodesia, which will clearly give him some clout in next year’s election. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with many of us who are present that if that election is to be fair and democratic, and if the democratic process is to be transparent, the leaders appointed by Mugabe must be removed?

[Hugh Bayley]

I think that there will be an election next year, and the international community needs to prepare for an election next year. I believe that other countries need to put observers in place now, rather than a month or two before the election, to report on what is happening on the ground, and that those observers need to come from Africa. [Interruption.] I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) protesting, but I still think that they need to come from Africa. [Interruption.] No doubt my hon. Friend will have more to say when she makes her own speech.

Those who delivered the damning reports on the intimidation and violence that took place during the last election were, by and large, African observers, because they could get into the country to observe and others could not. If it is possible to obtain a wider range of observers, that is fine: I would strongly support such a development. However, there is clearly more traction politically when Africans from the region blow the whistle than there is for Europeans who do not live in the region year in, year out—notably those in this country—and who have colonial baggage. It is important to ensure that resources are available to enable observers from non-governmental organisations and other bodies in the region to get into the country, get there early, and start giving us their reports.

The global political agreement was a fragile compromise. It was the best that could be delivered after the last election. However, it has provided a window of opportunity. Zimbabwe is not well governed under the unity Government, but it is governed a great deal better than it was under a ZANU-PF Government. The Ministries that are led by MDC Ministers are much better managed than those that are still led by ZANU-PF Ministers. I hope that the people of Zimbabwe will support the parties whose Ministers are delivering palpable improvements, and that they will be allowed to show that support in an election.

[Malcolm Bruce]

Does the hon. Gentleman, who is my colleague on the Select Committee, not recall that Zimbabwe’s Minister for Health and his permanent secretary were from different parties—the MDC and ZANU-PF—but they were working very effectively together as they had gone to the same school? People from the two parties are delivering results in some areas, therefore; it is just unfortunate that that is not apparent in many quarters.

[Hugh Bayley]

I am glad to be reminded of that; yes, it is true. In order to create a good future for Zimbabwe, every opportunity must be capitalised on, and some people from the ZANU-PF political tradition have a great deal to contribute to the future of Zimbabwe.

The UK has always been a large donor. In 2003, we gave some $59 million to Zimbabwe, and by 2008 that had risen to $89 million, an increase of 50%. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), the Chairman of the Select Committee, told the House that the figure has now risen to $100 million. When we were in Zimbabwe, we saw that aid being used to good purpose, such as in health care as both I and the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich have mentioned, and in humanitarian relief. A very small amount of aid goes to the Government to support two or three advisers in the office of the Prime Minister, but almost all the aid is channelled through the United Nations or non-governmental organisations as there is still not sufficient confidence to channel it through the Government of Zimbabwe. DFID ought now to be planning for that to change, so as to be ready to provide aid through the Government when conditions allow.

The global political agreement following the last, flawed, election set a timetable for the approval of the new constitution and stated that a fresh set of elections should be held after the constitution had been agreed. The process is behind time; consultation on the new constitution ended behind schedule, in October. The consultation process was flawed—the security forces were intimidating people—yet it provides a platform for elections to take place.

Robert Mugabe is threatening to end the global political agreement in February next year, prior to an election, because that is when it formally comes to an end. Our country, and other countries in the region, should be saying that the unity Government must continue until there has been a referendum on the new constitution, and if the referendum approves the new constitution, until there is an election. Any manoeuvring to force MDC Ministers out of the Government before an election would hinder a process through which a freer and fairer election could take place.

I do not know whether the UK should be optimistic or pessimistic, but DFID and the Foreign Office must act on the assumption that there is an opportunity to make political progress. If we were to do otherwise, it would become a self-fulfilling prophesy and make a setback more likely. To have got to a position, after decades of single-party rule and catastrophically bad governance, where there is a power-sharing arrangement within the Government, provides an opportunity.

We should be using aid to support a process of reform and change. I do not know whether it will work, but we certainly should not pull the plug. I was pleased that the new Government responded to the report that the Select Committee wrote before the general election, and I am glad that they understand and support it very well. We should be planning to expand our programmes of assistance, so that if there are opportunities, following an election, for a different kind of governance in Zimbabwe, we will be in a position to move quickly and show that a different style of government delivers tangible benefits for the people.

One thing that we should be addressing is the question of land reform. A report by the all-party group on Africa last year went through some of the history and, I hope, challenged some of the myths, which are widely believed in Africa. One such myth is that Britain failed to deliver on promises to pay billions of pounds for land purchases. Such promises were not made, although Britain has put in official development assistance money for land reform. The programmes of land reform that we funded, before the farm invasions made it an impossible thing to do, were relatively effective. Funding land reform cannot be left to Britain alone. We should be talking with other donors, in particular the World Bank. We should encourage it to set up a trust fund especially for this purpose, and we should seek to win support for it from others in the EU and from the donor community more widely. We should do all that we can to remain a good friend of Zimbabwe during its troubled times and to prepare to expand our programmes of assistance as soon as we get signals from the country that the money will be well spent.

17:52

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

It is a great honour to follow the contribution of the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), who knows so much about this subject, and indeed the many other distinguished contributions from right hon. and hon. Members today.

I wish to speak briefly about agricultural development in Zimbabwe. Many speakers have outlined the political situation, which is obviously critical and indeed is pertinent to agricultural development. However, although agriculture might not have the profile of mining or tourism, it has always been vital, as hon. Members have said, to Zimbabwe’s economy, as a food producer, exporter and employer. I have some personal experience of the very fine quality of Zimbabwean coffee through my employment in the coffee trade over the past 25 years.

I firmly believe that as the political situation is resolved—as it must be—Zimbabwe will begin to resume its place as an agricultural powerhouse of sub-Saharan Africa. That it was a powerhouse is beyond doubt. The hon. Member for York Central mentioned the 1980s, throughout which a newly independent Zimbabwe provided food security for the region, regularly exporting its surplus maize to Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia. Zimbabwe also supplied countries further afield, such as Ethiopia. Indeed, it was the place from which donor agencies bought food supplies to send elsewhere as aid. In 1986, the country had a maize reserve of nearly 2 million tonnes after a record harvest of about 3 million tonnes. To put that into context, as the hon. Gentleman did, the production level in 2008 was about 470,000 tonnes. This year, there has been an improvement and the figure is expected to be 1.3 million tonnes, but that is still less than half the level of production in 1986. So, this year, Zimbabwe will still be dependent on grain imports, although to a lesser extent than in the recent past. The welcome deregulation of the market will make it easier to meet the deficit.

I shall leave it to others to trace the history of that decline—the changes in marketing, an increase in land devoted to cash crops, serious falls in productivity and, in particular, land seizures—as I would like briefly to address the way forward for agriculture. The Select Committee’s report states:

“Land reform in Zimbabwe is a complex issue. It is also a highly-charged political issue between Zimbabwe and the UK. However, resolution is essential for political stability and continued economic”

growth. I certainly do not intend to wade into those deep waters—that is for others with far more specific knowledge of the situation. All I would say is that although I have followed events in Zimbabwe from afar, I have spoken with those who were very closely involved on more than one occasion. They filled me with great sadness about what has happened. Reform was desperately needed, but it could have been achieved in a very different way.

I will offer my personal experience from Tanzania, which might show a way forward for Zimbabwe in certain circumstances. In 1973, many commercial coffee farms in Tanzania that belonged to British, Greek, German and other nationals in the Kilimanjaro region were nationalised. For more than two decades, they were then owned and run by local villages and co-operatives, which were generally unable to invest. Production and quality declined so that by the mid 1990s, production was about 10% of what it had been in the early 1970s.

The Tanzanian Government wanted to see a revival of the farms but were conscious of the vital issue of land ownership. They considered two models: joint ventures and long-term leases. I was somewhat involved in the discussions in my capacity as secretary and then chairman of the Tanzania Coffee Association. We advocated leases and the Tanzanian Government, to their great credit, chose that route. We felt that that was the best way forward because, unlike with joint ventures, ownership of the land remained firmly in the hands of the local people, villages and co-operatives. The lease allowed the investor to develop the farm for the long term, paying a rent to the village or co-operative and employing local people while remaining the tenant.

The leases—I declare an interest, as I am involved in one—have so far worked reasonably well. Previously, the land brought almost no income to the community and little employment, and now it brings a healthy rent that has been used by the local communities to build school classrooms and much else. Many smallholder farmers in the surrounding area can supplement their income through employment.

I do not claim that such a model would work perfectly or that it would work in every situation. I am very much aware that there is justifiable anger over the leasing to new tenants of farms that were seized violently from those who had built them up over decades. By contrast, in Tanzania former owners were often encouraged to lease back their former properties and the ownership was in the hands of community groups, not powerful individuals. Such leasing arrangements are a way to put land ownership and its use to work for the benefit of the whole community while attracting investment and skilled management.

One objective of the Zimbabwean Government in recent years has been to transfer land to small-scale farmers. I welcome the objective, although not the manner in which it has often been carried out. My experience of smallholder agriculture, however, is that without good infrastructure to support it, it will be at best subsistence farming and certainly will not fulfil its potential. The infrastructure needed is physical—rural roads, storage, equipment, seeds and fertilizers—and, just as importantly, it involves training.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman has not at any stage indicated that out of the 4,000 farms that were seized from white farmers, 2,000 are lying destitute and in ruins. Does he see a role for those white farmers who have had their land seized in perhaps looking after that land again or does he see that land being reinstated to them? I would like to hear his ideas, because their expertise and energy could rejuvenate those farms.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman; in fact, in the example in Tanzania that I gave, two or three of the farms were taken back on long leases by the farmers who had developed them in the first place.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

The need to improve the ailing infrastructure for water and sanitation is referred to frequently, as it has been in this debate, in relation to the need to provide clean water to prevent disease. My hon. Friend makes a good point about infrastructure: we need to invest in it to support the nation’s agriculture. I hope that DFID will consider how to promote the development of infrastructure in a way that involves good governance and accountability, thereby instilling confidence in the partners who need to involve themselves in such large infrastructure projects.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I entirely agree. DFID and aid agencies that give bilateral and multilateral support can play an important role in supporting infrastructure. I have discussed infrastructure in relation to agriculture, and I would add irrigation to that, but infrastructure for sanitation, health and education is also important.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although it is good to get land into small farms and perhaps to start up the co-operatives again, it is vital to have an incentive on pricing? The prices of products must be right so that those people can make a living and so that things do not fall apart again. DFID needs to consider that aspect and to ensure that there are returns on products, many of which, as he will know from his experience, are excellent.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

That is why I welcome the opening up of agricultural markets in Zimbabwe, which has been one of the most important Government reforms.

The need for rural infrastructure is shown by the figures on maize yields. The area planted to maize in Zimbabwe this year is 1.8 million hectares, which compares with 1.37 million hectares in 2000, but 300,000 fewer tonnes of maize will be produced as yields decline from 1.18 tonnes to 0.74 tonnes per hectare. How can yields be improved? The Select Committee report discusses conservation agriculture, which is supported by the protracted relief programme that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) mentioned. As the report states, Christian Aid recognises that

“DFID’s consistent support to this area despite initial reluctance by other key stakeholders”

has been vital, highlighting that it

“had been particularly beneficial to vulnerable communities”

and that it was

“proven to lift households out of subsistence poverty”.

I congratulate DFID on its support for that programme under both the previous and current Governments and on taking the lead on it.

Conservation agriculture teaches people how better to manage their land and how to get a profitable harvest. According to Christian Aid, it enables households to get at least two, three, five or, in many cases—I could hardly believe this—10 tonnes of maize per hectare. That is quite incredible and I welcome the Select Committee’s recommendation that DFID should explore how conservation agriculture could be extended to other parts of sub-Saharan Africa where it could be used. I also welcome the Government’s positive response to that suggestion and I ask the Minister to ensure that that support continues.

The ordinary people of Zimbabwe have suffered grievously over the years, but they have shown, as many speakers have said, extraordinary resilience and courage. There is no doubt that the country can once again become the agricultural powerhouse that it should be. Proper land reform, not arbitrary seizure and settlement, is an essential part of that, as is effective support to the growing number of smallholder farmers. I welcome the Committee’s report, DFID’s response and the Government’s continuing commitment to the people of Zimbabwe.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I intend to call the wind-ups at half-past 6 and about four Members wish to participate in the debate. If hon. Members show some self-restraint on time, that will be very useful and will allow more Members to get in.

18:04

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I apologise for having had to leave the debate for a short while. I had an 88-year-old constituent, Mary Gentry, coming up today and I had to have a cup of tea with her.

I welcome the report very much. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) persevered although I know there were times when he felt that he would perhaps never get the Committee to Zimbabwe. That was due not necessarily to what was happening in Zimbabwe, but to things at this end. I welcome the fact that he was able to go and welcome in particular the fact that the report highlights the generous assistance given—quite rightly, in my view—by the people of the United Kingdom to the people of Zimbabwe, despite all the lies and the venom that Mugabe and ZANU-PF have directed at us.

As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Zimbabwe, I am glad that we were able to give some little help to the inquiry and to members of the Committee in planning the programme for their visit to Zimbabwe. As the House knows, during the period when it was almost impossible for UK parliamentarians to visit Zimbabwe, I undertook several undercover visits to that country to see at first hand what was happening on the ground. Things have improved, because on my last visit I was able to go in bona fide as Kate Hoey, Member of Parliament, which was quite nice. However, it is sad that, despite the resilience of those pressing for reform in Zimbabwe, there is still some way to go before conditions will be right for normal engagement by the UK in rebuilding the infrastructure, economy and institutions of Zimbabwe.

Just last week, on 29 and 30 November, our Minister for Africa, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), represented Her Majesty’s Government in Tripoli at the third EU-Africa summit. Six topics were dealt with at plenary sessions. Of those topics, two in particular were relevant to creating the right conditions for engagement and progress towards development in Zimbabwe. Topic No. 4 covered peace and security, while topic No. 5 looked at governance and human rights. I very much hope that the Minister here tonight will give us details of commitments made and undertakings given on specific human rights issues by participants at the summit. I am sure he will have been briefed by the Minister for Africa and hope he can mention those subjects.

Unfortunately, Mugabe attended that summit, which in itself is rather outrageous and has been a cause for concern. I hope the Minister can tell us that Mugabe’s own record of political violence and human rights abuse was raised during discussions in Tripoli. In February 2002, the European Council imposed restrictive measures on named Zimbabwean individuals, following the expulsion of the head of the EU observer team covering the presidential elections. The Council said at that time that the

“EU remained profoundly concerned at the continuing political violence, the serious violations of human rights and the restrictions on the media in Zimbabwe.”

The specific reference to restrictions on the media was significant. Now, nearly nine years later, there is still grave cause for concern—not only at the lack of progress towards freedom of the press, but because there is still no genuinely open and depoliticised state broadcasting network. People could watch a television news bulletin in Zimbabwe and think that the Movement for Democratic Change and Morgan Tsvangirai did not exist.

Recently, the all-party group on Zimbabwe was addressed by Foster Dongozi. Foster is secretary-general of the Zimbabwe Union of Journalists and president of the Southern Africa Journalists Association. He gave a very sobering account of the continuing difficulties facing members of his profession in Zimbabwe and a bleak assessment of the general political environment in the country, rather similar to our ambassador’s report.

Dongozi gave examples of abuses of human rights, which sadly continue to be very widespread. Relentless harassment and political persecution are meted out to those who campaign for reform and stand up to the political and economic bullies of the ZANU-PF elite and, increasingly importantly, the military high command.

The country-wide process of consultation on constitutional reform, which should have started but had not done so when the Committee visited, has been severely impaired by violence. There has been a deliberate intimidation programme throughout the country, very carefully planned by those who see reform as a threat to all their entrenched political and economic privilege. That intimidation is reinforced by the many repressive laws that remain on the statute book. They deny Zimbabweans freedom of association and freedom of expression. Foster Dongozi mentioned a number of statutes that particularly need to be repealed or radically amended: the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Public Order and Security Act and so on. He drew attention to the recent detention of Dumisani Sibanda for reporting that the police force was recruiting Mugabe loyalists, so-called war veterans, in preparation for elections next year, which it is. Mr Sibanda is president of the Zimbabwe Union of Journalists and works for Zimbabwe’s Newsday and The Standard. Earlier this month, the freelance journalist Sydney Saize was beaten up in Mutare, and on the same day in Harare two other freelance journalists, Nkosana Dlamini and Anderson Manyere, were arrested, detained and then charged with “criminal nuisance”.

Roy Bennett, whom we all know very well in this Parliament, a very brave Zimbabwean whose great-grandfather, interestingly enough, came from Coleraine in the constituency of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), has had to leave Zimbabwe again and go to South Africa, because he has been told very clearly that the police are after him. He spent many months in prison. There is even a warrant out for the arrest of Wilf Mbanga, who edits The Zimbabwean from exile here in the UK, so I hope that the European arrest warrant does not apply. I hope that Her Majesty’s Government use every opportunity to raise those cases directly with the Government of Zimbabwe and with other Southern African Development Community Governments, who stood as guarantors of the global political agreement.

The International Development Committee’s report makes one reference to the worrying developments surrounding the recent discovery of diamond deposits in Zimbabwe. Since the Committee’s visit, the impact in terms of human rights abuses against those engaged in mining has been widely reported and become a huge issue. The wider impact in terms of corruption and a distortion of the political landscape should not be underestimated, either. It will have a direct effect by undermining efforts towards economic and social development.

The Kimberley process group, at its recent meeting in Jerusalem, could not reach agreement over whether Zimbabwe had complied with the conditions to allow diamonds from Marange to be certified for sale. Despite the deadlock, and in what seemed to be a rather irregular intervention, however, Abbey Chikane, the Kimberley process monitor for Zimbabwe, intervened personally to certify rough diamonds from Marange for sale. The auction raised $160 million, but when the sale came to light Mr Chikane’s actions were overruled by the Kimberley process chairman, Boaz Hirsch.

I have expressed my concern before to the UK Government about the behaviour of Mr Chikane, and I hope that in responding to this debate the Minister will be able to say something more about that important issue. The Kimberley process group is currently chaired by the European Union, so we as an EU member state have some traction and a real responsibility to ensure that the key commitments in the agreed joint work plan are met by Zimbabwe—perhaps even more so, given that the Zimbabwean Minister for Mines and Mining Development announced that Zimbabwe would boycott the most recent meeting of the working group on monitoring in Brussels. From what I have said on press freedom, intimidation over the constitution outreach programme, elections preparation and diamond mining, it is clear that in many areas human rights violations continue.

Paragraph 64 of the Committee’s report points out that international donor re-engagement will be determined by two key benchmarks: the extent to which the global political agreement is implemented in Zimbabwe, and progress towards The Hague principles. Owing to the lack of time, I shall not go through those principles, but they clearly state that several things must happen, so I urge the Minister to do all he can to ensure that the UK brings the issue to the attention of our EU partners, because, importantly, in February they will consider the renewal of restrictive measures on certain named Zimbabweans.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) quite rightly said that those are not sanctions but restrictive measures, and, although the restrictions, including a travel ban and assets freeze, have been widely misrepresented in Africa, the measures are targeted only at those closely associated with the abuse of human rights in Zimbabwe. It would be foolhardy to lift them on the promise of good behaviour in future, but I worry that behind the scenes somewhere in the European Union people might well be discussing that.

The restrictions must be lifted only once reforms have been implemented on the basis of the undertakings that Mugabe made when he signed the global political agreement. I am sure that ministerial discussions are already under way, because I know that these things take time, and I hope that the Minister takes from this debate a clear message to our EU partners that the targeted measures must be maintained against those who still impede reform in Zimbabwe. I cannot stress how important that is. It is absolutely crucial, because those restrictions continue to play an important part in supporting those who struggle for human rights.

Finally, we all know what an amazing country Zimbabwe is, particularly those hon. Members who have just visited it for the first time. It is a country full of resilient people. It is a country that was once very prosperous and could be prosperous again. The people just need the opportunity to elect, in free and fair elections, a Government who respect the rule of law and the human rights of every Zimbabwean. There cannot be free and fair elections without a new voting roll, a new constitution and genuinely independent election observers. If, along with the EU, we donate to and help Zimbabwe, there must be monitoring of its elections beyond that of the African Union. The Commonwealth must be involved and there must be commitments from all the countries that have been so supportive. Our new Government, who I am pleased are sticking to what the previous Government did, must keep reminding the Zimbabwean Government, South Africa and the African Union of their responsibilities. South Africa said formally that it would endorse, support and monitor the global political agreement. That must be done, and Parliament will continue to give as much support as possible.

18:15

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

I support what the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said. In 2000, I was an election observer in Zimbabwe. I was banned by Mugabe because I was so critical of the regime—I said that it was destroying democracy and the country.

Regardless of the good or bad of the colonial past, Mugabe is now a dictator, and as such, he needs something to attack. He has therefore attacked white Zimbabweans. Like other hon. Members, while I was there I noted how much respect there was between white Zimbabweans and black Zimbabweans. The issue is a political one that was brought about by ZANU-PF and Mugabe. That concentrates the mind on how he has destroyed the country.

I endorse the Minister’s view that the issue is one of governance. Whatever we do in Zimbabwe, unless we get the governance right, most of the money will be frittered away.

As many hon. Members have said, Zimbabwe is not a country that is poor in resources. Speaking as a farmer, I know that it has some of the most benign and beautiful land anywhere in the world. When it was settled many years ago, two crops of wheat could be grown a year. The resources are therefore there. This was not only about sharing out land, but about having commercial farming so that Zimbabwe can produce real resource.

The way in which Mugabe and the ZANU-PF regime destroyed the farms in Zimbabwe did not affect only the people who owned the farms; there were medical centres and schools on the farms, so as the farms were destroyed, the infrastructure was destroyed along with them. Those things must be rebuilt.

The regime now wants to take control of all white-owned businesses. What Zimbabwe actually needs is internal investment. It is good that we can provide investment, but if we could get the political situation right, investment would come to Zimbabwe because it has the potential to build its economy quickly, as many hon. Members have said.

Zimbabwe is an interesting country, because it is—or certainly was—one of the most educated countries in Africa. For a man who wants to run a dictatorship, perhaps that was the greatest mistake: Mugabe educated the people of Zimbabwe so that they could see a better way and a better future. That is what brought about the MDC.

As we help and support Zimbabwe, we must ensure that we do not further the regime of Mugabe and ZANU-PF and that we see real change. It was with great sadness that I and many hon. Members watched that great country being destroyed. It can rise again, and I believe that it will. As the Minister considers support for Zimbabwe, I hope he will bring about real change, and I am sure he will. We must not forget that ZANU-PF and Mugabe do not believe in democracy and do not understand it as we understand it; they just believe in intimidating and persecuting people and ensuring that they vote for them. Anything that we can do to bring about democratic change will also bring about economic change and a prosperous Zimbabwe in future.

18:20

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I should like to bring to the House’s attention the plight of former public sector workers in Zimbabwe, when it was Southern Rhodesia. Their pensions have not been paid for some considerable time—almost eight years, since 2003. Today I ask the Minister to consider what he can do for the aid fund to help those individuals, UK citizens among them, to regain their pensions.

The Minister will be familiar with the history of the case. Between 12 December 1979 and 17 April 1980, Southern Rhodesia was ruled directly by the UK. The pension fund that then existed was a consolidated revenue fund with no trustees. That meant that Her Majesty’s Government, who effectively took on responsibility for the fund when they were in government in Southern Rhodesia for that very short period, had a duty of care. On Zimbabwe’s independence, the UK Government were concerned to ensure that appropriate provisions were made, and they believed that there were full safeguards in the new constitution for the pension arrangements of former public sector workers. The reality, however, was rather different.

In February 2003, the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe failed to make foreign currency available for those pension payments, which was in breach of paragraph 2(1) of schedule 6 and section 112 of the constitution. A number of requests have been made to secure the restarting of the pension payments and, as I understand it, in September 2009 the director of the Zimbabwean Government’s pensions office indicated that $3.5 million might be available and asked for applications from previous public sector workers now living in South Africa, Australia or the UK. So far, 850 applications have been received from those now living in South Africa and 350 from individuals in the UK. They are represented by a body called the Overseas Service Pensioners Association, which for many years has been championing the cause of getting the pensions payments started again.

OSPA has tried to establish how many individuals are affected across the world, and the best estimate is 1,200. There are different estimates, but OSPA believes that that is the right figure. That is relevant because until we understand how many people are affected, it is hard to quantify the figures that we are talking about and therefore reach a ballpark estimate of how much help we are seeking from the Minister and his aid budget.

Having reached that number and examined the applications already received, OSPA has calculated that if it allows for a reduction of one third for options of commutation, which most pensioners have taken up, and then uprates the figure to reflect the increase in the retail prices index, the appropriate annual figure to cover all individuals affected would be £4 million. It has made the same calculation for the back payment, which comes to £26 million. OSPA is realistic and recognises that there is no real chance of getting the back payment, but it would like some support from the Government to help it at least to reinstate the old pension amount.

OSPA would like the Government to work with the Zimbabwean Government to identify whether they really do now intend to make sums available, and to consider setting up a review of what the Department for International Development can do, using its aid budget or any other source of funds, to put the individuals affected back in pocket. They are ageing, so if we do not do something shortly, the money will not have the value to them that it should.

18:24

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

I should like to make three points to the House in the closing moments of the debate. First, it was extraordinarily helpful that the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), the Chair of the International Development Committee, brought the House up to date with the views of our ambassador in Harare. That is a good precedent. Some time has passed since the Committee visited Zimbabwe in February, and it would be helpful if in future ambassadors or high commissioners shared with the House an open letter or report to bring the House up to date on their views before such debates. We are now much more used to open diplomacy, and I would have thought that that would be a genuine benefit to the House.

Secondly, the views of the three members of the Committee who went to Zimbabwe were also a great benefit to the debate. Sections of the Poujadist press seek to portray any overseas visit by right hon. and hon. Members as some sort of a jolly, but having spent a Parliament chairing the International Development Committee, I must say that there is nothing jolly about witnessing other people’s chronic and enduring poverty, or seeing people suffering from HIV/AIDS, or talking to people about the deplorable conditions in which they live because of poverty. The House benefits enormously from the first-hand experience and testament of those who have witnessed—in this case—Zimbabwe. The work done by members of the Committee is much to be appreciated, because when they go to places such as Zimbabwe they spend a week away from the House and are unable to do their constituency work, so when they return, the burden on them is even greater.

My third point has not been touched on in the debate, which is why I am keen to make it. I suspect that many right hon. and hon. Members have not insignificant Zimbabwean communities in their constituencies. Many of those people have for some time been in limbo. Comparatively few of them were granted refugee status, but for perfectly understandable reasons, successive Home Secretaries decided not to order those who were refused refugee or asylum status to return to Zimbabwe. Those people have therefore been here in limbo, and many have been unable to take up work.

I am sure that other hon. Members know of people in the same situation. I am talking about teachers, trade unionists and farmers—people who have real skills. One tragedy of conflict-affected countries is the flight of intellect, as much as the flight of capital. Such people could make a real contribution to life in Zimbabwe again. I therefore hope that Ministers will consider this proposal. There will come a time—hopefully—when those people will increasingly want to return to Zimbabwe. I do not think that we should look at my proposal in terms of giving people money to go home, because those people have real skills. Given that the total aid budget for Zimbabwe is $100 million, will my hon. Friend the Minister consider the possibility of an endowment fund, whereby talented Zimbabweans resident in the UK could apply to DFID for an endowment to return to undertake a specific project or work, whether health care for nurses, teaching for teachers, or farming for those with farming skills? That would be a positive encouragement to people. Their talents could be acknowledged and recognised, and they could go back to Zimbabwe with the finances first to give them the confidence to return, and secondly, to make a real difference.

Otherwise, we—the NHS and so on—will benefit from their talent, skills and education, but for a generation all that talent, knowledge and expertise has effectively been stolen from Zimbabwe. That is another piece of collateral damage inflicted upon Zimbabwe by its political situation. I suspect that many of those who are here—especially as they have not been granted refugee status, and given the continued unsettled nature of their lives here—would welcome the opportunity to make a contribution in their own country. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and colleagues in the Home Office will give some creative thought to how we can enable Zimbabweans to return to Zimbabwe to make a positive contribution, rather than feel that they have to cling on here because they have no future back home.

18:30

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

I join the hon. Members who have thanked the Committee for this excellent report. It has given us a good foundation for our debate today, and I am sure that the House will agree that we have had a particularly well-informed debate because of the expertise shown by many hon. Members across the House, both from their work on the Committee and from previous work experience in Africa and elsewhere.

The key question which faces the Government, and which faced the previous Government, was how we can provide development assistance to Zimbabwe and support for reform and a return to democracy while at the same time ensuring that we do not provide succour for the hard-line repressive elements of the regime. That is a delicate path to tread, but it is our view that the only way forward is to pursue that twin-track approach. We must seek to help the people of Zimbabwe who have suffered so much in recent years, but at the same time we must maintain the pressure for reform, democratisation and an end to brutality and terror by those in the Government who want to maintain their power and corrupt rule.

In the debate, hon. Members have spoken about the poverty, the degradation of the health service, the state of the economy and the political repression in Zimbabwe. The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) spoke about the repressive legislation over many years. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) reminded us that the UN human development report placed Zimbabwe last out of 169 countries in its most recent index. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) reminded us that the unemployment rate in Zimbabwe is between 80% and 90%. The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), using his experience and expertise, told us of the collapse of the health infrastructure, which has caused a massive increase in the maternal mortality rate. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) reminded us of the continuing intimidation of the opposition media in Zimbabwe despite the global political agreement.

As several hon. Members have said, Zimbabwe did not need to be in its present position. The cause of the people’s suffering is the actions—and sometimes the inaction—of the regime. The country still has the potential to be one of the most prosperous countries in Africa, as the hon. Members for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) reminded us. It is because of the magnitude of the problem that the Labour Government instituted a substantial programme of assistance to Zimbabwe. In 2009 UK aid was worth £60 million, the largest ever programme of UK aid to Zimbabwe. As the right hon. Member for Gordon, (Malcom Bruce) who chairs the Select Committee, reminds us, that assistance and those programmes of assistance from other countries have produced results. He told us of his visit to a hospital that had begun to operate very effectively as a result of the assistance given under the programmes. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) also reminded us that with investment and improvements in the infrastructure, the education and health systems could once again provide an effective service in many parts of the country.

The Committee report refers to the protracted relief programme supported by DFID, which—it points out—has already reached millions of vulnerable people in Zimbabwe and has been praised by the NGOs who take part as an “innovative flagship programme” of which DFID should be proud. The Committee recommends that the Department explore the option of scaling up the programme in Zimbabwe, and we support that recommendation.

The report also raises some questions about the operation of the protracted relief programme and makes some recommendations to make it even more effective. I note that that Government’s response says that they will consider those issues in their annual review of the programme, and we support that, but it should not be taken as detracting in any way from the overall achievements of that successful programme.

Alongside direct development assistance, the UK has also provided support to the office of the Prime Minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, to enable him and his office to fulfil the functions set out in the global political agreement on policy design and implementation. Again, the Select Committee proposes that such support should continue, and we agree with the recommendation. We also agree with the recommendation that such support should be offered to other reforming ministries in the Government.

There are, of course, many question marks over the future of a power-sharing agreement in Zimbabwe, not least because ZANU-PF has substantially retained much of its hold on power. The Select Committee report points out that Mr Mugabe and ZANU-PF have not fulfilled their undertaking and have sought to undermine the MDC’s ability to deliver even in its limited areas of Government. Nevertheless, as the report also points out—and as has been made clear by a number of hon. Members—there has been some progress since the agreement. That is one of the reasons why it is right to continue with the DFID programme of assistance in Zimbabwe. That programme should be along the general lines of the existing programme, although we could make changes to it to draw upon the experience of the programme to date.

I note, for example, that the Select Committee raises the issues of maternal and child health, and suggests that the Government should consider the need and the opportunity for more support to rebuild the health system to provide improved quality of care, especially for pregnant women and children under five. That support would certainly be most welcome. It would be useful to hear from the Minister how the Government will consider implementing the recommendation relating to that aspect of the Select Committee report.

One suggestion that I would certainly commend to the Government is that DFID should commit itself to help to fund the removal of user fees for health services in Zimbabwe. That has produced amazing results in places such as Sierra Leone. We must also consider ways of supporting civil society organisations more directly, particularly in the run-up to the planned referendum on a new constitution. It must be emphasised that there has to be real progress towards that constitution, which was a crucial element of a global political agreement. A new constitution should have been adopted before new elections were held, and that should certainly still be our objective.

One other question that the Minister might be able to answer is that raised by the Select Committee about the Multi-Donor Trust Fund. Again, that has been widely recognised as providing a way of giving assistance without the risk of funds being diverted away from their intended purpose. The Government do not say anything specific about their attitude to the future of the fund in their response to the Committee’s report. I hope that the Minister will confirm the UK’s continued support for that type of initiative.

In my opening remarks I said that there must be a twin-track approach. The first track is to provide direct assistance to benefit the people of Zimbabwe and to ensure that that does not in any way provide sustenance to the hard-line repressive elements in the regime. That type of direct assistance must continue, and we endorse the Select Committee’s recommendation that the UK should give a high priority to Zimbabwe not only through the work of DFID but through that of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and other Departments where relevant.

Given the obvious reluctance—to put it mildly—of ZANU-PF to share power in a genuine way, the second track is to ensure that pressure for change is maintained. As a number of hon. Members have pointed out, a key role has to be played by Zimbabwe’s neighbours. The Zimbabwean Government must comply with the rulings of the Southern Africa Development Community tribunal. The economic decline and instability in Zimbabwe has damaged all its neighbours in southern Africa, and we hope that those neighbours will continue their efforts to bring about reform and the full implementation of a power-sharing agreement. I would be interested to hear the Minister say, if he can, what recent contacts he has had with SADC tribunal members to make the point about the need to provide continued pressure on the Zimbabwe regime.

The entire world community must also play its part. We certainly endorse the recommendation of the Select Committee that

“progress on human rights and democracy must be demonstrated before all the EU’s restrictive measures placed on named individuals and organisations…can be lifted.”

I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall said about that. There needs to be a flexible approach to the application of such measures, and they need to be kept under review to ensure that they are targeted most effectively. One example concerns the export of diamonds. Hon. Members have raised concerns that the proceeds have been diverted into the pockets of leading figures in ZANU-PF. That situation, and the evidence of forced labour and of the torture and harassment of miners, means that it is right that Zimbabwe should not be allowed a full resumption of the export of diamonds at this stage.

As I have said, ordinary Zimbabweans have suffered awfully over the past decade. We know that not just from what we see in the media or from the conclusions of reports such as the one that we are discussing today, but from speaking to Zimbabweans who have come to the UK. Like most Members, I meet them in my constituency. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) made some important points about the role that they could play while they are resident in the UK. Zimbabwe has all the potential to become once again an economic and agricultural powerhouse for southern Africa. We believe it right for the UK not just to provide humanitarian assistance in the short term, but to assist with the reconstruction of the country. However, that can be achieved only once there is genuine political reform—a democracy in which all parties compete on a level playing field, a free press, an end to the abuse of power and to violence, and the firm establishment of the rule of law.

18:40

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Stephen O'Brien)]

I extend my thanks and congratulations to the Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), on arranging this debate, which allows the Committee’s excellent report on its important visit to Zimbabwe earlier this year to gain wider exposure in the House. The visit was extremely welcome, and was regarded as an important and excellently conducted process, not least by the Chairman. That was the feedback that we received from all those who came into contact with him and his Committee. It is unquestionably the case that he set the right tone, so ably and so sensitively, in leading this debate, on a country where we all want to see great improvements for the people, while also recognising that there are great sensitivities that we have to respect and therefore work our way around. It was absolutely right that the Committee should have gone to Zimbabwe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said. Such visits count enormously in ensuring that we are well informed in this House and as part of the decision-making process.

I wish to place on record my admiration for those, from all parts of the House, who have made such thoughtful contributions to this debate, including those who sit on the International Development Committee, and in particular those who sat on it in advance of the general election. I am grateful both to the Committee, for the time and effort that it has put into reviewing my Department’s assistance to Zimbabwe, and, similarly, to the all-party Africa group, of which I was formerly a member, for its insightful and authoritative report on land in Zimbabwe earlier this year, which was debated in Westminster Hall. That debate was notably led by the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), who spoke knowledgably, passionately and pragmatically.

I need to declare a sort of interest. Although I was born up the road from Zimbabwe, in Tanzania, and was raised there and in Kenya, my parents lived in Harare in Zimbabwe in the mid-1980s.

The Committee’s inquiry into the DFID programme came at an opportune time. It was published about 15 months after the inception of the global political agreement and nearly a year after the formation of the inclusive Government—the Government of national unity. The GPA created the necessary space, as it has rightly been defined, to allow that necessary, but admittedly not perfect, situation to arise. I welcome the report and thank the Committee for its understanding not only of the challenges that Zimbabwe unquestionably faces, but of the significant potential to rebuild the country. The Government, and my Department in particular, greatly appreciate the fact that the report roundly endorsed the UK’s work in Zimbabwe and commended many of our programmes.

I am also pleased that the Committee acknowledged that DFID spending—about $100 million—is effective and reaches the intended beneficiaries, and that we have therefore helped to reassure hon. Members and others who may have had questions about taxpayers’ money being well spent. DFID, along with its donor partners, is effective in Zimbabwe at reaching the poorest and most vulnerable people. UK support saves lives, builds livelihoods, helps to restore the foundations for future growth and provides basic services. As has been mentioned, it is equally important to recognise that private sector development activity, both internally and through foreign investment, can help towards achieving the critical aim of generating the necessary conditions for confidence. I should add that the report has been helpful in informing the ongoing bilateral aid review that my Department is undertaking. All the spending plans for each country, including Zimbabwe, are under active consideration, and as the ministerial team member covering Africa, I can testify that this has been an incredibly time-consuming, intense, detailed and rigorous process, but also a very rewarding one.

Since the formation of the inclusive Government, our programme has shifted from one primarily focused on humanitarian support to one focused on the provision of basic services, especially in health, education, water supply and livelihoods, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) pointed out. This evolution towards longer-term programmes that tackle the underlying causes of poverty and vulnerability was endorsed by the International Development Committee.

DFID has a high-quality, professional team on the ground, led by the DFID head of office, Dave Fish, and I pay a very warm and respectful tribute to him and his team. I note with genuine respect and gratitude the Committee’s conclusion that the DFID team has played an important leadership role in creating opportunities for joint efforts by like-minded donors. I am also pleased to note how the various parts of Her Majesty’s Government are working extremely well together in Zimbabwe, co-ordinating, collaborating and complementing each other. Tributes have already been paid to Her Majesty’s ambassador in Zimbabwe, Mark Canning, who continues to play an absolutely critical role.

The UK led the establishment of the educational transition fund, managed by UNICEF, which will provide a set of core textbooks to every state primary school student in Zimbabwe this year. The UK also led the negotiations leading to the creation of a multi-donor trust fund that will provide funding to meet critical infrastructure needs, which partly answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz). UK aid to Zimbabwe has achieved substantial results and brought real benefits to Zimbabwe’s people, particularly some of its poorest and most vulnerable and the hardest to reach. It operates without political prejudice, with beneficiaries selected solely on the ground of need, not of political affiliation. One point that came out of the debate was how we need to respond to the demand that is coming up from the people of Zimbabwe, rather than looking at the matter from the top down. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) rightly pointed out that the needs of those people are monumental.

In order to update the House and the Committee on progress, I shall give a few examples of the impact we have had. In 12 months, the UK, focusing very much on results and outcomes, has helped to provide essential medicines to 1,300 primary care clinics and rural hospitals. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) made some important points about that. We have also distributed 43 million condoms and delivered 41,000 antiretroviral treatments. About two thirds of ARVs go to female beneficiaries, and about one third to men. The important work in this area was also mentioned by the hon. Member for East Londonderry.

The UK has refurbished infrastructure in six key public hospitals in cities and large towns across the country: Harare, Mpilo, Bulawayo, Mutare, Gweru and Masvingo. We have supported 256,000 smallholder farmer households, covering about 1 million people, with seeds and fertilisers in a flagship livelihoods programme, and helped 20 urban councils to provide their residents with access to clean water, reducing the impact of cholera and other water-borne diseases. We have also supported the Ministry of Finance to produce a cash budget for 2010—the first credible budget in years. It is vital to recognise that the health element is a key lever in what we are trying to achieve, along with livelihood programmes in the rural areas.

As all this suggests, the UK has played a leading role in restoring essential health and other services to the people of Zimbabwe, which had collapsed almost completely by late 2008. DFID’s support is provided through the most effective mechanisms available in any given sector, and our work with UNICEF and others played a major role in addressing the cholera outbreak in 2008-09.

Phase 2 of the protracted relief programme was mentioned; the PRP is now reaching about 2 million people. It is effective, and we hope that, with gradual economic recovery, PRP beneficiaries will start to be able to meet their own needs and graduate from donor support. We have a series of refreshed and innovative monitoring and evaluation processes in Zimbabwe. We recognise the concerns of some non-governmental organisations about the scale of the PRP, and we have met them regularly, including through issuing open invitations to quarterly meetings with the head of the DFID office. The vast majority of PRP funds go to the recipients on the ground, and to help to keep local NGOs running and operational.

Following the establishment of our coalition Government here in the UK, the Secretary of State initiated a thorough review of all bilateral aid programmes. As this process is not yet complete, it would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt it by anticipating the final conclusion. However, for as long as the UK is able to achieve results and value for money in Zimbabwe, I would anticipate continuing to provide it with substantial support, given the scale of ongoing need and growing demand. This is in line with the conclusions of the International Development Committee inquiry across a number of its recommendations.

For example, the IDC has tasked DFID with doing even more on maternal and child health—a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich—and I am pleased to say that this chimes well with the development priorities of the coalition Government. I simply ask the House to be a bit patient and await the outcome of the review; we can aim for more precision at the end of that process.

Although the revenue of the Government of Zimbabwe is increasing, little money is available for recurrent or development activities once the public service wage bill has been met. The finance Minister there is conscious of the need to maximise Government revenue, particularly from mining. Clearly, all the people of Zimbabwe, not just a corrupt few, should benefit from rich resources.

The issue of diamonds was raised by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and others, not least the right hon. Member for Gordon. Zimbabwe will not be able to export diamonds legally from Murange under the Kimberley process. We and our EU partners have put measures in place to prevent non-Kimberley-process-compliant diamonds from entering our markets, but we call on Zimbabwe to maintain a firm commitment to the process and to continue to take action to bring all operations into compliance with it. That would facilitate contributions to Zimbabwe’s economic development. We note with disappointment that the Zimbabwe Minister for mines, Mpofu, declined to attend the Brussels meeting on 23 November. The Brussels working group on the Kimberley process permits exports from compliant mines—Mbada and Canadile—and ensures that exports from mines that are not compliant do not enter EU markets.

Zimbabwe’s inclusive Government, which took office in February 2009, have made considerable progress since they started stabilising the economy. The economy is growing for the first time since 1997—by 7% in 2010 and by an anticipated 8% in 2011. Inflation is low and basic education and health services have been pulled back from the brink of collapse. It is fragile and complex, however; it is certainly not quick and easy.

Returnees—whether they be from South Africa or, indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury urged, from the United Kingdom—are an important potential source of the consolidation of the economic reforms. I point out to my hon. Friend that the international health partnerships provide a significant opportunity and that those Zimbabweans without legal status in the UK who decide to return to Zimbabwe voluntarily are already entitled to a package of financial assistance from the Home Office. I hope that provides him with some encouragement. Clearly, the skills are necessary to ensure the economic underpinning.

The same applies to workers who were driven off farms. Another important aspect of our debate has been the importance of underpinning the economic confidence that we require and hope to see develop, which comes from the sensitive complexities of the land reform process.

I was asked what we are doing, above all, to help UK or other businesses to invest in Zimbabwe. Confidence is all, given the real difficulties that exist, not least in the agriculture sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) raised that issue and he was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). Confidence about land tenure is important, and can be achieved either through licensing or by ensuring access to infrastructural developments, whether they relate to irrigation, storage or distribution through transport networks. The fund that we discussed earlier is important and we need to give a cautious welcome to the inclusive Government’s decision to review the indigenisation process. It at least sends out a signal in respect of businesses with a 51% so-called indigenous ownership. That is now being reviewed, which we welcome, and it is an important part of the context of the points raised in debate.

Nothing will move in Zimbabwe without recognition of the political context. Progress in stabilising the economy still leaves power in the hands of hard-liners, whether in the military, the police or the intelligence services. With an unequal power-sharing agreement, things are difficult. Many Members were right to raise the issue of how neighbouring states, and especially South Africa and the Southern African Development Community, have a genuine opportunity and responsibility to lead engagement with Zimbabwe, hopefully resulting in the brokering of an agreement, which we anticipate will benefit the greatest possible number of people in Zimbabwe. That was the main point made by the hon. Member for York Central. As guarantors of the global political agreement, South Africa and SADC are in an important position, which we wish to support. We stand ready to do what we can to support that process.

I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) about the pensions issue. I must declare an interest, as my father is in a similar position, having been denied much of his pension from his overseas civil service career.

To give time to the Chairman of the Select Committee to reply to the debate, I will finish my remarks by reminding Members of the House that Zimbabwe was brought to its knees in 2008, as a result of years of economic mismanagement and a complete disregard for the rule of law and the well-being of the majority of the people. However, the potential for the country to bounce back quickly is significant. The economic prospects, notably in agriculture, minerals and tourism, are such that if the business climate improved, there should be no shortage of investors. The country’s natural assets, combined with the outstanding human capital, even after millions have left the country in recent years, still set Zimbabwe apart from much of Africa. In my belief, the creation of such organically driven conditions is in Zimbabwe’s DNA, and its potential can be unlocked once again. As a landlocked country, however, Zimbabwe and its neighbours are interdependent. In that regard, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford drew on the Tanzanian example, which is extremely important.

So much hinges on the politics and on putting in place a system of governance and accountability that allows the economy and people to thrive. I confirm that the UK is committed to continuing to be involved in a partnership in supporting Zimbabwe and its people to recover and grow. My Department stands ready to continue to play its leading role, as part of a cross-Government approach, in helping to bring that about.

18:58

[Malcolm Bruce]

I am pleased that you are in the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I wish to put it on record that you were a member of the Committee that took part in the visit to Zimbabwe. You will therefore have had a personal interest in the debate.

The debate has been extremely valuable, and it has been well informed by Members on both sides of the House who brought a variety of expertise and special interest to bear on the matter. It is also timely, because the next few months will see developments that could take Zimbabwe in a number of directions, not all of which are good, but I hope that some will have positive outcomes. I endorse the thanks not only to our ambassador, but to Dave Fish, whom I should have mentioned in my opening speech. He and his team gave us a huge amount of support and are doing a fantastic job in Zimbabwe.

I want to make two points. On farming, agriculture and land ownership, the tragedy is that the SADC tribunal has identified a way forward, and it has deemed that the regulations being applied by the Government of Zimbabwe are racist, as is the indigenisation legislation, which defines Zimbabweans not as citizens of Zimbabwe, but as black citizens of Zimbabwe, excluding a whole section of the community by their racial origin, not their citizenship. Clearly, it is unsatisfactory that SADC’s position is unenforceable in one of its own member states, and that must be addressed in the longer term.

My final point is that however difficult the situation is, the MDC has control of finance through Tendai Biti, and has produced a cash-positive budget—

19:00

Debate interrupted, and Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54(4).

The Deputy Speaker put the deferred Questions (Standing Order No. 54(5)).

vote on account, 2011-12

Home Office

Resolved,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2012, for expenditure by the Home Office—

(1) resources, not exceeding £4,490,851,000, be authorised, on account, for use for current purposes as set out in HC 593,

(2) resources, not exceeding £225,450,000, be authorised, on account, for use for capital purposes as so set out, and

(3) a sum, not exceeding £4,601,101,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.

Department for International Development

Resolved,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2012, for expenditure by the Department for International Development—

(1) resources, not exceeding £2,498,978,000, be authorised, on account, for use for current purposes as set out in HC 593,

(2) resources, not exceeding £700,200,000, be authorised, on account, for use for capital purposes as so set out, and

(3) a sum, not exceeding £2,962,928,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.

The Deputy Speaker then put the Questions on the outstanding Estimates (Standing Order No.55).

supplementary estimates, 2010-11

Resolved,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2011—

(1) further resources, not exceeding £5,776,805,000, be authorised for use for defence and civil services as set out in HC 536,

(2) a further sum, not exceeding £5,707,827,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to meet the costs of defence and civil services as so set out, and

(3) limits as so set out be set on appropriations in aid.—(James Duddridge.)

estimates, 2011-12 (vote on account)

Resolved,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2012—

(1) resources, not exceeding £215,642,558,000, be authorised, on account, for use for current purposes as set out in HC 589, HC 593, HC 596, HC 604, HC 613 and HC 621,

(2) resources, not exceeding £21,660,305,000, be authorised, on account, for use for capital purposes as so set out, and

(3) a sum, not exceeding £195,788,281,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(James Duddridge)

Ordered, That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions;

That the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Danny Alexander, Mark Hoban, David Gauke and Justine Greening bring in the Bill.

Consolidated Fund Bill

Presentation and First Reading

Mark Hoban accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources for the service of the year ending with 31 March 2011 and to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending with 31 March 2011, and to authorise the use of resources for the year ending with 31 March 2012, and the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund for the year ending with 31 March 2012.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 111).

Business of the House (Today)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, (Standing Order No. 15),

That, at this day’s sitting, proceedings on the Motion in the name of Sir George Young relating to Business of the House (Thursday) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—(James Duddridge.)

19:02

Division 146

Ayes: 315

---

Conservative: 269
Liberal Democrat: 45

Noes: 216

---

Labour: 199
Scottish National Party: 5
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Independent: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Deferred Divisions

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),

That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the motion in the name of Sir George Young relating to Business of the House (Thursday)—(Mr Vara.)

19:18

Division 147

Ayes: 320

---

Conservative: 264
Liberal Democrat: 45

Noes: 216

---

Labour: 199
Scottish National Party: 5
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Independent: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Have you had any indication of a further Government statement on changes to their plans to treble student fees? I ask because the Institute for Fiscal Studies has brought out today a report in which it confirms that graduates from the poorest 30% of households would pay back more than under the current system—a point seemingly lost on the Prime Minister today—and that the new system will generate perverse incentives for universities charging more than £6,000 to turn away students from poorer backgrounds. Given that it is now clear that the Government’s proposals for student support seem to have been written on the back of the Deputy Prime Minister’s fag packet, do we not need a statement to clarify things once and for all?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Just to assist the House, I have not been given any indication that there is likely to be a statement today on that or, indeed, any other issue.

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The House will know that many Members from all parts of the country have been struggling to get here, and that last Thursday they faced very long journeys back to their constituencies throughout the United Kingdom. Have either yourself or the Speaker had an opportunity to discuss with the two Front-Bench teams and, in particular, the Leader of the House whether it might be appropriate, given the very severe weather conditions and the fact that, for example, the Army has been called out in parts of the United Kingdom, to cancel tomorrow’s sitting so that we can reconvene when all Members are able to take part?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

If there is likely to be any change to the business of the House tomorrow, the House will be told in the usual manner.

We shall now move on to the motion on the business of the House for Thursday. Before we do so, I ask hon. Members to look at the motion and to see how tight it is. I do not expect tomorrow’s debate to take place today; nor do I expect a rehearsal of it.

Business of the House (Thursday)

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

19:36

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

I beg to move,

That, at the sitting on Thursday 9 December, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Secretary Vince Cable relating to Higher Education Higher Amount and, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), on the Motion in the name of Secretary Vince Cable on the draft Higher Education (Basic Amount) (England) Regulations not later than five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first motion, or at 5.30 pm, whichever is the earlier; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.

The motion is sharply focused on the timing of tomorrow’s debate. It allows for the motions in the name of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills relating to higher education to be debated together and for the Questions to be put after five hours or at 5.30 pm, whichever is earlier.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir George Young]

No, not at this stage. I will give way in a moment.

I expect to answer the business question tomorrow, but the Government have no plans for any other oral statements. We therefore expect the House to have a full day to debate and vote on the issues.

[Chris Bryant]

I tried to intervene at the precise moment when the Leader of the House referred to the precise words that I have trouble with: “whichever is the earlier”. Why could it not be, “whichever is the later”?

[Sir George Young]

If the hon. Gentleman had wanted, he could have tabled an amendment to the motion and we could have debated it. No such amendment was tabled by any Opposition Member and I therefore assume that they are entirely content to stop at 5.30 pm.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Sir George Young]

I want to make a bit of progress and then I will give way.

When I announced the business for tomorrow at business questions last Thursday, no Member on the Opposition Benches raised objections to the timing or the process of the motions. The process that we are using for the debate tomorrow is set out in section 26 of the Higher Education Act 2004, under which the regulations are to be made. The Opposition will be familiar with that process, given that it is their Act that allows us to make these changes by secondary legislation.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way. Why in the motion did he choose the time of 5.30 pm? It is clear that the House’s intention is that the point of interruption on a Thursday should be 6 pm. Why is it 5.30 and not 6 pm?

[Sir George Young]

No representations were made through the usual channels for an extension beyond 5.30. After 5.30, I anticipate that there will be votes, which will take us to 6 o’clock, when the House usually rises.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

rose—

[Sir George Young]

I will make a bit more progress.

Our original business plan provided for a maximum of four and a half hours’ debate.

[Mr Hanson]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir George Young]

In a moment. The motion allows for the House to consider the statutory instrument and the resolution in a single debate, which removes the need for two sets of Front-Bench speeches and allows for more Back-Bench contributions.

[Mr Hanson]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that in Wales, where my constituency is, there is a policy not to treble tuition fees. Does he think that five hours is sufficient time for more than 500 Members from English seats to look longingly at my country?

[Sir George Young]

We had an Opposition day debate on the subject, when the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to debate the matter at some length. We are using the procedures set out in the legislation introduced by the Labour Government. We are following those procedures to the letter and allowing more time for the debate than was originally planned.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Sir George Young]

I am going to make a bit more progress.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir George Young]

No, I am going to make a bit more progress.

[Paul Farrelly]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is simply not the case that no concerns have been raised about this procedure. I raised them in a point of order last week, if you remember, and they have been highlighted by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) in an early-day motion. How can the House correct the record?

[Mr Speaker]

May I say to the hon. Gentleman, first, that as far as he is concerned, he has just done so. Secondly, I do indeed recall his point of order, which was in fact on Monday night. I would have serious problems with my short-term memory if I did not recall it, but I do.

[Sir George Young]

For the convenience of the House, the Divisions will be taken together at the end of the debate, as specified in the motion. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has set out previously, it is right that we bring forward the motions now, to give prospective students and universities certainty before the 2012-13 application round starts.

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

It has been reported in the press that Thursday was selected as the day for debating the motions because of the hope that Scottish and Northern Irish MPs might not be present. Is there any truth in that? The Leader of the House can take great comfort from the fact that we will be here, and we will be voting against the motions.

[Sir George Young]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman will be here. I announced last Thursday that the debate would take place tomorrow, and no one objected once during business questions to the day that we chose for the debate.

A slower process would have been not only unfair to prospective students and their families but irresponsible, because of the need to tackle the fiscal crisis that the previous Government left behind. My intention in bringing forward this evening’s motion was to allow adequate time for tomorrow’s important debate. I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will support that intention, and I commend the motion to the House.

19:39

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I rise to oppose the motion. I must say to the Leader of the House that I had been expecting a better justification to the House of the thinking that lay behind this timetable motion. Perhaps he is embarrassed by the shambles of the past two days. Those who read The Guardian newspaper, as many of us do, will have read with great joy about the reference to the Liberal Democrats’ hokey cokey when it comes to voting. Perhaps he did not want to be outdone and decided to have his own hokey cokey on this motion. The timetable motion was on the Order Paper for Monday and was objected to. It was on the Order Paper for Tuesday and the Government did not have the courage to move it, and it is back again tonight.

The Leader of the House says that he has not received any representations about the time that will be allocated. I have news for him: he is about to get a lot of representations, and the most important one of all will be when Labour Members all go through the Division Lobby to vote no to this motion.

The content of the motion is not surprising, even though it has changed a little since the version of yesterday and the day before. It is clear that the Government want one thing and one thing only: to spend as little time as possible on this matter, and to get it out of the way as quickly as possible.

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

Does my right hon. Friend accept that if only half the Members of the House wanted to take part in the debate tomorrow, that would allow only 50 seconds per Member?

[Hilary Benn]

I do indeed, and that illustrates a point that I shall come to—the inadequacy of the time that the House is being given to debate the matter.

[Kevin Brennan]

Is not my right hon. Friend’s point completely proved by the motion itself, in that the Government chose 5.30 pm as the time for the debate to end when the moment of interruption for a Thursday, voted for by this House, is 6 o’clock? Votes should take place after 6 o’clock on a Thursday, not before. That shows that the Government are not providing enough time.

[Hilary Benn]

I agree completely with my hon. Friend. That raises this question: what are the Government worried about in that extra half hour? The truth is that they do not want to listen to any more arguments. Given the problems that they have faced over their handling of tuition fees and their broken promises, that is not surprising. However, it is outrageous—I use that word deliberately—that the Government propose to allow the House of Commons only a few hours to discuss and consider the most fundamental change to student support and the funding of higher education that we have ever seen in this country. It is also breathtakingly disrespectful.

For proof of that, we need only to consider the fact that the debate on this business motion can continue until any hour. In other words, the Government are prepared to spend more time debating the allocation of time than they are prepared to give the House of Commons actually to debate, discuss and vote on their proposals.

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

My right hon. Friend might wish to know that I have been informed that the Government Chief Whip has told the dining room not to bother to put on any extra food tonight, because this debate will be over in an hour’s time.

[Hilary Benn]

I do not presume to comment on the powers of the Chief Whip to see the future, except to say that clearly, in view of the problems we had on Monday evening, his powers are not all they are cracked up to be. The truth, as you will know, Mr Speaker, is that the debate will go on for as long as it takes—it depends on how many right hon. and hon. Members seek to catch your eye.

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

Further to the point that my right hon. Friend makes, the Leader of the House said that he is “using the procedures”. What does my right hon. Friend think the Leader of the House meant by that?

[Hilary Benn]

To be honest, I have no idea what the Leader of the House was talking about. It is for him to explain his words. The truth is that the procedure that the Government are proposing to use to give the House time to discuss their proposals is completely inadequate.

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

Tomorrow, 45,000 students will visit London to make their views known. Does my right hon. Friend agree that giving the House only five hours of debate is an insult to them?

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It shows what the Government think of all those students that they propose to give so little time to debate this matter.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only 45,000 or 50,000 students will be coming down tomorrow? Their parents and grandparents—

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

And great-grandparents!

[Robert Flello]

Indeed—in some cases the great-grandparents will be here, along with siblings, nieces and nephews, because hundreds of thousands of people object to the Government’s disgraceful behaviour.

[Hilary Benn]

If great-grandparents are concerned, we must be talking about very young students indeed, but my hon. Friend makes a forceful point about the large number of people in this country who are profoundly concerned about the proposals that we are being asked to debate tomorrow. I am sure that they will share the concern that we are expressing at the lack of time that we are being given.

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

Was it not terribly unfair of the Leader of the House to imply that last week’s Opposition debate revealed that there was ample time? Had he looked at that debate, he would have seen that far more people wanted to make a contribution than the time allowed. He is now making it impossible for hon. Members to represent their constituents.

[Hilary Benn]

That is absolutely right, and I am sure that we will have the same problem tomorrow if the motion is passed.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in 2004, when the House had before it a seven-part Bill, containing 15,000 words, 50 clauses and seven schedules, there were many, many hours for debate? Given that the Government’s proposals are more profound—they introduce a market, which we have never had before in higher education, and the withdrawal of teaching—should we not have more time? Should our democracy not have more time to debate those changes?

[Hilary Benn]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I shall remind the House later in my speech about the time that it had on previous occasions to discuss legislation to do with student support.

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

Is it not important that we have more time to illustrate the importance of the issue, support for which, as has already been pointed out, is not confined to students? We are proud of those students who are marching and demonstrating, but in tonight’s Evening Standard reference is made to a 105-year-old person who has sent a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister to say that she wants to march with her 72-year-old daughter but is unable to do so because she is blind. Does not that illustrate that up and down the country adults are supporting the students because they know that the students are right?

[Hilary Benn]

Indeed they are. I could not have put it more eloquently than my hon. Friend.

[Paul Farrelly]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there could not be a greater contrast between the way in which the coalition Government are handling this and the way in which the Labour Government handled it seven years ago, no matter on what side of the argument one stands? Then the 105-page White Paper was published a whole year before the debate and the changes were introduced only after a general election, so the British public had the opportunity to vote on them.

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend anticipates the very point that I will come to a little later in my speech.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that these are wide-ranging proposals that will completely restructure our university system and that five hours is simply not enough time to discuss these issues? Does this not also show that the opposition are running scared of a proper debate on this issue?

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend of course refers to those Liberal Democrats who will vote against these proposals—but not enough will vote against them as far as the country is concerned.

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

Last week in business questions, the Leader of the House said that on Wednesday next week there would be a Second Reading of “a Bill”, demonstrating some indecision on the part of the Government. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that shows that the excuse that the Leader of the House has just given to Members from Scotland and Northern Ireland about avoiding a Thursday is paltry, because the Government could have scheduled the debate for Wednesday next week?

[Hilary Benn]

They could indeed have done so, but responsibility for that rests with the Leader of the House.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given that students from Plymouth and the south-west have a 10-hour round trip to come up to London tomorrow, they deserve more than five hours for an explanation from the Liberal Democrats of why a pledge to the electorate is worth less than a pledge to the Conservative party in the coalition agreement?

[Hilary Benn]

They do indeed, and—given the inclement weather conditions—those students will probably spend more time travelling than they will having the chance to listen to the House of Commons debating the motion.

There are three principal reasons—to do with time—why the House should vote down this motion. The first is the importance and the consequence of the decision on tuition fees. When one compares the time allocated to the House when previous changes were proposed—and they were much less extensive changes to student support and the funding of higher education than those that will be before us tomorrow—we can see just how inadequate the time that is being offered is. The second reason is the fact, referred to in a point of order earlier, that this debate and vote are being arranged before the promised White Paper on higher education is published and when a whole series of fundamental questions remain about how the new world that the Minister for Universities and Science and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills propose will actually work. I shall come to some of those questions later.

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

The shadow Leader of the House waxes eloquent tonight. Would it not be more credible to be honest with the House and say that stopping free education is not a smaller issue than the one we will debate tomorrow? That is what his Government did.

[Hilary Benn]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to you, Mr Speaker, but I am afraid I had some difficultly understanding the point he was seeking to make. He clearly had the same difficulty himself. I will happily give way again if he wants to have another go.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

Absolutely. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to hear the thoughts of Mr Zahawi.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

The shadow Leader has just told the House that what we are debating tomorrow is of greater consequence than the reneged promise that his Government delivered upon, which abolished free education altogether. That is a wrong thing to tell the House. Will he explain himself?

[Hilary Benn]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is in urgent need of a history lesson because I do not recognise what he is describing. There is a profound difference. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We cannot have great eruptions of noise any time a Member chooses, for whatever reason, to leave the Chamber. Members will want to listen to Mr Hilary Benn.

[Hilary Benn]

The point is this: there is a profound difference between the previous system, which was a way of raising additional finance for our universities, and the enormous reduction in funding for our universities that this increase in fees is based upon. That is why it is completely different.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that five hours is hardly enough time for the Liberal Democrats to explain their four different positions?

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right. She anticipates a point I will make later. Of all the issues facing the House at the moment, it is clear that on this issue—for the reasons she has just pointed out—lots and lots of time will be required, so that Members can explain their positions. In the case of the Liberal Democrats, four different positions, at the last count, will have to be explained. There is huge public interest in the matter and, in the light of that, the time proposed is wholly inadequate.

I want to quote what Lord Browne had to say in his foreword to the report, “Securing a Sustainable Future for Higher Education,” which runs to 64 pages. Lord Browne wrote—[Interruption.] Hon. Members will see in a moment. I quote:

“In November 2009, I was asked to lead an independent Panel to review the funding of higher education and make recommendations to ensure that teaching”—

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks do not refer to the timings or business of the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am keenly attending to the debate, but I know that he—very distinguished man though he is—would not try to tell me how to do my job.

[Hilary Benn]

Lord Browne went on to state:

“Over the last year, we have consulted widely and intensively. Our recommendations are based on written and oral evidence drawn from students, teachers, academics, employers and regulators. We have looked…at every aspect of implementing them – financial, practical and educational – to ensure that the recommendations we are making are realistic for the long term.”

The most important words in that quotation are these:

“Over the last year, we have consulted widely and intensively.”

[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am trying to listen intently to what the shadow Leader of the House is saying, but the hubbub is too great. It is calming down now and we will hear the shadow Leader.

[Hilary Benn]

As I said, the quote from Lord Browne is:

“Over the last year, we have consulted widely and intensively.”

[Interruption.] If hon. Members will be patient, they will see what this has got to do with the business motion before us tonight. Let us compare the length of time that Lord Browne took in preparing his proposals to what is before the House tonight. The Browne committee had a year to consider what it recommended; the House is to be given five hours to consider the recommendations and dispose of them. Everybody else was consulted at length, but MPs are to be given just five hours to express a view.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can help me. I have been pondering whether any measure of comparable controversy has ever gone through this House with so little debate and in such a short space of time. Can he help me? Is there any example of that?

[Hilary Benn]

In preparing for the debate this evening, I, too, asked myself that, and I struggled to think of another example of when the House had so little time to consider something so profound.

Nobody can be under any misapprehension about the scale of the change that is being proposed. Lord Browne said:

“What we recommend is a radical departure from the existing way in which HEIs”—

higher education institutions—

“are financed…Our recommendations will lead to a significant change”.

The plain truth is that the Browne report, which is radical and significant in its implications, has not even been debated in the House yet. Since the report was published, on 12 October 2010, there has been one urgent question, when the Secretary of State was forced to come to the House and explain what was going on, and one ministerial statement, on 3 November. However, there has been no debate at all on the Browne report in Government time—none.

[Pete Wishart]

rose—

[Kevin Brennan]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) seems to be turning into the hon. Member for Taunting. Is there anything that can be done to allow us to listen to the debate, rather than to his ranting?

[Mr Speaker]

I had been watching and listening closely, and I was conscious—I was about to comment on the fact—that a rather animated and protracted exchange seemed to be taking place between the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Whether some sort of private salon was taking place I do not know, but it must not do so. We must listen to the debate, so no taunting should take place at all. Let us listen to Mr Hilary Benn.

[Hilary Benn]

I think I was in the process of giving way to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart).

[Pete Wishart]

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can take this opportunity to remind the House how many hours the Labour party made available to debate tuition fees on the Floor of the House when the previous Government attempted to hike them up.

[Hilary Benn]

I will gladly do that. If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I shall come to that point in a moment.

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

Let me point out to my right hon. Friend that there is indeed a precedent for curtailing debate, and that is where a great deal of consensus exists across the Chamber. Perhaps he can illuminate for me whether there has been some magic movement on the Government Benches in the past few hours, and whether Government Members now agree with us—and with Wales and Scotland—because then we can indeed have a shortened debate.

[Hilary Benn]

It would be very nice if that were the case, but I fear that on this occasion the amount of time that the Government want to allocate is in inverse proportion to the consensus. That is the difficulty that we have. The truth is that if the Government could get away with it, they would much prefer the House of Commons not to debate and discuss the proposal at all, so that they could try to get it through on the nod. I can think of no other change in student support that has been put before the House with so little scrutiny or debate.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I have to say that I find it deeply ironic that so many Members opposite are now raising concerns about the amount of time for debate. I remember that when I was president of Reading university students’ union and was raising concerns with the National Union of Students about the value for money of our affiliation fees, many Members opposite would set the fire alarms off.

[Hilary Benn]

I can be held responsible for many things, but I am afraid that the use of fire alarms at the university of Reading is not one of them. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There are people chuntering from a sedentary position and urging the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) to name the people who set off the fire alarms. That would be entirely disorderly and we are not going to have it.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are ahead of me, because I was given the impression that the culprits were present tonight. If that were the case, I was going to ask you to give them the opportunity to stand up and own up to that heinous crime.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that I will consider that to be a point of humour, because it certainly was not a point of order.

[Kevin Brennan]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. When I was at university, the ones letting off the fire extinguishers were in the Bullingdon club.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not know about fire alarms, but people are certainly letting off steam. They have now done so, and we must return to the important subject of the debate on this relatively narrow motion.

[Hilary Benn]

rose—

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Sadly, I did not go to university, but during my time in the fire service, setting off fire alarms was considered to be a very irresponsible act.

[Mr Speaker]

We are all grateful to have the benefit of the hon. Gentleman’s experience, and for that recitation of his curriculum vitae, but we must now return to the debate.

[Hilary Benn]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

The sense of outrage that is certainly felt on this side of the Chamber is of course shared by those on the Liberal Democrat Benches. The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) is not in his place tonight, but he has tabled an early-day motion, which many Members have signed, that makes an eloquent plea for more time.

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Can my right hon. Friend seek some reassurance? Should a fire alarm be set off during the debate tomorrow, would the debate be extended?

[Hilary Benn]

I do not think that that is the kind of injury time that the Standing Orders would cover. I am beginning to think that my time at university was somewhat sheltered in comparison to the revelations being made on the Floor of the House this evening. The hon. Member for Leeds North West is making the point that he does not think there has been enough time. He thinks that the proposal should be put to one side so that it can be properly considered.

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

Earlier, the Leader of the House made the claim—I think it was simply a mistake on his part, rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead the House—that Members on this side of the House had had the opportunity to table amendments to the proceedings. Given that the motion was not taken last night, and appeared on the Order Paper only this morning, am I right in thinking that there has been no opportunity for us to table amendments?

[Hilary Benn]

What happened last night was certainly extremely unusual, and the Leader of the House did not seek to enlighten us this evening as to why the Government pulled the plug on their own proposal. Perhaps he anticipated the debate that we were going to have this evening, and the opposition to the motion that was going to be expressed on this side of the Chamber.

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

I am sure that my right hon. Friend really wants to help the Leader of the House to find some additional time, so I refer back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds). We were given an indication last week that an unspecified Bill was going to come before the House next Wednesday. The rumour is that it is the long-awaited and much-heralded localism Bill. There is a further rumour, however, that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is more enthusiastic about that Bill than some of his Cabinet colleagues. If that is the case, can my right hon. Friend give us any more information about whether the Bill has been lost in the fog of Whitehall, and whether there might after all be time to debate this business next Wednesday?

[Hilary Benn]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is at the very least extremely tangential to the matter that we are supposed to be discussing, and I know that the shadow Leader of the House would not for one moment seek to dilate on the subject of the localism Bill. I know that he is going to proceed with his speech in an orderly way.

[Hilary Benn]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As far as the identity of that Bill is concerned, I was going to observe only that it is a mystery. No doubt all will be revealed to us in due course.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

As one of the new Members of this House, I am uniquely placed to offer my experience of student debt, as one of the people in the House who still carries such a debt. How many people are likely to be able to speak in a five-hour debate? Newer Members are more likely to be carrying student debt, and they would like to offer their own perspectives on the matter.

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for us to have more time, precisely so that the experiences of all Members can be brought to bear on this important question, which will affect future generations of students.

[Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

The fundamental issue at stake here is that there are genuine arguments for and against tuition fees and for and against the level at which the Government want to set them. I accept that there are arguments on both sides. It is not only Members who should have an opportunity to debate the details that genuinely concern us all; the public have the right to see their legislators spending a decent amount of time doing so. This is not a partisan point. On an issue as important as this, why must we restrict the time for debate? Why can we not have, purely and simply, more time to debate an issue that Members of all parties and the public are both fascinated and worried by?

[Hilary Benn]

It seems to me that my hon. Friend makes a powerful case. I would gladly give way to the Leader of the House for an explanation. He did not explain in his speech why so little time has been allocated, so perhaps he would like to explain that now. No, he is not inclined to take that—[Interruption.] Oh, well.

[Sir George Young]

If the amount of time allocated for this debate is insufficient, why did the right hon. Gentleman not draw the House’s attention to it last Thursday? When I announced today’s debate on exactly these regulations, he said nothing at all.

[Hilary Benn]

It has been very clear for a long time that Labour Members want adequate time to debate this. The way to deal with it is to consider the proposal before us; we will vote against it tonight because inadequate time has been allotted.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Is it not the case that the shadow Minister failed to spot this last Thursday, failed to move an amendment and has been asleep at the wheel?

[Hilary Benn]

No, I do not accept that. The hon. Gentleman will discover how awake we are on this side when he has to troop through the Lobby to try to vote in favour of this wholly inadequate allocation of time. The really telling comparison is between how this change is being dealt with and how the two previous changes were dealt with. That is why I shall move on to deal with points raised by Members of all parties about how these matters were handled in the past.

The National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, the Dearing review, was set up in May 1996 by the last Conservative Government. It deliberated for 15 months and published its report “Higher education in the learning society” in July 1997. There was then a Government statement and a White Paper “Higher Education in the 21st Century”, followed by the publication of the Teaching and Higher Education Bill. That became an Act in 1998 having been debated at proper length. Six hours were allotted to Second Reading alone—an hour more than we are to be allocated tomorrow. There were seven Committee sittings and two days on Report. There is the first comparison.

The second comparison is with the Higher Education Act 2004, which the orders that we will discuss tomorrow are designed to amend. It, too, had six hours on Second Reading—an hour more than we will get tomorrow—and there were 15 sittings in Committee, plus a Report stage.

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

Are not the proposed changes as significant as the Robbins report and the transformation of universities during the second half of the 20th century? To put through the marketisation of our entire university structure within five hours is absolutely shameful.

[Hilary Benn]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes an extremely powerful point.

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

My right hon. Friend refers to the orders under the previous legislation, which had to be debated by both Houses on the affirmative basis, following a review, before any decision could be made on future levels of tuition fees. The Leader of the House has suggested that the reason for this debate is entirely encapsulated in that particular piece of legislation. Incidentally, I was involved in assisting with the drafting at the time, so I remember it well. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the intention behind the drafting of those clauses at the time was wholly different from what is being put forward this evening, in terms of what should come up first for discussion, what evidence should be placed before Members to debate before any decision is taken, and when any decision should be taken according to the two resolutions?

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The usual order is that we have a committee of inquiry; the Government make a statement; they publish a White Paper, then a Bill; the Bill is considered and then regulations are made. In this case, the process has been reversed. We are being asked to approve the statutory instruments tomorrow in just five hours, before we even know the framework for the future of higher education, because the White Paper will not be published, we are told, until the new year. The cart has truly been put before the horse.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

As my right hon. Friend knows, I have been consistently against tuition fees, and voted against them the last time they were debated in the House of Commons. More importantly, I have signed a pledge with the students union that I will not vote for them to be raised, and I will honour that pledge. Surely we need the kind of debate that we had previously for a Second Reading, so that all those Liberal Democrats who will be breaking their pledge will have the opportunity to explain to students across the country why they are doing so.

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. It will be interesting to see how many Liberal Democrats wish to participate in the debate tomorrow.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend has explained the normal Bill process, but is he aware that, as a new MP, I have not seen my postbag filled on any other issue as it has been with concerns about tuition fees? I am concerned to raise those points, so that people in Wirral can have their voice heard. Is he aware of the level of concern in Wirral?

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention. No Member can be unaware of the huge concern expressed through our postbags, emails and other means, about the nature of the proposals.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the media have reported tonight that, despite the Deputy Prime Minister saying that all Lib Dem Ministers will support the proposals, two of them will not be present for the vote? Apparently, however, it is all right, because they will be paired—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The trouble with that intervention is that it has nothing to do with the allocation of time. The hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record, and he was very cheeky.

[Hilary Benn]

The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) may have something to do with the length of time that it would take some of those Ministers to return to cast their vote.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

Has my right hon. Friend noticed, as I have, the large number of Liberal Democrat Members who are prevaricating and indicating that they may abstain on the issue? Is there not a danger that abstention could be perceived as voting for the motion? Is that not a good argument for extending the time for debate, so that they can come to a decision?

[Hilary Benn]

That is a powerful point. Last week, I observed that, throughout the ages, Liberal Democrats who have been faced with a tough decision have sat on the fence. I suspect that we will see that tomorrow.

[Angela Smith]

Is it not the case that the proposals before the House tomorrow radically redraw the relationship between the state and the individual? Are they not predicated on an 80% reduction in funding for teaching? Is it not appalling that an SI should be used for such a radical shift in Government policy?

[Hilary Benn]

It certainly is. The 80% reduction is implicit in the statutory instruments that we will consider tomorrow, and it is the cause of those statutory instruments, but we will not have a proper opportunity to debate that.

[Emily Thornberry]

What is a member of the public switching on the Parliament channel to make of this? We could spend more time tonight debating how much time we should be allocated than we will spend debating the proposals tomorrow. How ironic is that? By making petty points about how we should have tabled an amendment here or there to extend the time, Government Members show how out of touch they are. Mothers watching television tonight, desperately worried about their children’s future, will feel that we should be ashamed. Why do we not spend tonight debating this matter, and tomorrow as well?

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with my hon. Friend, but the answer lies in the hands of the Leader of the House, who has shown a willingness tonight to devote more time to debating the allocation of time than he is prepared to give to debating the proposals themselves.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Some of us have universities in our constituencies, and many students will be coming down here tomorrow. It is no wonder that students are adopting an angry attitude in the streets when they find out we will have only five hours for the debate. When the Government were in opposition, they used to complain about our guillotines, and we always gave way on time. I am surprised that the Leader of the House, who is usually a reasonable man, has taken us down this road.

[Hilary Benn]

I agree. I have a great deal of respect for the Leader of the House, but I must say that I do not think he has done his job properly on this occasion.

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

Will we have an opportunity, in such a limited time, to raise issues that constituents have raised with us, particularly the withdrawal of funds in July next year from the excellent Aimhigher programme, which will pull up the ladder of opportunity? [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Tipton, who is shouting derisory comments—[Hon. Members: “Taunton.”] I mean the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), but perhaps he will be tipped on tomorrow. Anyway, given the limited time allotted to tomorrow’s debate, I do not believe that we will have an opportunity to raise valid concerns, such as the fact that children from disadvantaged backgrounds such as those in the area that I represent will be disadvantaged further.

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend has made a powerful point. Judging by the attendance in the Chamber tonight, and because so little time has been allotted, I fear that there will not be time for all the Members who will want to participate in tomorrow’s debate to have a chance to express their views to the House.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

Although on the face of it the issue at stake is tuition fees in England, the proposal will have profound effects on students from Northern Ireland—and, indeed, those in Northern Ireland. Given the restricted time that we will have in which to debate it, it is unlikely that those of us who represent those students will be able to make our case fully tomorrow. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be wise to allow us to do so, in the light of the profound implications both for students from Northern Ireland and for those who study there?

[Hilary Benn]

I agree. The proposal does indeed have profound ramifications and implications for students not only in England but in other parts of the United Kingdom, which is why we need more time.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

In view of the anomalies that the Bill will throw up west of Offa’s dyke, north of Hadrian’s wall and so on, does my right hon. Friend think that there will be enough time for us to deal with the subject of the potential migration flows as students and their families—who know that there have always been cross-border issues over health—suddenly realise that there will also be cross-border issues over tuition fees, and that whereas Scotland and Wales are doing the right thing, the tripling of tuition fees will be rammed down the throats of students in England because of the unholy alliance on the Government Benches?

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend has made a powerful point, which I am sure that he and other Members will seek to put to the Minister tomorrow. As he says, time is required for us to be able to consider all the ramifications of the proposals, and the plain fact is that we are not being given enough time to do that.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that members of all generations up and down the land will think that giving the House five hours in which to discuss the denial of access of whole generations, from whole communities, to the higher education that could change the life chances of millions of people is a complete disgrace? Should we not hasten the electrification of the railway line to Wales, so that people can have a proper opportunity to benefit from higher education?

[Hilary Benn]

I think that you would rule me out of order if I commented on the electrification of the railway line to Wales, Mr Speaker.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would you kindly give the House—and me, as a new Member—guidance on how many important debates were curtailed to five hours by the last Government, so that we can introduce some balance to this evening’s debate?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is that if the question is of interest to the hon. Gentleman, he can always undertake the necessary research. I am afraid that it is not the responsibility of the Chair to provide the answer to it tonight.

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

I believe that I heard a Labour Member refer to a Member on the Government Benches as “the hon. Member for Tipton”. Just in case there is any confusion among my electors, may I make it clear that I represent the beautiful town of Tipton, and that I will be supporting my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and the Opposition tomorrow?

[Hilary Benn]

I am sure my hon. Friend’s constituents will be very glad to have heard that clarification.

[Mr Lammy]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that just as this House is being denied a full debate, the Minister responsible for universities, who is on the Front Bench now, has been invited to sit-ins at the London School of Economics and the School of Oriental and African Studies but has not attended? Is it my right hon. Friend’s expectation that the Minister will go and talk to the students who will be gathering in this House and outside before the debate and after it tomorrow—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That may be a point of interest to the right hon. Gentleman, but it is somewhat wide of the terms of the motion. Mr Hilary Benn.

[Hilary Benn]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think that the very least the architect of the policy could do, particularly in view of the pledge he signed before the election, is go and talk to students and explain why he has changed his mind.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Many Members have tonight mentioned the fact that constituents of theirs—students and potential students—will be coming down tomorrow to lobby their MPs. Is my right hon. Friend aware that under the “#” tag “name and shame” on Twitter there is a growing list of names of MPs from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties who have refused to meet the students coming down tomorrow? I suspect they are refusing to meet them tomorrow because they will be too busy attending tomorrow’s debate. Does that not suggest that we ought to postpone tomorrow’s debate so that they have time to meet their constituents who are coming down tomorrow?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is mounting evidence that Members are referring to matters outside the Chamber as a not very subtle ruse to try to get their point across in the House, but unfortunately they are then almost always outwith the terms of the motion. We have had a few examples of that, but I hope we will not have any more. Mr Hilary Benn.

[Hilary Benn]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Hilary Benn]

Yes, I will.

[Vernon Coaker]

As my right hon. Friend knows, thousands of students from places throughout the country, including Nottingham, will be arriving in London tomorrow. As we shall debate this issue for only five hours, which I think most of those students and their families will find simply incredible, has my right hon. Friend had any discussions with the Leader of the House about informing all those students how this House arrived at that five-hour limit? Have any special arrangements been made to inform them about the decision that has been made to curtail the debate, so that they are properly informed?

[Hilary Benn]

I had hoped that in moving the motion this evening the Leader of the House would have enlightened us on that very point, but I am afraid no elucidation at all was offered as to the amount of time given to us.

I want to come on to one of the problems that we may face tomorrow. Although what is on offer now—

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

Will my right hon. Friend give way? I have an important point to make.

[Hilary Benn]

I will.

[Mr McCann]

I have a specific point I want to make about time. In three minutes’ time, constituents in the frozen Lanarkshire district, which includes my constituency, will be donning several layers of clothing and getting their ice picks and shovels out to dig their way out of their homes, so that they can meet up at their selected departure points and travel down for tomorrow’s debate. They will be leaving Lanarkshire on the M74 at about 9 pm—if they get there in time, given the horrendous weather conditions. They will be travelling overnight to get here, and they will arrive to find that, having spent over 21 hours getting here and knowing that they are going to face the same journey back, this subject will be debated for only five hours. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an outrage to our democracy?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, to whom I listened courteously, but there must be no further dilation on the subject of the motorway network. I do not think that that will aid our debate. I know that the shadow Leader of the House will respond to the hon. Gentleman’s point briefly, and then develop his further arguments.

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is an outrage, as I indicated earlier.

I wanted to say something about the amount of time that we may actually get tomorrow to debate this subject. Although the five hours that we have been offered is a 30-minute improvement on the previous period allocated, it is not absolutely guaranteed. That is because although the Leader of the House has just told us that the Government do not intend to make any statements tomorrow, it is possible that some matter may arise. You, Mr Speaker, may receive a request for an urgent question, and if that is granted we would lose time, as we will if Government Back Benchers suddenly decide they want to raise numerous lengthy points of order. If either of those eventualities arose, the British public and Members of the House would be denied even the paltry five hours being offered by the Leader of the House.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

We have all noted the restraint that the Speaker has exercised as people have strayed beyond the terms of this motion. But does he not share the concern that my constituents, and I believe his, will feel when they see the House debating what they see as a technical matter and not debating what they wish us to debate, which is the principle of whether education should be the business of the state or a purely private matter, which it will become as a result of the debate tomorrow?

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point; indeed, she anticipates something that I am going to refer to a little later in my speech. It is about the nature of the debate that we may find that we are allowed, or not allowed, to have because we will be debating a statutory instrument rather the White Paper, which has not been published.

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

Many of the students who have been in touch with me recently have expressed their concern about the fact that the withdrawal of the state from education is directed particularly at people studying the arts, social sciences and related subjects. Does my right hon. Friend believe that there will be time tomorrow to discuss not only the impact of tuition fees, but the very nature of the kind of higher education that we as a society want to value?

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. To answer her very direct question, I fear that we will not have enough time to examine that, and many other aspects.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Notwithstanding the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister has just said on Channel 4 that his conscience is clear—so he would presumably like to debate this subject at length—does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason why this debate is being curtailed is to protect the Liberal Democrats? The clue to that lies in what Chris Davies MEP says in his blog:

“Splits weaken parties, and sometimes destroy them. The reputation of the Liberal Democrat brand is being undermined with each passing hour as the impression grows stronger that on the issue of tuition fees we are not only divided but clueless…In short, we are creating the impression not just of being weak, but of being a joke.”

We should share that joke with this House, if we had sufficient time to debate this issue properly.

[Hilary Benn]

The point that my hon. Friend has just made illustrates clearly why we need more time tomorrow to examine the position of the Liberal Democrats, in all their splendour.

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

Is there not a wider and more profound issue at stake here? It relates to legislation, or changes in the law, that are railroaded through this House without adequate time for debate, and what happens when the public outside do not believe that this House has been doing its job properly and scrutinising those changes in the law. When such legislation—the classic example of which was the poll tax—is carried, it will never command the support of the public and the public will never believe that it is being instituted for the right reasons. Are the Government not in real danger of repeating the disaster of the poll tax with this ill-conceived, railroaded piece of legislation on tuition fees?

[Hilary Benn]

My right hon. Friend speaks with unique authority and force on that subject. He is giving the House a very clear warning, because if people do not feel that the House of Commons—their elected representatives—has been given adequate time to debate this very profound change, they will be even more angry than they are already.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I was the principal of a sixth-form college until recently, and I have spent my lifetime working with young people—16 to 19-year-olds. The message being given to young people about how decisions about their future are made in this House disturbs me. What does it say if we cannot give the right amount of time to this, and cannot give them the right message that this really matters, that we care about them—and care enough to share our views in full fashion, over as much time as it takes to make the right decision?

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend makes a good point: the House would be setting a very bad example to young people if it were to pass the motion tonight.

[Clive Efford]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason why it is dangerous for Back Benchers on both sides of the House, and particularly on the Government side, to allow the Executive to truncate debate or the consideration of a Bill is that it limits the scope of Back Benchers to influence Front Benchers? He will recall that when we were setting the cap that we will discuss in the debate tomorrow—the debate—which we are now debating, it was Labour Back Benchers who threatened not to support their Government, and made them set it lower. We are not hearing anything of that sort from those on the Government Benches tonight. If the desire is there to make a change, it is up to Government Back Benchers, especially Liberal Democrat MPs.

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Tomorrow the eyes of the House will be on Liberal Democrat Members in particular. Everybody knows that how they choose to vote will determine whether this proposal goes through or not.

[Clive Efford]

And whether they make that change.

[Hilary Benn]

Indeed. Back Benchers have the opportunity tonight to decide whether the motion will be passed. That is why I hope that as many as possible will join us in the Lobby to vote it down.

[Kevin Brennan]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As the Leader of the House has ignored the moment of interruption in his motion, by setting 5.30 as the time for the end of the debate tomorrow, is there any procedure by which a manuscript amendment could be tabled during the course of this debate, to extend tomorrow’s debate up until the normal moment of interruption, when any debate on a Thursday should end?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that it is open to any Member to table a manuscript amendment. Whether the amendment is selected is a matter for the Chair. The Chair would consider a manuscript amendment if and when it were submitted. That is the situation.

[Hilary Benn]

I am sure that the House is extremely grateful for that guidance, Mr Speaker.

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

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that one of the greatest achievements in recent years has been extending participation to young people from disadvantaged communities? Salford university takes 45% of its students from the local area, and that includes many young people who otherwise would not have the chance to go to university. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the curtailment of the debate tomorrow will mean that the voices of those particularly disadvantaged young people will not be heard?

[Hilary Benn]

That is the case. With five hours, there will be an opportunity for only a relatively small number of Members to participate in the debate. The number of Members who have sought to intervene in this debate tonight is a pretty good indication of the number who will want to speak tomorrow.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I am new to this House, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is therefore difficult for me to differentiate between posturing and principle, but I think I am getting a lesson in it tonight from the right hon. Gentleman. The idea of debate is not only to make one’s own point but to listen. Too frequently in debates, right hon. and hon. Members make their points and then leave the Chamber. Will the shadow Leader of the House assure us that the Opposition speakers in tomorrow’s debate will be in their places for the entire five hours of the debate? Or will there be a lot of popping in and then popping out when they have made their posturing points?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Even interventions must be relevant to the debate that we are having this evening. The subject of who will attend tomorrow is not a matter for Mr Benn.

[Hilary Benn]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point was indeed irrelevant and, I think, inconsequential.

[Robert Flello]

I am grateful yet again to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and for the generosity that he has shown in doing so. I am following his speech with great interest. I look forward to taking part in the debate tomorrow, if I should catch the eye of Mr Speaker or of one of the Deputy Speakers—and, indeed, if there is time. Does my right hon. Friend wish to comment, however, given the short amount of time that will be available, on how much time—should I be able to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair and make my point, along with other colleagues—the occupants of the Government Front Bench will have to respond to the points made by Opposition Members? How will the Government be able to answer the points that we raise, given that there is such a short time for the debate?

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The large number of matters that Members will undoubtedly wish to raise tomorrow will only add to the pressure on time, if Ministers are even to begin to attempt to answer them all.

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), who expressed the concern that she has many potentially disadvantaged students in her constituency; I do too, and I should like to have the time to represent their concerns tomorrow. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Leader of the House was disingenuous in suggesting that we had sufficient time—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I do not think that the hon. Lady should accuse the Leader of the House of being disingenuous. I am sure she would like to rephrase that.

[Emma Reynolds]

I apologise to the Leader of the House. He said only moments ago that we had sufficient time to debate these issues in the Opposition day debate, but does my right hon. Friend agree that, as the Government made a statement on that day, tomorrow will be the second time they have tried to curtail the time allowed to debate this issue?

[Hilary Benn]

That is indeed the case. The Leader of the House’s idea of sufficient time is not our idea of sufficient time.

[Mr Tom Harris]

In my right hon. Friend’s considered opinion, what would have been the chances of the Deputy Leader of the House supporting this programme motion had it been moved by a Labour Government? Should not this Damascene conversion to the value of the programme motion at least be counted in the top-10 Liberal Democrat U-turns of 2010?

[Hilary Benn]

There are many U-turns fighting to get into that top-10 list, but my hon. Friend makes a good point. Had the roles been reversed, the Deputy Leader of the House would have been fulminating from the Dispatch Box about how outrageous it was. He could have the opportunity to do so now, but I see that he simply wants to remain in his place.

I should like to make a suggestion about how we could guarantee even the inadequate amount of time given so far. We have just had very helpful guidance from the Speaker about making manuscript amendments, and the Leader of the House could amend his own motion to ensure that there would be injury time if an urgent question were to be granted or if extensive time were taken up with points of order. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is not a fan of injury time and I suspect that is because the coalition Government are not terribly keen on having a full and open debate on the matter in hand.

There is another reason why more time is required. The measures we are being asked to vote on tomorrow cannot be described as the original proposals of Lord Browne. That is why my earlier quotation was relevant. When Lord Browne produced his report, he said that his proposals had to be considered together, but we now know that the Government’s plans differ from those of Lord Browne. That is very pertinent to the argument about why more time is required, especially when one bears in mind that the Government have had no debate in their own time on Lord Browne’s proposals.

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

Further to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) made, would not a greater amount of time and a longer process allow Back Benchers on both sides and the official Opposition to make alternative proposals so that at the end of the process there would be much greater consensus, as there was in 2004?

[Hilary Benn]

That is indeed the case. Hon. Members are being denied that opportunity because the Government have chosen to put the cart before the horse.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

Does my right hon. Friend share my frustration that the Deputy Prime Minister came to my constituency the day before the election to reinforce his pledge not to raise tuition fees, but that because of the lack of time tomorrow I will not have the opportunity to challenge Liberal Democrat Members on why they are breaking that pledge?

[John Robertson]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There seems to be a lot of chuntering from a Government Whip, making remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods). Is that in order, and is he allowed to do it?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I did not hear any remarks myself, and there is quite a lot of noise in the Chamber, which makes it difficult for all Members of the House to hear. It would be best at this time if we could proceed. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing this matter to my attention, but I do not think that it is a point of order.

[Hilary Benn]

Thank you very much indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was about to give way—

[Robert Flello]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you please clarify something for me? Are Government Whips entitled to take part in debate? My understanding is that they are not. If they are not entitled to take part in debate, why is that happening?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

As I understand it, any Member is entitled to speak in a debate in the House. There may be conventions that are normally followed, but remarks, comments or shouting across the Chamber from a sedentary position in order to disrupt the debate are not permitted. I am sure that nobody will do that.

[Hilary Benn]

Thank you very much indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was about to respond to the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham. Yes, many people in the country have watched the video that the Deputy Prime Minister made in which he uttered the pledge. [Interruption.] It has to do with the time because we need to hear from Liberal Democrats—perhaps we will be lucky and hear from the Deputy Prime Minister in tomorrow’s debate, but who knows?—and we need time for an explanation of what exactly happened between the making of that pledge and the U-turn that he has performed in introducing these proposals tonight.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need more time to get the information about the various proposals that have been trailed through the press this week, which the Government suggest would justify to the House and to the public an increase in fees? Tomorrow’s debate would enable that if there were time. A number of suggestions have been made—for example, on those students who might get financial assistance. Do we not need time to hear the details of that before the House is asked to vote?

[Hilary Benn]

We do indeed. One of the big problems that Members will face tomorrow is that we do not yet have a lot of the information, and a lot of the questions that have been asked have not yet been answered. How on earth is the House meant to make up its mind on a fundamental part of these proposals in the absence of all that?

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Liberal Democrats will never be knowingly understood? If we locked two Lib Dems in a room, we would get three political opinions coming out. Five hours is not nearly enough time to try to work out what the Lib Dems think.

[Hilary Benn]

I fear that even five days may leave us none the wiser as to the position of the Liberal Democrats, but we live in hope.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Pursuant to the point of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), may I ask you to explain the tabling of a manuscript amendment? There are many new Members here in the House, and people will be watching and listening to the proceedings. Not everyone will be familiar with the tabling of a manuscript amendment, so it would be of great benefit to the House to know how difficult or how simple it is.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful for that point of order, but rather than take up time in the debate I suggest that any Member who needs clarification on how to table a manuscript amendment should go to the Clerk to ask for guidance. Perhaps we can return to the debate.

[Kevin Brennan]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I also recommend “Erskine May”, which is lying on the Table and explains fully how to lay manuscript amendments—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Thank you—[Interruption.] Thank you very much, Mr Brennan. I am eternally grateful. I would like us to focus now on the debate.

[Hilary Benn]

I happen to have a copy of “Erskine May” and am very happy to lend it to my hon. Friend, as long as he gives it back to me, because I intend to quote from it a little later.

[Thomas Docherty]

I think I heard the Leader of the House correctly when he appeared to indicate earlier that the Government Front Bench might be prepared to restrict the amount of time they take when opening tomorrow’s debate. The concern that many Opposition Members will have, however, is not only that the Business Secretary will not have time to use his fancy footwork to explain exactly how he has made such a U-turn, but that Opposition Members will not have the opportunity to tease out of the Government exactly what their policies mean. It is simply unacceptable to use that substitute in order to avoid difficult questions.

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend is, indeed, right. The Leader of the House could indicate now what self-denying ordinance or otherwise Ministers will adopt in order to give Members as much time as possible for debate. There is a fundamental problem, however, because Ministers want to say a lot on the matter, and they should rightly have that opportunity, but Members want to raise a lot of points, too, and we cannot fit it all into the five hours for which the motion provides.

[Emily Thornberry]

On the issue of time, and for the 10,000 students who live in halls of residence and attend university in my constituency, I should like to put it on the record that I sat all the way through the previous Opposition day debate, hoping to be called, and would very much like to be called tomorrow.

[Hilary Benn]

I am sure that the occupant of the Chair will have noticed that advance bid, but I fear that tomorrow many Members will end up disappointed because not enough time has been allocated for the debate.

[Paul Farrelly]

Is my right hon. Friend aware of all the details of the business due to come forth tomorrow? Can he satisfy himself that we will actually get five hours and not fewer?

[Hilary Benn]

That is the point I advanced a moment ago, because whether we get the full five hours depends very much on what happens before the debate. I fear that we might not, which shows just how inadequate the motion is.

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

My right hon. Friend will recall that before the election the then Opposition objected very strongly to non-English MPs voting on matters such as tuition fees. Has he had any indication or representation from the Government on whether they still hold the same position?

[Hilary Benn]

I am afraid I cannot give my hon. Friend any guidance on that at all. Perhaps a Minister on the Treasury Bench would like to answer his question. I would very happily give way if they wanted to inform the House.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Perhaps one reason why there is no objection to Welsh and Scottish Back Benchers debating the issue is that we in Wales, through the Assembly Government, have not only ensured that students do not suffer the draconian decrease in university course funding, but very importantly decided to cut the teaching grant not by 80%, but by only a very small 38%, improving Welsh universities and providing opportunities at them for higher degrees and research.

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point about why we need the time to debate at length the impact that the change will have.

[Steve McCabe]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The clock in the Chamber is not working properly. Is that another device to con us out of more hours for debate?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The clock seems to me to be working fine. If the hon. Gentleman has a problem, perhaps he will come to the Chair. I am sure that Members are riveted by the debate and time will fly by.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that clock. I fancied that I had been speaking for slightly longer than four minutes, but who knows?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Time is indeed flying. I think that I have worked out how we will have enough time. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) said earlier that if all hon. Members were to speak, we would have roughly 50 seconds each. From the showing tonight, there is no indication that Government Members want to take part in the debate. We will therefore have about one and a half or two minutes each. Does my right hon. Friend consider two minutes to be adequate to reflect the postbags of Opposition Members?

[Hilary Benn]

It is completely inadequate. We have, however, found a solution for tomorrow, because if we could ensure that that is the clock by which the debate is timed, all right hon. and hon. Members might have the opportunity to participate.

[Mr Tom Harris]

Further to the points of order made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), Madam Deputy Speaker. If the Chair were to accept a manuscript amendment, how much time would be allocated to debating that change, and would that time be added on to the time that we already have for tomorrow’s debate?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That is a hypothetical question. We should wait to see whether there is a manuscript amendment, and for Mr Speaker’s subsequent decision.

[Kerry McCarthy]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether it is in order for you to reveal to the House how many people have applied to speak tomorrow? That is pertinent to how long we need for tomorrow’s debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That would not be in order. I therefore suggest that we return to Mr Hilary Benn’s comments from the Dispatch Box.

[Hilary Benn]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Kevin Brennan]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify—this point is pertinent and not hypothetical—whether a manuscript amendment that is tabled tonight will be discussed tonight or tomorrow?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

If a manuscript amendment were tabled and it was selected for tonight’s debate, it would be debated tonight. As one has not been tabled, the hon. Gentleman is still asking a hypothetical question.

[Hilary Benn]

A moment ago, I was pointing out that the proposals that the Government have decided to adopt are different from those made by Lord. He said that student numbers should rise by 10% over the next three years, that there should be clawback to deter unnecessarily high fees and that there should be the right to go to university, determined by academic qualifications. We need more time to discuss the report, precisely because the Government have not adopted all his recommendations. We have not had a chance to debate that matter.

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

Is it my right hon. Friend’s view that five hours is enough time to address the points that have been put to me by staff and students at the university of Glasgow, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin)? Indeed, I believe that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills was a lecturer at that institution some years ago. I am not sure that he would get a very warm welcome if he went there tomorrow. The staff and students put important points to me, such as the cut of £400 million in the Scottish block grant, the increase in the number of EU students and the hugely damaging effects that there will be on social mobility for a generation of Scottish students. Does my right hon. Friend think that five hours is enough time to discuss those important points?

[Hilary Benn]

Undoubtedly, it is not enough time. My hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful point.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend enlighten me on whether we will discuss student bursaries in tomorrow’s debate? I believe that should be the subject of its own debate and not be crammed into the five hours that we will have tomorrow. If bursaries are paid for by universities, universities that draw from the poorest people in the population, such as the university of Bolton, will be badly disadvantaged. There will be no similar effect on universities such as Oxford and Cambridge.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Whether that would be in order is a matter for the Chair. Mr Benn is addressing today’s debate, so perhaps we can get on with it.

[Hilary Benn]

rose—

[Gavin Shuker]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Hilary Benn]

I will respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) before I take any further interventions. She raises precisely the type of matter that needs to be explored properly and fully in the debate tomorrow. The fact that we will have inadequate time means that we run the risk of its not being addressed.

[Mr Slaughter]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Angela Smith]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As most of us do not have the benefit of having the time to look at “Erskine May” during the debate, may I ask for your guidance on whether a manuscript amendment would have any impact on any attempt by the Government to move the closure of the debate?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I have already explained to Members that if they want specific advice on the tabling or effects of a manuscript amendment, they should speak to the Clerks. Then they will get the answers to their questions about how such an amendment may or may not affect the debate.

[Hilary Benn]

I was about to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter).

[Mr Slaughter]

As the debate goes on, does it not become obvious how grotesquely short five hours is? It took the Liberal Democrats an hour and a half in Committee Room 11 yesterday to narrow down their voting options to four. It will take five hours for the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to explain the different positions that he has taken in interviews over the past week. My constituents want us to get on to the real issue, which will not happen in a five-hour debate.

[Hilary Benn]

It certainly will not.

[Paul Farrelly]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are now only 21 hours, give or take a minute, from now until the moment of interruption tomorrow? Depending on how long the debate goes on tonight, Members may need some time to recover so that they are in full possession of their wits for tomorrow’s debate. Would it not be better to delay tomorrow’s debate until next week at least?

[Hilary Benn]

A very powerful case has been made this evening for providing more time, and given where we are now, the only way in which more time could be provided would indeed be for the matter to be put off until another occasion.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman is going to have another go.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that ending the debate tomorrow at 5.30 pm will provide ample time for the Leader of the Opposition to join the protestors outside?

[Hilary Benn]

The Leader of the Opposition needs no lectures from the hon. Gentleman about talking to students and, more importantly, listening to what students have to say—a problem from which Members on the Government Benches are suffering.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I happen to have in my hand a piece of paper that has miraculously appeared. According to the Speaker’s office, 26 Labour Members have so far applied to speak tomorrow and, we are told, a lot more from the Government side of the House have done so too. Is that not a clear indication that five hours will not be enough time for people to have their say?

[Hilary Benn]

rose—

[Jim Sheridan]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Following on from the comment of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), tomorrow thousands of students will be coming to the capital of the UK from all over the country, wishing to get access to their MPs, because many MPs have temporary notices up in their constituency offices. Can you assure us that those responsible students who come to the House tomorrow seeking access to their MPs will be given access, and that those MPs will be notified that people are looking for them?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am assured that proper arrangements will be made, as always on these occasions, by the Speaker and the House authorities.

[Hilary Benn]

I am not in the least bit surprised that so many Members have put in to participate in the debate tomorrow. The information that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) has just given the House demonstrates the complete inadequacy of the time that we are being offered, because it is very hard to see how all those Members will be able to participate in the debate.

[Robert Flello]

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for his continued generosity and his superb speech. Will he give some thought to the fact that we are expecting unprecedented levels of security tomorrow in and around the Palace of Westminster? Right hon. and hon. Members may have difficulty getting to the Chamber to take part in the debate, and some Members who have a burning desire to be here to represent their constituents might take considerable time to get here. Five hours therefore might not be adequate.

[Hilary Benn]

It is very important that Members of whatever party have full and ready access to the House, particularly tomorrow, given the importance of the subject of the debate and the significance of the vote that we will cast—if the business motion is passed—at about 5.30 pm tomorrow.

[Mr McCann]

My constituents will be making their way down for tomorrow’s debate from the frozen north, but may I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to an article in The Daily Telegraph last Thursday on the constitutional implications of having such vastly different tuition fee arrangements in the different parts of the UK, and the difficulties that that will create? Does he think that five hours is enough to discuss those issues?

[Hilary Benn]

Undoubtedly, that is not enough time. If the number of Members who have already indicated that they want to speak is anything to go by, they could have, depending on the length of speeches by Front Benchers, about four minutes each or even less. How can any Member advance a reasonable argument in that inadequate amount of time?

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

My right hon. Friend will know that the Government’s proposals will deter poorer students from going to university, but allow less able students from public schools to do so because of their financial means. Does he agree that Government Members who have not-very-able children in public schools should declare an interest? Will there be time in five hours to make all those declarations of interest?

[Hilary Benn]

I am not sure that the current Register of Members’ Financial Interests extends that far. Hon. Members will want to make a lot of points in tomorrow’s debate. Indeed, as this evening progresses, we will hear from other hon. Members who will want to speak tomorrow. That reinforces the point that the Leader of the House has now perhaps taken on board; namely, that it would have been much more sensible to have given us enough time to debate the proposals than to debate the problems tonight.

[Gavin Shuker]

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) advanced the point that 26 Labour Members have placed a note with Mr Speaker, but it occurs to me that that may not reflect the true number of those who want to speak in that five-hour period. Both Government and Opposition Members may want to indicate their wish to speak tomorrow as we discuss the provision of time tonight.

[Hilary Benn]

Indeed—that may well be the case. As the evening wears on and as the sense of anger grows among Opposition Members at the inadequacy of the time, more Members will probably be encouraged to go to Mr Speaker’s office to indicate that they wish to take part in tomorrow’s debate.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Is it not instructive and illustrative that we will have just five hours tomorrow to debate the Government’s proposals? Does that not tell us, as we heard from the Leader of the Opposition today, just how extraordinarily out of touch the Government are with ordinary working people in this country? The measures will be a strong disincentive to those people to go to our universities. That is why the debate deserves far more than five hours. It is not us who deserves more than five hours, but those students.

[Hilary Benn]

I could not put it better myself.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

I shall make a little progress and give way later.

The Government of the day would normally have published a White Paper before asking us to vote on such proposals. I have inquired at the Vote Office, but it does not have a White Paper, because the Business, Innovation and Skills Secretary has not yet published one. On reflection, that is quite extraordinary. We will be asked in a few hours—less than 21 hours—to take a decision that will pre-empt the whole of the Government’s policy on higher education without our having a chance to find out what that is. It is interesting that the explanatory memorandum that accompanies the Higher Education (Basic Amount) (England) Regulations 2010 states:

“The Regulations raising the basic and higher amounts are the first elements in the reform package to be presented for Parliamentary approval. Without prejudice to their subsequent proper Parliamentary consideration, the Government believes it is appropriate to refer in this Memorandum to the other elements of the funding and finance package in the context of which the new basic and higher amounts are made.”

These are not the first elements: these statutory instruments are the consequences of other decisions that the Government have already made.

[Tristram Hunt]

Is not that very much the point, because what we face tomorrow is a bridgehead for an extraordinary revolution in higher education on which we deserve a full debate about the consequences? Five and a half hours will not begin to do justice to the issue.

[Hilary Benn]

It certainly will not, which is why we need more time.

[Pete Wishart]

The right hon. Gentleman has now been speaking for an hour and a half. Does he feel like stopping? As we have only five and a half hours tomorrow, will he promise not to make another speech like this one?

[Hilary Benn]

That is a trifle ungenerous, because I am trying to assist the House so that it will have enough time tomorrow to debate this.

Paragraph 8.1 of the explanatory memorandum on the consultation outcome is germane, because it states:

“These Regulations are informed by Lord Browne’s review which took evidence from students, teachers, academics, employers and regulators over a period of almost a year. The need to provide clarity for students and universities about the contributions they can expect to make and receive means that the timetable for laying the Regulations has been highly compressed, and this has prevented a separate external consultation exercise on the Government’s proposals.”

Highly compressed? It is more like “cut and run”, because that is what we are dealing with tonight.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I just put on record how important it is for me that this motion is opposed and we have proper time to debate? Like my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), I put my name down for the Opposition day debate on higher education as a result of the hundreds of families in Walthamstow who have contacted me because they are deeply concerned about the increases in tuition fees. I am serving on the Public Bill Committee considering the National Insurance Contributions Bill tomorrow and so will not be able to participate during the meagre five-hour debate. If we do not have proper time to debate this issue, I fear that I will not be able to raise the concerns of the people of Walthamstow, so I hope that my right hon. Friend is successful.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support. I am sure that her constituents, like those of other hon. Members, would wish their representative to have the opportunity to participate in the debate tomorrow.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend may not be aware that the number of Labour Members wishing to speak in the debate tomorrow has now swelled to at least 28. I am one of those Members who sought to speak in the debate last week, but I was unable to catch Mr Speaker’s eye because of the lack of time. In view of the importance that my constituents place on this issue, does my right hon. Friend agree that allocating only five hours is totally inadequate to allow me and my right hon. and hon. Friends an opportunity to articulate the concerns of our constituents so that they feel that their views are adequately taken into account?

[Hilary Benn]

I certainly do. I hope that the force and the number of interventions that I have taken this evening will have some impact on Government Front Benchers and, even at this late stage, they will think again about the time that they have allocated.

[Steve McCabe]

I am another of those who have been denied the opportunity to represent their constituents by the Leader of the House. Should it not be abundantly clear to him now that his motion does not reflect the mood of the House? Will not the watching public suspect that a fix has been attempted because the Government cannot defend the policy that they are about to impose on young people?

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The number and strength of the interventions that we have heard this evening are for a specific purpose—to try to win for this House enough time to debate this issue. The fact is that the number of Members who are in their places, especially on the Opposition Benches, is a sign of the anger and outrage that is felt about the amount of time that has been allocated. It is in the Government’s hands to bring this particular debate to an end by saying that they will go away and think again. I hope that the Minister will do so.

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

Many constituents have contacted me because they want me, as their MP, to put forward their views about the future of higher education. Given that so many hon. Members will want to speak in tomorrow’s debate and will not be able to do so, is not such a compression bringing Parliament into disrepute? If the people of this country cannot have their Members of Parliament raising their concerns on an issue of such importance, there are much wider implications.

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with my hon. Friend. People look to the House of Commons to speak for them and they look to us as Members to represent their views. They want us to consider in appropriate depth and with adequate care the proposals that come before us. The number of people who are concerned about what we will be asked to consider tomorrow should find expression in the number of voices that are heard in this Chamber. We will be denied that opportunity because of the inadequacy of the time that is being offered.

[Kevin Brennan]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that journalists in the Committee corridor last night were reporting that the Lib Dems had as much time as they liked in their meeting and could speak for as long as they wanted on the matter without any timetabling of it in private? However, in public and in this Chamber, they are seeking to limit the debate to a mere five hours. Is that not a very telling point?

[Hilary Benn]

It is. If such an approach is good enough for Liberal Democrats in private, it ought to be good enough for the House of Commons in public. We are the voice of the nation.

[Nic Dakin]

My right hon. Friend is being most generous tonight in giving way. The fact that the Government are not listening to people’s voices—we are hearing about that and reflecting that in our contributions tonight—and want to constrain a debate to just five hours or less completely flies in the face of the new politics that the country asked for and the fresh approach that it welcomed.

[Hilary Benn]

It certainly does. As my hon. Friend says, there is a serious issue here. If the public do not think that we have properly considered the matter, it will not build their trust and confidence in Parliament, and it certainly will not build their trust and confidence in the Government—it will damage it.

[Mr Slaughter]

Does my right hon. Friend know that the Deputy Prime Minister is now on Sky News saying that he would love to get rid of university tuition fees, but that he lives in an imperfect world? He says that he hopes that tuition fees will go in the future and blames the Labour party for not supporting him in the past. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party would be happy to vote with him tomorrow against the motion? Should the Deputy Prime Minister not be—

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have listened very patiently to this entire debate. I seek your guidance on whether we can hear repeated any more outbursts on what is happening in corridors and on Sky News, which has nothing to do with the timetabling of the debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I am sure that the hon. Lady appreciates that I am following the debate very closely. If contributions are not in order, I will say so.

[Hilary Benn]

The Deputy Prime Minister will have to explain his imperfections and I hope very much that he will participate in tomorrow’s debate, because many hon. Members will want to intervene on him.

[Mr Slaughter]

I am sorry that the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) had the discourtesy to interrupt me in that way. The point I wished to make is that it is a discourtesy to the House for the Deputy Prime Minister to be on television doing a mea culpa and trying pathetically to justify himself, rather than being here and explaining why we have only five hours to debate the matter.

[Hilary Benn]

Indeed. Given the number of things that the Deputy Prime Minister has had to say about the tuition fee increase that he intends to vote for tomorrow, the very least he could do is to come into the debate. I hope that he might be able to participate, because many people would like to hear how he explains the change in attitude—the 180° turn—that he has performed in a very short space of time.

[Paul Farrelly]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the ground keeps shifting from day to day? The coalition Government have now admitted that deterrence because of debt is an issue, and they have announced a national scholarship fund. Does he consider five hours to be sufficient time in which to debate all the details of the proposals and to examine whether the Government are, in effect, just making policy up on the hoof?

[Hilary Benn]

It is clearly not sufficient time to debate those matters, which brings me to the second reason why more time needs to be found, which is the nature of the change that the Government wish to make. The proposals on fees that we are being asked to consider tomorrow cannot really be seen in isolation from the wider Browne proposals or the Government’s spending review. The truth is that they are intimately bound up, one with another, which is why the House needs proper time to consider both. As we know, the huge fee increase is a result of the Government’s decision in the spending review to impose on universities not the average cut that they have been applying—a cut of 11%—but an unprecedented 80% reduction in university teaching budgets.

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

Does my right hon. Friend consider five hours to be enough time in which to debate the £50 million that I understand will come out of the economy in Hull, owing to the changes that will be introduced tomorrow afternoon if the proposal goes through? My constituency, which is a disadvantaged community, relies heavily on the university of Hull. I am concerned that five hours will be insufficient to debate fully the impact on the local economy in my constituency.

[Hilary Benn]

I share my hon. Friend’s frustration, because one of the things that we need time to debate tomorrow is the consequence of the fee increase, which is the result of the 80% reduction. What will that mean for some universities? That is a perfectly legitimate question that Members may wish to ask tomorrow.

[Charlie Elphicke]

In the spirit of assisting the House, let me point out that the right hon. Gentleman has been on his feet for an hour and a half. That is fine, but I invite him to consider allowing Back Benchers to make speeches as well.

[Hilary Benn]

Because of the generosity of the Leader of the House, who has said that debate can continue until any hour, there will be plenty of time for Back Benchers to contribute to this debate.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

And judging by the number of Members who wish to intervene, this is probably just a prelude to the speeches that they will make.

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

rose—

[Clive Efford]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that you were listening intently to the intervention from the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who called for more time to allow Back Benchers to participate in this debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order. I am sure that everybody heard exactly what the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) said.

[Mr Tom Harris]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Two amendments have now been submitted—the first from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), asking for the debate to be continued until 6 o’clock tomorrow, and the second from me, in an attempt to be popular with my Scottish colleagues, asking for the debate to be continued until 10 o’clock tomorrow evening. Can you tell the House when Mr Speaker will make a decision on whether those amendments will be accepted and say how that decision will be communicated to the House?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right: Mr Speaker will make a decision on those manuscript amendments in due course, and I am sure that he will ensure that the House knows when he has decided. I call Mr Hilary Benn.

[Hilary Benn]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was giving way to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley).

[Barbara Keeley]

My right hon. Friend has been very generous in giving way this evening. Let me touch on the point that he made about the impact on universities. We have already heard a little about Salford university this evening, and about how many local young people attend it. Indeed, there are two Salford graduates on the Labour Benches listening to this debate, and we are very concerned indeed about the possibility of our course—politics and contemporary history, which we both did at Salford university—disappearing. Will there be time in five hours to consider not just the future of social science courses such as the politics and contemporary history course at Salford—which was an excellent course, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) will agree—but the future of this House? Where are the future Labour and other candidates going to come from if these politics and contemporary history courses disappear?

[Hilary Benn]

The importance and the power of a university education is indeed to give people the chance to understand where we come from. If we do not understand where we come from, it is difficult to work out where we should be going.

[Tristram Hunt]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

Speaking of an understanding of history, I shall gladly give way to my hon. Friend.

[Robert Flello]

Further to the previous point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Two manuscript amendments have been tabled and are currently with Mr Speaker. Is there a way for the House to convey to Mr Speaker just how strongly we feel that the suggestion of continuing the debate until 10 o’clock would be the better of the two?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

No. Mr Tristram Hunt was about to make an intervention.

[Tristram Hunt]

As a new Member of the House, I am finding the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) a complete tour de force. We are learning a great deal from him tonight, and it would ill behove him to rush. On the broader point of the time limit for tomorrow’s debate, is he aware of the numerous protestations that I have received from academics, students and postgraduates in the humanities community, who are worried not only about the situation facing history and modern politics but about what could happen to classics, divinity, theology, social anthropology, archaeology, anthropology and many other subjects? We could not possibly deal with all those concerns in five hours.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Thank you.

[Hilary Benn]

I bow to my hon. Friend’s expertise in these matters. He illustrates the point that many people are interested in all those subjects, as well as others that he did not have the opportunity to mention. They want us to have the chance to debate these matters tomorrow.

[Mr Bain]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since he began his speech, it has been reported that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change might not be in the House tomorrow to attend the debate or to vote? Does not that reinforce the argument that five hours will not give him enough time to explain whether he is abstaining or simply hiding in Cancun?

[Hilary Benn]

I have followed with interest the various reports of the movements and non-movements of the Climate Change Secretary who, in fairness, is doing very important work in Cancun because we need a global climate deal. Having seen some of the newspaper reports that we should have offered him a pair, however, it seems to me that the easiest thing would be for him to pair with one of his colleagues who is going to vote on the other side. There is no need for him to come to seek our assistance.

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend recall the debates on the national minimum wage, when we sat up all night because the Conservatives were determined to oppose the proposals and fought them every inch of the way? Does he agree that we should be equally willing to fight this legislation, and that we should stay up all night if necessary?

[Hilary Benn]

The determination of Opposition Members to do everything we can to ensure that we get a proper amount of time to debate the issues and the chance to vote the proposals down is evident. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Emily Thornberry]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you can help me on this point. Is the reason that we can have only a five-hour debate tomorrow the fact that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, finds it difficult to stay awake? I can see him sleeping on the Front Bench—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That is absolutely not a point of order.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. As he will know, these measures will also have a considerable impact on the devolved region of Northern Ireland. One in every three students from Northern Ireland attends a university here in England, and if the Government push through a change in the legislation, the Assembly in Northern Ireland will have to pick up the tab for the increase in fees for those who study outside Northern Ireland. The figures indicate that, on top of the current spend of about £90 million on students travelling from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom, an increase of between £30 million and £60 million will have to be found to cover the fee increase. Where is that money going to be found, given that the Government are already asking the Assembly to cut back in other areas? We do not—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. First, my strong impression is that the hon. Gentleman’s intervention is beyond the scope of the debate. Secondly, it is longer than is desirable or acceptable. Interventions need to be shorter from now on.

[Hilary Benn]

I wish I could help the hon. Gentleman by answering his question, but I cannot. One of the people who could help him is sitting on the Government Bench, but I do not know whether he will want to intervene on me to give the hon. Gentleman the information he seeks. This provides another powerful reason to have more time tomorrow to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question and many other questions that right hon. and hon. Members will want to ask.

I shall make a little more progress. One issue that the House will need more time to debate tomorrow is the potential financial consequence of the fee increase, which is presaged on an 80% reduction in funding for institutions that right hon. and hon. Members have the honour to represent in their constituencies. We still do not know for certain by how much each university is going to be affected by the introduction of the near-trebling of fees, particularly when universities are also going to be affected by other changes. For example, we know that the regional development agencies are being abolished, that the funds for regional development, some of which have been used in partnership with institutions of higher education, are being reduced and that the local economic partnerships have not been properly established in many places because of the state of chaos. Universities do not know how much they might have to find in the current financial year, never mind the impact that these tuition fee changes will have. This could affect students this year and in subsequent years as the transition from the current to the new system is managed. These are all questions that we need time to debate.

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

My right hon. Friend is discussing fees, and the university in my constituency of Bolton South East is one of 20 widening participation universities. As a result of the Browne review and tuition fee changes, it is expected that those 20 universities will collapse and will be unable to carry on serving the needs of the most vulnerable students in our society. Is five hours enough time to discuss the fate of the 20 universities that are likely to collapse?

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point—one that I am addressing at the moment: the potential financial impact of these changes on a number of universities. That is precisely one of the points that we need to debate tomorrow, but we have been denied sufficient time to do so on the current arrangements.

[Chris Williamson]

My right hon. Friend has been extremely generous in giving way this evening and I am very grateful to him for his kindness in giving way to me on this occasion. Does he agree that restricting the debate to five hours will give scant time for me to raise the concerns that I know exist in Derby in respect of Derby university? It has been calculated that, as a result of the 80% reduction to which he referred, that university will have a financial black hole of about £30 million. It will find it extremely difficult to increase tuition fees to the level that would be necessary—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. First, there is the issue of scope. Secondly, I know that the hon. Gentleman, who is a very well-behaved man, would not seek to make a speech when he is supposed to be making an intervention. [Interruption.] Order. He has registered his point, to which I know the shadow Leader of the House will want to respond.

[Hilary Benn]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I believe that my hon. Friend should have the opportunity tomorrow precisely to put that question to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.

[Angela Smith]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way; he is being very generous with his time. Sheffield Hallam university could lose about £70 million because of this decision. Is it not imperative that Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and myself make a contribution tomorrow, especially given that the Deputy Prime Minister has refused to meet the local student union to discuss the matter?

[Hilary Benn]

I am surprised and concerned to hear that news. It seems from what my hon. Friend says that the right hon. Gentleman is willing to spend more time in the television studios describing the changing positions of his party than he is prepared to spend talking to students who are going to feel the consequences of what he is proposing

I turn to a difficulty that might arise for all Members tomorrow, because all we are discussing—I say “all” in a contextual sense—is two statutory instruments. Here I seek guidance from the Leader of the House and possibly from you, Mr Speaker. The House will be aware of the rules governing the scope of debate on statutory instruments. A little while ago, I promised that I would quote from “Erskine May”, and page 681 states:

“Debate on any statutory instrument, whether subject to the affirmative or the negative procedure, is confined to the contents of the instrument, and discussion of alternative methods of achieving its object is not in order. Where the effects of an instrument are confined to a particular geographical area or areas, discussion of other areas is out of order. Nor is criticism of the provisions of the parent Act permitted.”

Mr Speaker, does that mean that Members will be restricted tomorrow in what they can discuss and what they can say? Does it mean, for example, that Opposition Members who would wish to argue the case for a graduate tax cannot raise it in the debate? Could they be ruled out of order? If right hon. and hon. Members want to refer to the implications of the proposals for other parts of the United Kingdom, will they be ruled out of order? Were that to be the case, it would show how improper is the Government’s decision to bring the statutory instrument before the House tomorrow. If that interpretation of “Erskine May” is applied—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. I am not sure whether his inquiry was a genuine one or a rhetorical one, but he has referred to the fact of the motion and the narrow terms of the statutory instrument, and he raises the concern about how much scope there will be for Members fully to develop their points. It might help him and the House if I point out that the two—the motion and the SI tomorrow—have been conflated for the purposes of the consideration, and the intention of the Chair would be to adopt a broad and generous interpretation of what could legitimately be said in the debate. I hope that that is helpful to Members in all parts of the House.

[Hilary Benn]

It was a genuine inquiry, Mr Speaker, and I am extremely grateful to you for your guidance. When I read that section in “Erskine May”, I was genuinely concerned that Members might be denied the opportunity to have the full debate that we require tomorrow.

[Thomas Docherty]

Has my right hon. Friend noticed, as I have, the silence and lack of activity from Government Members? Is it his view that they agree with us that this is a horrible stitch-up by those on the Government Front Bench, or, as Government Members have suggested, do they also wish to contribute speeches tonight? Does my right hon. Friend look forward to many of them joining us over the next few hours, as we debate this important matter?

[Hilary Benn]

If we do hear this evening the voices of Government Members, I hope that they might persuade the Leader of the House to change his mind about the proposal that he wants us to vote for tonight. We have no intention of doing so.

[Dr Whitehead]

Notwithstanding the clarification about the scope of tomorrow’s debate, does my right hon. Friend accept—bearing in mind that the White Paper relating to the orders will come along later and that details of changes will follow—that if a student got the results of the exam first, then the exam paper, and finally the lecture notes, it would be a rather strange way to go about their university education?

[Hilary Benn]

It certainly would be, although reflecting on the scenario that my hon. Friend sets out, there might be certain advantages, especially for students who had not been applying their minds to their studies. He makes the point, however, that the Government are going about this matter in completely the wrong way.

I am sure that a large number of Members wish to take part in this evening’s debate, as well as the very large number who wish to take part in the debate tomorrow. The third reason that I wish to advance for our need for more time tomorrow is the fact that, as we have already established this evening, Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament on their own could occupy the whole five hours by explaining the multiple positions that they are adopting notwithstanding the efforts of the Deputy Prime Minister.

[Albert Owen]

Following your helpful confirmation, Mr Speaker, that we will debate all the issues, is it not imperative for us to be given an extended period allowing us to discuss the points made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and others about the Northern Irish, Welsh and Scottish perspectives, involving those who are domiciled in their own countries but come to England to study? Is there not a greater imperative for the time to be extended now that we are clear about the boundaries of tomorrow’s debate?

[Hilary Benn]

It is indeed important for the time to be extended to allow full debate. We need time to hear the views of not just the Liberal Democrats who have decided to break the pledge and vote for the fees increase tomorrow, but all the Liberal Democrats who are going to abstain.

We know that the Liberal Democrats have wrestled with their consciences over the last few months, and we know that that has been difficult for them. I think that the House owes them a chance to seek to catch your eye one by one, Mr Speaker, so that they can explain why they have chosen to sit on the fence, and why they believe that that will absolve them of what they have done and clear their consciences. No doubt many Members on our side will seek to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, in order to point out that abstaining will do no good at all, because a betrayal is still a betrayal whenever it is undertaken.

[Robert Flello]

I look forward to catching your eye myself shortly, Mr Speaker, so that I can make my own contribution to the debate.

Does not what we have heard tonight—and what we have had to rely on as a statement from you, Mr Speaker, about the need to widen the scope of the debate—merely underline the shoddy and appalling way in which the measure is being railroaded through the House? Is this what the Deputy Prime Minister meant by “new politics”?

[Hilary Benn]

If it is the new politics, heaven help us all.

This is a defining moment for the coalition Government. It is the moment when the bonds of that coalition will be sorely tested. The trebling of tuition fees, the debt that will be incurred by future generations, the threat to the finances of some universities—all those will be at stake in the debate tomorrow. If that is not an argument for the House to be given proper time in which to debate such matters, I do not know what is. The truth is that the Government have treated the House with contempt, and I urge the House to reciprocate by treating the motion with the contempt that it deserves and throwing it out.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Two hon. Members have submitted manuscript amendments which I myself saw a matter of a few minutes ago, and which, to my certain knowledge, have been submitted within the last hour or so. It is right that I give the House a verdict on the matter. I have not selected either of the amendments. There was plenty of time in which manuscript amendments could have been submitted: they could have been submitted much earlier in the day, but that did not happen.

It may also be helpful if I point out that the House is having—I emphasise the words “is having”—a very full debate on all the relevant issues relating to time. There has been, and continues to be for as long as the debate continues, a very good opportunity for Members who wish to argue for particular allocations of time to do so. That is the situation, and we must now move on.

[Paul Farrelly]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you tell us whether you have received any amendments to tomorrow’s motion other than from the Opposition Front-Bench team, and in particular whether you have received a cross-party amendment to the motion?

[Mr Speaker]

I was slightly perplexed and taken aback by that attempted point of order for the simple reason that we are not discussing tomorrow’s motion, and I am not going to get into the subject of amendments thereto. I was focusing simply on manuscript amendments tabled tonight by, I believe, the hon. Members for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) and for Glasgow South (Mr Harris). It is with that, and that alone, that I was, and am, concerned.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you advise us whether it is in order for Members to seek to speak in this evening’s debate if they were not present for the whole of the opening two speeches?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. [Interruption.] Well, I do not think the hon. Gentleman is applying to make a speech, so I do not think he is caught by his own stricture. I consider it to be a general courtesy applying to all debates that if a Member wishes to speak he or she should be present for the opening speeches, and that is the basis on which I work. I hope the hon. Gentleman is content with that response.

[Robert Flello]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I will take a small number of further contributions of this kind, but I will want to get on with the substance of the matter soon.

[Robert Flello]

I am not sure whether you were in the Chair at the time, Mr Speaker, but earlier in the debate the issue of Members who have other business in the House was raised. I am concerned that there may well be Members who are unable to attend the opening speeches tonight or tomorrow because of other duties in this House. They may be delayed and they may therefore not be able to catch your eye, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I have a sense that that is a continuation, and perhaps even a development, of a point that was made earlier, not least by the hon. Gentleman himself, but it is not a point of order for the Chair.

Before we get on with any continuing debate, I will just emphasise that the Chair will have the very keenest regard to the closeness to the motion that Members demonstrate in their speeches. There has not yet been a Back-Bench speech, and I am happy to hear one, as they are important, but Members must stick to the terms of the motion, and I will be focusing very intently on whether that is being done, and on the economy displayed in developing the arguments.

21:47

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

I rise to oppose this evening’s motion tabled in the name of the Leader of the House and the Minister for Universities and Science. It is interesting that it is two Conservative members of the coalition who have put their name to the motion, and that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who was here earlier, has not put his name to it. Earlier on, he was sitting in his place with a face with which the funeral industry beckons because of what he had to sit through tonight.

We are here to discuss a business motion that is another example of something we have already seen this week: how the Government have attempted to restrict debate on this vital matter for many thousands of not only our constituents now but future generations. Tomorrow’s debate will, in five hours, change the relationship between people and the state and how we provide higher education in this country. To do that in five hours is totally unacceptable.

[Angela Smith]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the House should put on record its grateful thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) for having done such a grand job in defending the rights of the House and of the people of the country in how he led tonight’s debate?

[Mr Jones]

I would always agree with that. My right hon. Friend is a very good friend and he has done an excellent job in defending the rights of Back Benchers and the House.

Later, I will remind some Members on the Government Front Bench how eager they were in opposition to argue, on the subject of programme motions, that we needed to have more debate. That is especially true of the Deputy Leader of the House, although he is not in his place. I remember having to listen to hours of his droning on about why—

[Paul Farrelly]

Have you got a list?

[Mr Jones]

I will have later on.

[Steve McCabe]

Is my hon. Friend at all concerned for the well-being of the Business Secretary? If he cannot bear to sit through this debate about the time required to discuss the issues, how on earth is he going to cope with the criticism of his policy tomorrow?

[Mr Jones]

I do not wish to get off the subject of the debate, and my hon. Friend tempts me to do so. Clearly, Mr Speaker would rightly pull me up if I were to start talking about the health of the Business Secretary, which has no relevance to this debate. However, I must say that the Business Secretary is a very nice gentleman, so we should all be concerned about his health and the difficulty that he is clearly going through on this policy.

[Mr Slaughter]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is relevant that barely 10 Liberal Democrat Members have been in throughout the debate? The latest estimate is that 100,000 students will be coming tomorrow, yet nobody on those Benches has the courtesy to listen to the debate. Five hours seems to be as long as they are prepared to give to this issue tomorrow. Is that not hugely disrespectful to all our constituents, who care about this issue?

[Mr Jones]

I note what my hon. Friend is saying but, again, I wish to stick to discussing this business motion. I would not want Mr Speaker to pull me up for being tempted to go down a path that would not be in order.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend reminds us that we must return to the motion, so what does he think of the Government’s practice of setting the time for tomorrow’s debate to finish at 5.30 pm and ignoring the moment of interruption, which this House democratically voted to put at 6 pm on a Thursday?

[Mr Jones]

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has got good eyesight or was reading my mind, because that was exactly the point that I was going to make next. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) says that he is “Mystic Kev”, and clearly he is. An important point is at issue, because when the Leader of the House made his opening remarks he was asked why the debate was going to finish at 5.30 pm and not 6 pm tomorrow and we are still waiting for an answer. That was the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) tried to tease out with his manuscript amendment. Clearly, Mr Speaker, you have ruled that that is not in order, but we have still not heard an explanation of why 5.30 pm was chosen.

We have seen a strange thing this week, because this motion allows us five hours for the debate tomorrow, yet a matter of a day ago a motion proposed that we have three hours for that debate. No explanation has been given of why two hours have suddenly been conjured up—I will allow people to intervene on this. If we can suddenly, in a day, conjure up two hours, why can we not conjure up more time, as is clearly needed for this vital debate?

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I am hoping to catch Mr Speaker’s eye tomorrow in the debate and I have much that I wish to say about this very important matter. If I cut to the bone what I wish to say, I will need at least 20 minutes to do any justice to the subject. What prospect does my hon. Friend think I have of having 20 minutes in which to speak tomorrow?

[Mr Jones]

The point has been made that if everyone spoke, they would get about 50 seconds. I know that my hon. Friend speaks very eloquently and, on occasion, can go on at length, as we all can, but I am sure that he could get his remarks down to fit the timetable. However, the fundamental point tomorrow is that we will have five hours in which to discuss these vital points.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I do not wish to rain on his argument, but he is constantly referring to the five hours allowed. He might want to check the motion. If we have an urgent question or if business questions overrun—they are always popular thanks to the charm of the Leader of the House—we will have less than five hours to discuss this issue.

[Mr Jones]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. When the Leader of the House opened the debate, he gave an assurance that the Government would not make any statements tomorrow that would eat into the time. My hon. Friend makes a good point, though: issues might arise overnight to do with the weather in Scotland and other parts of the country, or to do with the demonstration tomorrow, or with something else. An urgent question might be sought and Mr Speaker might allow it. A statement might have to be brought forward. If that happens, that will eat into the five hours that we have been allocated.

[Paul Farrelly]

Given the number of applications to make a speech—there has been a running total throughout the debate—may I tempt my hon. Friend to inquire of Mr Speaker whether he has decided that there will be a time limit on speeches?

[Mr Jones]

I am sorry, but I would not dream of telling Mr Speaker how to do his job. It will be up to Mr Speaker to decide the allocation of time and who is called. Given the numbers who have expressed an interest in the debate, I think a time limit might well be introduced.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Perhaps I can be helpful both to the hon. Gentleman and to the House. The time allocated for the consideration of these important matters tomorrow is specified and protected time. Any concern that the hon. Gentleman might have of the kind that he has just expressed is almost certainly unfounded. I think it would be better if he were to develop his argument on other fronts. In the process, may I gently remind him that I am having some regard to the economy of speeches? I am interested to hear voices, but there must be economy.

[Robert Flello]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Forgive me, but I am in some confusion. I am looking at the order paper, which reads

“not later than five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first motion, or at 5.30 pm, whichever is the earlier”.

How does that mean that that is protected time? Will you clarify, please, if you would not mind?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman was justified in being confused. I was speaking off the top of my head and I suffered from the disadvantage of being wrong. I thought I was right, but I was wrong, and people should admit when they are wrong. The hon. Gentleman’s concern is justified and I apologise to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). My point and stricture about economy, however, still apply.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I think we have seen an historic moment tonight, Mr Speaker. I did not think it was possible for you ever to be wrong. The way in which you handled that is a credit to you.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Has my hon. Friend considered this matter in the historical context? The last time we had such a considerable change to the funding system for higher education was in the 1940s. The Education Act 1944 was considered by many people to be the key reform in higher education and it was debated for a full year before the 1945 election. Has my hon. Friend taken that into account in considering his remarks tonight?

[Mr Jones]

I do not really want to go back to 1945, but I shall make some references to the Higher Education Act 2004 that are relevant to the time that has been allowed.

I want to ask the Leader of the House about the change that happened this week, from allowing three hours to allowing five. The motion was not moved last night and two hours were added to the debate. I think that everyone welcomes that, but it still gives inadequate time to cover the points that we have to make in the debate tomorrow. Whether that was another great concession wheedled out of the coalition by the Liberal Democrats I do not know; I am sure that if it was, we would have heard about it by now.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that rather than looking set to fall asleep, Liberal Democrat Members on the Government Benches would be well advised to be on their feet pleading for more than the five hours that has been allotted to the debate so that they can tell their constituents and the nation how they have got into this appalling mess and perpetrated this betrayal of their constituents’ trust?

[Mr Jones]

I do not want to intrude on the personal grief of the Liberal Democrat party. As with any other Member of the House, in the limited time available tomorrow, Liberal Democrats can try to catch the Speaker’s eye to make their points. I am sure that those who signed the pledge during the election but will vote in favour of the increase tomorrow will want to come to the House to explain why they have changed their minds. It is entirely open to individuals to do that.

[Nic Dakin]

I calculate that we have had about two and a half hours of debate, in which only three people have spoken, on an issue that might seem unimportant to people outside—whereas tomorrow we will have only twice as much time as that to debate something of great importance. I think that tells the story.

[Mr Jones]

I am sorry, but I must disagree strongly with my hon. Friend, because the amount of time that the House and Back Benchers get to scrutinise the Executive is very important.

[Mr Tom Harris]

Given the severe and absurd restriction on the time that we have to debate this issue tomorrow, is it not likely that both Labour and Conservative Back Benchers will be given slightly more time, in the likely event that the Liberal Democrats have difficulty mustering Back-Bench speakers? They are unlikely to get the number of their speakers even into single figures!

[Mr Jones]

We will have to see what happens, but a very important point was raised earlier about the amount of time that will be available for Government Front Benchers to reply to the debate tomorrow. If we have a packed House with a lot of speakers, there will be limited time for Ministers to explain to the British public the policy that they are putting forward.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and fellow north-east MP for giving way. Tonight I have spent some time with the North East of England Process Industry Cluster, which tells me that it recruits many graduates in the north-east. I am sure that it will share my concern that those graduates—its feedstock—may not be available in future if these student fees are imposed. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is another good reason why we need more time to debate this important issue?

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I told the Whips tonight that I was giving up the opportunity to dine with people from north-east industry, so I have given up that very nice dinner and an opportunity to discuss with those individuals, who are very important to the north-east, higher education and other issues.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Government’s response to the debate is a key factor, is it not? If they had simply allowed the debate to extend to the normal moment of interruption on a Thursday, there would have been half an hour for them to respond, but as things stand, we will probably have only something like five minutes each at the end.

[Mr Jones]

I accept what my hon. Friend is saying, but I do not think that an extra half hour would give the House enough time to debate this issue. The words of the Leader of the House in his opening statement are important. As a reason why the statutory instrument needs to be rushed through this week, in a matter of five hours, he said—I wrote this down—that otherwise we would slow the process down, and that the fiscal position we are in is important. That exposes the truth of why this measure is being driven through. It is nothing at all to do with higher education or ensuring that Members can have a debate tomorrow. Rather than the Government thinking about the future of the country and its educational needs, they are saying that future generations will have to start paying now, to try to help them in the financial position in which they now find themselves.

[Julie Hilling]

Does my hon. Friend agree that tomorrow we will be debating an issue of such importance for all young people in this country that we owe it to them to spend a reasonable time having a reasoned discussion, in order to make a decision on something that will live with them until they reach retirement?

[Mr Jones]

It will, and what seems like a simple statutory instrument will tomorrow change fundamentally the future of higher education in this country. That is why five hours is not long enough.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

As somebody who is not doing a U-turn, I ask the hon. Gentleman: if you are spending more time tonight debating the issue of how long tomorrow’s debate will be than that debate will take, why, at 7 o’clock tonight, did you vote not to discuss this at all?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have not done any of the things of which I am accused.

[Mr Jones]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for coming in. I do not think that he has been here all night, unlike the rest of us. Clearly he has had his dinner, unlike me, and many other Members who have been sat here since 7 o’clock.

[Angela Smith]

I have looked around me and seen on this side of the House at least four Members who once worked in higher education. They have the expertise that could be brought to bear on the issue in a Public Bill Committee. Should this legislation not be in a Bill, and be considered on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report?

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend takes me on to my next point, which is about the decision to debate the issue in five hours tomorrow. That is to ensure that the measure will be dealt with before the framework document is in place, but it seems ludicrous to have the discussion tomorrow and fundamentally change the funding of higher education in this country before we have the full framework policy document. That should be in place, not only to reveal how what is decided tomorrow may be interpreted, but to allow some newer universities a debate about their financial future. It is clear to me that some of them will struggle when these measures are implemented.

[Mrs Moon]

Is it not one of the risks that we are running that many universities in England will find it more attractive to bring in overseas students paying, yet again, higher fees? English students will not be able to afford to go to university. We are going to debate the issue within five hours, but the structure of education in Britain is to change dramatically. We need more than five hours to discuss that.

[Mr Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend, who makes a good point about the five-hour limit.

[Thomas Docherty]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am struggling to hear my hon. Friend because of the large number of conversations taking place on the other side of the Chamber. Is there anything you can do to ensure that I can hear my hon. Friend?

[Mr Speaker]

All Members, including those in the Chair, should exercise a self-denying ordinance in these matters. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it would be good if the decibel level went down. [Interruption.] Order. Mr Ruane. [Interruption.] Order. Mr Roger Williams, you should not be chuntering away in a private conversation when I am trying to give a helpful ruling. It would help if the decibel level went down and we could hear the speeches.

[Mr Jones]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) made a good point, because tomorrow is not just about raising the cap. It is about the consequences of raising the cap, which will have an effect through the recruitment of foreign students. Earlier, a point was made very eloquently by a Northern Ireland Member about the effect on Northern Ireland students. Tomorrow we will have to cover a range of issues, which will be difficult to do in the short time that we have.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Hon. Members have referred to Northern Ireland, but the regulations are specific to England. Of course, we are concerned about the whole United Kingdom, however, and we are talking about a variable geometry over the United Kingdom. Is it not right and proper, therefore, that we should have plenty of time to compare and contrast the situation in England with that in the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Mr Jones]

That is a very important point, which the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) eloquently made earlier. The changes that we make tomorrow will affect students not only on the mainland, but in those countries with devolved Administrations.

[Naomi Long]

At the Northern Ireland Grand Committee yesterday, we were advised that the Barnett consequentials of the anticipated decision tomorrow, and of any bursary or student support arrangements that may or may not be introduced, have already been passed on to the Northern Ireland Assembly in the block grant. I would presume that it might take more than five hours simply to understand how such a calculation could be made.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. My right hon. Friend’s central message was that tomorrow we need to discuss, and will discuss, those complex financial implications. There are implications not just for universities and individual students, but, as the hon. Lady quite rightly says, for the Northern Ireland Assembly.

[Paul Farrelly]

I am listening to my hon. Friend with great interest, but I fear from the smile on the Government Chief Whip’s face that he is considering when to cut my hon. Friend off in his prime. If a closure motion is called, would it be remiss of Liberal Democrats to vote to curtail the debate?

[Mr Jones]

I am sorry, but it is entirely up to the Chair to decide whether to allow a closure motion.

[Robert Flello]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Jones]

Briefly.

[Robert Flello]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, whose speech I am enjoying greatly. I am also looking forward to making my own speech in due course, so I hope that there will be no closure motion. Owing to the joys of modern technology, Members in the Chamber can monitor their e-mails and see the constant stream of communication from students and their families who are worried about what will happen tomorrow and the amount of time we will have to debate this matter. Has he too received a huge number of representations, in his e-mail account and otherwise, from people concerned about the time we will have tomorrow?

[Mr Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that very short intervention. No, I have not. As everyone knows, I am not the most technical person.

[Kevin Brennan]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a matter of some great contention, and we know—indeed, you will be aware, Mr Speaker—that in the previous Parliament a disturbance during proceedings on the Hunting Bill debate caused the House to be suspended. In the unlikely and absolutely dreadful event of that being repeated tomorrow, would the five hours be protected, or would any suspension of the House eat into that time?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that he is raising a hypothetical question, and my attitude is best encapsulated in the wise words of the late Lord Whitelaw, who famously said that on the whole he preferred to cross bridges only when he came to them.

[Mr Jones]

It is important to put this business motion into context. It is a Government motion that seeks to regulate the business and sitting of the House, and page 368 of “Erskine May” sets out the details about such motions clearly, stating:

“Such motions, which do not have precedence…are normally moved by the Leader of the House and invariably require notice”.

We have clearly had notice of tonight’s motion. Indeed, we had notice of an alternative motion this week, but unfortunately the Government did not move the first motion that they tabled.

“Erskine May” continues by stating that the motions regulating business are, first,

“those…referred to specifically in Standing Order No 15 (exempted business), which are moved at the interruption of business”.

The second type is also described on page 368.

“Erskine May” continues:

“Under recent practice, such motions are more commonly moved in the ordinary course of the day’s business in relation to the business proposed for a future day, in which case notice is given as for any other notice of motion. Typically, such motions may set a time limit for a future debate”—

that is clearly the intention of the Government’s motion tonight—

“and may provide for the putting of questions by the Speaker after a certain period or at a specified time.”

That last point relates to the limit of 5.30 pm tomorrow. It goes on to say that such motions “may be complex”. According to “Erskine May”, the purpose of such a motion may be

“To give precedence to government business over private Members’ business either on a particular day or days or for a period, for example, until the end of the financial year.”

[Mr Slaughter]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend is moving towards the recommendation of a specific time limit. If he is, I urge him to consider that eight hours might be more suitable than five, because according to a poll by The Sun, eight hours would allow one hour for every 1% of support that the Liberal Democrats now have among the people of this country.

[Mr Jones]

I note my hon. Friend’s wit, for which he is not famous. He has obviously worked very hard on that intervention, and I congratulate him. However, I will not go down that route.

“Erskine May” suggests that other purposes for such a motion might be

“To give precedence to specified business…on a particular day”,

“To provide for a Saturday sitting”,

or

“To provide for adjournment at a stated hour”

on a sitting day. As is eloquently laid out in “Erskine May”, the effect of motions such as the one before us is to limit discussion. In this case, it will limit discussion on a vital piece of legislation to five hours.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one thing that will make life difficult tomorrow for those of us who wish to speak on behalf of our constituents is that the context in which the statutory instrument sits is changing all the time? For example, today there were yet more changes concerning part-time fees. That makes it impossible to work through the impact of the changes.

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, representing a university city as she does. I remember working hard to get her elected in 2005, when we had to put up with more nonsense from the Liberal Democrats about tuition fees. No doubt my hon. Friend and I will remind them of that later this week when they are deciding how to vote.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I am concerned that he, like others, has suggested that the motion will give us five hours to debate the principle tomorrow. In fact, Standing Order No. 16, to which the motion refers, protects debate on statutory instruments. There will be two statutory instruments before us, which under the Standing Order will take up three hours of the debate. There will therefore be only two hours left to debate the fundamental principle of how we fund higher education.

[Mr Jones]

I must tell my hon. Friend that she is technically not correct. Mr Speaker explained that the statutory instrument and the general principle will be put together to allow five hours’ debate. The effect of tonight’s motion will be to limit debate. It will clearly not provide enough time to discuss the issues that have been raised in the House tonight. It will dismay the many thousands of electors who will be affected by the measures now or in the future, that a fundamental change to education in this country can be decided and voted on in five hours.

[Emily Thornberry]

Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) on the concessions that are being made, is my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), as an experienced Member of this House, confident that there will not be a Cancun concession tomorrow that will also have to be debated, so that there will be another last-minute change?

[Mr Jones]

I think that we have heard about four different options from the Liberal Democrats this week: vote against, vote for, abstain or delay—

[Chris Ruane]

Vote both ways.

[Mr Jones]

Indeed, or delay the debate until another day.

It is important that people who signed the pledge, as they called it, have the opportunity to come here tomorrow and take part in the debate. It was interesting that in last week’s Question Time the Deputy Prime Minister refused on several occasions to indicate how he or his party intended to vote. We were told earlier tonight that the Liberal Democrat group had unlimited discussions the other night to try to get some consensus on how they would vote, and they still could not come to a decision.

[Chris Ruane]

It was a three-hour meeting.

[Mr Jones]

It was. They are obviously spending almost more time in private discussions than they are willing to allow the House to debate the matter.

[Helen Goodman]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend has calculated this, but had the proposal gone through a normal legislative process, we would probably have had 170 hours’ debate. We are to have precisely 3% of the amount of time that we would have had. Has he also noticed that the motion before the House this evening specifies when the matter will be debated, Thursday 9 December, and has—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady must resume her seat. It is absolutely understandable—I have said this so many times—that Members look behind them when they think they are addressing a colleague behind them. The hon. Lady must address the House. Secondly, the intervention is rather long, and I feel sure that it is coming to an end. In fact, I think it has probably reached its end, has it not?

[Helen Goodman]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, I think it has.

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the specific day that the Government picked for the debate. We have seen changes to the motion this week, and it would be interesting to know why the motion for a three-hour debate was not moved the other night. I return to the point that I have yet to learn the justification for why we got the extra two hours. If we can allow two extra hours, I am sure we can allow more.

[Albert Owen]

My hon. Friend is making a strong point. The Leader of the House has been here throughout the debate, and he is very courteous and usually very helpful. He could clear the matter up by coming to the Dispatch Box and explaining to us why we have a 5.30 pm cut-off. I am dismayed that he has not taken up the opportunity. [Interruption.]

[Mr Jones]

I am sure that the Leader of the House—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but I think that barracking the Leader of the House is wrong, because he is a very courteous individual who respects the House. I am sure that in his winding-up speech, he will want to explain why we have the extra two hours.

We have already explained how the motion before us tonight relates to “Erskine May”. It is the same principle as a programme motion.

[Sandra Osborne]

Does my hon. Friend recall the regular songs and dances in the previous Parliament from both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats about programme motions, and about how if they got into power they were going to do away with them? Does he think that is consistent with what they are doing tonight?

[Mr Jones]

No, and my hon. Friend is another Member who has read my mind, because I was just about to come on to that. The Deputy Leader of the House, who has now resumed his place, used to give long lectures on why programme motions were so evil, but the effect of tonight’s motion will be to limit the time for debate in a similar way to a programme motion.

I do not intend to go through the entire history of how we came to have programme motions, because that would lead us away from the point, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) said, in the last Parliament we were regularly told how evil programme motions were. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) set out his views clearly on many occasions about why programme motions, or limiting the time for debate—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I say to the hon. Gentleman that, as I think he knows very well, he has a well honed technique of informing the House that he is not about to talk about something, before proceeding to do precisely that? He said that he would not rehearse the history of programme motions, and he is absolutely right, he will not. I hope that he will now focus on the specifics of the motion as, presumably, he is drawing his remarks to a close.

[Mr Jones]

I was going to do so, Mr Speaker, but I was making the point that the effect of the business motion is to limit debate. When the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were in opposition, they made it quite clear how terrible programme motions were.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

He’s still talking about programme motions!

[Mr Jones]

Programme motions are very similar to the motion that we are debating. If the hon. Gentleman had been here, which he quite clearly has not, he would be following the debate rather than chuntering from a sedentary position.

I should like to compare this situation with the two previous occasions when the House debated changes to the system of tuition fees—before the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 introduced the £1,000 fee for students, and before the Higher Education Act 2004 introduced variable top-up fees. In 1998, the Government introduced a number of programme motions. A report said that nobody objected to them, but six hours was allowed to debate amendments. No one spoke against or resisted those programme motions.

It might help if I set out in terms on the Floor of the House the consideration of the 2004 Act. Far more than five hours was allowed for debate. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central said, in 2004, there was more time on Third Reading and Report and otherwise to debate amendments, and the Government also ensured that there was a full debate on the implications of variable top-up fees—we will discuss increasing the cap on top-up fees tomorrow.

On both those occasions, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats spoke against limiting the time—the generous amount of time—that was allowed for debate. It is important to remember that there is some inconsistency in what the coalition Government are proposing, because when the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were in opposition, they opposed programme motions on the ground that they limited time, but they are tonight going to go through the Division Lobby to allow only five hours to debate the increase in the cap on tuition fees.

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend is reflecting on the 2004 Act. He will recall that at the end of the lengthy discussions on that, a sunset clause was inserted that required any suggested increase on the cap on tuition fees to be the subject of a full debate on positive resolutions in both Houses. Does he consider that the hours allocated for tomorrow discharges that clause?

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend played a key part in that legislation, and he makes a good point. If we are to have a detailed discussion on the implications of the Government’s proposals, we need time. That was not the case in respect of the discussion on the 2004 Act. Time on the Floor of the House was given for full discussions on the implications of the measures. I also remind the House that many Labour Members at that time made key points to try to get concessions out of the Government, including my hon. Friend, to ensure that poorer students were protected.

[Steve McCabe]

Is my hon. Friend aware that since this debate began, a further 23 Members have applied for permission to speak in the debate tomorrow, taking the total to more than 70? Does that not show that it would be ludicrous for the Leader of the House to stick to his current position? Now is the time for him to recognise the mood of the House and agree to an extension of the time.

[Mr Jones]

It is not only the mood of the House: it is also the mood of the country. As with many things that this Government are doing, they are rushing things through. If we had pushed through legislation and ignored the House to this extent, we would have been rightly criticised. Sometimes we did not allow the House enough time for true debate and we were criticised in the press. The point has already been made that curtailing debate also leads to bad legislation, because the implications are not scrutinised either on the Floor of the House or in Committee.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend knows that this House has taken a few knocks to its reputation in the last couple of years. Will not the public be staggered when they find out that not only will the debate tomorrow be limited to five hours, but that the Government are not even proposing that the House uses up the time that it normally has available on a Thursday and finishes at half-past 5 instead of 6?

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend has made that point eloquently for the third time. I know that repetition is important, but I do not want to repeat points that have already been made well. It is true that we still have not had an explanation for the finishing time from the Leader of the House.

In conclusion—[Hon. Members: “More!”] I could start from the beginning if people want me to do so—[Interruption.] The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has been chuntering from a sedentary position all night. I do not know whether he actually wants to make a contribution to the debate tonight or tomorrow, but as he has given up his principles for his red box and car, perhaps he should explain why.

In conclusion, five hours is completely inadequate to discuss the important implications of the motion tomorrow. It will affect not only thousands of students who are now in university, but thousands in the future. It will change the relationship between the state and higher education. It is not acceptable to rush that motion through in five hours without any justification for why three hours was okay two nights ago and five hours is adequate now. I urge hon. Members, especially those Liberal Democrats who still have their backbones in place, to vote with us and object to this programme motion tonight.

22:32

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I have a great deal of affection for the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable)—and the stadium in his constituency. He is usually a reasonable man, but in this case he is in an unreasonable hurry.

While the focus has been on the Liberal Democrat position, I fear that five hours will not give us enough time to look at the more interesting views of some influential Conservatives. For example, I would like to have more time to consider this view:

“Some people will, apparently, be put off applying to our elite institutions by the prospect of taking on a debt of this size. Which, as far as I’m concerned, is all to the good. The first point that needs to be made about the so-called deterrent effect of a…loan is that anyone put off from attending a good university by fear of that debt doesn’t deserve to be at any university…if you’re such a fool that you don’t want to accept that deal, then you’re too big a fool to benefit from the university education I’m currently subsidising for you.”

Those words were written by the Secretary of State for Education, when he was a columnist on The Times in 2003. Of course, the level of debt will be double or more if these proposals go through.

The Government have admitted that debt deterrence is a factor, but as the ground shifts I am not sure that we will have time tomorrow—in five hours—to debate the new national scholarship fund that the coalition are introducing. Very sketchy details have been given to the House about that. We need time to debate that fund and the evidence on which it is based.

[Steve McCabe]

As well as discussing the reasoning behind the piece of writing my hon. Friend mentions, could we not also ask the Minister for Universities and Science, to explore what has happened to his thinking? He wrote a book called “The Pinch,” which describes how our generation is robbing today’s teenagers. He is now setting out to do the exact opposite to his book’s conclusions.

[Paul Farrelly]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The views of the Secretary of the Secretary of State for Education can perhaps be described as ultra logical. The Minister for Universities and Science is himself a logical man, but clearly when one admits that the fear of debt, however illogical, is a factor, we must have the time to inquire further into such policies.

[Kevin Brennan]

Is the point that my hon. Friend is making about the vagueness of some of the detail of the proposal not absolutely vital to the issue of having only five hours for the debate tomorrow? A debate in this House should not simply consist of the Government putting forward their proposals and ramming the measure through on a majority; it should consist of sufficient time for opposition and other Members to scrutinise and ask questions of the Government. That simply will not be able to happen tomorrow.

[Paul Farrelly]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Evidence shows—I hope to come on to some of the evidence—that in constructing any higher education package, it is important that the whole is taken together. The reality of politics means that if the fee levels are set in a five-hour debate tomorrow, those people who are concerned about student support and other elements of the package that may or may not count as deterrents will lose their leverage in future negotiations. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct.

[Mrs Moon]

One of the problems with a five-hour limit is that the legislation is complex and many young people may arrive here tomorrow wishing to clarify the terms and conditions under which their future education will depend. They will need to spend time talking to their Members of Parliament, but they will not have time to do so in that five hours. In particular, I know that young people have been unable to access their Liberal Democrat MPs because of notices on their office doors that say the office is closed.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. First, that intervention was too long and, secondly, the issue is not how much time visitors to the House have to raise matters with Members who might or might not be taking part in a debate; the issue is the allocation of time for Members of Parliament to debate the issues.

[Paul Farrelly]

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. What young people will take away from just five hours of debate tomorrow is the fact that going for a degree will cost them much more. They will not have any details on how they will be supported. Such information would allow them to form a considered view. Some of the evidence that I fear the House will not have time to consider tomorrow shows that, where variable fees have been introduced overseas, there is a deterrent effect. That is clear from the Ivy League in the United States. Again we will simply run out of time tomorrow to give proper consideration to the US experience.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the deterrent effect is particularly keenly felt by students who will be the first in their families to go to university? That is the case for many students in my constituency who are, frankly, put off by the terrifying prospect of £30,000 or £40,000 of debt.

[Paul Farrelly]

I was the first in my family ever to go to university. It is certainly a challenge for the Government to ensure that students who do not come from a background where higher education is the norm are not put off. I fear that that will be the starting point if we are allowed to debate the matter for only five hours tomorrow.

[Robert Flello]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Paul Farrelly]

I will certainly give way to my hon. Friend and next-door neighbour.

[Robert Flello]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and next-door neighbour. My constituency covers a third of Stoke-on-Trent, a very challenged area, where one of the best ways forward for young people is to go either to the fine university of Keele or to the fine university of Stafford. How will they be able to do so if we do not have the time tomorrow to debate the full intricacies of the issues, so that they can be reassured?

[Paul Farrelly]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the situation in north Staffordshire, where we live, which is a situation that will be replicated across the country. The danger is that we will not have the time to debate, area by area, the risk to the entirety of an institution that will follow—or may follow—the teaching cuts and the fees combined.

[Julie Hilling]

Does my hon. Friend agree that people studying courses such as youth and community work will be disadvantaged? It is mainly poorer and older people who go into the profession, and they are people who spend their lives in the service of young people and their communities, but who will never earn the salaries—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady is very much focusing on the substance of the issue, but we must get back to the allocation of time.

[Paul Farrelly]

I am acutely aware, as my hon. Friend is, that the Government are saying on the one hand that they want the best and brightest to go into teaching, for example, yet on the other hand they are making it more difficult, and that we will not have enough time tomorrow to debate all those intricacies or how the Government plan to tackle the issue.

[John Robertson]

People outside this place will be affected by what will happen and what will be discussed tomorrow, but how much time from those five hours does my hon. Friend think will be devoted to the problems in the devolved areas?

[Paul Farrelly]

Mr Speaker has graciously allowed a wide-ranging debate tomorrow, but inevitably—this is at the Speaker’s discretion—there will be limits. It will be difficult for Members, if they are called, to expand fully on the arguments in the time available. The international evidence is vital. Good, sound policy should be based on evidence. Frankly, we need the time, as an intelligent House, to debate it.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern and that of million+, the think-tank, that we do not have sufficient time to deliberate on the impact of some of the Government’s proposals on women’s participation in university? Some of the assumptions are false. Women will take longer to pay back the fees and will therefore end up paying more in the long run.

[Paul Farrelly]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend; the effect on women is also something that the House should be given time to consider. Million+ is a great institution that has put forward many practical alternatives. It disputes some of the Government’s assertions about who will bear the greatest burden, which is something that we have now heard the Institute for Fiscal Studies doing too. We will simply not have time in five hours to get to what is fact and what is fiction in the Government’s position.

The market system is most fully developed in the United States, and we should be given time to look at the effects there.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

Obviously this debate is focused on the opportunity to debate the subject tomorrow, but on Monday the Opposition had their eighth allotted Opposition day debate. They chose to discuss not tuition fees but local government funding. Perhaps when they are complaining about a lack of time, they could remind the House that when they had the opportunity on Monday, they did not take it.

[Paul Farrelly]

I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past few days, but we have just had an Opposition day debate on that very subject.

If we had the time, one of the things that we should look at is the experience in the US. Some 34% of young white people in the United States earn an honours degree, compared with only 19% of African-Americans and 10% of Hispanics. Again, we will not have time to look at the international experience. In Canada, when fees for medical schools went up from roughly the same level as ours are now—the equivalent of £3,000 in their currency—to $15,000, which is much the same as £9,000, participation among children from lower income backgrounds dropped by a third. We simply will not have the time—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] We will not have the time to rehearse all that evidence.

[Robert Flello]

My hon. Friend is making some extremely important points about having the time—[Laughter.] He is talking about having the time tomorrow to debate these important issues, yet all that we can hear from across the Chamber is hysterics. Is it really that funny to prevent young people from going to university because of these fee increases, and not having time to discuss it?

[Paul Farrelly]

Most Members of the House are very well behaved and listen politely when other Members are on their feet. Mr Speaker, I will not try your patience by going through every fee level, which we will not have time to debate, in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States, institution by institution and region by region. The fact is, however, that if the motion goes through tomorrow, we will have the highest levels of fees across the board outside the United States. The implication of that—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is in danger of catching North Durham disease. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was fond of saying what he would not talk about before proceeding to talk about it, and I hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) is not going to follow suit.

[Paul Farrelly]

I apologise if I have given that impression, Mr Speaker. I take it that North Durham disease is a mining affliction; I come from a mining area myself.

[Mr Tom Harris]

It has been announced tonight that the latest YouGov poll puts the Liberal Democrats on only 8%. Would it not be to their benefit to have more time to debate these matters tomorrow, in order for them to persuade the country that they have actually stuck to their principles? Or does my hon. Friend believe that, if they were given more time, that 8% might look quite optimistic in a couple of weeks time?

[Paul Farrelly]

I hope that it will not take 5% of five hours to persuade the Liberal Democrats to join us in asking for more time tomorrow.

The evidence from the UK needs to be properly considered as well, including the evidence on price sensitivity. And the Government have not explained the evidential base on which their policy is based. We need time to fathom that.

[Helen Goodman]

I would not wish to make a political point, but does my hon. Friend agree that the Leader of the House might have been influenced by the fact that the statistics for applications from UK-domiciled students for undergraduate courses at the colleges of Oxford university show that 10 times as many come from Hampshire as come from County Durham?

[Paul Farrelly]

My hon. Friend has put her point firmly on the record, and I hope she will get the opportunity to expand on it if she is called to speak later in the debate.

There are a great many documents from institutions in the UK that have been looking at the effect of fees on participation, and we really need the opportunity to debate them. One such document, an interim impact assessment on higher education funding, shows that, according to the evidence on price sensitivity, a £1,000 increase in fees reduces participation by about 4.4 percentage points, yet here we are, facing a £6,000 rise, which would imply a reduction in participation by a quarter. We need time to look at all that evidence, which the Government have not been forthcoming in producing to back up their plans.

The Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) has placed great emphasis on social mobility. He has even stated that these proposals will increase social mobility, and we need time to be able to cross-examine that view and to see the evidence for it. We also need time to give an airing to all the views of the young people that have come to us from across the country, e-mail by e-mail. We need more than five hours to do that.

[Catherine McKinnell]

On social mobility, another issue that I am sure we will not have time to debate properly tomorrow is the removal of the education maintenance allowance. That, as well as the issue of tuition fees, is relevant to social mobility and the two issues will have a cumulative effect, preventing people from accessing universities or even from getting into a position to think about going to university in the first place.

[Paul Farrelly]

My hon. Friend will have heard me mention the Secretary of State for Education—a lovely man, although he has some energetic views. What we really need is time to see whether the Government are engaging in joined-up policy. How does the abolition of the EMA affect participation and how will it increase mobility? The same applies to the abolition of the Aimhigher programme. We simply have not had the time and I do not think we will have the time in five hours to debate that.

[Mr David]

As already noted, the statutory instrument applies only to England, but a number of Welsh colleagues have been in active dialogue with our friends in the Welsh Assembly. A different regime, of course, will be implemented there. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be good for debate if we had ample time to bring forward the Welsh experience so that we could compare it with what is going to happen in England?

[Paul Farrelly]

Indeed. I think that the Leader of the House should find time—separate time—to look at Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

[Barbara Keeley]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is being generous with his time. As for understanding how the abolition of the EMA will affect different groups, I hope we will get enough time to discuss the impact on young carers. I recently spoke to someone who worked in a young carers’ project in Salford who told me that all but one of the young carers, aged 16 to 18, were on the EMA. She was very worried that they would lose out on the end of their education. Maintaining an education alongside a big caring work load is a very difficult thing. Let us hope that we will have enough time to discuss that issue.

[Paul Farrelly]

Indeed. People who have to take a break from work—women raising a family, for example—will lose out in terms of their ability to repay because they become carers. Again, we need more time to look at the impact of the changes on such people.

[Albert Owen]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you help me? Have you had any indication from the Leader of the House whether he intends to wind up the debate on behalf of the Government? He has been sitting there motionless throughout the evening and has not taken the opportunity to explain why he has imposed the 5.30 pm deadline and why he has not answered the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) about the increase from three to five hours.

[Mr Speaker]

I have received no such indication. I did not invite it and it has not been proffered. That is the situation. I think it is fair to say that the hon. Gentleman’s point is not a point of order but a point of inquiry, which is not quite the same thing.

[Paul Farrelly]

Just to conclude my response to the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), we need that vital time to assess the implications for all those people in those situations.

[Sheila Gilmore]

My hon. Friend appeared to say that separate and additional time would be required to deal with Wales and Scotland. I ask him to consider the fact that once the motion has been passed, if it is passed tomorrow, decisions will have been taken that will have impacted on those areas and that this is a major change from what went before. We therefore need time within the debate before a decision is made on the level of fees.

[Paul Farrelly]

Unfortunately, I am not responsible for scheduling the business of the House, but I think that the Leader of the House should be as generous as possible in allocating time to debate these issues. For instance, we need time to examine the views of young people. Let us think of the Youth Parliament—an institution that we have encouraged. We have invited it here to debate and its members have sent e-mails to Members of Parliament. We need time to debate the views of Ahmed Siddiqui, a 16-year-old who asked us not to give up on helping his generation to become everything they can be.

[Steve McCabe]

Is my hon. Friend rapidly coming to the same conclusion as I am—that, having heard from only four speakers in this rather short debate so far this evening, we have nevertheless heard a large number of issues raised and concerns expressed, so it is now time for the Leader of the House to realise that he should do justice to this debate, which requires not five hours but two days?

[Paul Farrelly]

You will be glad to hear, Mr Speaker, that I plan to conclude very shortly, to give more Members—including, I hope, Government Members—an opportunity to contribute to the debate.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend mentioned that the Youth Parliament came here to debate the very same issue. Would it not be ironic if we spent less time in the House debating the subject than the Youth Parliament, because of the inadequacy of the motion?

[Paul Farrelly]

It would be not only ironic, but tragic and a dereliction of the House’s duty—and a bad example to the UK Youth Parliament.

As my hon. Friend encourages me to talk more about the UK Youth Parliament, I should say that we need time to consider the views of Sam Hatzigeorgiou, a 16-year-old, who says:

“I am seriously considering giving up any hope of university education. Please think about that before you vote.”

Why can we not have time to consider what Chloe Shaw, who is just 15 years old, says? She says:

“I will be 18 when the policy comes into action. I am so worried about the rise in tuition fees. I am only going to be applying for the cheapest universities. Shouldn’t I be making the most of my abilities, rather than going for the cheaper options?”

[Mr George Howarth]

Will my hon. Friend add to his list the views of the students of All Saints school in my constituency? A couple of weeks ago, they told me that they see themselves facing a triple whammy: the loss, for many of them, of the EMA; the scrapping of Aimhigher; and the removal of the opportunity to go into higher education.

[Paul Farrelly]

My right hon. Friend’s point is well made. Traditional industrial areas, such as his and mine, are in need of all those schemes to encourage people and give them a fair chance to go to university. We need time to discuss that.

We need time to discuss other matters of which young people may not be fully aware. At the moment, they are just aware that it will cost them more to go to university, but perhaps they are not aware that some universities might not exist in future because they are threatened by teaching cuts. Without being parochial, I should like to discuss my university, Keele, where there will be an estimated 46% cut in the teaching grant, from £29 million to £13.5 million.

[Robert Flello]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his generosity with his time—

[Mr Bone]

We’re over here.

[Robert Flello]

My apologies. It is good to see the hon. Gentleman in his place; he has been a little bit on and off over the past few hours. [Interruption.] I hope he is saving himself for my speech later as well.

My point, of course, relates to the motion before us this evening. Would my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) care to comment on the fact that there are a huge number of organisations on which the House relies for information, support and knowledge that wish their views to be represented through their Members of Parliament, but that under the motion we will not have time to discuss properly the issues that they have raised with us?

[Paul Farrelly]

My hon. Friend is correct. There are wider issues involved in the contribution that higher education makes to local economies. For instance, in our area, Staffordshire university may face cuts across the board that will damage the great job it does in regeneration and teaching new ceramics skills and design.

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

Does my hon. Friend think that the motion will give the House sufficient time to discuss all the implications of the fact that the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) has announced tonight that he will not vote for the tuition fee increases?

[Paul Farrelly]

I fear that there will not be time to discuss everything that has been said on the issue, or even to fathom whether Members have the courage to turn up in the Chamber and abstain in person, rather than simply stay away.

[Helen Goodman]

Another consideration—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I must ask the hon. Lady to face the Chair.

[Helen Goodman]

Another consideration is the impact on universities of excluding able young people who simply cannot afford to go to the best universities. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is not just bad for the young people but bad for the universities? Will there be time for us to discuss it?

[Paul Farrelly]

I do agree, and I have already said that we will not have time to discuss the ins and outs and the evidence base of the national scholarship fund. We are told that 18,000 to 20,000 students might be helped, but we have not been told where those figures come from.

[Thomas Docherty]

I do not know whether Members have had a chance to read the House of Commons Information Office’s excellent publication on statutory instruments, but I had a chance to pick up a copy yesterday. We will be discussing a statutory instrument tomorrow. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that in the House of Lords, determination of the time to be allocated to debate on statutory instruments is based on the number of speakers who have indicated that they wish to take part. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that we will not have enough time tomorrow, the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons should consider again whether the system works for the purpose for which it is intended?

[Paul Farrelly]

rose—

[The Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household (Mr Alistair Carmichael)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Speaker]

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

The House having divided: Ayes 300, Noes 201.Division No. 148][11.1 pmAYESAdams, NigelAfriyie, AdamAldous, PeterAlexander, rh DannyAmess, Mr DavidAndrew, StuartBacon, Mr RichardBagshawe, Ms LouiseBaker, NormanBaker, SteveBaldry, TonyBarclay, StephenBarwell, GavinBebb, GutoBeith, rh Sir AlanBeresford, Sir PaulBerry, JakeBingham, AndrewBirtwistle, GordonBlackman, BobBlackwood, NicolaBlunt, Mr CrispinBoles, NickBone, Mr PeterBottomley, PeterBrady, Mr GrahamBray, AngieBrazier, Mr JulianBrine, Mr SteveBrokenshire, JamesBrooke, AnnetteBrowne, Mr JeremyBruce, FionaBruce, rh MalcolmBuckland, Mr RobertBurley, Mr AidanBurns, ConorBurns, Mr Simon Burstow, Paul Burt, AlistairByles, DanCable, rh VinceCarmichael, Mr AlistairCarmichael, NeilCarswell, Mr DouglasCash, Mr WilliamChishti, RehmanClappison, Mr JamesClark, rh GregClifton-Brown, GeoffreyCoffey, Dr ThérèseCollins, DamianColvile, OliverCox, Mr GeoffreyCrockart, MikeCrouch, TraceyDavey, Mr EdwardDavies, David T. C. (Monmouth)Davies, Glynde Bois, NickDinenage, CarolineDjanogly, Mr JonathanDorrell, rh Mr StephenDorries, NadineDoyle-Price, JackieDrax, RichardDuncan, rh Mr AlanDuncan Smith, rh Mr IainDunne, Mr PhilipEllis, MichaelEllison, JaneElphicke, CharlieEustice, GeorgeEvans, GrahamEvans, JonathanEvennett, Mr DavidFabricant, MichaelFallon, MichaelFeatherstone, LynneField, Mr MarkFoster, Mr DonFox, rh Dr LiamFrancois, rh Mr MarkFreer, MikeFullbrook, LorraineFuller, RichardGale, Mr RogerGarnier, Mr EdwardGarnier, MarkGauke, Mr DavidGeorge, AndrewGibb, Mr NickGilbert, StephenGillan, rh Mrs CherylGlen, JohnGoldsmith, ZacGoodwill, Mr RobertGove, rh MichaelGraham, RichardGrant, Mrs HelenGray, Mr JamesGrayling, rh ChrisGreen, DamianGreening, JustineGrieve, rh Mr DominicGriffiths, AndrewGummer, BenGyimah, Mr SamHague, rh Mr WilliamHalfon, RobertHames, DuncanHammond, StephenHancock, MatthewHancock, Mr MikeHands, GregHarper, Mr MarkHarrington, RichardHarris, RebeccaHart, SimonHaselhurst, rh Sir AlanHayes, Mr JohnHeald, Mr OliverHeath, Mr DavidHeaton-Harris, ChrisHemming, JohnHenderson, GordonHendry, CharlesHinds, DamianHoban, Mr MarkHollingbery, GeorgeHollobone, Mr PhilipHopkins, KrisHowell, JohnHunter, MarkHuppert, Dr JulianHurd, Mr NickJackson, Mr StewartJames, MargotJavid, SajidJenkin, Mr BernardJohnson, GarethJohnson, JosephJones, AndrewJones, Mr DavidJones, Mr MarcusKawczynski, DanielKelly, ChrisKirby, SimonKnight, rh Mr GregKwarteng, KwasiLaing, Mrs EleanorLamb, NormanLancaster, MarkLansley, rh Mr AndrewLatham, PaulineLaws, rh Mr DavidLeadsom, AndreaLee, JessicaLee, Dr PhillipLeech, Mr JohnLefroy, JeremyLeslie, CharlotteLetwin, rh Mr OliverLewis, BrandonLiddell-Grainger, Mr IanLidington, Mr DavidLilley, rh Mr PeterLloyd, StephenLopresti, JackLoughton, TimLuff, PeterLumley, KarenMacleod, MaryMain, Mrs AnneMaude, rh Mr FrancisMay, rh Mrs TheresaMaynard, PaulMcCartney, JasonMcCartney, KarlMcIntosh, Miss AnneMcLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick McPartland, Stephen McVey, EstherMenzies, MarkMiller, MariaMills, NigelMilton, AnneMoore, rh MichaelMordaunt, PennyMorgan, NickyMorris, Anne MarieMorris, JamesMowat, DavidMundell, rh DavidMurray, SheryllMurrison, Dr AndrewNeill, RobertNewmark, Mr BrooksNewton, SarahNokes, CarolineNorman, JesseNuttall, Mr DavidO'Brien, Mr StephenOfford, Mr MatthewOllerenshaw, EricOpperman, GuyParish, NeilPatel, PritiPaterson, rh Mr OwenPawsey, MarkPenning, MikePenrose, JohnPercy, AndrewPerry, ClairePhillips, StephenPickles, rh Mr EricPincher, ChristopherPoulter, Dr DanielPrisk, Mr MarkPritchard, MarkPugh, Dr JohnRaab, Mr DominicRandall, rh Mr JohnReckless, MarkRedwood, rh Mr JohnRees-Mogg, JacobReevell, SimonReid, Mr AlanRobertson, HughRobertson, Mr LaurenceRogerson, DanRosindell, AndrewRudd, AmberRuffley, Mr DavidRussell, BobRutley, DavidSanders, Mr AdrianSandys, LauraSharma, AlokShelbrooke, AlecSimmonds, MarkSimpson, Mr KeithSkidmore, ChrisSmith, Miss ChloeSmith, HenrySmith, JulianSoames, NicholasSpelman, rh Mrs CarolineSpencer, Mr MarkStephenson, AndrewStevenson, JohnStewart, BobStewart, IainStewart, RoryStreeter, Mr GaryStride, MelStuart, Mr GrahamStunell, AndrewSturdy, JulianSwales, IanSwayne, Mr DesmondSwinson, JoSwire, Mr HugoSyms, Mr RobertTeather, SarahThurso, JohnTimpson, Mr EdwardTomlinson, JustinTredinnick, DavidTruss, ElizabethTurner, Mr AndrewUppal, PaulVaizey, Mr EdwardVara, Mr ShaileshVickers, MartinVilliers, rh Mrs TheresaWalker, Mr CharlesWalker, Mr RobinWallace, Mr BenWalter, Mr RobertWard, Mr DavidWatkinson, AngelaWebb, SteveWharton, JamesWheeler, HeatherWhite, ChrisWhittaker, CraigWhittingdale, Mr JohnWiggin, BillWilletts, rh Mr DavidWilliams, Mr MarkWilliams, RogerWilliams, StephenWilliamson, GavinWillott, JennyWilson, Mr RobWollaston, Dr SarahWright, SimonYeo, Mr TimYoung, rh Sir GeorgeZahawi, NadhimTellers for the Ayes:James Duddridge andStephen CrabbNOESAbbott, Ms DianeAlexander, rh Mr DouglasAlexander, HeidiAnderson, Mr DavidBailey, Mr AdrianBain, Mr WilliamBalls, rh EdBanks, GordonBarron, rh Mr KevinBayley, HughBeckett, rh MargaretBenn, rh HilaryBenton, Mr JoeBerger, Luciana Betts, Mr CliveBlackman-Woods, RobertaBlenkinsop, TomBlomfield, PaulBrennan, KevinBrown, LynBrown, rh Mr NicholasBrown, Mr RussellBuck, Ms KarenBurden, RichardBurnham, rh AndyByrne, rh Mr LiamCampbell, Mr AlanCampbell, Mr GregoryChapman, Mrs JennyClark, KatyCoaker, VernonCooper, RosieCorbyn, JeremyCrausby, Mr DavidCreasy, StellaCryer, JohnCunningham, AlexCunningham, Mr JimCunningham, TonyCurran, MargaretDakin, NicDanczuk, SimonDavid, Mr WayneDavidson, Mr IanDavies, GeraintDe Piero, GloriaDobbin, JimDocherty, ThomasDonaldson, rh Mr Jeffrey M.Donohoe, Mr Brian H.Dowd, JimDoyle, GemmaDromey, JackDurkan, MarkEagle, Ms AngelaEagle, MariaEdwards, JonathanEfford, CliveElliott, JulieEllman, Mrs LouiseEvans, ChrisFarrelly, PaulFitzpatrick, JimFlello, RobertFlint, rh CarolineFovargue, YvonneFrancis, Dr HywelGilmore, SheilaGlass, PatGlindon, Mrs MaryGoggins, rh PaulGoodman, HelenGriffith, NiaGwynne, AndrewHain, rh Mr PeterHamilton, Mr DavidHamilton, FabianHanson, rh Mr DavidHarris, Mr TomHealey, rh JohnHepburn, Mr StephenHermon, LadyHeyes, DavidHillier, MegHilling, JulieHodgson, Mrs SharonHoey, KateHood, Mr JimHosie, StewartHowarth, rh Mr GeorgeHunt, TristramIllsley, Mr EricIrranca-Davies, HuwJames, Mrs Siân C.Jamieson, CathyJohnson, rh AlanJohnson, DianaJones, GrahamJones, Mr KevanJones, Susan ElanJowell, rh TessaKaufman, rh Sir GeraldKeeley, BarbaraKhan, rh SadiqLavery, IanLazarowicz, MarkLeslie, ChrisLewis, Mr IvanLloyd, TonyLong, NaomiLove, Mr AndrewLucas, IanMacNeil, Mr Angus BrendanMactaggart, FionaMahmood, ShabanaMann, JohnMarsden, Mr GordonMcCabe, SteveMcCann, Mr MichaelMcCarthy, KerryMcClymont, GreggMcDonnell, JohnMcFadden, rh Mr PatMcGovern, AlisonMcGovern, JimMcGuire, rh Mrs AnneMcKechin, AnnMcKinnell, CatherineMeacher, rh Mr MichaelMearns, IanMichael, rh AlunMiliband, rh EdwardMoon, Mrs MadeleineMorden, JessicaMorrice, Graeme (Livingston)Morris, Grahame M. (Easington)Munn, MegMurphy, rh Mr JimMurphy, rh PaulMurray, IanNandy, LisaO'Donnell, FionaOnwurah, ChiOsborne, SandraOwen, AlbertPaisley, IanPearce, TeresaPerkins, TobyPhillipson, BridgetPound, StephenQureshi, YasminRaynsford, rh Mr NickReynolds, EmmaReynolds, JonathanRiordan, Mrs LindaRitchie, Ms MargaretRobertson, John Robinson, Mr GeoffreyRotheram, SteveRoy, LindsayRuane, ChrisSarwar, AnasSeabeck, AlisonShannon, JimSharma, Mr VirendraSheerman, Mr BarrySheridan, JimShuker, GavinSimpson, DavidSkinner, Mr DennisSlaughter, Mr AndySmith, rh Mr AndrewSmith, AngelaSmith, OwenSoulsby, Sir PeterSpellar, rh Mr JohnSutcliffe, Mr GerryTami, MarkThomas, Mr GarethThornberry, EmilyTimms, rh StephenTrickett, JonTurner, KarlTwigg, DerekTwigg, StephenUmunna, Mr ChukaVaz, ValerieWalley, JoanWatts, Mr DaveWeir, Mr MikeWhiteford, Dr EilidhWhitehead, Dr AlanWicks, rh MalcolmWilliams, HywelWilliamson, ChrisWinnick, Mr DavidWinterton, rh Ms RosieWishart, PeteWoodcock, JohnWoodward, rh Mr ShaunWright, DavidTellers for the Noes:Phil Wilson andMark HendrickQuestion accordingly agreed to.

Main Question put accordingly.

23:18

Division 149

Ayes: 305

---

Conservative: 260
Liberal Democrat: 45

Noes: 202

---

Labour: 185
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Scottish National Party: 5
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Independent: 2
Alliance: 1
Liberal Democrat: 1

Ordered,

That, at the sitting on Thursday 9 December, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Secretary Vince Cable relating to Higher Education Higher Amount and, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), on the Motion in the name of Secretary Vince Cable on the draft Higher Education (Basic Amount) (England) Regulations not later than five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first motion, or at 5.30 pm, whichever is the earlier; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.

[Thomas Docherty]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very disappointed that we were cut off in our prime this evening, but tomorrow we have important business questions and I very much appreciate that the Leader of the House is a star draw. Will you ensure that important issues are not curtailed tomorrow lunchtime thanks to the actions of the Government deputy Chief Whip?

[Mr Speaker]

The Chair always seeks to ensure that there is a good opportunity at business questions for right hon. and hon. Members to raise issues of concern to them. I know the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to say now for how long business questions will run. That would be wholly unreasonable of him, and he is not an unreasonable man, but I note what he says, I bear it in mind and I will make what I hope is a reasonable judgment in the circumstances at the time.

[Mr George Howarth]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House, during the course of the debate, admonished my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) for not tabling an amendment to the order, but I should just like to quote from “Erskine May”, page 675, on the section that deals with delegated legislation. It states:

“Though they may be moved as independent motions, motions which propose to treat delegated legislation, or other matters subject to proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament, in a manner which would be outside the provisions of the parent statute, such as motions to refer instruments to select committees, or motions not to approve instruments or to approve them upon conditions, may not be moved in the House…as amendments to questions which arise in the normal way out of proceedings”—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Order. No, no. I am extremely grateful. He has had his say, and I am very grateful to him, but my concern is that he is confusing the statutory instrument for consideration tomorrow with the motion that we have been debating tonight. So, on the assumption that I am correct, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman would not dispute that I am, there is nothing further upon which I need to adjudicate—

[Mr Howarth]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

And that therefore is the end of his point of order.

[Mr Howarth]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I assume it is a different point of order.

[Mr Howarth]

Well, it is. I am very grateful, Mr Speaker, and of course I would not in any circumstances challenge any judgment that you made in this House. However, the quotation refers to proceedings, not necessarily to the instrument itself. If I am correct in that assumption, it may well be that the Leader of the House, who is an honourable man and would never knowingly mislead the House, may have been guilty of terminological inexactitude.

[Mr Speaker]

I think I am right in saying that the reference is to proceedings on an order, and if that be correct I stand by the proposition that I have just put to the House, which is that there is nothing further upon which I need to rule. But the right hon. Gentleman, although he has been here two decades or more, is, like we all are, on a learning curve, and, if in pursuit of those procedural matters he wishes to improve his knowledge, he can always consult the Clerks at the Table. He might find that a profitable exercise.

[Steve McCabe]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. What advice would you give me when I try to deal tomorrow with constituents who will want to know why I am not able to represent their views in the debate on tuition fees because of the disgraceful timetable, and why it was not possible, when 30 Labour Members sought to catch your eye tonight, for us to continue to query the business motion? When my constituents ask me if that smacks of a coalition dictatorship, what advice should I give them?

[Mr Speaker]

We must not continue the debate that has just been had. I would say that the hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member, and the notion that he needs advice from me about communication with his constituents is as flattering to me as it is insulting to him.

[Mr Tom Harris]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you take very seriously the reputation of this House and how we are perceived on television. Tonight, the many hundreds, or probably dozens, of people watching these events will be appalled by the Government’s attempts to curtail free speech. Would it be in order, when you are using your judgment to draw up the speakers’ list for tomorrow, to give precedence to Labour Members who voted in favour of free speech tonight and to put Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs, who have voted against free speech, further down the speaking order? That might not be within the rules of the House, but it would certainly be just.

[Mr Speaker]

That was an extraordinarily discursive attempted point of order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to anticipate the selection decisions of the Chair. He has made his point.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I sat assiduously through the earlier debate from 7 pm, hoping to raise issues on behalf of my constituents and the all-party parliamentary university group, but sadly I was prevented from doing so by the closure motion. I urge you to do as you usually do and seek to include as many Members as possible in tomorrow’s debate.

[Mr Speaker]

I shall do what I can in the circumstances. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her application, on which I will not adjudicate.

[Robert Flello]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Like my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), I was in the Chamber for the entirety of tonight’s debate. Unfortunately, I was unable to catch your eye before the ruthless move from those on the Government Benches to curtail tonight’s business. Will you advise me, as a still relatively new Member of the House, on the procedural move whereby the closure motion was put by a Liberal Democrat member of the Government, who had not been in attendance for the debate? Is it normal that somebody can come in almost at the end of the debate and move a closure motion?

[Mr Speaker]

Anyone in the House of Commons can move a closure motion.

[Kerry McCarthy]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that 49 Labour Members have applied to speak in tomorrow’s debate and that the number for Government Members is between 20 and 30. It will obviously be very difficult for everyone to get in. Will you consider over night whether there ought to be a limit on Front-Bench contributions? We obviously want to hear about the proposals from the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills or whomever he delegates to do his work for him, but it is important that Back Benchers get a chance too.

[Mr Speaker]

I cannot adjudicate on that matter now, nor give any advance indication to the hon. Lady on how the debate will run. I say only that I am sure that Members will want to be courteous to each other. We are all concerned that right hon. and hon. Members from the Back Benches should have a chance to air their views. That is right and proper, but I shall be here and I attach great importance to these debates in the interests of all Members.

[Kevin Brennan]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. What was novel about the motion that we have just passed was not that it timetabled business—of course, that does happen—but that it timetabled business to come to an end half an hour before the moment of interruption. I cannot remember another occasion on which that has happened, but hon. Members might tell me that I am wrong. [Interruption.] I am sure that if the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Mr Randall) wants to say something further to my point of order, he will get to his feet in a minute. Will you advise me, Mr Speaker, on the best way to take this matter forward? Is it to write to the Procedure Committee? [Interruption.] I am not wasting time; it is the Government who are wasting time, because they said that they wanted to have that half an hour for voting. Voting should take place after the moment of interruption, and it always has. They have taken half an hour off tomorrow’s debate, and that is a serious matter.

[Mr Speaker]

What I say to the hon. Gentleman is twofold. First, he should not seek to continue the debate. Secondly, he rather anticipated my thoughts. If he feels strongly about this matter, a comprehensive memorandum from him to the Procedure Committee would be a very interesting memorandum to study. It would probably take him some little while to attend to it and I feel sure that that is just what he will want to do.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you can give me some direction as a new Member of the House. Many coach loads of students from Edinburgh are heading south as we speak, not only to attend marches tomorrow but to attend the debate in the House. The inclement weather in Scotland and the north of England is very much unprecedented, and I wonder whether it is in your gift, given that the Government have just curtailed tomorrow’s debate, to delay proceedings at any point if people are stuck and unable to take part.

[Mr Speaker]

There is no such power for the Chair. The timing of tomorrow’s business is always in the hands of the House. It is a matter for the House, not for the Chair.

If there are no further points of order—I am grateful to Members for those that they have put—we come to motion 7.

Business without Debate

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

Delegated legislation

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

Animals

That the draft Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 8 November, be approved.—(Bill Wiggin.)

The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 15 December (Standing Order No. 41A).

Planning: National Policy Statements

Ordered,

That, for the purposes of the revised draft National Policy Statements on energy laid before the House on 18 October, the designated date in Standing Order No. 152H(5) (Planning: National Policy Statements) shall be the fourteenth day before the expiry of the relevant period defined under section 9(6) of the Planning Act 2008.—(Bill Wiggin.)

Delegated Legislation

Ordered,

That the Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2010 (S.I., 2010, No. 2835) and the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Amendment Order 2010 (S.I., 2010, No. 2836), be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.—(Bill Wiggin.)

Further and Higher Education Funding

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

23:41

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I am presenting a timely petition to the House tonight. It was gathered by school students across Wirral, who recently demonstrated peacefully outside Wallasey Conservative headquarters and marched to the town hall to register their strong objection to the Government’s proposals on the educational maintenance allowance and tuition fees. It is signed by 875 pupils, and I strongly agree with it.

The petition states:

To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.

The Humble Petition of Sarah Smith and students from schools across Wirral,

Sheweth, that the Petitioners believe that the Government’s abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowance and the proposals to lift the cap on University fees will prevent students from poorer backgrounds having full and fair access to education.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House rejects any proposals to remove the cap on University tuition fees and urges the Government to enhance equality of opportunity and equal access to education instead of cutting off support for students and creating some of the most expensive tuition fees in the World.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.

[P000869]

Mental Health Services (Lancashire)

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

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

23:43

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

I rise to speak about acute mental health service provision in Lancashire. Since August it has become clear that the Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust has a clear strategy of closing adult in-patient care units for people with serious mental health conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

Initially, the plan was to be realised and carried out in secret, without the knowledge or consent of the democratically elected governors of the trust. However, once the staff at the Avondale unit of the Royal Preston hospital became aware of the fact that patients were being refused admission or sent for care at alternative facilities, they leaked the information to the local newspaper, the Lancashire Evening Post. Very quickly, campaigners and myself decided to take on the trust—if we can call it a “trust”—and fight the case. The people of Lancashire are enraged about closures across the county, such as that of the Pharos unit in Fleetwood earlier this year, and now the planned closure of the Avondale unit before the new year.

In order to fight the closures, the campaign organisation SAFE—Save Avondale For Everyone—was set up and is led by a courageous and determined set of activists: Andy Hanson, Alison Ball, Fiona Jones, Nadia Southworth, Steve Weyer and Lisa Daley. Along with many others, they have taken on the might of the autocratic managers with six-figure salaries who have no respect whatever for the democratically elected governors of the trust, or the people of Lancashire whom they are employed to serve.

Preston needs the Avondale unit, which has served and saved many lives over the decades: it has saved people from suicide and serious mental illness. Everyone in Preston knows somebody or has a relative who has needed treatment at the unit. As the coalition cuts begin to bite, more people will become unemployed, which will cause more mental illness. Preston is a military town, with Army and Territorial Army barracks. Many armed forces personnel will return to Preston from conflict zones around the world with different degrees of mental illness. Returning forces will need that facility. Preston also has many students, many of whom suffer from mental illness because of the stresses and strains of exams—and, of course, student debt, which is topical at the moment. I understand that the Minister will be absent tomorrow; he will be with the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) in Torbay because he does not wish to vote for the coalition’s legislation—but that is by the way.

The closures mean that extremely vulnerable patients with mental illness from Preston will be forced to travel to Blackpool, Chorley or Ormskirk for treatment and care, despite the Government’s promise to ring-fence spending on the NHS. That promise is not worth the paper it is written on, because the trust is not only cutting spending this year, but will cut spending across Lancashire by £33 million next year.

The Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust has this mission statement:

“To improve the lives of the people we serve and ensure that mental health matters across the whole community”

and this strategic aim:

“To deliver high-quality, person-centred, compassionate services for mental health”.

It claims to have the following values:

“Teamwork…Compassion…Excellence…Accountability…Respect ...Integrity”.

Let us check the evidence on that. What do people want in Preston? We want local integrated in-patient and community care services; choice in accessing local services, and for that choice to be respected; and the continuation of local in-patient services in the city of Preston, which is the capital of Lancashire and its administrative centre. We have overwhelming local support: I have a petition with thousands of signatures that I will present to the Minister following the debate. The petition is very clear. Everybody in Preston and the surrounding areas wants the Avondale unit to be saved.

We accuse the funding bodies, the primary care trusts and the Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust of driving through hidden changes that will have profoundly detrimental psychological, economic and social effects on the people of Preston. There will be many other downsides. For example, the Lancashire Evening Post recently reported on the anger at the travel ordeal that patients will face in future. On 14 July it said:

“Mental health patients may have to travel from Preston to Chorley following the closure of…facilities in the city”.

The chairman of the Lancashire mental health and social care partnership board believes that the consultation process was inadequate. He said:

“It is unclear how the priorities identified at these events translate into a one option consultation—surely this means that there is no choice.”

Let me give a few examples of what patients will be faced with in future. If someone travels from Preston to Blackpool to get treatment, the cost implications for one adult visiting five days out of seven is £29 a day, with a minimum travel time of three hours a day. The average length of stay is 34 days, so the total cost would be around £145. For someone being treated in Ormskirk, the travel cost is £45 a day and minimum travel time is five to six hours. Again, if an average length of stay is 34 days, the total cost would be £225.

The authority clearly wants to adopt a strategy of having some provision at home. The claim is that

“when people are able to stay in their home environment they maintain contact with their family and friends, have less risk of losing their jobs, and can continue living their normal lives.”

That is a quotation from Steve Ward, the medical director of NHS Central Lancashire trust. The chief executive of the trust said:

“We know that community services such as crisis resolution, home treatment and assertive outreach teams enable more people to be treated safely and successfully in their own home or in the community, which is where they tell us they prefer to be treated”.

That is code for cuts, and it is finance-driven, not care-driven.

When the Care Quality Commission looked at the provision of services in its community survey, only 5.5 out of 10 was scored on the question of whether

“those that had used the crisis number in the last 12 months…believe…they received the help they needed, the last time that they called this number.”

On trust performance review, a staggering 66% of patients have had to have a formal review of their care within 12 months, which clearly shows that the current system of providing care in the home is inadequate.

On the subject of suicides in Lancashire, the actual number of suicides in the Preston area in January to March this year was 12, and for April to June it was nine. The total number of suicides for people in contact with Lancashire Care NHS trust mental health services over the last two years is 80. The removal of local patient beds in Preston will increase the already unacceptably high number of suicides. All of these suicides were in the community. One headline reads “Suicidal patient told ‘no beds at Avondale’”.

There has been no consultation on the total closure of Avondale, and no working in partnership or public involvement. As I said earlier, the governors of the trust have been treated with contempt. There has been complete disregard of and disrespect for the wishes of the people of Preston, as the petition, which has thousands of signatories, makes clear. There has been a total lack of openness and transparency. Plans are only now being talked about in any detail, and are being presented as a fait accompli—by diktat, not by discussion with the governors or the people of Preston.

Preston community mental health services will be unable to manage crisis without local beds; they are struggling now. In order to close Avondale, they have had to refuse patients or move them elsewhere, in many cases to private units, which is privatisation by the back door. Patients in Preston face an unclear and constantly changing service plan. The governors have no power over the executive, which has become unaccountable and unrepresentative in its decision making.

The question is not whether Preston can manage without Avondale, but whether it should have to do so. The answer is clearly no. People manage to live through most disasters, but should we allow a publicly funded organisation to develop into a disaster for some of the most vulnerable people in Preston’s population? The evidence of the impending disaster is clear. In the review in 2006, Whyndyke Farm, Ribbleton hospital and Burnley were seen as sites that could have either new facilities or extensions to existing facilities. The plan was to close smaller units. No evidence exists that remote, large hospitals improve mental health care, but there is a lot of evidence that they do not. The deal on new facilities has now been reneged on. There is planning permission for Whyndyke Farm near Blackpool, but Ribbleton hospital will not receive an extension and Burnley will probably never get off the ground. Indeed, I would be very surprised if the extension at Whyndyke Farm sees the light of day. Questions remain over the capacity of local community health services to manage crisis without local in-patient beds in the long term.

A city the size of Preston needs its own in-patient beds and deserves to be consulted about what kind of care its citizens can expect to receive. A city the size of Preston should not be treated as if it were an afterthought, and it should not be forced to fit in with a corporate, financially-driven view of what Lancashire should look like. Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust does not care, and cannot be trusted.

As part of the campaign, there have been public meetings, demonstrations and a whopping petition that I shall serve the Government with at the end of the debate. I call upon the Minister and the Secretary of State to approach Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust and tell it that this plan does not serve the interests of the people of Lancashire or their mental well-being. The proposal is vandalism, and flies in the face of the Government’s promises to protect the NHS. It will result in more suicides and more vulnerable people coming to harm from others, as well as from themselves.

The former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher claimed that the NHS was safe in Conservative hands. Well, we all know what happened. If this Government repeat her mistakes, they will pay for it with the lives of vulnerable people in Preston and across the country. Ultimately, they will pay for such actions by being turfed out of office again for those mistakes.

23:56

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) for allowing me to participate in this debate. The Avondale clinic is, of course, in my constituency. When the issue was raised by a constituent, I did my best to get to the bottom of the process before, first, forming a position and, secondly, tackling the Government and the NHS trust with some questions and requests.

I surveyed all the GPs in the north and south of Preston and in Chorley. I spoke to the professionals and visited the alternative in-patient centre in Chorley. I visited the Avondale site and spoke to many constituents to asses the key issues. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of sound concerns about the mental health trust, but I am afraid he also raised a number of partisan points. That is extraordinary—the evidence is not about that—given that much of the consultation on mental health reconfiguration started in 2006.

What I found from the surveys of GPs was absolutely clear. Although they were happy with the performance of the community mental health teams and the out-patient service that people were getting, and they were happy with settled and stable treatment in the community—many of them were very impressed by it—they were deeply worried by what was available for patients in crisis and for constituents who needed urgent referral. They found that, for people using the helpline or in serious mental difficulties, the service just was not there. There was a real gulf between what the mental health trust thought it was delivering and the experience of GPs and my constituents of what was delivered.

I have some real concerns that the closure plan trailed for Avondale unit is far too premature. At the very least, it does not take into account some of the changes to the primary care trusts and commissioning that might happen in the next few months or by next year, when the PCTs are abolished and GPs might want to use Preston capacity rather than that in Chorley. The mental health trust has not done anything like enough to answer constituents’ questions about what will be put in Avondale’s place, and how people will travel to it. The trust has talked about a shuttle but, frankly, that is not good enough.

Having visited both Chorley and Avondale, I can say that neither of them is fit for purpose. Chorley is not a great alternative to Avondale. It has had a new lick of paint, but there is nothing significantly better that would drive me to say, “Okay, on this occasion, the professionals are right. The facilities are better.” They are not; they are not outstanding. There is very little room for people to go out and walk and come to terms with some of the illnesses that they are suffering. That needs a lot more work.

In a submission to the latest consultation, I asked the trust to delay the proposal and to go back, fill that gap and ensure a seamless service for urgent referral, community care and in-patient care. Until it does that, the proposal should not be rushed through. It is very important that we ensure that the NHS reforms that the coalition Government are putting into place come to fruition and, at the same time, that patients are given the out-patient crisis support and referrals that the GPs are demanding. We also need to address GPs’ concerns. Once that is done, we will all be in a position to make a proper assessment of what is right.

However, we should not forget that Preston is a major city in Lancashire and the north-west, as the hon. Gentleman said, with a large hospital in my constituency. It would be wrong just to abandon in-patient capacity in that part of Lancashire without really thinking through the strategic impact on in-patient facilities throughout the county, and perhaps even in neighbouring counties. There are lots of black holes in Lancashire, so we must not let that happen. Let us proceed on the basis of evidence. We are not talking about a cuts-driven Government agenda. The trust has got a lot of things wrong, and it is the trust that must address them. That is what I am pressing for, and it is also why the closure of Avondale must not be proceeded with until those things at the very least have been sorted. I would like us to reconsider where the best place is in Lancashire for in-patient care.

12:00

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) on securing this debate. On the many occasions during my 13 years in the House that I have secured these Adjournment debates, I have always taken the view that one should see them as an opportunity to present a case, not to try to score party political points. There are plenty of other opportunities to do that. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) perhaps demonstrated the way in which a case can be made without scoring cheap points.

There are also some points that I would like to spend some time making. In my view, the hon. Gentleman’s comments about students being under pressure and his suggestion that this causes them to rely on mental health services were deeply stigmatising and really unhelpful in trying to promote a sense of mental health and well-being. He does students a disservice by portraying them in that light. The suggestion has also been made that there is some sort of hidden agenda. Well, if there is a hidden agenda, let us be clear that this issue goes back to 2006. The work done then—which resulted in the plans that we are discussing, including the proposals for Avondale—came out of a set of principles in a national service framework for mental health that was drawn up by a Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member. That prompts some questions about quite where his attention ought to be focused now and where it ought to have been focused in the past.

[Mark Hendrick]

I will indeed make reference to the 2006 consultation and the report that came afterwards. It recommended that new facilities be built, but as I said, those facilities are very unlikely to be built, because of the financial pressures created by the Government’s cuts. On the one site there is only planning permission, and on the other two sites there is no sign of any building or any commissioning of building yet to take place.

On the question of students, many are indeed suffering great deals of stress and worry about debt. There are cases up and down the country of students who have committed suicide or who are suffering from mental illness as a result of stresses associated with debt, worries about exams, and pressure from parents and society. It is glib of the Minister to dismiss that in the way that he has.

[Paul Burstow]

The hon. Gentleman’s contribution may well have been glib; my concern is about stigmatising people and creating even more concern about mental health problems.

The 2006 consultation looked at strengthening community-based services, in order to reduce reliance on acute hospital care, as well as phased closures of 15 facilities over a number of years, as demand reduces owing to other measures. They were to be replaced by a smaller number of purpose-built units, which I will talk about in a moment. Lancashire primary care trusts spend £23 million a year on community-based mental health services—an increase of 46% since the 2006 consultation, which has resulted in spending per head that is higher than the average for England. Just 4% of service users now need in-patient care in Lancashire, and many facilities are significantly underused as a result.

Many existing in-patient facilities are not fit for purpose—dormitories rather than single rooms; problems separating male and female sleeping areas; no outside space; privacy compromised. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North made a case about some of those facilities in his speech. The PCT has plans for four new purpose-built units, the first of which, at Whyndyke farm, is due to open in 2013. The PCT assures me that plans to develop the Ribbleton hospital site are proceeding.

The hon. Member for Preston mentioned concerns about beds. I am assured by the PCT that the closure of facilities has been carefully phased to ensure sufficient capacity. I have looked at the figures, and I have been told that there is an average of 35 spare beds across Lancashire. I shall take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman on the use of taxpayers’ money to get the best possible results for patients, but it hardly makes sense to have an excess of supply of beds such as we are seeing in Lancashire. Indeed, only last week, the King’s Fund demonstrated that better outcomes could be achieved through effective use of resources.

[Mark Hendrick]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Burstow]

I will in a moment.

That is why we believe that the proposals make sense, and simply to talk about a potential mental health beds crisis is unnecessary scaremongering.

[Mark Hendrick]

This is far from scaremongering. People are committing suicide in Lancashire, and people are being turned away because of a lack of beds. People come to my surgeries who are suffering from stress and mental illness, or who are caring for someone who is trying to get into the Avondale unit. The Minister mentioned the 36 spare beds, but that is the figure across the whole of Lancashire. The occupancy rates across Lancashire range from 85% to 90%, which are rates that any hotel would be proud of.

[Paul Burstow]

It is important that the changes that are resulting from the consultation in 2006 are properly implemented, that they are led by clinical evidence, that they take account of legitimate public concerns, and that they involve appropriate scrutiny. That is why I have asked questions about the nature of the consultation that took place in 2006. More than 115,000 consultation documents were sent out, 74 public meetings and events took place, and independent evaluation by Salford university found that the engagement process was robust and comprehensive. All Members of Parliament, including the hon. Gentleman, were sent the consultation documents and offered briefings by the chair of the primary care trust’s joint committee. However, the only MPs to respond were the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) and the former Member for Fylde. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman appears to have come late to this issue. I understand that he started to get interested in it only earlier this year. I must question why he did not pursue it when it was being consulted on in 2006, when he might have had an opportunity to shape the proposals a little more than he has so far.

[Mark Hendrick]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Burstow]

In a moment.

When the proposals went to the Lancashire joint overview and scrutiny committee, which was formed in 2006 to consider the proposals, it was committed to ensuring that there was proper engagement. It took the view that there had been significant engagement around these proposals.

[Mark Hendrick]

I want to address two of the points that the Minister has made. First, we were happy with the consultation that took place in 2006, and with the report. Now, however, the NHS trust is reneging on that report, because it will not have the necessary resources—and, in my view, it does not have the determination—to complete the new units that were promised. On the Minister’s point about not contributing to the consultation or making any objections, we were perfectly happy to see the Ribbleton Hall site extended and improved to accommodate extra beds, but at the moment there is no sign that the extra beds will go there. Until the new facilities are built, I see no logic in closing the Avondale unit, or any other facilities.

[Paul Burstow]

I have just given an indication of the PCT’s position in respect of Ribbleton Hall. The PCT is in the process of conducting a further review of the proposals and has produced a revised case for change. That explores the overall clinical model, but does not alter any plans for specific site closures. It does revise the case, which is supported by GP commissioners. I will, however, make sure that the points that both hon. Members have raised in the debate are passed to the PCT, so that it is aware of their ongoing concerns.

The hon. Member for Preston also talked about a city the size of Preston having the right to be consulted. It is worth bearing in mind that, while the city council raised its concerns in August this year, and objected to the closure of Avondale ward, Preston councillors who were sent the original consultation—just like everyone else in Lancashire—and invited to offer feedback and comments about the proposals, did not offer a response, yet the proposals in 2006 included the proposal about Avondale.

I am of course aware of the petition that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but I do not think that his presentation of the case has helped his constituents advance this matter at all. He has been stigmatising in some of his remarks about mental health, and I think it is important to value community-based care. It is essential that we see continuing developments in that regard. There is clear evidence that it leads to better clinical outcomes for patients, and the NHS in Lancashire should be congratulated on its strong record of investing in community services.

Changes to acute mental health services, including the closure of outdated facilities, are a necessary part of the local NHS’s strategy for mental health and are necessary to deliver better results and better value for money as well. It is the right approach, delivered in the right way with proper engagement and careful management of available beds, to deliver better results for people in this area of health care.

I have listened carefully and I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman’s representations are fed back to the primary care trust and other NHS organisations concerned. I am sure that he will continue to make these points, and we will continue to improve mental health services, as this Government are determined to do. We entirely reject the notion that there is in any way an agenda of cuts and closures driven by this Government. These initiatives started under the previous Government. They were about improving services then, and they are about improving services now. That is what this Government will deliver.

Question put and agreed to.

00:11

House adjourned.