House of Commons

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Commons Chamber

Tuesday 14 December 2010

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)]

2. If he will assess the compatibility of the provisions of the Vienna convention on consular relations with the effectiveness of the internet as a means of promoting democracy worldwide.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

There is no incompatibility between the Vienna convention on consular relations, which is an international treaty ratified by 172 countries, and which defines a framework for consular relations between independent countries, and the development of the internet, which is indeed a vital tool in the development of democracy. However, we condemn the release of classified information through the internet. That can damage national security and may put lives at risk.

[Joseph Johnson]

Will the Minister give an assessment of the impact of the WikiLeaks affair on the conduct of diplomacy, and will he say what steps he plans to take, on the one hand, to tighten access to diplomatic cables that need protecting and, on the other hand, to free up access to the other information that can and should be in the public domain? The latter would also enhance the Government’s transparency agenda.

[Mr Browne]

We believe in freedom of information and open and transparent government, but there is a private realm and a legitimate area for confidentiality in diplomatic relations between nations. We need to get that balance right to ensure that we are secure when trying to safeguard confidential information. That is what we are working to do.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

We have learned that the US Secretary of Defence, Mr Gates, believed that

“Russian democracy has disappeared and the government was an oligarchy run by the security services”.

Who could possibly disagree? Instead of the wet willies whimpering over WikiLeaks from the Front Bench and wanting to lock up Mr Assange, would it not be better to congratulate American diplomats on being such excellent reporters and ask why our media are so lazy at foreign reporting? The only time we get foreign news on the front pages is when WikiLeaks gives the media a story.

[Mr Browne]

I do not wish to comment on the individual case that the right hon. Gentleman has brought to the House’s attention. We all understand that there are areas of the private realm—health and tax records, for instance —where it is perfectly possible to release information, but where we would not wish to see it released. We regard that as appropriate for diplomatic relations as well.

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

What contacts have the Minister or his officials had with their Swedish counterparts or authorities about the extradition of WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, from the UK to Sweden, and what assurance has the Minister sought or received from Sweden about the widespread public concern that there might be a political dimension to these proceedings?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Minister will accept that his answer must relate specifically to the effectiveness of the internet as a means of promoting democracy worldwide.

[Mr Browne]

It is hard to answer the question within those confines. The matter to which the hon. Lady refers is for the courts rather than me as a Minister. However, it touches on a wider point. I agree with the observation that you inferred from the question, Mr Speaker, that the internet is a valuable tool for empowering people around the world, for opening up the world of politics and for giving people greater freedom of information. However, that should not be confused with safeguarding the legitimate private realm.

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

3. What recent assessment he has made of the state of relations between the UK and the countries of the Gulf; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

The Government are strongly committed to elevating our relations with all our partners across the Gulf. We are expanding co-operation with Gulf states across the board—in culture, education, defence and security, trade, investment, and foreign policy co-operation. Gulf states’ reactions to the increased engagement have been very positive, and we will maintain the commitment in the coming years.

[Paul Uppal]

Over the summer, I met the British ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, Dominic Jermey, who told me how impressed he was with the Prime Minister visiting the Emiratis in June. In view of those warm words, will the Foreign Secretary tell me what work his Department is undertaking to ensure that British businesses are supported in exporting to Gulf nations?

[Mr Hague]

I am very glad to know that the ambassador was pleased with the Prime Minister’s visit—it made a huge impact on the United Arab Emirates. My hon. Friend is right that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made his visit in his first few weeks in office, and since then Her Majesty the Queen has made a state visit to the UAE and many of us on the Government Front Bench have also visited, so there has been a serious elevation of relationships. It is also true that there are many commercial opportunities, to which my hon. Friend referred. We export about £15 billion-worth of goods and services to the Gulf, but we can do much more. British embassies in the region and UK Trade & Investment are now poised to put their efforts behind that.

[David Cairns (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

It was the worst kept secret in foreign policy that the nation feared most by the Arab states of the Gulf is not Israel but Iran; we did not need WikiLeaks to tell us that. Given that that is now out in the open, is there an opportunity to forge a new consensus—one that would embrace the countries not just of the EU but of the Gulf region—to convince everyone of the absolute necessity of taking action against Iran before it develops a nuclear capacity, which would be a threat to us all?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I am not going to comment on the WikiLeaks allegations, but of course there is enormous concern about the dangers of nuclear proliferation in the middle east being sparked by Iran’s policies on its nuclear programme. The Gulf states vary in their relationships with Iran; we have to be clear about that. The United Arab Emirates have recently joined in applying financial sanctions against Iran, whereas Oman has a different and long historical relationship with Iran and a strong relationship with this country, and wants to use its good offices to improve relationships between the west and Iran. Each of the Gulf states is able to help in its own way, and the elevation of our relationships with them encourages them to do that. We must join them in that, consulting them and being open to their advice about how to deal with Iran and other regional issues.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

4. What assessment he has made of the outcomes of the NATO summit in Lisbon; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

As the Prime Minister made clear to the House on 22 November, the NATO summit was a significant success. By agreeing a new strategic concept, the alliance has shown its determination to face the security challenges of the 21st century together. The summit also took important steps to strengthen euro- Atlantic security, in Afghanistan and in relations with Russia. Our commitment to NATO is as strong as ever.

[Sheryll Murray]

What discussions, if any, did the Secretary of State have at the NATO summit to encourage the use of the excellent training facilities at HMS Raleigh and Flag Officer Sea Training in Devonport, which contribute significantly to the local economy in the south-west?

[Mr Hague]

Although we did not discuss that specifically at the NATO summit, it is clearly important that NATO nations work together on training. It is also part of our new defence treaty with France that the UK and France will work together to a much greater extent on sharing training facilities, so I will ensure that, between the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence, we look at further opportunities in the area that my hon. Friend has raised.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The Lisbon conference showed the same irrational optimism about Afghanistan. Can the Minister explain why, if things are going so well, after spending $52 billion in aid Afghans are still dying in the streets of Kabul of starvation?

[Mr Hague]

I do not think that the NATO summit showed irrational optimism; I think that it showed realism about the situation in Afghanistan. Bringing together all 48 troop-contributing nations of the international security assistance force in one of the sessions at the NATO summit in Lisbon underlined the fact that there are now more countries engaged in what we are doing in Afghanistan than at any stage before. We in no way minimise the fact that there are enormous challenges ahead of us on Afghanistan. Today I have laid before the House a written ministerial statement that updates hon. Members on where we think we are in Afghanistan. Many of those challenges, including in development, remain.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

The Lisbon statement said nothing on the future of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. As the Foreign Secretary will be aware, the United Kingdom gave up its tactical nuclear weapons in the 1990s, as militarily useless and politically irrelevant. Will the British Government now support multilateral negotiations between NATO and Russia, so that tactical nuclear weapons can be removed from Europe as a whole?

[Mr Hague]

As my right hon. and learned Friend will be aware, we said at Lisbon that NATO would remain a nuclear alliance to meet current and future threats, which does not directly address his point. The statement at Lisbon recognised the role that the alliance can play in supporting wider disarmament and non-proliferation efforts. We agreed at the summit to reviewing how NATO implements those principles. It will discuss all the strategic threats facing the alliance, and the capabilities that we need to meet them, including nuclear deterrence and missile defence. The argument that my right hon. and learned Friend presents will be part of that review.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

5. What recent discussions he has with his US counterpart on co-operation under the north Atlantic treaty; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

Secretary Clinton and I worked together closely prior to and during the NATO summit in Lisbon in November. During the summit, we worked together to agree with other allies the new strategic concept as well as the way forward on Afghanistan. The United States remains a firm ally of the United Kingdom and we will continue to work closely with it in NATO.

[Penny Mordaunt]

Could the Secretary of State elaborate on what discussions he has had with the US on the gap in our defence capability, and the implications of that for international relations? I am thinking in particular of the gap in our carrier strike force.

[Mr Hague]

The United States has been very supportive of the conclusions of our strategic defence and security review—[Hon. Members: “What?”] It has been extremely supportive, and Secretary Clinton reflected that in her remarks. The US is pleased that we will continue to spend more than 2% of our national income on defence, and that we will continue to have the fourth largest military budget in the world. The fact that we are such a strong member of NATO, and that we have the strong alliance of which I have been speaking and work so closely with the United States and France, will help us to work through some of the difficulties in the coming years while we get to an orderly state in our defences, which we certainly did not inherit and we have now to bring about.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Sea lanes of communication are a critical component of the global economy, especially those in the north Atlantic that facilitate trade between the US and the UK. What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with his counterparts on maritime security co-operation within NATO, especially since the axing of the Nimrod MRA4?

[Mr Hague]

Maritime security is an important component in NATO. It is primarily the work of my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to hold those discussions, but the hon. Lady can be assured that Defence Ministers have done so. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has been working with international colleagues on maritime security around the high north and the north Atlantic. That work is going on, primarily in the Ministry of Defence, but it is of course supported in the Foreign Office.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

The Prime Minister said last week that we might start drawing down troops from Afghanistan next year. Has the Foreign Secretary had any discussions with the United States about what conditions would have to be met before such a draw-down could be put into effect?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister first talked about that during his visit to Washington in July, as well as reiterating the point during his trip to Afghanistan last week. He said in Washington, around his discussions with the President, that such a draw-down

“should be based on the conditions on the ground. The faster we can transition districts and provinces to Afghan control, clearly the faster that some forces can be brought home.”

That is the position of the United States as well as of the United Kingdom, and the Prime Minister and the President have certainly discussed it together.

[Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

6. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for International Development on economic development in the west bank; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

The Foreign Office and the Department for International Development work very closely on this issue. I last had a conversation with the Minister of State, Department for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr Duncan) just before his visit to the west bank in late October. We are encouraged by World Bank reports that the economy of the west bank grew by 7.2% in 2009, and we hope that it is benefiting from the stability under Prime Minister Fayyad and the easing of restrictions on movement and access by the Israeli Government.

[Michael Dugher]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that Israel’s decision to allow exports from Gaza is welcome and positive? Should not that serve to encourage all sides to look for further progress, and the people of Gaza to reject Hamas?

[Alistair Burt]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments. The development of the economy of the west bank in recent years has been in sharp contrast to the development of the economy of Gaza—for a whole series of reasons. We would welcome the further expansion of the economy in Gaza, which has to come from an easing of the economic blockade. On that, we welcome the decision announced by Israel last week further to ease the opportunity for exports from Gaza. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in saying that it is economic prosperity in both the west bank and Gaza that will make decisions on the future of the whole area that much easier.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Would the growing economic prosperity in the west bank not spread to Gaza and be even more impressive if there were full acceptance of the Quartet principles by Hamas and all parties in the middle east?

[Alistair Burt]

It is certainly true that the rejection by Hamas of the Quartet principles and its failure to denounce violence and to accept the state of Israel is holding back any possible negotiations. Also, the illegal holding of Gilad Shalit for a further length of time is contrary to all our interests, and he should be released as soon as possible. It all goes to show that further negotiation and talk is the best way to produce an overall settlement in the middle east, which is what we are all looking for.

[Mr Speaker]

I know we are focusing on economic development in this question.

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

Given what the Minister has said about economic development in the west bank, does he share my concern that it is not in the interests of the economic development of that region to see the tightening rather than easing of movement restrictions in the Jordan valley and Palestinians and Bedouins being dispossessed in the Jordan valley?

[Alistair Burt]

The hon. Gentleman’s long interest in the economic development of the west bank and all other areas is well noted; we spoke in the Westminster Hall debate the other day. The easing of all restrictions is in the interests of all. That is why we welcome it when we find it and are concerned if there is any greater restriction on access. The economic development of the whole of west bank area and of Gaza is a crucial part of the development of the Palestinian state. The establishment of that valid state, side by side with a secure and recognised Israel, is of interest to us all.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The threat to the economic developments on the west bank and in the rest of the region is, of course, dependent on the military position. Is the Minister aware of the rockets, bombs and anti-aircraft capability that Hamas has built up and does that not further threaten the security of the region?

[Alistair Burt]

The Government have already expressed concern about the build-up of arms in the area by Hezbollah and Hamas, none of which is conducive to what we all want: a negotiated peaceful settlement of the middle east process that is a secure and sovereign Israel side by side a viable Palestine.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

When the Minister visits the middle east in the new year, will he press Israel further to reduce its restrictions on freedom of movement both for Palestinian people and for Palestinian goods? Free movement is crucial; so, too, is providing global opportunities for the Palestinians to trade with the rest of the world. In the Foreign Office business plan, UK Trade & Investment is developing its strategy; will the Minister ensure that UK trade with the west bank is absolutely part of that UKTI strategy?

[Alistair Burt]

Yes, indeed; I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments. There was a successful investment conference in the west bank just a few months ago, and it is in the interests of all that economic prosperity is encouraged on all sides. It is in the interests of Israel to make sure that there is as much access as possible—providing, of course, that its essential security interests are safeguarded. Wherever they have been threatened, as in Gaza, it remains necessary for the Israelis to control any materials that might detract from that. When it comes to economic development and movement, however, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

7. What recent reports he has received on the decision by the Sri Lankan authorities to end the operations of the International Committee of the Red Cross in the north of that country.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

The Government are aware that the Sri Lankan Government have asked the International Committee of the Red Cross to close two centres in the north of the country. We are also aware that the ICRC has, after a review, already closed down its own operations in Mannar.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

The removal of the Red Cross from the predominantly Tamil area shows contempt for a renowned international non-governmental organisation and will seriously inhibit much needed aid and assistance. In light of the comments made by the new cardinal of Colombo—that there is a dangerous trend of ethnic Sinhalese moving into Tamil areas—does the Minister agree with me that the real reason for removing the Red Cross was to allow for Government-supported demographic change to go unchecked by independent monitors?

[Alistair Burt]

I am not sure whether I can speak for the Government of Sri Lanka in explaining how they made their decision, but it is certainly true that the international community listens extremely carefully to the voice of the ICRC as an independent monitoring body, and its unavailability will therefore have to be compensated for elsewhere. The Government have consistently pressed Sri Lanka to live up to its offer of post-conflict reconciliation, but moves such as restricting access to detainees and any restriction of the work of significant non-governmental organisations will make that process rather harder.

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

One of the valuable tasks performed by the ICRC has been investigating the disappearance of young children throughout the Tamil community and trying to repatriate them with any relatives who are still alive. Will my hon. Friend look into the possibility of pressing for that valuable work to be allowed to continue?

[Alistair Burt]

I will ask our posts in Sri Lanka to consider it carefully. The fact that more people need to return to the areas from which they were removed is another measure of the steps that are necessary in the post-conflict resolution, and although we have seen a great deal of progress over the years, more needs to be done.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

As the Minister will know, recent additional footage from Channel 4 has shown Sri Lankan forces executing civilians at the end of the conflict. He described the ICRC as an independent international monitor, but, as he will also know, there is serious concern about the continued lack of independent and transparent investigation of alleged war crimes in the country. Have Ministers urged the Sri Lankan Government to support a properly independent inquiry with international involvement, and did the Secretary of State for Defence also raise those points in his meeting with the Sri Lankan President earlier this month?

[Alistair Burt]

Our Government have made very clear to the Government of Sri Lanka that any process involving the examination of war crimes or other issues must be credible and must have an independent element. We suggested recently that those appointed to a United Nations panel should be the interlocutors with whom it would be wise for the Sri Lankans to be involved in an effort to influence the international community. They have the first responsibility in dealing with the inquiry, but if there is to be credibility in the international community it is essential for there to be an international element, and for the issues that have been raised recently to be looked into extremely carefully.

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome and agree with what the Minister has said, but I urge him to go further in pressing the Sri Lankan Government to accept international involvement in order to increase the credibility of the report.

The Minister did not answer my question about whether the Defence Secretary had also raised the issue, and I must press him for clarity. The Sri Lankan Ministry of External Affairs has said that the President and the Defence Secretary had

“discussed areas of assistance to Sri Lanka”,

and that

“There was agreement that the friendship between Sri Lanka and the UK should be strengthened”.

Will the Minister tell the House what status that agreement has, and whether all Ministers are taking every opportunity to press for a credible investigation of war crimes?

[Alistair Burt]

The interest taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in Sri Lanka dates back to his time as a junior Foreign Office Minister in 1996, when he helped to broker a ceasefire in the conflict that was taking place then. He has retained that interest, and it is very helpful to the Government as a whole to have an interlocutor with such long-standing relationships.

The United Kingdom Government are united in respect of the issues that we raise with Sri Lanka. That process involves helping the Sri Lankan Government to understand what the international community requires, in monitoring what is currently happening, in access of NGOs to detainees, in further reconciliation following the conflict, and in providing opportunity for independent experts to be involved in the inquiry. The Defence Secretary fully understands and appreciates that united position.

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

Given the strong all-party interest in the House in human rights in Sri Lanka, will the Minister reassure us that conversations are continuing with the Commonwealth and its secretary-general to ensure that they do not step back from their active interest in human rights issues generally and Sri Lanka in particular?

[Alistair Burt]

I am sure that is the case, and may I say in passing that we welcome the recent visit of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association group to Sri Lanka? I have already met representatives who were on that trip. The visit shows the Commonwealth’s strong interest in Sri Lanka’s continuing development post-conflict. I was greatly appreciative of the efforts made by Members of this House in going on that trip and reporting back, and I am sure that they will report back to the House more fully at a later stage.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

8. What recent assessment he has made of the prospects for a resolution of the dispute in the Korean peninsula.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

9. What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in the Korean peninsula.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

Tensions are likely to remain high until North Korea abandons its provocative behaviour and violation of UN resolutions, and creates the conditions for the resumption of talks by making verifiable progress towards denuclearisation. Talks between relevant parties offer the best prospect for achieving a resolution of the dispute, but cannot succeed without trust.

[Mr Bain]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for that reply. Does he agree with the statement issued from last week’s trilateral summit of Japanese and South Korean Foreign Ministers with Secretary of State Clinton that North Korea’s actions have jeopardised peace in northern Asia and that North Korea’s provocative and belligerent behaviour will be met by solidarity from all three countries? What representations will the UK continue to make to demonstrate the dissatisfaction of the British people with North Korea’s continual flouting of UN resolutions?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the statement from the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union, and also the associated statements from Japan. The Prime Minister spoke to the UN Secretary-General and President Lee of South Korea on 24 November, and expressed our strong support for South Korea. In addition, we have held meetings in the past week: senior FCO officials have met North Korean counterparts to relay our messages and our clear view on recent events that North Korea should resume co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency and ensure that all nuclear activity adheres to the requirements of that agency, and that it faces increasing isolation unless these matters are dealt with.

[Stephen Pound]

The people of Ealing North keep a very close eye on rising tension in the Yellow sea, partly because the embassy of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is in Ealing—oddly enough, in the house that was formerly occupied by my hero, Sid James. Has the Foreign Secretary had any recent conversations with his colleague the Secretary of State for Defence about any British maritime presence in the area?

[Mr Hague]

We are interested to know of the history of buildings in Ealing in this respect. I imagine the building in question saw much more amusing times when occupied by Sid James than when occupied by the North Koreans. Nevertheless, our relations with that country are important, because we have to be able to pass clearly to them the messages I have just described. Yes, of course I discuss this issue, and not only with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, but across Government through the framework of our National Security Council. The maritime presence in the area is more a concern of South Korea, Japan and the United States than of the United Kingdom, but we always keep that under review.

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

In view of the fact that China shares a border with North Korea, it might reasonably be thought that the Government of the People’s Republic of China would have an interest in stability on the Korean peninsula. What efforts has the Foreign Secretary made to engage with his counterpart in the PRC Government to encourage that country to take an active role in reducing tension in the area?

[Mr Hague]

I have had many such discussions. Indeed, some of my earliest discussions on becoming Foreign Secretary some months ago were with my Chinese counterpart on the subject of Korea and encouraging stability there. It was part of the strategic dialogue I conducted with the Chinese leaders in July in Beijing. My right hon. and learned Friend is right that China has that interest in stability there, although that also means that China is often very cautious about supporting the kind of language and the kind of condemnation that we think is appropriate for North Korea’s recent actions. That makes it much more difficult to pass strong Security Council resolutions about North Korean violations of the type that we have recently seen. China interprets the need for stability quite differently from the way we interpret it, but there is a strong and continuing dialogue about it between us and China.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

Given that North Korea has so far evaded two UN Security Council resolutions and is, despite international condemnation, continuing attempts to enrich uranium, is there any hope at all that it will not become a nuclear power?

[Mr Hague]

North Korea makes many claims about its nuclear capabilities including, recently, about enrichment facilities. We are deeply concerned by reports that it is building a new nuclear facility, in violation, as my hon. Friend says, of two Security Council resolutions. We urge it to resume co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure that all its nuclear activity adheres to IAEA safeguards agreements. Until North Korea makes verifiable progress on that, we urge the international community robustly to implement the existing United Nations sanctions.

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

The Opposition welcome the Foreign Secretary’s condemnation of North Korea’s recent unprovoked attacks on South Korea and I should like to associate myself with the comments he made a moment ago. I want to press him further on his response to China’s offer to host the emergency six-party talks. Does he regard that as the best way forward?

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful for the Opposition’s support. It always makes a difference in these diplomatic matters if the House of Commons stands united. It will be noticed in the world that the House of Commons is absolutely united in condemning the recent actions of North Korea. I do not think that an immediate return to the six-party talks is the way forward as that would be, in a sense, a reward for North Korea’s behaviour. Other discussions and other ways forward will have to be found.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

10. What recent assessment he has made of the state of UK relations with the countries of central Asia.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)]

Central Asia is an important region for UK strategic interests. We value our constructive relationships with countries in this fast-developing region and want to strengthen these further. We have much to gain from closer engagement on a range of issues, including those relating to Afghanistan and democratic and other reform. We are also seeking to deepen our commercial links.

[John Mann]

Instead of the Government’s supine silence on Liu Xiaobo and their continued kowtowing to the Communist party of China, is it not time they gave a much higher priority to building the newly emerged democracies across central Asia with practical support and assistance?

[Mr Bellingham]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is secretary of the all-party group on central Asia. We are working carefully and closely on supporting the EU-central Asia strategy. Furthermore, the other day, the Deputy Prime Minister attended a very important meeting of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, at which he met its president. I think that progress is being made all round.

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

Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the excellent work of Richard Holbrooke, the US envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, who did an excellent job in the Balkans with the Dayton accords?

[Mr Bellingham]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments and I join him in paying tribute to Mr Holbrooke, who was a remarkable statesman. He made extraordinary progress that can be built on in the future.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

11. What his most recent assessment is of the political and security situation in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

Earlier today I laid a written report on recent progress in Afghanistan before the House as part of the Government’s commitment to keep the House regularly updated on the situation there. The report covers the security and political situation including the results of the recent elections, outcomes of the NATO conference in Lisbon, governance and regional engagement.

[Tom Greatrex]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer, but does he share my concern about the very high rate of attrition in the Afghan police force? Some reports put the figure at 7,000 out of 35,000 over a very recent period. What action can be taken to ensure that there is a stable and established police force in Afghanistan so that people there can have confidence in their civil policing arrangements?

[Mr Hague]

This is a vital matter and the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to it. The written report I set before the House today shows that by mid-November Afghan national police strength had reached 116,000 and is on track to meet the target of 134,000 by next November. One of the crucial matters is an increase in the rate of training the Afghan national police, as well as reducing attrition. For most categories of police officer, attrition rates have fallen in recent times, and the NTM-A—the NATO training mission for Afghanistan—reports an increase of around a third in the number of trained officers and a twofold increase in the number of trained non-commissioned officers. Clearly, the Afghan national police are being built up, despite the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

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

Our strategy in Afghanistan oscillates between infantry-intensive counter-insurgency campaigning, at high cost, and advance notice that we are going to withdraw, which puts pressure on one side to compromise, but not on the other. Will my right hon. Friend at least keep his mind open to the possibility of alternative strategies, such as the strategic base and bridgehead area solution, which would allow us to secure our strategic interests at lower cost, and thus square the circle?

[Mr Hague]

There will always be a strategic debate about Afghanistan. There is no oscillation about those infantry-intensive campaigns. Our troops continue to do an extraordinary job, and as the Prime Minister has said in the House and elsewhere, they are able to do it more effectively now that we have the right concentration—the right density—of forces in Helmand, where our troops are mainly deployed. The whole of NATO has the strategy of building up the Afghan national security forces to the point where they can lead and sustain their own operations throughout Afghanistan by 2014. It is consistent with that for us to say that we will not be engaged in combat operations by 2015. We are joined with 47 nations in pursuing our strategy, and therefore we should not try to change it on a daily or weekly basis.

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

May I bring the right hon. Gentleman back to the answer he gave to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee? We can all recall the Prime Minister saying in the summer that the combat mission would come to an end in 2015, but no one can recall the Prime Minister saying at that stage that British troops would start leaving Afghanistan next year. When was that first said and why?

[Mr Hague]

The people who did not hear it were not listening to the BBC on 21 July, when

“Mr Cameron was asked whether people could expect British forces to follow the Americans in starting to pull out of Afghanistan from next year. The prime minister said: ‘Yes we can, but it should be based on the conditions on the ground. The faster we can transition districts and provinces to Afghan control, clearly the faster that some forces can be brought home’.”

That is still on the BBC website. What my right hon. Friend said last week—also in answer to a question—was simply repeating what he had said in Washington last July.

[Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)]

Further to the question put by the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), the Foreign Secretary will be aware of a Pentagon report that says that the time line given by President Obama for the withdrawal of American forces has given aid, succour and assistance to the Taliban. Have we been wise to follow that example?

[Mr Hague]

There are many conflicting reports, as my hon. Friend will be more aware than most. It is argued by some that the references by the President to a draw-down beginning in July 2011 gave some in Afghanistan the impression that there would be a complete withdrawal of forces in 2011. Anybody who is expecting that is in for a shock, because the combination of the surge of NATO forces we have seen recently and the now fairly rapid build-up of the Afghan national security forces means that more forces are deployed against the Taliban than ever before. Clearly, that build-up will continue, with the huge increases projected for the Afghan forces up to 2014. What we say about 2015 is in no way in conflict with that.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

May I associate the Opposition with the tributes to Richard Holbrooke, a tireless worker for peaceful solutions to conflicts around the world, most recently in Afghanistan? There, in a couple of weeks, our troops will be celebrating Christmas far from their families, and we send them our thanks and best wishes, and look forward to welcoming them home.

Can the Foreign Secretary fully reassure the House, in the light of previous questions, that any draw-down will be determined by conditions on the ground and not by the calendar? What conditions will be needed for combat troops to be pulled back from Afghanistan, especially when we approach 2014-15?

[Mr Hague]

I want to pay tribute to Ambassador Holbrooke in a moment, at the beginning of topical questions. I join the right hon. Gentleman in his comments about our forces in Afghanistan. Throughout the Christmas period they will, I hope, be in the minds of all of us in the House. The conditions on the ground that are necessary for any draw-down or any change in the deployment of forces to begin over the next few years are successful transition of districts and provinces. We made it clear at the NATO summit that we want that to begin early in 2011, but that does not always mean that forces that then become available are withdrawn. Many of them can be redirected into training. In recent months we have moved 300 additional forces into training. Although Canada is withdrawing its combat forces, it announced at the NATO summit that almost 1,000 trainers would be made available for Afghanistan. It is in this form that transition takes place and, as a result, there will be adjustments from time to time in the deployment of the forces of the 48 nations involved.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

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

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

The whole House will join me, and several Members have already done so, in paying tribute to Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, President Obama’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, who died last night. He was not only a remarkable diplomat and public servant who served his country with great distinction, but someone who, through his efforts, brought an end to Europe’s worst bloodshed since the end of the second world war in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the 1990s. Today, as it happens, is the 15th anniversary of the signing of the Dayton peace accords, which Ambassador Holbrooke forged and which brought that appalling conflict to an end. In serving his country, he also saved countless lives and helped pull an entire country back from the brink. His death is a sore loss to international diplomacy.

The December European Council takes place later this week. The Prime Minister will attend. The agenda includes economic policy, including limited treaty change, the EU budget and the EU relationship with strategic partners. A stable eurozone is in our economic interest, but any treaty change must not transfer competence or power from the United Kingdom to the EU.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

This morning in Strasbourg the European Parliament debated and passed, with support from British MEPs in every political party represented in this House, a resolution on the EU trafficking directive. Has the Foreign Secretary discussed international action and collaboration against human trafficking with any of his European counterparts in the past six months, and does he expect to have such discussions in future?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, of course, the Government expect to have many such discussions. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is in the lead on these matters. Discussions take place between Governments all the time. I have argued for many years that Governments can do more together to deal with the issue. Our predecessors did so 200 years ago, and we should be able to do so today. That does not mean that we opt in to every EU directive on the matter if we are already taking necessary actions anyway and can retain the freedom to take actions as we wish to determine them in the House, but the responsibility of all nations to take action against trafficking is very clear.

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

T2. Last week the Nobel peace prize was awarded to Liu Xiaobo as he languishes in a Chinese jail. This comes as some EU states want to lift the arms embargo on China. Does my right hon. Friend join me in deploring China’s record of state torture and crushing peaceful dissent? Will he stiffen spines in Brussels so that the EU sends a clear message to China that it cannot behave like a thug and expect normal commercial relations?

[Mr Hague]

We have no plans to lift the arms embargo on China. I have made that clear in EU discussions, which I think is what my hon. Friend was asking for. We have also made it clear where we stand on Liu Xiaobo. A few minutes ago the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) accused the Government of supine weakness, but he was guilty of rather spectacular ignorance because it was one of the main issues that we flagged up on international human rights day, and which I placed on the Foreign Office website and spoke about in my message on international human rights day, so we have been clear where we stand on the awarding of the Nobel prize, and of course our ambassador attended that ceremony.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

May I join the Foreign Secretary in his tribute to Richard Holbrooke? The right hon. Gentleman will agree that this is a moment when we should not just pay tribute to Ambassador Holbrooke’s previous work, but recognise that his death is a great loss to the peace process in Afghanistan and to the work that is ongoing.

The Foreign Secretary referred to the EU Council, which will meet on Thursday to discuss a treaty change that has not been debated in this House, where for the third time since the election we have not had a pre-Council debate. Why are the Government agreeing to treaty changes without debating them first in the House, and will they propose any further treaty changes of their own?

[Mr Hague]

The right hon. Lady is quite right about Ambassador Holbrooke. I spoke about his previous outstanding record, and it is quite true as well that we will feel his loss in current events and in the work that is ongoing in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We clearly stand united in the House in reflecting on that.

On the European Council and the subject of debates, there is some force in the points that hon. Members make about such matters being debated in the House. The days that were previously set aside for European Council debates are among those that have gone into the pot, as it were, to be allocated by the Backbench Business Committee. The right hon. Lady might say that the Government should allocate more time, but the Government gave away that time, and let us be fair, the Opposition also have time on the Floor of the House, with their Opposition days. That is the current position, however, and the Backbench Business Committee should very much take those points into account.

In accordance with the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008, no Government can agree to a treaty change without bringing it to the House for a vote and, indeed, to the other House, so, the Government’s formal agreement to a treaty change will in any case require a debate and vote in this House. We will treat any new treaty change in line with the requirements of the European Union Bill, which is now before the House, meaning that a change will also require an Act of Parliament. So, any such change that might be agreed this week will require exhaustive examination in this House.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I just gently remind the House that topical questions are supposed to be characterised by short and snappy, as well of course as informative, answers.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

T4. Will the Minister outline what actions his Department is taking to strengthen the democratic process in the run-up to and during next year’s elections in African countries, other than in the Sudanese referendum?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)]

The ongoing problems in Côte d’Ivoire illustrate the importance of elections running smoothly. That is why in Nigeria we are supporting the electoral commission in the run-up to next year’s presidential elections. In Uganda, we are providing a range of assistance and advancement actions, including the Department for International Development’s “deepening democracy” programme. Finally, on Zimbabwe, there must be credible action that commands the support of the world community.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

T3. Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on what recent discussions he has had with his US counterparts on the planned closure of Guantanamo Bay and the return of the remaining detainees to their home countries, including Shaker Aamer, who has been held for nine years without trial?

[Mr Hague]

I raised this with Secretary Clinton on my last visit to Washington a few weeks ago, I think on 17 November—I mentioned specifically the case of Shaker Aamer. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister also raised that case with Secretary Clinton, when he met her in Astana in Kazakhstan a couple of weeks ago, so the US Administration are very clear about where we stand and, indeed, our overall position on the closure of Guantanamo Bay. That is going through a process of examination in the State Department and in other US Government Departments, but they are in no doubt of our request.

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

T5. What defined Ambassador Holbrooke was not simply his energy and his knowledge of language and culture, but his ability when he was a young diplomat in Vietnam to speak truth—uncomfortable truth—to power. What is the Foreign Secretary doing to ensure that young diplomats who follow in Ambassador Holbrooke’s footsteps—who understand language and culture and speak truths to power—are promoted within the Foreign Office system?

[Mr Hague]

Working with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office board, I have recently launched a diplomatic excellence initiative. The initiative is designed to bring about exactly the kind of thing to which my hon. Friend is referring and to ensure that we achieve the highest standards of policy making and diplomatic action in the Foreign Office for the long-term future. It is vital for this country that the FCO is a strong institution for the long term, with great geographical expertise and real diplomatic excellence and policy skills. We are taking other action to bring in external expertise in the area of human rights—I have formed an external group of experts—and I am open to other suggestions and advice from around the House.

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

T8. Further to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), which the right hon. Gentleman did not answer, what kind of amendments are the Government proposing to bring to the meeting on Thursday?

[Mr Hague]

The situation will, of course, be discussed by the 27 Heads of Government at the European Council. We are very clear that if there is a treaty change concerning the eurozone, there must be no obligation on the United Kingdom. If eurozone countries wish to form a mechanism, it cannot be one that places an obligation on the United Kingdom. As the hon. Gentleman will recall from the October Council, we are also working on the next financial perspective because, unlike the previous Government who gave away billions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money in negotiating a financial perspective, we want the next European financial perspective to reflect the budgetary disciplines of the member states involved.

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

T6. We learned last week that the United States considers the growth of China’s influence in Africa to be a very worrying development. Will my right hon. Friend indicate whether the Government are also concerned about the Chinese Government’s rush to secure the friendship of undemocratic yet often resource-rich African countries?

[Mr Bellingham]

When I was in Angola last week, I had a chance to see the scale of Chinese investment. It is clear to us that China offers great opportunities for many African countries. Transparency and governance are key if we are to get the best out of such investments. That is why my right hon. Friend raised these issues in the recent UK-China dialogue on Africa and the subsequent UK-China summit.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

The UK Government say that they want to improve bilateral and defence relations with Norway. The Secretary of State will understand that the Norwegians are particularly concerned about maritime reconnaissance and fast jet co-operation. How can UK claims have any credibility, given that the UK has just scrapped its maritime reconnaissance fleet and is still considering the closure of the fast jet base closest to Norway?

[Mr Hague]

I discussed some of those matters with the Norwegian Foreign Minister when he was here a few weeks ago. My colleague, the Secretary of State for Defence, has also had discussions with Norwegian Defence Ministers. As I mentioned earlier, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary is intensifying co-operation with other states towards the north of NATO on what we can do together. Those countries, including Norway, continue to regard the United Kingdom as an indispensible partner in the years ahead. We are a great deal more indispensible than we would be if the country were broken up and Scotland became an independent nation.

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

T7. Can my hon. Friend the Minister give an assessment of the position of Christians in Iraq and of the respect for the human rights of minorities in that country?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

I was in Iraq a couple of weeks ago and had meetings both with Government Ministers and Archbishop Matoka, the archbishop in the diocese where the church was so outrageously attacked a few weeks ago. Ministers are well aware of the need to protect minorities in Iraq. The way in which any state looks after minority communities, particularly the uniquely vulnerable Christian community in Iraq, is taken as an indication of how that country functions. Ministers are well apprised of world-wide concern and have a desire to look after that community.

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

In an earlier answer, the Foreign Secretary referred to the intention to hand provinces and districts in Afghanistan over to Afghan security forces. Will he confirm that the original plans put forward by General McChrystal have been scrapped and that the position being put forward by the international coalition is based on a hope, a wing, a prayer, and an assumption that the Afghans will come forward in an effective way, but that we have no basis on which we can know that?

[Mr Hague]

It is not just based on a hope, a wing and a prayer; to say that would be unfair to everyone involved. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at the report that I have laid before the House today, which looks at the Afghan national army’s 28 brigade and corps units and says that seven are now capable of undertaking operations with minimal advice, and then goes through to grade the rest of them. It is also important to bear in mind that, as the report points out, 70% of the violence in Afghanistan is in four of its 34 provinces. That illustrates how dramatically different conditions are in different parts of Afghanistan, which means that transition will be able to take place in some areas years before it can take place in others.

[Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)]

Is the Minister aware of the situation facing my constituent, Mr Shrien Dewani, and can the Minister inform the House of what measures his Department is taking to ensure that my constituent receives appropriate British support?

[Mr Bellingham]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. When I was in South Africa 10 days ago, I raised this case with the consul general and his team. He made it clear not only that everything possible had been done to support Mr Dewani but that if he returns to South Africa, he will receive full consular support. My hon. Friend has done all that she possibly can to help the family and has been absolutely exemplary in what she has done to assist them.

[Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)]

What improvements have happened to the lives of ordinary families in Helmand province to justify a change of policy in moving forward to 2011 the 2014 date for the beginning of withdrawal of troops?

[Mr Hague]

As I have said before, I stress that there is no change in policy. The Prime Minister has also reiterated what he has said before. However, that very much depends on the conditions prevailing on the ground. There are improvements in Helmand; there is no doubt about that. There are security improvements. There are places in Helmand where vastly more people are going to school, where more roads are working, and where health centres are open, which was not the case one year or two years ago. What we do in Helmand, and any withdrawal of troops from Helmand, will continue to be dependent on those improvements in conditions.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

T9. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken out against the dreadful plight of Sakineh Ashtiani, who was convicted in Iran of having so-called illicit relationships and now faces the prospect of death by stoning. Will he update the House on what recent steps the Government have taken to press the Iranian authorities to stay this barbaric execution?

[Mr Hague]

The Government do press the Iranian authorities. Indeed, our ambassador in Tehran has recently been sharply criticised by the Iranian Government for raising human rights issues so clearly in his own comments. What is even more striking is that far beyond Government, the people of this country—the civil society of this country, and those of so many other countries around the world—are appalled that the barbaric and mediaeval punishment of stoning can still be contemplated, and are additionally sickened by the idea that a pretence can be made of releasing this lady only to make a film that is then meant to assist the Iranian state in saying what it wants to about her case. We believe that the punishment should be set aside and that Iran would do itself a great deal of good in the world if it did so, and we call upon Iran again today to do so.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that the success of joint projects between Israel and the Palestinians, such as the tourism initiative between Jenin and Galilee, exposes the absurdity of calls for boycotts of Israel?

[Alistair Burt]

Yes, the hon. Lady makes a fair point. It is not through boycotts that influence is exercised but through continuing co-operation. That is the best way forward to the negotiated settlement that we all want to see in the interests of all those in the middle east.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

The UK rightly supports an international ban on cluster munitions, which is why it was very concerning to read the published claims on WikiLeaks that the last Labour Government had allowed the US to stockpile cluster munitions on UK territory. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give that no such violation has occurred, or will occur, under this Government?

[Mr Hague]

Those things on WikiLeaks would be concerning if they turned out to be true, but I see no evidence that Parliament was misled. Of course, we do not have access to the papers of the previous Administration, but I have not seen anything that suggests that Parliament was misled. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that the withdrawal of cluster munitions from all United Kingdom territory has been completed ahead of schedule.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Will the Foreign Secretary raise with the Moroccan Government the situation facing Western Sahara and the future of UN negotiations that aim to bring about a referendum on self-determination and bring an end to that more than 30-year conflict?

[Alistair Burt]

I was in Algeria and Morocco recently and raised the issue of Western Sahara. We have pressed all parties to continue negotiations and to look to the UN to assist. Ambassador Ross is working to that end. We have pressed in particular the importance of an independent monitoring process in Western Sahara, to assist transparency when looking at events such as the recent tragedy in Laayoune. This issue has gone on for too long, and it will not solve itself.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Last, but not least, Mr Stewart Jackson.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

On human rights abuses in Iran, does my hon. Friend share my concern over the fate of the Christian pastor, Youcef Nadarkhani, who has reportedly been sentenced to death by the Iranian authorities for apostasy? Will the Foreign Secretary set out what the Government intend to do to relieve pressure on Christians and other minority groups in Iran?

[Alistair Burt]

In 2009, there were some 388 executions in Iran, including those of juveniles and women. We join with other nations around the world to condemn the way in which it is used as a form of punishment. I understand that Pastor Nadarkhani’s sentence and case are under review by the Iranian authorities. It is essential that the world continues its pressure in relation to Iran. A state is judged by how it looks after its minorities. In Iran, that includes the vulnerable Christian community and other communities of faith, such as the Baha’i.

Courts Service Estate

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Commons Chamber

15:36

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to announce the Government’s response to their consultation on Her Majesty’s Courts Service estate. Thank you for allowing me to release details of the courts covered in the statement to Members in advance.

This statement will be of interest to many hon. Members and to many hard-working members of HMCS staff. It will also be of interest to the judiciary, both to professional judges and the very many magistrates who give freely of their time to serve their communities. My announcements pave the way for a better, more efficient and more modern justice system that has more efficient courts, better facilities, and the faster conclusion of cases for the benefit of victims, witnesses, defendants, judges and the public at large.

The announcements complement the Department’s wider plans to help and encourage people to resolve their issues out of court, using simpler, more informal remedies such as mediation where appropriate; to overhaul case management procedures and get rid of wasteful layers of bureaucracy; to move forward with technological innovations such as video links, which have the potential to revolutionise the way in which justice is delivered in our country; and to involve communities much more closely in the justice system, particularly through problem solving and restorative justice approaches.

On 23 June, my right hon. and learned Friend, the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, made a written statement announcing consultations on proposals to close 103 magistrates courts and 54 county courts in England and Wales, and to merge some local justice areas. The consultation was clear that failures in the last decade to manage the Courts Service estate properly have led to a service that would be unsustainable at any time, let alone in the current financial circumstances.

It is unsustainable that in 2009-10, our 330 magistrates courts sat for less than two thirds of their available time and that courtrooms in our 219 county courts sat on average for only 180 days a year. It is unacceptable that dozens of buildings never intended, and not fit, for the requirements of a modern court system are still being used. It is undesirable in the current financial position that the taxpayer continues to fund buildings that offer outdated and inadequate facilities to victims and witnesses.

I am grateful for the many contributions to the consultation. I understand the strength of feeling that is has generated, and I have listened to the many points made by respondents. Much has been said by Members about travel times to court. I can reassure the House that our plans will only very slightly reduce the percentage of the population able to access their nearest court by public transport in under an hour, from just under 90% to 85%. I also remind the House that very few of us actually attend court more than once or twice in our lives, and even fewer use public transport to get there. It is simply not good use of taxpayers’ money to operate courts simply to shave minutes off a journey that many will never need to make.

Arguments were also made during the consultation about the potential erosion of local justice. I take that accusation extremely seriously, but the closures will not mean people losing access to local justice. In fact, I would suggest that they will mean quite the opposite—better local justice. They will mean the provision of a better, more efficient and more modern justice system with good facilities, efficient courts and the faster conclusion of cases for the benefit of victims, witnesses, defendants, judges and the public.

Having taken all those points into consideration, the Government have decided to close 93 magistrates courts and 49 county courts. Of those county courts, however, 10 will remain open for hearings under the control of other local county courts. We will also retain 10 magistrates courts and five county courts on which we consulted, and I will list them. Magistrates courts will be retained at Abergavenny, Harlow, Kettering, Newbury, Newton Abbot, Skipton, Spalding, Stroud, Waltham Forest and Worksop. County courts will be retained at Barnsley, Bury, Llangefni, the Mayor’s and City of London, and Skipton.

It is estimated that those measures will save £41.5 million during the spending review period, excluding closure costs, and bring in £38.5 million in receipts from the sale of assets. In addition, I expect substantial cost avoidance through avoided maintenance costs for closed courts and better targeting of resources for the Courts Service, as well as savings for the National Offender Management Service and the Crown Prosecution Service. Copies of all the relevant documents, and of the decisions on local justice area mergers and counter services, have been placed in the House Library.

This is the start of an important programme of reform for the Courts Service. I am determined to develop a proper, modern Courts Service and estate that does our communities proud. We are taking the difficult action on court closures that the last Government failed to take, so that we can raise the quality of the courts estate significantly across the board.

With that in mind, I can announce today that £22 million of capital will be reinvested to improve and modernise the courts to which work will be transferred. Within that are three particularly large projects: in London at Camberwell Green magistrates court, in Staffordshire at Newcastle-under-Lyme magistrates court and in Wales at Prestatyn magistrates court. There are also smaller schemes to make some receiving courts better. They include additional interview rooms and a secure dock at Huddersfield magistrates court and the conversion of rooms at Watford magistrates court to provide additional staff accommodation and security. In the next spending period, new courts will open in Chelmsford, Colchester and Westminster, and Woolwich Crown court will be extended. We will make further announcements on new court building schemes early in the new year.

We have, however, cancelled existing plans for a new magistrates court in Liverpool, because the scheme that was proposed is unaffordable, but I will investigate more affordable options to provide suitable accommodation for magistrates court work in Liverpool.

Our courts are failing fully to embrace technological advances that have the potential to revolutionise the way in which justice is delivered in our country. There is much that can be done. Court-to-prison video links provide a much more efficient way of doing things, but they are used in too few cases. In future, we want victims and witnesses, when appropriate, to be able to give evidence in trials by live video link from a more convenient location.

We will begin by testing the principle of police officers giving evidence in summary trials by live video link from the police station. We expect that that will save the police time and money and enable more officers to spend more time out on patrol. We intend to test the idea in London in January, and in at least one other area soon afterwards, with the first cases likely to be heard in that way before the end of March. If successful, that could pave the way for civilian and expert witnesses to give evidence from a police station or other, more convenient locations, rather than having to travel to court.

We also want to give communities a greater say in how justice is administered in their areas. Proposals for problem solving and restorative justice were included in my Department’s sentencing and rehabilitation Green Paper, published last week. We will consult on the use of neighbourhood justice panels to deal with low-level cases, empowering people to develop their own solutions to local problems and increasing community confidence.

In summary, this announcement forms an important part of my Department’s clear vision for a step change in our justice system—one that protects communities from crime and works for, rather than against, the most important people in the system: the victims and witnesses. I commend the statement to the House.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I am pleased to see the Minister at the Dispatch Box for this important statement on the delivery of justice in local communities. I thank him for a copy of his statement in advance.

We missed the Minister in the debate on legal aid in Westminster Hall this morning. Members from all parties spoke passionately in defence of their law centres and citizens advice bureaux, which, like local courts, are facing wholesale closure. He will be pleased to hear that his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General did as well as the Minister would have done in carefully avoiding responding to the many points that were raised.

Launching the consultation on court closures in June this year, the Minister said:

“The Government is committed to supporting local justice, enabling justice to be done and seen to be done in our communities.”

I agree with that statement, but his statement today does not achieve that ambition. Perhaps a clue as to where the Government started to go wrong can be found in the next paragraph of the statement launching the consultation, which said that

“we increasingly use the internet and email to communicate…and we travel further…to do our weekly shop.”

Perhaps we do, but that misses two points. First, courts are not like Facebook or Tesco. They are an important part of many communities in the same way as people regard police stations and town halls.

Claimants and defendants, witnesses and victims will all be inconvenienced and, in many cases, disconcerted by the loss of the local criminal or civil court, or both, only to find them replaced with anonymous court centres many miles away. Secondly, not everyone has the mobility or resources to travel long distances to find justice, especially in rural or remote areas. My first question to the Minister is to ask him to produce the calculations that have been done to determine the time it will take and the distance that will be covered in travelling to the replacement courts. He says that only a minority of court users will be disadvantaged, but that is not the view of the Lord Chief Justice or of his own colleagues. Responding on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Goldring noted that poor public transport meant it would be difficult for many people to

“arrive at court before 10am or return home after 4pm”.

Will the Minister look again at travel arrangements and the times of journeys to the remaining courts after the Department for Transport and council cuts have taken effect?

The Minister consulted on closing 103 magistrates courts and 54 county courts, 30% of the total in England and Wales. He said today that 90% of that number will close—some 142. That would give an annual saving, based on his previous figures, of about £13 million, which is not significant in the context of the wholesale cuts going on in other parts of his Department but is a sizeable proportion of the running costs of lower courts. Will all this simply be handed to the Chancellor in the compliant if not willing way the Lord Chancellor has taken to adopting in asset stripping his Department? Or will some be reinvested in the remaining courts estate to improve the service to the public that the Minister says he wishes to see and to cope with the increased traffic from the closed courts?

The Minister said that some capital will be reinvested in specific projects, but there is no allowance for the extra pressures on remaining courts. Is that not proof that this is no more than a crude cost-cutting exercise with none of the benefits that he half-heartedly claims? He also said in July that

“Providing access to justice does not necessarily mean providing a courthouse in every town or city.”

We would not disagree with that. Needs change and buildings wear out or prove unsuitable. It is right to seek economies while maintaining access and making the administration of justice more efficient. Although every closure decision is difficult, and many older courts have a historic and nostalgic importance, in government we were prepared to close less well-used or poorly functioning courts. We were endlessly criticised by the Minister for doing so, but the difference between our programme of review and his wholesale massacre of the local justice system is clear both from the quantity of closures proposed and the haste with which they will now proceed.

What is the Minister’s timetable for shutting the doors of those historic courts? Why has he not published the results of the consultation before today? What impact assessments have been done? Is he prepared to defend the debilitating effect that longer journey times and unfamiliar surroundings will have on the frailest in our society, who often attend courts as victims and witnesses? Many domestic violence courts and family courts will have to move or close. What arrangements has he made to ensure that they go to suitable locations?

Under the previous Tory Government between 1979 and 1997, courts closed at the rate of 25 a year and, under the previous Labour Government, that fell to 13 a year, but now the Minister is proposing to close almost 150 in this Government’s first year. To be fair, his colleagues have been as critical of the closure programme as Opposition Members, none more so than the Solicitor-General, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr Garnier), who told his local paper:

“I urge residents of Harborough and the surrounding locality to respond to the consultation…we need to organise and get the campaign rolling.”

The International Development Secretary was even more incensed about the proposed closure of Sutton Coldfield court. He told his local paper that the

“very strong arguments which successfully defeated the attempt to close Sutton Magistrates’ Court eight years ago will be just as strong, if not stronger”.

The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), criticised the Treasury. He said:

“The Ministry of Justice seem to have made serious errors with their figures…it’s not just us they’re after, but 102 other courts across the country. Yet I believe the fight is worth having—and that we can win.”

No critic was stronger than the former shadow Justice Minister, who is now Attorney-General. He said:

“It makes a mockery of British justice that this government is considering closing 21 magistrates courts, despite the serious problems of violent crime and anti-social behaviour we face.”

Conservative and Lib Dem Members have all sounded off in their local press and in the House, but as reported in the Evening Standard, this is an

“I back cuts - but Not In My Backyard”

policy. Opposition to the Minister’s policy is growing all over the Government Benches, including from those on the Front Bench. Opening the gates of the prisons and handing ballot papers to the few left inside looks positively—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I trust that the shadow Minister is in his final sentence. He has taken almost as long responding to the statement as the statement itself took. Members must realise that this is not a debate. A response to a statement is a brief response and a series of questions. I hope that that is now clear for the future, because sight has been lost of it, and must be regained at once.

[Mr Slaughter]

I am most grateful, Mr Speaker—you predicted absolutely correctly that I am coming immediately to the end of my response to the Minister’s statement.

This wholesale closure sums up the Government’s approach to cutting local services in this and every other area—“Let’s get on with the cuts and worry about the effects later.” This programme of closures amounts to a wholesale destruction of this foundation stone of much of British justice, and the Minister should be ashamed to bring it before the House.

[Mr Djanogly]

In his rather concise statement—or perhaps it was not—the shadow Minister said that the savings are not particularly significant, and then immediately went on to accuse the Government of asset stripping. I do not see the consistency in that. However, the economic circumstances that Britain faces and the imperative of reducing the national debt pile amassed by the previous Government’s bout of carefree spending impacts on our proposals, which form part of the commitment of the Ministry of Justice to reducing spending by £2 billion.

Savings apart, I am convinced that the current court system is not efficient enough, that it should provide better value for money, that it should make better use of technology, and that it should provide a better service for court users. The hon. Gentleman accuses me of the wholesale closure of legal aid and CABs, and of the wholesale massacre of the Courts Service, but he must tell us where he would rationalise and save.

The Labour party manifesto said:

“To help protect frontline services, we will find greater savings in legal aid and the courts system”.

If the hon. Gentleman is to be credible, therefore, he must give us his view of how justice is to be delivered. If he would put more money into legal aid, would he take even more money out of the courts, or vice versa? Until he tells us how he would be prepared to spend the money, I am afraid that he will not get people’s trust on this matter. He seems to suggest that closing courts is bad in every case.

The hon. Gentleman asked for the financial workings, and I am pleased to say that the impact assessments have been published and are there for him to look at. The utilisation figures take into account the additional work and remaining courts that will come into existence. The timetable is that the first courts will start to close on 1 April next year, and I can confirm that travel arrangements will be organised on a local basis. It is important to make the point that during these reorganisation proposals, we have been considering not just closures but how we can best reorganise the remaining Courts Service. That includes looking at how people can best get to their local courts.

Delivering justice is about more than protecting bricks and mortar. The hon. Gentleman talks about it being like Facebook. In reality, courts are not like post offices either—they are not places that people go to every day of the week. Of equal importance is the quality of justice. It is important that people have use of a fit-for-purpose building that has good listing facilities and gets cases heard promptly. Proximity is important, but it is only one of a number of issues to be considered, and we have considered those issues carefully.

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

There is clearly a case for making savings where courts are close together or little used. However, why have Ministers taken relatively little account of the representations of the Lord Chief Justice, particularly on the Courts Service in what he described as vast rural areas, such as Alnwick and Tynedale in Northumberland and places elsewhere in the country? Will benches not find it necessary—at least sometimes—to go out to parts of their areas, possibly even to hear cases in places where they are still courthouses, given that they cannot be sold and are still public property?

[Mr Djanogly]

My right hon. Friend is passionate about the Courts Service, as I know not least from my appearance before him and the Justice Committee. However, it is important to point out that the Lord Chief Justice’s response came from the foreword to a report of the senior presiding judge, and that the report did not represent a response on behalf of the entire judiciary. The senior presiding judge was collecting the remarks by various judges around the country. It needs to be seen in that context. Indeed, the report was given careful consideration, as were all the responses.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As usual, there is much interest and little time, so brevity from Back-Bench and Front-Bench Members is vital if I am to accommodate the level of interest.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

The Minister is well aware, not least from correspondence from me, that the data on which he based the Knowsley magistrates court decision were deeply flawed. He has not yet addressed that deeply flawed data. Why has he gone ahead with a proposal that he knows will not work? To make matters worse, why has he also decided that there will be no additional capacity in Liverpool by scrapping the capital investment programme? The Deputy Prime Minister refers to this as a progressive Government, but the past two days have proven that it is a wrecking-ball Government.

[Mr Djanogly]

It is not the case that we have not reinvested. As I said in the statement, we are reinvesting in the remaining courts. The right hon. Gentleman asked about errors in the consultation data. There were 16 area consultation documents. A small number of errors were found, but none was considered to be material to the consultation. In one area—north Wales—even though we were advised that the errors did not affect the consultation, I personally decided that the consultation documents should be sent out again, and that was done. However, we do not maintain that the figures were put out in error—quite the opposite. On the whole, they were accurate.

[Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

On 16 November, one Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Justice told me in a parliamentary answer that it would be highly desirable if more work that was currently done by Crown courts were carried out by magistrates courts. He agreed that there was waste in the Crown courts. On the same day, the other Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Justice told me that following the closure of magistrates courts the same amount and the same type of work would be done by the other magistrates courts. Which is right?

[Mr Djanogly]

It is true that in terms of capacity, Crown courts are almost bursting at the seams, which is why my hon. Friend will see that not a single Crown court is proposed for closure in the list. One of the great challenges that we face is to ensure that work that should more appropriately be carried out in magistrates courts does not go to the Crown court. Both the legal aid Green Paper and the sentencing and restorative justice Green Paper have provisions to encourage that.

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

I frankly do not understand the Minister’s decision on Salford magistrates court. Not only do we have the support of the Lord Chief Justice—who said that Salford city council’s alternative proposal should be supported and the court should remain open—but the city council would have met the maintenance backlog and the ongoing revenue costs for the court. There would have been no cost to the Department. I believe that this decision flies in the face of all logic. We have had a court in our city for 1,000 years, doing fantastic community justice work of the kind that the Minister has talked about. We have had a court for 1,000 years: it has taken this Government just six months to put an end to that.

[Mr Djanogly]

The right hon. Lady came to see me with members of her local authorities, and she spoke strongly in support of her court—I recognise that—as did members of her visiting delegation. However, that court has a low utilisation rate, and a building and facilities that are not adequate. The court is going to be closed because of those factors, as well as its close proximity—about half a mile—to Manchester City magistrates court, which can import the work. I am afraid that it is that close—1,000 paces to one of the finest magistrates courts in England and Wales.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

I wrote to the Minister at the time regarding the potential closure in Burton. People in South Derbyshire go there, and it takes much more than an hour to get to Derby. There is no way on God’s earth that we can get to Newcastle-under-Lyme, so would he be kind enough to arrange a meeting to look at our plan B in South Derbyshire, for a new civic centre that can take over such work?

[Mr Djanogly]

My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) secured an Adjournment debate in July, and I think he accepted the need to make savings, but urged Ministers to consider the wider impacts. There is a high density of county courts in Staffordshire and west Mercia. Burton sat for 199 days in 2009-10, and there are no members of the judiciary based permanently at the court. Although facilities are adequate, closure would mean that Her Majesty’s Courts Service would not be liable for an additional investment of around £450,000. None the less, I would of course be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter further.

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

The maintenance figures used by the Minister to justify closures in Wales were wildly inaccurate. On the second attempt he got them wrong again, and on the third attempt they were wrong yet again. He is using fairytale figures to support his arguments. The closure of Pwllheli magistrates court—which was vehemently opposed by the Lord Chief Justice, the presiding judge and everybody who knows anything about that area of Wales—leaves my constituency with one court to serve a patch that measures 100 miles north-to-south and 100 miles across. Is that local justice?

[Mr Djanogly]

Having considered the matter, we believe that local justice will be maintained in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. The fact of the matter is that Pwllheli magistrates court has a very low utilisation rate—29% in 2009-100—offers limited facilities for victims and witnesses, and is only partially disability-compliant. The work undertaken at that court can be easily accommodated in the recently purpose-built Caernarfon criminal justice centre, which offers far superior facilities for all court users.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

There will be great dismay at the closure of Ely and Wisbech magistrates courts in North East Cambridgeshire, particularly as the magistrates court in the constituency next door—the Minister’s own—is to be retained, as are county court hearings. There were factual errors in the consultation on Wisbech court, such as taking one-off costs as running costs. There were also omissions, such as ignoring the potential of transferring work from Ely to Wisbech to increase its utilisation rate, and underestimates of revenue, involving such elements as charging the police nothing for the use of the court building. In the light of that, will the Minister place in the Library the figures that were used after those errors were pointed out, so that we can see exactly what this decision was based on?

[Mr Djanogly]

Yes, I am pleased to say that the impact assessments have been published today, and my hon. Friend will be able to have full sight of those figures.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

To say that this announcement is disappointing is an understatement. Justice will no longer be done in Rochdale, nor will it be seen to be done. If the Minister believes that victims, witnesses and the accused will travel mile upon mile for justice, he is sadly mistaken. Rochdale court has one of the highest utilisation rates in Greater Manchester, and some of the best possible facilities, including video links and secure rooms for witnesses. It has a fantastic bench and great staff, and it is completely fit for purpose. This decision will not affect people like the Minister, but it will affect people who live in Rochdale. Will he reconsider his decision?

[Mr Djanogly]

No, I am afraid to say to the hon. Gentleman that the decision has been taken. Rochdale magistrates court is a busy court with a good utilisation rate, but it will close because of low utilisation across the Greater Manchester area. It is important to point out to the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who are making related points that during the consultation we did not look at the individual courts in isolation. Yes, we looked at each court on its own, but we also looked at them in the context of other courts in that local justice area. That has sometimes meant that courts with high utilisation figures have still had to close because, in an area context, they are not efficient.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

I would like to tell the Minister about my concerns for the people who live in rural Somerset. That includes my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath). The Government intend to close Bridgwater court and Frome court, which, as the Lord Chief Justice has recognised, will leave any number of people unable to reach a court inside one day’s travel by public transport. Will the Minister consider introducing a proper system for booking appointments, so that people can attend court at 3 or 4 o’clock in the afternoon? In that way, there might be some hope of their reaching the court in which they are intended to appear. Secondly, can he make certain—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think we will make do with one question. Just before the Minister replies, may I remind the House that I am trying to help Members, but that Members must be prepared to help each other? That means short questions and short answers.

[Mr Djanogly]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The court was used for only 23% of the available time in 2009-10, and the standard of accommodation falls far short of what is now expected by court users. However, consideration is to be given to those living in the north of the area having their cases heard at a more convenient court in the Avon and Somerset area.

[Mr Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

The Minister has already announced that Barnsley county court will be retained, but can he confirm that he has accepted the view of most of the statutory agencies that the county court should be joined with the magistrates court? Is that merger going to take place?

[Mr Djanogly]

I do not have an answer to that question. I will look into the matter and come back to the hon. Gentleman.

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

The Minister is to be commended for coming to the House to make an oral statement on what was inevitably going to be a difficult announcement. Will he confirm that Harwich magistrates court was already earmarked for closure by the Labour Government? Can he also give me an assurance that Harwich will stay open until the new court facilities in Colchester have been constructed and are up and running?

[Mr Djanogly]

The answer is yes, in both cases.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), asked whether the Minister would share with the rest of us his calculations on travel times. I assume that he will also put his answer in the Library, and I would like him to confirm that. There will be considerable anger in the Cynon Valley about the decision to close the Aberdare courthouse, and I do not know where the Minister’s calculations on travel times have come from. I invite him to join me on a bus through the Cynon valley, to find out that from many of those areas it is impossible to reach Merthyr Tydfil within an hour.

[Mr Djanogly]

Travel times were worked out by the Courts Service. The difficulty is that times will vary from one part of an hon. Member’s constituency to another, so it is the average times that have to be taken into account.

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

I thank the Minister for listening to my constituents in Skipton and the Yorkshire dales. Will he pay tribute to the campaign run by the local newspaper, the Craven Herald, which explained the devastating impact that the closure of the court in Skipton would have had in this most rural part of England?

[Mr Djanogly]

My hon. Friend spoke forcefully in an Adjournment debate and then met my officials and me. He made a persuasive case, and his local area made a persuasive case, and when we thought it about carefully we decided he was right that the court should stay open.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I am relieved that the robust campaign for Worksop magistrates court has eventually been listened to. To avoid ambiguity in the future, will the Minister confirm that the previous functions of Worksop county court will be run from Worksop magistrates court in the future?

[Mr Djanogly]

That is my understanding, yes.

[Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

Why is the Minister still looking for magistrates court space in Liverpool while closing down the purpose-built Southport magistrates court? Where is the sense or the saving in that?

[Mr Djanogly]

Replacement of the inadequate facilities at the Liverpool magistrates courts at Dale street and Victoria street is, and remains, a top-priority scheme for Her Majesty’s Courts Service.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement. Will he confirm that millions of pounds are wasted each year by commuting prisoners to and from court, and that better use of technology could deal with PCMHs—plea and case management hearings—first appearances and mentions at the Crown court and the magistrates court?

[Mr Djanogly]

I am absolutely convinced by what my hon. Friend has to say. Millions of pounds are currently wasted by witnesses, lawyers and defendants all moving around the country. Many problems could be solved through the use of technology.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I acknowledge and welcome the retention of the county court at Llangefni—and I congratulate the Minister on pronouncing it correctly. The Minister said that part of the exercise was to save money. Will he acknowledge the important economic impact of courts and legal services on towns across the United Kingdom, and was that taken into account during the review?

[Mr Djanogly]

The purpose of the review was not to look at the impact of the closure of courts on the wider economies within towns, but the work will go to the remaining courts, which will have implications for putting money back into the system in those other courts.

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

I declare an interest as a court duty solicitor. I welcome the reprieve of Waltham Forest magistrates court, which has particularly effective family and youth court provision. I urge my hon. Friend to develop opportunities with local authorities to accommodate appropriate youth court hearings, so that we can deliver effective localised justice.

[Mr Djanogly]

Effective localised justice is an important part of the Green Paper that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State published last week, so I can say yes to that. As regards Waltham Forest, again, a delegation of Conservative and Labour Members came to see me and made a very persuasive case for that court.

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

Ammanford court in my constituency was recently refurbished at a cost of £59,000 to make it one of the most modern courts in west Wales. Is it not a colossal waste of public money to close that court now?

[Mr Djanogly]

We have had to take some tough decisions; of that there is no doubt. As I said before, we are dealing with this on an area basis as much as on a court-by-court basis. That is an important point, because people have been able not only to assess how courts impact on an area overall, but to see how their own areas have been treated in comparison with other parts of the country. That, to me, has made this a very fair consultation.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

My constituents will strongly welcome the decision to keep Harlow magistrates court. Ours is a growth town that provides value for money. Will the county court’s functions be transferred to the magistrates court or to Chelmsford? If they are transferred to Chelmsford, will consideration be given to people who have difficulty in travelling? Will a satellite county court be provided?

[Mr Djanogly]

Yes, and it is hoped that the retention of the magistrates court will enable business to be conducted across both.

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

Goole magistrates court is provided by the local police authority at a peppercorn rent, and is connected with recently refurbished cells at the police station. Its closure will leave residents in the western part of the East Riding a considerable distance from local justice. Will the work at Goole be transferred to Hull, or will my constituents be expected to get on a bus, travel past the magistrates court in Hull, change buses and continue on a different bus to Beverley, as was suggested in the consultation?

[Mr Djanogly]

The court at Goole is closing not least because of low utilisation, but when we looked at the responses to the consultation, we realised that the travel arrangements of people using public transport were different from those of people using private transport, and we think that it will be possible to use not only Beverley but Hull. That was one good outcome of the consultation.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has confirmed that the work of Totnes magistrates court is to be relocated. I know he is aware that the building provides an useful facility for the coroner and those who assist him in his work, such as Victim Support, and also that the citizens advice bureau has worked extensively on a plan to share the court building. Can he assure us that this important local asset will be put to its best local use by those valuable organisations?

[Mr Djanogly]

My hon. Friend has raised an important point. I hope that the answer is yes, and if I can be of assistance she should get in touch with me to that end. Courts will be empty, and there may be local authorities or other local agencies that could make use of them. Now that we have a final list of the courts that will close, that process can begin.

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

The Minister has announced the closure of Barry magistrates court. I believe that that decision was simply wrong. More than £1 million was spent on the court last year, it has extremely high utilisation rates and it is the only court in the county of Vale of Glamorgan. Will the Minister share with me the data on which he based the decision, and will he confirm his agreement to meet the chairman of the bench and me to discuss the matter?

[Mr Djanogly]

I certainly will, but, again, the court has low utilisation, and Cardiff is just 9 miles away, with a good public transport infrastructure.

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

The Minister says that his proposals will provide a better and more efficient justice system. Will he accompany me to the east end of Sheppey, and explain to residents there how justice will be improved now that they will be forced to travel to Canterbury or Medway—a journey that can take up to three hours on public transport, if public transport is available, which it is not after 6 pm?

[Mr Djanogly]

Of course I will meet my hon. Friend if that is what he wants, but I have already met him and we have discussed the issues. Again, the court was considered in the context of the area, and we believe that we made the right decision.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

May I ask the Minister to reflect not just on north Wales, as he has been asked to do, but on the huge tract of west Wales which will now be left without convenient access to a magistrates court, and, critically, without the public transport that would allow him to realise his dreams? There simply is not adequate public transport to take people from Ceredigion up to Aberystwyth. Will the Minister think again about the transport issues on which he and his officials have reflected?

[Mr Djanogly]

We have considered transport very carefully, and we concluded that one hour on public transport was the right amount of time. Originally, a lot of those courts were instigated on the basis of half a day’s horse ride, but we thought one hour on public transport should be adequate.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

There will be widespread concern about the closure of Harrow magistrates court, not least because it is fully utilised and we demonstrated in the consultation that it will cost money to close it rather than keeping it open. The alternative means transferring the work to areas that are impossible to reach by public transport, even in London. There will also be concern that the Minister refused to receive an all-party delegation from Harrow council and the bench, and I ask him to hear those people so they can put their arguments in person.

[Mr Djanogly]

I am afraid that the time for consultation has now passed and the decision has been taken. The problem with Harrow is that there is considerable capacity at neighbouring courts, and they offer much more modern facilities.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

The Minister will be aware that documents on his website cite the travel time from Liskeard to Bodmin because it is proposed to close Liskeard magistrates court, but he does not seem to have taken into account the travel time from the rural parts of my constituency such as St Cleer and Kelly Bray. Can he confirm that he has taken into account that travelling time, and the availability of public transport?

[Mr Djanogly]

Yes, we did take those into account.

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

What consideration was given to the fact that just two years ago the thick end of £1 million was spent on making Selby magistrates court Disability Discrimination Act-compliant? I fully understand that the Government inherited a financial mess, but if Selby magistrates court is now to be closed and sold off, the taxpayer will be facing a huge loss. My constituents will be keen to see the impact assessment on which that decision was based.

[Mr Djanogly]

Investment has been made in various parts of the estate at various times, but the courtroom capacity at York magistrates court, coupled with the flexible listing practices, will enable Selby’s work to be absorbed effectively into York.

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

I am doubly disappointed, because the Minister did not give me prior notification of a court closure in my constituency. The closure of the court at Blandford means that residents of Dorset will have access to justice only on the coast. Residents in the expanding towns of Shaftesbury and Gillingham will not be able to get to Weymouth before 12 noon, and will have to leave by 2 o’clock in order to get back the same day. Will the Minister meet me and the lay magistracy to talk about this matter?

[Mr Djanogly]

As I have said to other hon. Members, the consultation period has now finished, but I must point out that my hon. Friend’s local court was used for only 29% of the available time. I am sorry to hear that he had not received notice, and I will look into why that was the case.

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

The Minister will appreciate that I am extremely disappointed by the decision to close Woking magistrates court. As he saw in my submission and that of the bench, it has very high utilisation rates, a purpose-built court, fantastic disabled access and excellent youth witness provision. How does this decision fit with the criteria for the consultation, because many outside independent people, including judges, looked at it and did not think that Woking fitted those criteria?

[Mr Djanogly]

My hon. Friend made a very cogent case for the retention of his court, and put the local case very strongly. I have to say that the judgment was finely balanced, but ultimately this decision was taken because the utilisation rate in the Surrey courts has been below 80%, and transferring work to Staines and Guildford magistrates courts will result in the rate increasing to 89%.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I disclose my former profession as a barrister. Tynedale in Northumberland has almost 1,000 square miles without a court. The consultation used poor-quality figures and they were badly applied. If they are wrong, does the Minister accept that the claim is capable of judicial review?

[Mr Djanogly]

We do not believe that the figures we consulted on were wrong.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I am delighted that Stroud magistrates court will remain open. I regard it as an example of an efficient modern court, and I think it is consistent with the whole approach of the Ministry of Justice. Does the Minister agree?

[Mr Djanogly]

On review, yes.

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

I, too, am deliriously happy today, and I thank the Minister for listening to the arguments that I and the people of Monmouthshire put forward to save Abergavenny court from closure. Will he assure us that consultations by this Government will continue to be proper exercises, and not just the shams that we have seen in the past 13 years?

[Mr Djanogly]

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. Clearly, things were not all bad in Wales. We wanted to do a full consultation, as the previous Government had been closing courts in dribs and drabs—a court here and a court there. One of them was operating as a pizza shop, and another had had the roof burned off for three years before we came in and closed it. This Government are consulting fully and putting forward a strategic plan across local areas where people can take a strategic view on a national basis.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Residents in the borough of Kettering will be pleased that the Minister has listened to the vigorous local campaign and decided to save Kettering magistrates court. What were the main factors behind his very welcome decision?

[Mr Djanogly]

The court will remain open because of concerns raised about the capacity of the receiving court at Northampton in light of the decision to close Daventry and Towcester magistrates courts.

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

I, too, remind the House of my former profession as a solicitor. I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly the welcome news that Bury county court will remain open. Will he confirm that that is not a temporary reprieve but a permanent decision? Also, I am slightly concerned that the decision to close Rochdale magistrates court will require a great deal of extra capacity at Bury magistrates court, especially as Rochdale already takes in the Heywood and Middleton benches. Has he taken that into account?

[Mr Djanogly]

Yes, we have: we will be doing about £170,000-worth of work to accommodate the work from Rochdale magistrates court.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

The state of the public finances notwithstanding, many people in Tamworth will be bitterly disappointed by the loss of both our county court and our magistrates court, which is the most utilised court in Staffordshire. What assurances can my hon. Friend give my constituents that the video-link technology between courts and police stations will be rolled out quickly so that our police will not spend all their time on the A38 to Burton, and that vulnerable people who will have to spend a day-long round trip going to Stafford county court will not have justice put beyond their means?

[Mr Djanogly]

The court is closing because it has a sitting day allocation of only 76 days, and the work will transfer to Burton magistrates court. I can tell my hon. Friend that we will be pushing ahead with the additional use of technology, which we see as the future. As things stand, the Courts Service does not make adequate use of modern technology.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

The Minister has already heard the genuine concerns about the closure of Burton county court. He said today that nobody should have to travel for more than an hour to get justice, but under these proposals my constituents will have to go to either Derby or Stafford. On public transport, that takes two hours and 23 minutes; on the train it takes an hour and 40 minutes. Will he meet me to ensure that my constituents will get access to the court in Derby rather than the one in Stafford?

[Mr Djanogly]

We would be happy to discuss that with my hon. Friend. We propose that work will transfer to either Derby or Stafford depending on which is closer for the parties involved, so I think we are heading in the right direction.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

I declare my interest as a barrister—in fact, I have appeared in a couple of these courts. The Minister mentioned how busy Northampton magistrates court is, and said that that had been factored into some of his decisions. Some of the hearings in magistrates courts are very short, and some magistrates courts are under-utilised, so can my hon. Friend confirm that because of the shortness and frequency of such hearings, they are particularly susceptible to the use of video link and other modern technology, and that savings could thus be made across the board?

[Mr Djanogly]

They are indeed. I have visited the pilot projects in south London, which work extremely well. We have to review their cost implications and we want to extend the pilots to help witnesses.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the advance notice, but points of order come after the next business.

RAF Bases

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Commons Chamber

Application for emergency debate (Standing Order No. 24)

16:30

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

I seek leave to discuss a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration—the closure of RAF bases.

Members on both sides of the House will be concerned about recent briefings from the Royal Air Force and the Ministry of Defence on the proposed closure of bases that have been reported in today’s press. As the House will now know, the RAF has made a series of recommendations to the MOD about the proposed closure of bases. My concerns, and the reasons why I am proposing a debate under Standing Order No. 24, are twofold: first, the Government have not provided coherent criteria on which the decisions are to be made and, secondly, they have still failed to give a timetable for making and announcing the decisions.

The Government have left the affected communities, service personnel and their families and Members of the House unclear and confused as to the basis on which they will make those important decisions. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that the decision would be motivated by socio-economic considerations, while the Secretary of State for Defence said yesterday that it would be a strategic defence decision alone and the Prime Minister and his Chancellor have said that the decision would be based on budgetary considerations.

With Christmas only a few days away, this is obviously causing a great deal of uncertainty for our service personnel, some of whom are currently serving overseas, and for their families. I do not believe that is fair or just. Furthermore, the next scheduled Defence questions are not until the end of January, which will mean a seven-week wait for clarity and for scrutiny of Ministers. Our serving personnel and their communities deserve to know on what basis—from the three put forward by individual members of the Government—the decisions will be made, and when.

As you know, Mr Speaker, I have huge respect for the House and the role it can play in bringing clarity to issues that affect communities across the United Kingdom. If my application is successful, the debate will give right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity to present their cases. That will ensure that the debate is open and constructive, thereby affording the Government and the House a more rounded picture of community interests and feelings about an important issue before the House rises for Christmas.

Our gallant armed forces, who are serving their country, deserve better than the shoddy treatment they have received today.

[Mr Speaker]

I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, and I have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24 and I cannot, therefore, submit the application to the House.

Points of Order

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Commons Chamber

16:33

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Moray is the most defence-dependent community in the UK, and the Government have already announced the closure of RAF Kinloss in the region, while the future of neighbouring RAF Lossiemouth has been under review. It has now been widely reported that the Royal Air Force has made a recommendation for the retention of RAF Lossiemouth, which would reflect the strong defence and financial arguments in its favour. Unfortunately, it appears that RAF Leuchars in Fife is now being considered for closure. Has the Ministry of Defence given any indication that it will make a statement on those recommendations, as we need an end to uncertainty both in Moray and in Fife?

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You have gone out of your way to emphasise that when important Government decisions are announced, they should be announced in the House and not in any other way. The issue of Royal Air Force bases in Scotland and elsewhere appears to have been the subject of a number of leaks. I have no notion where these leaks come from, but there is no doubt that they add to speculation and to the kind of uncertainty that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) mentioned in his application for a debate under Standing Order No. 24. I hope you might take the opportunity today, Mr Speaker, to reinforce your belief that when important announcements are to be made, they should be made to this House and not elsewhere.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

We will have a last go from Mr Fitzpatrick on a point of order, then I will respond to them all.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker. Much of air-sea rescue is delivered by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, but some is delivered by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. It is suggested that the coastguard service’s stations and the bases run by the MCA will be cut. That is a major statement which the Government ought to make to the House, rather than have it leaked by the MOD, the Financial Times, a civil servant or whoever. I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and right hon. and hon. Members who ask that the Government explain to the House the future of the air-sea rescue service.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Members for Moray (Angus Robertson) and for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) have all raised extremely important points of order on the back of the speech in support of the application for a Standing Order No. 24 Adjournment debate.

First, I am conscious of press commentary, not least because of what right hon. and hon. Members have said, but I think it fair to point out that there is sometimes a difference between press commentary and speculation on the one hand, and a firm Government decision on the other. Secondly, I note the presence of two responsible Ministers in the Chamber, which I think is appreciated by the House. I noted that when the point was made about statements needing to be made to the House, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) was nodding vigorously his assent to that proposition.

The last point that I would make, specifically responding to the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife, is that he is right. If a decision has been made, it should be reported timeously to the House so that the responsible Minister is subject to scrutiny. I hope the House will understand if I say today that I am not in a position to issue a verdict, but the point has been made forcefully. I hope it will have been heard on the Treasury Bench and that all proper procedures will be followed in this matter. I hope they will be, and I am quite sure, in light of the experience and perspicacity of the Members who raised their concerns, that if there were anything amiss or awry, those Members and others would bring it to my attention and that of the House before very long.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder if you can assist me. The court closure announcement that we heard just now was, in the case of Welsh courts, predicated on back maintenance figures which proved to be 100% inflated. Even on the second attempt to correct them, they were completely inaccurate. Were the announcement made outside the Chamber, I would say that it was justiciable. What can I do about this? I feel badly let down by the process.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is seeking to continue the debate. I understand his frustration. My advice to him is that he should look for an opportunity to air his concerns in the Chamber. As he is aware, there is an innovative version of the Christmas Adjournment debate taking place under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee next week. He might want to view that as an opportunity. There are opportunities in Westminster Hall. There will be further opportunities at Question Time. In the meantime, the hon. Gentleman has reminded his constituents of the importance that he attaches to the matter.

Banking and Financial Services (Community Investment)

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Commons Chamber

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

16:39

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

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a voluntary mechanism through which banks, building societies and other providers of financial services can support community projects through reinvestment of part of their profits and assistance in kind; and for connected purposes.

This Bill is intended to address the challenges facing communities and voluntary organisations throughout Britain, and I hope to show the House that the funding shortfall facing such groups is of such significance that without urgent action we run the risk of losing them. The Bill then proposes a solution that I hope the Government will consider to be an equitable and practical means of remedying the situation.

A recent New Philanthropy Capital report found that the Government’s deficit reduction plan will lead third sector income to drop by between £3.2 billion and £5.1 billion, and that that gap is far too large to be filled by philanthropy and charitable giving alone. Only last week, Mr Thomas Hughes-Hallett, the chief executive of Marie Curie Cancer Care, warned of signs that charitable giving might fall sharply, and dramatic figures, such as Croydon council’s 66% reduction in grants for voluntary organisations, are causing all such groups to fear for their future.

This means that organisations such as Wooden Hill in Bedford, a social enterprise that trains adults to work with and mentor young people, and Accept Care, which operates in Northern Ireland and works with disabled people to give them skills to be active in their communities, face possible closure. It is those organisations that this Bill is intended to help.

Everyone agrees that we cannot have a big society without money, and the Bill seeks to demonstrate that, if we really are all in this together, that has to include the financial sector as well. During the global financial crisis, when the financial sector was in trouble, banks turned to the public to provide the vital funds needed to help stabilise the financial sector. Now, community projects need help, and the Bill would give banks and financial institutions the opportunity to put something back and to provide communities with the funding and stability that they need.

A recent report by the Institute for Public Policy Research into the financial sector estimates that next year, in 2011, profits and bonuses in the UK financial sector could be as high as £90 billion. Even during 2007-08, only months before the bail-out, the financial sector reported gross trading profits of £58.2 billion. The IPPR report projects bonuses to increase to almost £15 billion by 2011-12, and it shows that the average bonus in the financial sector is more than eight times larger than the average bonus in the rest of the economy.

I do not use those statistics to bash the banks, because it is in all our interests to have a strong, vibrant financial sector in the United Kingdom; I use them to demonstrate the enormous figures involved. Given the size of the bail-out that the public provided, I believe it only fair that financial service providers consider investing some of their profits in our communities. By creating a mechanism through which they can do so, the Bill would ensure that community enterprises have the funding that they need to thrive and prosper and to serve local people.

Many of our banks, building societies and financial service providers are already active in our communities. Last year, the Barclays community finance fund was launched, giving grants to organisations that provide affordable credit to people in deprived areas. The scheme has been so successful that it is being extended, and over the next three years it will allow local authorities, other organisations and Members to nominate local community finance organisations, such as credit unions, to receive money from the fund. Furthermore, Barclays staff now voluntarily participate in various community schemes, making it a real partnership between the corporate sector and local community enterprises.

Last year, the Co-operative Foundation, with which many Opposition Members will certainly be familiar, invested £11.3 million in our communities, and more than 50,000 people responded to a survey to ensure that that funding was directed to the areas and projects that really needed it. Part of the success of the Co-op and Barclays schemes is that they use resources in places where they can make a real difference, leveraging other investment and making sure that our communities are sustainable for the long term.

The problem is more than just purely financial, however. The fundraising expectations survey of more than 900 voluntary groups showed that 70% are having difficulty recruiting staff and getting people into their organisations to do the work. That impacts most heavily on groups in the north. Understandably, many financial institutions focus their community work in the areas where they are based, and that is often in the south-east. By creating a fund that is accessible to all voluntary groups throughout the country, we can address that issue and ensure that funding for voluntary groups is not governed by their proximity to a financial centre. The Bill would also provide for non-financial contributions, for example, mentoring, help with personal development and practical measures, such as room hire. It would therefore create a framework to allow for an ongoing relationship between business and communities, instead of merely creating an extension of philanthropic giving.

The Bank of New York Mellon has been operating in my community of Salford for two or three years. It has 300 volunteers in the community who work with Salford young people. They give them experience, provide role models, go out to our schools and read in our schools. The bank has a fantastic relationship with the community and it is able to do that—and is encouraged to do that—because, in America, there is a system of tax credits for companies that take part in voluntary and community activity.

It is important to stress that the Bill would create a voluntary mechanism. It would not create duties or obligations but would provide incentives and opportunities for the providers of financial services to build a constructive partnership with their communities. There would be real benefits for the banks and financial institutions if they chose to take part. Through co-operation with their communities, the Bill would allow them to market themselves as being fully embedded with local people, and they could use that as a way of demonstrating their real commitment to corporate social responsibility. The Bill would not penalise those companies who chose not to take part, but it would certainly reward those who did. If banks get involved in such work, their reputation will rise—and goodness me, the banks’ reputation certainly needs to be repaired in the light of recent events.

The aims of the Bill are to ensure a sustainable source of funding for community projects; to establish a strong framework to support them; and to increase fairness by giving every community the opportunity to access the fund. That would benefit every area that we serve in the House. I am delighted that the Bill has received cross-party support, and I know that many members of the public will agree that developing the relationship between finance and communities can only be a good thing.

Hon. Members may have seen that senior bankers and customers of the Royal Bank of Scotland have recently enjoyed a £250-a-head Harry Potter Christmas party. They have enjoyed shopping in Diagon Alley and they have played Quidditch on broomsticks. That must be the financial wizardry we so often hear about. I hope that the House will join me in urging our banks and bankers to consider supporting our community projects; otherwise, we might have to get the Ministry of Magic involved and, unlike the British public, it might be willing to let some of our banks simply disappear.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Hazel Blears, Jon Cruddas, Dr Stella Creasy, Chris White, Tim Farron, Mr David Blunkett, Harriett Baldwin, Siobhain McDonagh, Ms Gisela Stuart, Mr Bob Ainsworth, Paul Goggins and Simon Danczuk present the Bill.

Hazel Blears accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March 2011, and to be printed (Bill 127).

superannuation bill (programme) (no. 2)

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

That the following provisions shall apply to the Superannuation Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 7th September 2010 (Superannuation Bill (Programme)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.

Subsequent stages

2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mr Dunne.)

Question agreed to.

Superannuation Bill

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

After Clause 1

Consultation in relation to civil service compensation scheme modifications

16:49

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

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this we may take Lords amendments 2, 3 and 7.

[Mr Maude]

When I opened the debate on Second Reading in September, I set out—at some length, I regret to say—the history and background of compensation in the civil service since 1859. I do not propose to do the same this afternoon. However, it is timely to bring the story up to date as regards what has happened since the Bill left this House on 13 October to go to the other place.

I reiterate that from the day I first announced that the Government intended to reform the civil service compensation scheme on 6 July, extensive discussions have taken place between my officials—and myself on a number of occasions—and the civil service trade unions. Proposals were put to the Council of Civil Service Unions on 24 September. In the event, the council did not accept those proposals, but five of the unions—Prospect, the First Division Association, the Prison Officers Association, the GMB and Unite—approached the Government directly and asked to continue discussions on those terms. There followed an intensive period of meetings between the five unions and officials, which on 5 October resulted in an agreement between the negotiators on terms that might form the basis of a new compensation scheme. Later that day, the five unions wrote to confirm that they had accurately recorded an agreement that all their negotiating teams were able to recommend positively to their executives as being the best that might be achieved in negotiation.

Soon after 5 October, agreement was reached between the Government and the trade union negotiating teams. The POA’s executive committee voted to distance itself from that agreement and to request further discussion. The sixth union, the Public and Commercial Services Union, withdrew from the talks at the point when the five other unions had agreed to negotiate separately with the Government. While the Bill was in the other place, the Government agreed a number of changes to it, and this House now has the opportunity to consider those. The group of amendments that we are dealing with responds to a commitment that I made when we discussed this on Report—that is, to reinforce the requirement for meaningful consultation on any changes to civil service consultation schemes.

The new clause includes a clear requirement that future consultation on any changes that would reduce the value of the civil service compensation scheme must be undertaken

“with a view to reaching agreement”,

and it requires a report to be made to Parliament setting out the details of the consultation that had been carried out with the unions. My noble Friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire accepted an Opposition amendment in the other place to delete wording that would have limited the content of that report to such information as the Minister considered appropriate. Lord Wallace also agreed that we would table written ministerial statements in both Houses when the imminent new scheme is laid before Parliament to draw attention to it and to the steps that have been taken to consult the unions. Furthermore, we agreed to limit to three years—this is the subject of the next group of amendments—the power to revive the caps in the Bill by order, and to drop our proposals that would have allowed that time limit to have been extended by a further six months at a time.

During the Bill’s passage through the other place, the Government remained committed to trying to reach an agreement with the Council of Civil Service Unions. I made a number of personal approaches, both orally and in writing, to the PCS general secretary and to the POA inviting the CCSU to put forward alternative proposals for a reformed civil service compensation scheme and seeking to engage further. I reiterated the Government’s continuing aim of reaching an agreement with all the unions. I have offered every opportunity to those unions that wish to engage constructively in negotiations. As I said, five of them did so, and their proposals formed the basis of the agreement on which the new proposed scheme is based. If the Bill goes through its processes and achieves Royal Assent, I would intend to lay that scheme before Parliament before Christmas.

On 9 November, the Council of Civil Service Unions wrote to me with suggestions for areas that could be considered in further talks, and I responded on 15 November. I have to say that the suggestions made in the council’s letter would have had the effect of reducing the level of compensation paid to many lower-paid civil servants, and so it could not form the basis of further discussions. Having a new scheme that provides genuinely better protection for the lowest-paid civil service workers, many of whom are members of the PCS, has been crucial in all the discussions we have had. As I have made clear throughout the process, including when I made the announcement of our intention to reform and on Second Reading, that is crucial to the aims of the coalition Government.

I explained to the Council of Civil Service Unions that, in the absence of detailed proposals from the PCS, work would have to proceed on drafting the rules for a new scheme. Last week, my officials sent the draft rules for the new compensation scheme to the Council of Civil Service Unions to seek its views. Those rules will form the basis of the new compensation scheme, which as I said I intend to lay before Parliament as soon as possible, assuming that the Bill completes its passage and achieves Royal Assent.

The Lords amendments are intended to reassure the House, the unions and all stakeholders that the Government will consult fully with the unions should there be future proposals to change the compensation scheme that would reduce the benefits for civil servants. They merely put into statute what has always been our intention. Arguably, that requirement is already contained in the Superannuation Act 1972, but the amendments will put it beyond peradventure or doubt.

The amendments reflect the lengthy consultation process that I have just described. They are Government amendments that were made in the other place to respond to commitments that I made on Report and Third Reading. I am grateful for the constructive involvement of the unions and those on the Opposition Front Bench throughout the process of refining the amendments to achieve the maximum consensus.

Lords amendment 1, which is the lead amendment, inserts a new clause after clause 1. As I said, it makes it clear that consultation should be undertaken

“with a view to reaching agreement”,

and it requires that a report of that consultation be laid before Parliament. The new provisions will apply when there is a change to the compensation scheme that will result in reduced benefits. The report would have to include details of

“the consultation that took place”,

the steps that were taken

“with a view to reaching agreement”

with the unions or other persons consulted, and

“whether such agreement has been reached.”

I repeat that the Government are committed to consultation with the unions. Like the previous Administration, we will always seek to reach agreement with all unions on changes to the compensation scheme. We know from experience that that may not always be possible, and in such cases, the report will explain why.

The effect of Lords amendments 2 and 3 is that the consultation provisions will come into force two months after Royal Assent. That is the standard interval before the commencement of new legislation. However, because of the need for certainty, the other provisions of the Bill will come into force immediately on Royal Assent. As a consequence, the requirement to publish and lay before Parliament a report on the consultation will apply to future changes to the compensation scheme, and not to those currently being developed for implementation when the Bill is enacted.

A requirement for a report on the current consultation would be nugatory, because no one can claim that there has been anything other than long and extensive consultation, carried out not just by myself and my officials, but by my predecessor in this process, the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), who is now on the Opposition Front Bench. This process goes back a long time; there have been three years of drawn out extensive consultation and negotiation. Parliament is well aware, and nobody can have any doubt, that the process has been extensive and thorough; it has been described by the right hon. Gentleman, the right hon. Lady and myself. Equally, it would be wrong to risk a further delay, while a report was prepared and laid before Parliament, before the proposed scheme could be introduced. I have agreed, as Lord Wallace said in the other place, to table written ministerial statements to set out what consultation there has been.

I hope the House will recognise that the Government are seeking to provide the additional reassurance that was sought by the Opposition, and that the changes to the Bill meet my earlier commitments.

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

May I start by expressing my gratitude to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General for the way in which he has brought the House up to date on his discussions and negotiations, for the tone and tenor of his remarks this afternoon, and for restraining himself from repeating the history of civil service compensation since 1859? The whole House is in his debt for that.

As we have said throughout all the stages of the Bill, we agree that civil service compensation is in need of reform. Indeed, we set it on its way. We now need to take account of the result of the judicial review, which tells us that what is needed is reform, but the right reform made in the right way. As we set about that exercise, and what I hope is the finalisation of our debates on the Bill this afternoon, it is incumbent on us to remember that for 500,000 civil servants—people who have given their lives to working in the public service—the Bill should not be a “blunt instrument” for negotiating purposes. For many people, it is about how they might keep their home, help their children through university or avert financial hardship while they have to look for a new job. The House must remember that the Bill’s provisions are important and will have real-world impacts.

17:00

On Report, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) made it very clear that there were several areas in which we thought the Bill was not quite perfect and needed modification. The first cause of worry was what was then new clause 1. Throughout the process we have recognised the need for reform of the Superannuation Act 1972, and the High Court judgment made it very clear that there was a case for ensuring that the Government could compel a settlement and that no one union could veto changes to the civil service compensation scheme. However, the Government’s ability to compel a settlement must be an activity of last resort once it is clear that common agreement cannot be reached. That was why we were not able to support new clause 1 on Report. It would have allowed the Government simply to impose changes to the scheme at any point, without consulting either the work force or representative trade unions.

We are very pleased that the Minister has made substantial progress as the Bill has proceeded through both Houses. As he eloquently summarised it, the latest draft of the new clause, which stands before us as Lords amendment 1, requires a report to Parliament on the consultation that has been carried out with trade unions if there are any further reductions in future. I was particularly grateful to hear him confirm that future consultation on changes would have to be undertaken with a view to reaching agreement. That is substantial progress and we are pleased that the Government have accepted our arguments on some helpful changes. No doubt we could quibble about the details, but the thrust of the Government’s changes is in the right direction. We will therefore support Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3 and the consequential Lords amendment 7.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

It is rather sad that, again, there are relatively few people in the Gallery when we are debating such an important issue. We need to value the work of people who work for society and all our public servants. Obviously the terms of the civil service compensation scheme do not affect those in the NHS or local authorities, who have varied schemes that are often much worse than even the proposed new terms of the civil service scheme.

This is an important matter, and I am pleased to support the Lords amendments. They make it very clear that we will be bound by good practice and enter into proper and meaningful consultations, with a view to coming to an agreement. Although one particular trade union may continue to try to veto the scheme, that does not mean that we should ignore the need to try to obtain an agreement using a reasonable approach. I am very pleased with the Government’s strategy of protecting people on lower incomes. That is an excellent thing to do, so I am pleased to support the Lords amendments.

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

Lords amendment 1 requires the Government to consult with the aim of seeking agreement, and provides for a report to Parliament in due course. Lords amendments 2 and 3 will bring the Bill into force two months after Royal Assent and I find it extraordinary that the Government see that as some form of concession, because the bulk of the staff who will be made redundant in the coming period will be made redundant under a scheme that is still to be imposed. The Government intend that that scheme will be introduced within the two months after Royal Assent, so there will be no report to Parliament, no commitment to consultation and no commitment to take steps to reach agreement, as is embedded in Lords amendment 1. The terms of the scheme, as they stand in the original proposals in the Bill, will be imposed. So although Lords amendment 1 proposes a system whereby there is at least some commitment to parliamentary scrutiny of the willingness and commitment of the Government to negotiate and seek an agreed settlement, Lords amendments 2 and 3 take away that commitment, because we know that the scheme will be amended within the two months to which Lords amendment 1 does not apply.

I cannot think of a better mechanism to incite industrial action. It could be construed as an act of contorted bad faith. Although there have been commitments in ministerial written statements, there has been no commitment to adhere to Lords amendment 1, because it would not otherwise be virtually vetoed by Lords amendments 2 and 3. In my view, that will not only result in industrial relations deteriorating but enhance the potential for legal challenges. It certainly will not enhance the legal protections for which the Government were hoping as a result of the amendments.

The amendments do not address the problematic core of the Bill, which is the imposition of caps and limits on the compensation scheme without the agreement of the unions representing the members affected. I have heard a lot about the four out of the six unions agreeing or recommending the scheme that is being imposed. I remind the House, however, that of the two main unions that represent the vast bulk—more than 75%—of the members affected, one, PCS, or the Public and Commercial Services Union, has not agreed the scheme and is recommending that its members reject it in the ballot; the executive of the other, the POA, has recommended that its members reject the scheme in the ballot, too.

I find it an absolute irony that in any future negotiations, which will, I suppose, probably be relatively minor because the Government will impose the bulk of the change in the next couple of months, the House will have some form of scrutiny of the negotiations as a result of Lords amendment 1, but it will not be able to exercise it in those two months. The reason for that is that if there was a full exposure of what went on in the negotiations, it would provoke even more anger among PCS and POA members.

This has been the worst example of industrial relations practice that we have seen in years. First, there was the use of a “blunt instrument”—I use the Government’s own words—of the threat of a Bill’s being brought forward to impose such severe caps that many would have lost more than two thirds of the redundancy payments that they had acquired as accrued rights over the years. There was then an extremely crude attempt to divide and rule the unions. I believe that the POA is seeking some form of legal redress against the Minister for the Cabinet Office for some of his statements. Those practices have now resulted in the virtual chaotic breakdown of the formal negotiating structures that have held good under past Governments throughout the decades.

If Lords amendment 1 comes into force, at least there will be some reflection of the negotiations that took place—and it might be more accurate. As the Minister has dwelt on the process of the negotiations, perhaps I might put on the record an alternative historical account of what occurred. Yes, the civil service unions—all six of them—sought to negotiate some form of agreed settlement throughout the summer. They did that in the light of the threat of the imposition of a Bill that would cut significantly their members’ redundancy payments.

In September, the Treasury intervened to insist on a cash cap on the new scheme, so there was no room to manoeuvre to improve the scheme beyond that cap. I believe that that significantly undermined the potential for a settlement. On 28 September, the Minister declared that he was pursuing agreement with five of the unions, excluding the PCS, and on 4 October a formal offer was submitted. On 11 October, PCS and the POA held a constructive meeting with the Minister, focusing on the cap on redundancy proposals and making proposals to redistribute from high earners to the vast majority of civil servants, enhancing the protection for the majority.

[Mr Maude]

The hon. Gentleman refers to a report of that meeting, but I can give him another account, because I was there—it was my meeting. No concrete proposals were made at that stage, and certainly not proposals that could in any way remotely or realistically redistribute benefits away from higher earners, whose payments are anyway capped under the scheme that we have agreed, towards the lower paid and particularly the lowest paid, who are much better protected now than they were under the previous Labour Government’s scheme of last February.

[John McDonnell]

My understanding is that on 11 October, PCS and POA tried to explore with the Minister opportunities to make the scheme fairer and more just for their members, and to set out certain parameters in which negotiations could take place. The PCS executive was scheduled to meet on 26 October to consider the next steps in its negotiations with the Government, but on 25 October it received a letter from the Minister, who told them that negotiations had been concluded and that he would implement the proposals that he set out on 4 October. I do not consider that an appropriate way to seek agreement.

As a result, PCS wrote to the Minister on 26 October to say that it was willing to submit proposals. He welcomed that offer and confirmed he would reopen talks if proposals came from the Council of Civil Service Unions, which is exactly what the PCS did—it submitted the parameters and proposals via the CCSU in a constructive approach to reach agreement. The Cabinet Office made no attempt to go into any detail on those proposals or to cost them, and on 9 November, the CCSU submitted terms to open the detail of talks with the Minister, who must have been aware of the background to that letter and of the detail of the PCS proposals. However, on 15 November, he said that the window for talks was closed. Although PCS sent a further letter on 16 November, it was informed that there would be no future talks.

That is a different historical account of those negotiations. The unions, which represented the vast majority of their members, were open to continuing talks to reach an agreed settlement. If amendment 1 had been in place before those talks, the House might have had a more objective historical account of the negotiations than the Minister or I have given—at least we would have had the opportunity of receiving a full report. However, the Minister’s amendments have denied us the opportunity of a report on those negotiations and allow a report only of future negotiations. That is extremely disappointing. It is another act that will undermine civil servants’ confidence that they are being treated fairly by the Government at this critical time in their lives—we are told that 360,000 of them will lose their jobs because of the comprehensive spending review and subsequently.

In addition to souring the industrial relations climate, the Government have opened up a vista of legal challenges—under article 11 of the European convention on human rights and article 1, protocol 1—which has occurred before. Amendment 1 is the Government’s attempt to find legal cover for their infringement of those articles, particularly article 11, but it does not go far enough. In fact, amendments 2 and 3 take away that cover completely in respect of the current negotiations. The Government’s proposals are legally precarious to say the least. I am sure that there will be a legal challenge from PCS. I believe that it will be successful.

In the previous Government’s negotiations, PCS threatened legal challenge, and it was advised by civil servants—they met us a week before the general election was declared—that the Government were confident of winning in court. The same civil servants advise this Government of the same thing. They were wrong before the election, and I believe that they are wrong now. In fact, PCS is yet to lose a case against the Government. We have the prospect of tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of civil servants being made redundant. If the Government’s proposals are overturned, the civil servants who are made redundant under the imposed scheme could seek legal redress and compensation, which could run into many millions of pounds.

17:15

The challenge will be on two grounds. The first will be article 11, which is meant to protect the right of trade unions to negotiate on behalf of their members. Until 2008, the European Court of Human Rights treated the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike merely as examples of individual aspects of freedom of association that states could choose as means of complying with article 11, ensuring that unions could at least be heard. However, Demir and Baykara v. Turkey changed the atmosphere and legal standing of article 11 and that of the right to collective bargaining. The grand chamber resiled specifically from the original rulings and elevated the right to collective bargaining to the status of an essential element of article 11. Interference with this right has to be justified against the background of the historical circumstances of the country. However, in this country, there is a long history of the right of civil servants in negotiations and of collective bargaining by the civil service, which I believe enforces the article 11 rights of this particular union. On that basis, I believe that the amendments do not go anywhere near far enough to protect the Government from legal challenge.

The second basis for a legal challenge against the amendments, which fail to provide the Government with cover, is that dealt with by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The amendments fail to address the need for agreement by the unions over their protected and accrued rights under the compensation scheme. Article 1 of the first protocol of the European convention on human rights insists on the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. Under the scrutiny of the Joint Committee, the Bill has been found to be lacking in providing that protection. First the Government argued that they were not possessions, but that was quashed by the law courts in their last judgment against the previous Government.

The Joint Committee found the Government’s arguments over possession to be unacceptable. They are accepted then as accrued rights, which means that they can be interfered with only as a result of agreement—amendment 3 insists not on agreement but simply consultation—or if the interference is justified. However, the Joint Committee determined that the Government had brought forward no justification—and, in fact, had not even addressed seriously the justification for interference with these accrued rights, which the civil service has garnered over years of negotiation and service. For that reason, the amendments will fail to protect the Government against further legal challenge.

I urge the Government, therefore, to think again. On the legalities of the Bill, even as amended by the Lords amendments, we are entering legal quicksand, and the Government will regret that. I think they recognise that and have inserted the changes into the legislation rather than the original scheme because they were worried about the scheme being quashed very quickly in the UK courts of law. Even with the amendments, however, the Government are entering an industrial relations minefield and a political morass. So I urge the Government, even at this late stage, to step back. PCS, the POA and the other unions are still willing to meet and negotiate, to see whether a reasonable settlement can be obtained. I urge the Government to take up the offer of getting back around the table.

The unions are willing to negotiate because these measures will have such a significant impact on their members. In Committee, we heard example after example of the impact on individual lives of such a severe deterioration in the redundancy payments being offered to civil servants. The POA and PCS are reflecting the views of their members about this Government’s threat to their redundancy payments. It is for that reason that the POA and PCS are willing to get back round the table and seek a reasonable agreement with the Government.

However, I believe that, failing that, there will be legal actions and industrial action. They will undermine the credibility of this Government in any future negotiations or when they want to make changes not just to the scheme in question, but to other conditions of service across the civil service. Surely it is better to bring along a willing work force—a committed work force, with high morale and people who are willing to implement the Government’s policy with enthusiasm because they enjoy their jobs, rather than people living under the threat of being made redundant without adequate compensation. I urge the Government, even at this late state, to back off—to pull the Bill this evening, enter negotiations, get back round the table and seek an agreed settlement that brings in all the unions, rather than trying to divide them in the way that the Government have.

[Mr Maude]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) for their support for the amendments and for where the Government have got to. I would like to say one or two words in response to the points that have been raised.

The first point to make is that the coalition Government are deeply committed to supporting the civil service and supporting its independence. We profoundly believe in the ethos of public service and political impartiality that motivates the civil service and with which it is imbued. We wish to support that, and, just as with the previous Government’s attempt to reform the compensation scheme, nothing in what we are attempting to do should be interpreted as anything other than a desire to treat people fairly and achieve the right balance between the interests of the taxpayer and the interests of hard-working, dedicated civil servants who, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, have in many cases spent their lives in public service. We honour and respect that, and we want them to be treated fairly. I want to put that firmly on the record.

We were happy to accept the point that consultation must be serious, which is why we accepted an amendment that said that consultation has to take place with a view to reaching agreement. It is not enough for the Government to go through the motions. I do not think that anyone who has taken part in the consultations and negotiations that have brought us to this point would say that they were about going through the motions—I think the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill would bear that out. Rather, they were about serious work aimed at getting agreement, and it is a matter of great regret that such agreement has not been reached. The suggestion that the ability for collective bargaining has in some sense been reduced and that this is a breach of the European convention on human rights simply does not stack up. The changes that we are making actually strengthen the commitment to consultation, making it more necessary that, in making any future changes, the Government should consult seriously, with a view to reaching an agreement. The commitment on collective bargaining is enhanced, not diminished.

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

I have listened to the debate with great interest, particularly on the consultation with the POA, PCS and the other unions, but what is the position, both in the current negotiations and in any future consultations relating to the provisions that we are debating, on those who are not in unions? We found from our experience of negotiating with civil servants in Northern Ireland that many were not in unions, which raised a whole lot of other issues. How does that play into the consultation provisions that the right hon. Gentleman is introducing and the current negotiations?

[Mr Maude]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a good point, which is that it is by no means true that all civil servants belong to a trade union. The figures show that something in the region of 60% of civil servants belong to a trade union, but many are unrepresented. I am not sure that the Superannuation Act 1972 or what we are proposing in the Bill makes requisite any particular form of consultation with those who are unrepresented. However, he raises a good point that those who engage in future consultations should be alive to.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to his concern that, because the consultation requirement will not be commenced for two months, there will somehow be no obligation to consult. There has been extensive consultation. He raised concerns about the proposals that he claims were made by PCS and the POA, but the outline suggestions that eventually emerged from PCS, if implemented within the cost envelope, which I have always said exists and which would have existed under whichever Government were in power, would have had the effect of reducing the compensation available to those over pensionable age—that is, those over 50 and approaching retirement—and reducing the benefits available to the lowest paid. I say again that our primary concern has been to ensure that there is proper additional protection for those who are lower paid.

[John McDonnell]

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not want inadvertently to mislead the House. Just for the record, that is contested by the unions themselves, because it was open to the discussions that the union was hoping to pursue with him, but which he declined.

[Mr Maude]

The concern raised by the unions at the time was that there was insufficient compensation in the scheme that we were developing with the other unions for those who were above the £23,000 salary underpin. We could have increased the compensation payments for them only by taking away from others. The only ways in which that could have been achieved—these suggestions were canvassed—would have been by lowering the £23,000 underpin so that all those earning less than that would have been penalised, or by taking away the significant protection that rightly continues to exist for those over 50. I recognise that someone who started work as a civil servant as a teenager straight after leaving school, and who has worked as nothing else until leaving the civil service in their 50s, might not find themselves in a fantastic place in the labour market. It is therefore right that there should be proper protection for people in those circumstances. That is why protecting those approaching retirement and the lowest paid people in the civil service was an absolute priority for us. I believe that the scheme that we have put in place meets those commitments and priorities.

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

Two pieces of information have come out on this. First, we received a Cabinet Office circular from the right hon. Gentleman which sets out in detail how the negotiations went. It specifically makes the point that PCS made a proposal that would have reduced the amount of money being made available to lower paid staff in order to pay for enhanced benefits for those at the higher end of the scale. However, the trade unions have said that that is not the case. In order to give us more information about the negotiation process, can the Minister provide the figures to demonstrate how much would have needed to go to those at the top to cover those enhancements, and how much would have been taken away from those at the bottom?

[Mr Maude]

It is really hard to do that, because, as I pointed out in the letter that I sent to all Members, there were only outline suggestions made by PCS. Back in September, five of the unions—the five not including PCS—wrote to me with some proposals that they had signed up to, and that PCS had declined to sign up to. At their request, we entered into discussions with the five unions, and the ensuing proposals formed the basis of the new scheme that we have developed. They are not totally reflected in the scheme, but they formed the basis for it. I constantly and consistently urged PCS to join that process and to make concrete proposals, but it had declined to sign the letter that the other five unions had signed, despite being asked to do so by the five unions.

That protracted process involved meetings with Mark Serwotka of PCS and Steve Gillan of the POA, at which I urged them to make concrete proposals that would enable us to work towards a full agreement. All that emerged, however, after protracted delays, were outline suggestions. When asked how any additional protection for higher-paid people—not highly paid people, but those above the £23,000 underpin—was to be paid for, the only suggestions were either to lower the underpin, which would have meant that all lower-paid workers would have been penalised, or to reduce the protection available to those over 50. We were not willing to do that because providing protection was a priority for us.

[John McDonnell]

Following on from an earlier point, the Minister will know better than most of us that these negotiations are complex. He has said that it was difficult at times to calculate the overall consequences. That is why the Public and Commercial Services Union—through the Council of Civil Service Unions as the Minister requested—put forward outline proposals for detailed negotiations with staff. However, the Minister for the Cabinet Office then closed the window for those negotiations, just as they were becoming productive. There are complexities and if the Minister objected to issues like that, those points could have been taken up in the next round of negotiations.

17:30

[Mr Maude]

I have to take issue with the hon. Gentleman’s phrase about the process just beginning to become productive, because it was not. The outline suggestions were vague and the only way of paying for them would have been by taking money away from lower-paid workers or people approaching retirement. We explored whether there was any other source from which those funds could be redistributed, but it turned out that there were no alternatives.

[John McDonnell]

If that is the right hon. Gentleman’s only concern and his only objection to the position of PCS, supported by the POA, why can he not simply reopen negotiations now to resolve the matter?

[Mr Maude]

The hon. Gentleman talks as if this were a trifling consideration, but it is not. This process has been going on for three years. If the Bill goes through the remainder of its stages and on to the statute book, the new scheme that I hope to lay before Parliament before we rise for the Christmas recess, superseding the current scheme, will have been the product of many months—indeed, years—of protracted discussions. I know that he disagrees, but I have to say that despite repeated requests, the PCS has been tardy, to say the least, in coming forward with proposals and has, at best, made outline suggestions but never concrete proposals that could have formed the basis of an agreement. The other five unions did, and I am grateful to them for their engagement, which enabled us to forge a new scheme—as I said, we hope to lay it before Parliament next week—that will provide a fair balance between the interests of taxpayers and the interests of civil servants and protect those approaching retirement and the lowest paid.

[John McDonnell]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Let me quote to him his statement to the House on 30 October, when he gave a commitment that he would “strain every sinew” to achieve a negotiated settlement. What I am suggesting is that, if he has identified an issue as an impediment to a negotiated settlement, he should now adhere to his commitment to strain every sinew and meet the unions again. It is no use repeating over and over again the fact that five out of six unions have agreed a settlement. They have not. The two unions that represent the vast majority of members have rejected the Minister’s proposals. Surely it behoves him now to go the extra mile and strain that extra sinew to seek a negotiated settlement before he provokes industrial action or legal challenge.

[Mr Maude]

Those are not concerns that have just arisen; they have been there throughout. I have been forthright in ventilating them with the leadership of the PCS and POA, and they know that. We have been clear about the envelope within which it would be possible to make changes because increasing protection for one group can be done only at the expense of other groups. There is no way around that. That is the basis on which we have formulated the new scheme, which I hope to lay before Parliament before the Christmas recess. That is the basis of my case.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

All the Lords amendments to the Bill engage the financial privilege of the House. If they are agreed to, the appropriate record will be made in the Journal of the House.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.

Lords amendments 2 and 3 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.

Clause 3

Final provisions

[Mr Maude]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 4.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this we may take Lords amendments 5 and 6 and amendment (a) thereto.

[Mr Maude]

The amendments respond to concerns raised by Opposition Members on Second Reading in the other place about the potential for the caps in what is now clause 2 to be revived after being put into abeyance, which is what I propose to do next week before the House rises and before the new scheme is laid. The Government also proposed the amendments to respond to the comments about the unusual use of a sunrise provision in clause 3(4)(c) that were made in the third report of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, published on 28 October. My noble Friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire provided a full response to the Committee in his letter of 1 December. We are grateful to the Committee for its report.

The Committee also commented on the other provisions in clause 3 which would enable, by order, the caps included in clause 2 to be repealed and also to be extended by six months at a time. That would override the so-called sunset provision in clause 3(3), which would otherwise mean that the caps on civil service compensation provided in clause 2 would expire automatically after 12 months. The Committee said that “these arrangements are complex”, but added that the two delegated powers

“do not appear to the Committee to be inappropriate”.

However, the Committee was not so persuaded of the need for the power in clause 3 to revive the caps in clause 2, that being an unlimited power that would have been available to any future Government in circumstances that we cannot predict today. The amendments respond to that point. The Government accept that there should not be an unlimited power to revive clause 2. Lords amendment 6 therefore provides for subsection 3(4)(c) itself to expire three years after Royal Assent, which is in effect a sunset of the sunrise provision. I can see why some people might say that that was a bit complex, but I think that, when fully parsed, it makes perfectly good sense.

The sunset of the power to revive clause 2 would mean that it would be there, as the Government intend, as a fallback to revive the caps in clause 2, just in case they were needed because of future problems in implementing the new civil service compensation scheme. However, the introduction of the three-year time limit should provide a reassurance that the power to revive clause 2 would not be available indefinitely to future Governments.

The caps are there as a potential fall-back so that we can be certain—as both the last Government and we have wanted to be—that we can reform the civil service compensation scheme. We have an absolute obligation, in the public interest, to address the unfair and unaffordable nature of the current scheme, and we need to ensure that if a legal challenge is mounted to our revised scheme—and it has been suggested that that may well happen—there is a fall-back option, albeit one that we have absolutely no desire to use. We do not expect or intend to use the powers to impose the caps in clause 2; what we want is to see in operation as quickly as possible is the reformed civil service compensation scheme. We are determined that, if all else fails, there will be a fall-back position so that we are not left high and dry—as the last Government were—because of a legal challenge to the details of the new scheme.

Before the new scheme is laid before Parliament, I intend an order to be made under clause 3(4)(a) to repeal the caps in clause 2 in relation to any new scheme. We intend the order to include a saving provision so that the caps could be applied if, and only if, the old unreformed scheme had to be reintroduced. The saving provision would allow that to happen automatically, without the need to use the revival power by order under clause 3(4)(c). I should make it clear that this saving provision would apply only if there were an attempt to revert to the old scheme. An order under clause 3(4)(c) would be required, subject to the affirmative procedure, if it were ever proposed to revive the caps in clause 2 and to impose them over the new civil service compensation scheme that will be put in place following the completion of this Bill’s passage.

Finally, unless further extended by order under clause 3(4)(b), clause 2 in its entirety—including the saving provision—will expire 12 months after Royal Assent. From that point on, any revival of the caps would have to use the order-making power in clause 3(4)(c), which, because of these Lords amendments, will be available only within three years of Royal Assent. I very much hope that by then the new civil service compensation scheme will be in place and be operating satisfactorily for all concerned—civil servants, departmental employers and the civil service trade unions—and that the taxpayers’ interests and the proper interests of civil servants will be being met. Amendments 4 and 5 are consequential on amendment 6.

[John McDonnell]

The House needs to be aware of what this measure actually means, and I make it clear that I will press my amendment to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman will be able to move his amendment formally later.

[John McDonnell]

Thank you very much for that advice, Mr Deputy Speaker. I get confused when we are talking about sunset and sunrise clauses.

Let me explain what this measure means. Despite all we have heard today from the Government about their willingness to achieve a negotiated settlement on a new compensation scheme and their wish to ensure that all the trade unions are signed up to it and that it is acceptable both to members of those unions and to people not in those unions, the fact is that they will retain the power, over a three-year period, to impose the caps set out in the Bill.

We should remind ourselves of what those caps are: for a compulsory redundancy, an amount equal to a person’s earnings for 12 months, and that amount for 15 months for a voluntary severance. We heard in evidence in Committee—this has been repeated in the Chamber time and again—that that will mean a cut of up to two thirds in the redundancy payments of many civil servants; 60% to 70% was the figure cited by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Any Government will have the power to impose those caps at a later date, and to impose that level of penalty on civil servants who are made redundant.

If the Government are confident of being able to negotiate an agreed solution under the new scheme in this coming period, why do they need the right, over a three-year period, to impose these caps unilaterally? I still think that if they sought to do that, it would be subject to a legal challenge, but why would a Government seek to retain that power if they were entering into negotiations with good will, genuinely seeking an agreement, and taking every reasonable step to secure one?

My amendment simply seeks to reduce the period to 12 months, as an act of good will on behalf of this House in respect of its employees in the civil service. I believe the Government have set the period at three years because they want to maintain their original purpose for the Bill, as previously described: to use it as a blunt instrument to bludgeon the unions into submission so they agree to the Government’s proposals. That is unacceptable. I also think this will be another factor that leads to people rejecting the overall scheme in the ballots that are currently taking place, and instead moving on to take action to stop the scheme being imposed upon themselves and their fellow trade union members.

I urge the Government to think again, as 12 months should give them sufficient time to negotiate and introduce a new scheme, and to introduce any reforms or amendments that might be needed to hone it to make it more workable if there were any problems with its implementation. It is unacceptable for the Government to have the threat of this blunt instrument to hold over civil servants for three years. Introducing this measure would be another contributory factor to the deterioration in the relationship between the Government and their staff, who are meant to implement, with high morale, the policies they introduce.

17:45

[John Hemming]

As someone who interests himself in procedural issues, perhaps I could think of the clause as being more like a supernova clause after which the sun will not rise again. Not being a Government Minister, I have the advantage of having no confidential knowledge whatever of the Government’s strategy. The interests of judicial review are relevant given that one would expect a judicial review when the order for the new scheme is laid, as it would be laid under the Bill relatively soon. In those circumstances, the Government will not want to take a completely new piece of legislation through the House because of a judicial review. It is possible to accelerate the proceedings of a judicial review, and the courts would probably look on such an approach favourably given the situation for the country and the importance of having legal certainty, but it is quite important to have the facility to deal with such a situation if it arises. However, I support the idea of having a supernova clause because there is a point at which the sun need not rise again.

[Mr Byrne]

I want to speak briefly about Lords amendments 4, 5 and 6, as well as amendment (a), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). During proceedings on the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) has consistently raised concerns about the arbitrary caps that the Government introduced at the start of this process, which now form the body of clause 2. I confess that we are still not clear about why the caps are still in the Bill given that clause 1, which was newly introduced on Report, effectively gives the Government the power to impose any settlement after the consultations that we discussed earlier have been completed. We heard, in the Minister’s helpful update to the House, that there is a degree of agreement with at least some of the trade unions, which the Government have declared will supersede the terms in the Bill. Why then do they not seek to introduce a sharp instrument containing the specific terms they have agreed with the trade unions, rather than the blunt instrument containing general powers that is the Bill before us?

We are pleased that the Minister has given a clear commitment, in a letter to right hon. and hon. Members, that it is his ambition to

“repeal the caps in clause 3 insofar as they could impact on the new civil service compensation scheme”.

His letter also says that if the caps were ever revived he

“would table an order…so as to increase the caps to such a level that would…reflect what would otherwise apply under the new scheme.”

Most of us will welcome that good progress.

In earlier debates, we raised concerns that the Bill would allow the revival of caps at any time in the future even after a negotiated settlement was in place. We fear that the relevant measure, which the Government call a sunrise clause, would put an undesirable amount of power in their hands during negotiations, as they could simply threaten to revive statutory powers whenever they ran into any dispute on any matter, not just issues of redundancy. Given that it would allow the Government to resurrect the terms of a long-dead provision, it is not so much a sunrise clause as a zombie clause, which would live on for ever. Whatever we call it, the measure is entirely without precedent in a Bill of this nature. Indeed, the only recorded precedent of such a measure is in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.

We are pleased that there will be a limit of three years on the caps if they are revived, and that the Government cannot extend that period. Given what the Minister has said this afternoon, however, I do not see how he can argue that the correct balance of time and the correct limit to any revived power should be three years. The whole House will welcome what the Minister said this afternoon about his ambition that the revival of the caps should never be triggered. If that is true—and I am prepared to accept that it is—I do not see why he cannot accept the very sensible amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. Although we are happy to accept amendments from the Lords, we shall support amendment (a).

[Mr Maude]

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) asked why we needed to keep the caps at all. The answer is simple. The caps will be established in primary legislation, but the new civil service compensation scheme, which I hope to lay before Parliament next week, before the House rises, does not have the full force of primary legislation, despite the changes to the Superannuation Act 1972 made by clause 1.

I shall be frank. We want to avoid being in the position that followed the High Court judgment in May this year, which resulted in the previous Government’s February scheme being quashed. The effect of the scheme being quashed is that the existing scheme remains unreformed and in force. Indeed, the old scheme—unaffordable, unsustainable and unreconstructed—is in force today. Of course, in preparing the new scheme we were at some pains to ensure that it would be legally robust, and we shall vigorously defend any legal challenge to it. However, as was apparent from the litigation against the previous Administration’s scheme, there can never be guarantees in litigation. Even litigation that is destined ultimately to fail can be disruptive, because of the uncertainty it causes until the case is concluded.

[John McDonnell]

Could we clarify what the Minister has just said? Is the provision he supports simply a device to be used to prevent UK courts from quashing the Government’s proposals?

[Mr Maude]

I shall be clear: both sides of the House have accepted that the current scheme is unsustainable and needs to be reformed. With the possible exception of the hon. Gentleman, everyone—and certainly Opposition Front Benchers—has accepted that it is unacceptable for it to be possible for a union, or two unions, to veto reform of the scheme. It must be possible for the Government and Parliament to effect reform of the civil service compensation scheme. If there is a successful legal challenge to a new civil service compensation scheme—unlikely though that may seem—we cannot have the position where the old scheme trundles on in its unsustainable, unaffordable and unfair form. That is why there must be a fall-back position for a limited period. We have listened to the arguments and we have accepted that it will be a limited period, so that caps on the use of the old scheme will be in existence, should the new scheme be quashed as the previous Government’s scheme was, by order of the High Court.

What is the right period for the power to revive the caps? Is it one year, three years, five years or 10 years? There is no precise science, because no one knows how long the period is beyond which we could be sure that a successful legal challenge would not be raised. It is our judgment that three years is the right period. That is the view that we have taken. That is why we urged the Lords to agree, and I urge the House to accept that view today. We would thus be agreeing with the Lords in their amendments, and disagreeing with the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington.

Lords amendment 4 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.

Lords amendment 5 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.

Amendment (a) proposed to Lords amendment 6.—(John McDonnell.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

17:55

Division 155

Ayes: 225

---

Labour: 213
Scottish National Party: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Liberal Democrat: 2
Independent: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 313

---

Conservative: 264
Liberal Democrat: 49

Lords amendment 6 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.

Lords amendment 7 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.

Terrorist Asset-freezing etc. bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)

Ordered,

That the Order of 15 November 2010 (Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [Lords] (Programme)) be varied as follows:

1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.

2. Proceedings on consideration and on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.—(Mr Hoban.)

Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [Lords]

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

Clause 2

Treasury’s power to make final designation

18:11

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 2, page 2, line 1, after ‘believe’, insert

‘on the balance of probabilities’.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, page 2, line 27, clause 3, at end insert—

‘(aa) explain, as fully as possible consistent with the public interest in non-disclosure, the reasons why they are satisfied that the conditions in section 2(1) are satisfied.’.

Amendment 5, page 13, line 41, clause 28, at end add—

‘(5) In section 67(3) of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (Rules of court about disclosure)—

(a) in paragraph (c) after “that”, insert “subject to paragraph (ca) below”; and

(b) after paragraph (c) insert—

“(ca) that in relation to a final designation, the material disclosed by the Treasury on which they rely is sufficient to enable each designated person to give effective instructions to a person appointed as a special advocate to represent that party’s interests;”.’.

Amendment 11, page 29, line 28, schedule 1, at end insert—

(fa) leave out rule 79.2.’.

[Dr Huppert]

I am delighted to move amendment 2, and to speak to amendments 3, 5 and 11, which are also in my name. They reflect recommendations from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and Members might wish to see its more detailed report if they have not done so already. The amendments are all about ensuring proportionality and a fair hearing.

We should clearly be able to restrict funds that help terrorists in their activities, but people who are accused of such activities should not automatically lose their regular status in this country. We have a great principle in this country whereby a person is innocent until proven guilty; it is a great British tradition and one that we should support. We should also accept, however, that errors are made in legal processes, by the court and by Governments, and that is why we should have principles of fair hearing and high thresholds before we take state action.

Amendment 2 is about errors and the thresholds that we require. How can we be sure that the courts or the Treasury are making the right decision? How much error is acceptable? Various thresholds are already used for various decisions. We have the threshold of beyond reasonable doubt, which roughly equates to our saying that we do not accept even a 1% error—to the extent that we can attach numbers to it. Then, we have the civil standard, or the balance of probabilities, whereby we want to be sure that we are probably right. We want at least a 50:50 chance—in other words, with the balance of probabilities, we say that we want to be wrong less than half the time; we want to be probably sure that we are right.

If we go any lower with a threshold, we take steps—we punish people—when we say that we believe that they were probably not involved in the given situation. That is the consequence of a threshold below the balance of probabilities. None of us wants that, and none of us wants to take steps against people when we think that they were probably not involved in the first place.

I accept the principle of a lower threshold for interim designations. It is more akin to arrest, which takes place at a much lower threshold, but that is not the same as the permanent designation. I strongly urge the Government to reconsider their proposal. They should consider taking such steps against people only when the Treasury believes that they were probably involved, rather than on the basis of anything lower.

Amendment 3 is a simple requirement. A fair hearing must mean knowing the accusations—the reasons why the Treasury believes that somebody has been involved in funding terrorist activities. The amendment includes an important safeguard for public interest in non-disclosure, so damaging information would not come out, only that which we could afford to release. Again, I should have thought that we all agree with such a position.

During the Bill’s passage, the Government have said that, effectively, the amendment’s intention will be achieved but they do not want to see it in legislation. I am always concerned, however, about the principle that we should not write things into legislation but trust in the benevolence of Governments—this or any future Government. If the Minister will not accept the amendment, will he clearly commit to disclose such reasons subject to the public interest requirement, as the amendment says—even if that takes place in a non-legislative way?

Amendments 5 and 11 deal with the hearing itself. Section 67(3)(c) of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 puts a heavy weight on the principle of non-disclosure. Although that is an important principle, we must counter it with the principle of a fair hearing. Currently, the balance goes far too far in the direction of non-disclosure.

In the case of AF, it was held that similar rules are not appropriate to control orders, so I find it hard to see why the courts will not in time hold the same principle on terrorist asset freezing. There are more details on that reasoning in the Joint Committee’s report. The courts have yet to take such a decision, but surely as a principle it would be better not to go through costly legal action, but to save time by making the changes now.

There is a review of the use of sensitive material in judicial proceedings, and I welcome the fact that there will be a consistent approach. If the Minister will not agree to including such safeguards in the Bill, will he commit to the Bill being updated when the review is complete in order to reflect that consistent approach and to introduce a better system throughout those areas? I shall listen carefully to the Minister’s comments on all those suggestions, and I hope he takes on board what has been said.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) for introducing the amendments, which represent important issues that the Joint Committee on Human Rights considered. However, the Opposition believe that the test of reasonable belief is appropriate to the circumstances covered by the Bill. Indeed, I said so in Committee.

The tests for the asset-freezing regime are strict. In clause 2(1)(a)(i) to (iii), the Treasury has to consider real issues about the involvement of individuals in terrorist activity before such powers can be invoked. Those considerations are:

“(i) that the person is or has been involved in terrorist activity,

(ii) that the person is owned or controlled directly or indirectly by a person within sub-paragraph (i), or

(iii) that the person is acting on behalf of or at the direction of a person within sub-paragraph (i)”.

If we changed from reasonable belief to a situation in which the Treasury had to satisfy the balance of probabilities, as the amendment proposes, we would water down the ability of the Treasury and, therefore, the Government to take early action on the use of resources to finance terrorist activity in relation to the items detailed in clause 2. The asset-freezing regime must be preventive to be effective. One must be able to use it at an early stage to disrupt and prevent terrorist acts, and a threshold of a balance of probabilities would not enable the Government to act when action is needed.

The balance of probabilities test is applied by the courts in the context of civil proceedings and requires one party to demonstrate to the court that it is more likely than not that a particular fact is true. If that test were applied to asset freezing, it would require the Treasury and, indeed, the Minister to be satisfied and able to demonstrate to a court that a person is more likely than not to be, or to have been, involved in terrorism. That is too high a burden at the moment, because the burden of proof would rest with the Treasury.

If the Treasury brings forward proposals under this legislation in due course, I rest assured that it will have had solid grounds, from the intelligence and information provided to it, for doing so. If the picture were unclear, and an equally plausible argument could be made for an individual not being involved in terrorism, the Treasury would not be able to impose an asset freeze. That might put the constituents of Cambridge and, in my case, north Wales, or any constituent in the country, at risk of terrorist attack.

[Dr Huppert]

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows of the existing power for an interim designation. It has a much lower threshold, so in emergency cases, such as those that he mentions, there would be no problem and we would be safe. I am delighted that he cares about the people of Cambridge so much, but the amendments are about longer-term designations.

[Mr Hanson]

Indeed, but I speak as somebody who in the previous Parliament was the Minister responsible for terrorist issues and policing. Those are serious matters, and the Government need to take action on them. There is always a balance to be struck between the civil liberties of individuals and the civil liberty of ordinary people to live their lives in peace without the threat of terrorist activity. On balance, my judgement is that we need to support the Government’s proposals in the Bill, which initially had its genesis in the previous Government, so that all measures are taken to ensure that the asset freeze can take place and action can be taken accordingly.

I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Cambridge; they are valid and should be explored. However, in clause 26 there is a right of appeal for designation both at an interim and final stage. If an individual feels aggrieved, he can undertake to exercise that right of appeal. However, very few people will do so if the Bill becomes law, because the Treasury will have taken steps to ensure that those individuals are rightly in the frame, for the reasons that the asset regime has been introduced, and I trust the Treasury to take those actions; that is not something we say all the time but, on this occasion, I have done so.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels that he has raised the issues of concern. I am sure that the Minister will give, almost word for word, the exact response that I would give. I am happy to talk about the amendments in more detail, but my message to the hon. Member for Cambridge is clear: in the event of him pushing the matter to a vote, he will find not just the Financial Secretary against him, but the shadow Minister.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

I shall respond to each of the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). I welcome the approach adopted by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who speaks with some authority on these matters, having dealt with them in government. Looking around the Chamber, he is probably the Member with the most experience of tackling these issues. The amendments were considered in Committee. They were tabled by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), and I made the same comments in response to them then as I do today. He sought to withdraw them in Committee and I hope that the hon. Member for Cambridge will do the same today.

As I said in Committee, amendment 2 would change the threshold for the making of a final designation from the Treasury from reasonably believing a person is or has been involved in terrorism, to needing to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities. As I emphasised on Second Reading and in Committee, the asset-freezing regime needs to be preventive to fulfil our UN Security Council obligations and to meet our national security needs. In other words, it must be capable of being used at an early stage to disrupt and prevent terrorist acts.

In our view, a threshold on the balance of probabilities would not enable us to act when needed. The balance of probabilities test is applied by courts in the context of civil proceedings and requires one party to demonstrate to the court that it is more likely than not that a particular fact is true. If that test were applied to asset freezing, it would require the Treasury to be satisfied and to be able to demonstrate to a court that a person is more likely than not to be or to have been involved in terrorism.

That may sound reasonable but—to echo the words of the right hon. Member for Delyn—it is, in fact, a high burden. The fact that the burden of proof would rest with the Treasury means, for example, that if the picture were unclear and an equally plausible argument could be made that an individual was or was not involved in terrorism, the Treasury would be unable to impose an asset freeze. The serious threat posed by terrorism means that in such cases where the reasonable belief standard is met, the Treasury should be able to freeze assets on a preventive basis to protect the public. The alternative is to hold back until further evidence is accumulated. However, that runs the risk of an individual being able to carry out a terrorist act without preventive action being taken.

I hope that the hon. Member for Cambridge bears it in mind that—as eminent judges such as Lord Justice Laws and Lord Rodgers have remarked—we need to be mindful of the fact that material available to the authorities about terrorist plots may be fragmentary and incomplete. The picture may not be complete for good reasons, but that does not mean that the material is wrong. Such a situation simply reflects a number of real-world facts about terrorism: that intelligence has to be gathered covertly; that terrorists take considerable steps to disguise their activities; and that the need to protect the public sometimes means that plots have to be disrupted at an early stage, rather than allowed to run on further to accumulate more evidence. For those reasons, moving to a balance of probabilities test would have significant risks for our national security.

I also explained in Committee that a balance of probabilities test would be out of line with international best practice. The Financial Action Task Force makes it clear in its guidance on terrorist asset freezing that a legal threshold of reasonable suspicion or reasonable belief should be used. We are not aware of any other country that uses a balance of probabilities test to freeze terrorist assets in accordance with UN Security Council resolution 1373. As I set out on Second Reading and in Committee, for those reasons we remain convinced that a reasonable belief test is the right threshold for making a designation and that it strikes the right balance between protecting our national security on the one hand and protecting civil liberties on the other.

[Mr Hanson]

Will the Minister confirm again what I think he said in Committee, which was that whatever the outcome of the review of terrorist legislation—including the review of the case of AF and control orders—the Bill will stand as it is now without amendment in that respect?

[Mr Hoban]

If we assume that the legislation will receive Royal Assent, it will stand. However, clearly, all terrorism legislation is kept under review and it would be wrong to prejudge the outcome of any other court case. We have taken forward the best form of the legislation, which was, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, based on the previous Government’s proposals. The Bill reflects case law as it stands.

Despite the approach we have taken on reasonable belief, the Bill will not result in the Treasury making decisions where it thinks it is more likely than not a person is not involved in terrorism. The point is that the decision maker should believe, from a careful assessment of what may well be a complicated intelligence picture, that a person is involved in terrorism. The threshold of reasonable belief for a decision is one used in many contexts, including in decisions made about terrorism, such as under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and under schedule 7 to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. The courts are then asked on an appeal or review to determine whether there are reasonable grounds for that belief. That is the right test. It provides an assurance that a proper burden is placed on those seeking to impose a designation but, at the same time, it enables action to be taken to protect national security when needed.

Let me move on to amendment 3, which, as the hon. Member for Cambridge pointed out, reflects the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I understand that the amendment would ensure that individuals are sufficiently informed of the reasons for their designation at the point their assets are frozen in order to enable them to mount an effective challenge. As I stated in Committee, the Government do not believe it is necessary to include such an obligation in the Bill because the JCHR’s proposal was intended only to ensure that the Treasury complies with the basic administrative law principle of giving reasons for such decisions. It is the Government’s view that administrative law principles apply regardless of whether a duty is specified in this legislation. Writing such an obligation into the Bill is therefore unnecessary. I think that that was the commitment the hon. Gentleman was seeking.

Amendments 5 and 11 were considered in the other place and in Committee. It is worth reminding the House that the Prime Minister announced in July that the Government will review the whole matter of the use of sensitive material in judicial proceedings and will issue a Green Paper next year. We expect the Green Paper to be published in the summer. The Government do not consider it appropriate to pre-empt it, which we would certainly be doing if we were to accept amendment 5.

Let me consider the amendment in detail. It seeks to create a new subsection within section 67 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, which provides for the content of court rules about disclosure in financial restrictions proceedings and which will apply to court rules made in relation to challenges to decisions under the Bill. The amendment would place a requirement for the court rules, which are to be made initially by the Lord Chancellor for England and Wales and Northern Ireland, to ensure that the Treasury provides sufficient open disclosure to enable the designated person to give effective instructions to the special advocate. That form of words is based on the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case of A, which was applied by the House of Lords in the case of AF and others to the stringent control orders that were before it. The effect of the amendment would therefore be to apply “AF No. 3” principles to challenges to final designations. I reassure the hon. Member for Cambridge that persons designated by the Treasury will have the full protections afforded them under article 6 of the European convention on human rights. Section 67(6) of the 2008 Act states:

“Nothing in this section, or in the rules of court made under it, is to be read as requiring the court to act in a manner inconsistent with article 6 of the Human Rights Convention.”

It is therefore absolutely clear that article 6 rights apply in full to asset freezing.

18:30

However, the Government do not accept that “AF and others” principles automatically apply to asset freezing. The application of this judgment to asset freezing has not yet been determined by the courts. The courts have determined that “AF and others” principles apply to the stringent control orders before them in that case and also to the financial restrictions under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. However, the courts have not determined that “AF and others” principles apply to asset-freezing cases, and it would be wrong to say that legally there is no room for doubt on this.

As I said in Committee, in our view “AF No. 3” principles do not apply to asset freezing because asset freezes are not as significant in their human rights impact as stringent control orders can be, nor are they as wide-ranging in their financial and economic impacts as decisions to impose financial restrictions under the 2008 Act. However, this is something that it is open to the courts to determine if the Government’s position were to be challenged. Should the courts decide that “AF and others” principles apply to asset-freezing cases, any court rules that cut across this will be read down to ensure compatibility with the ruling. It would not be necessary to amend the legislation. I hope that hon. Members agree that it would not be right to prejudge such a determination by the court and require now the disclosure of sensitive information that could damage national security or the detection or prevention of crime. Doing so would clearly not be in the public interest.

Let me return to my point about the Green Paper. It would also be wrong to adopt a piecemeal approach to this important issue. The issue of special advocates and the use of intelligence material clearly cuts across a number of areas. If we try to address these important issues ad hoc in individual pieces of legislation, we risk ending up with different requirements in different pieces of legislation.

[Dr Huppert]

Notwithstanding the answer that the Minister gave to the shadow Minister, if the result of the Green Paper process suggests that we should update the legislation in this respect, will he agree to do so?

[Mr Hoban]

In the context of this amendment, which seeks to affect the court rules, the court rules would be reinterpreted in the light of any action taken forward as a consequence of the Green Paper.

The Green Paper will ensure that such a coherent and consistent approach is taken to the use of sensitive material in judicial proceedings. Its timing should allow for judgment to be handed down in the lead case in relation to whether the judgment in the case of AF and others applies more widely than to stringent control orders—that is, in the employment tribunal case of Tariq. That case will be heard by the Supreme Court in January, and we expect a judgment in the spring.

As I said, it would be wrong to pre-empt the Green Paper. I hope that having heard my arguments, the hon. Gentleman will welcome and support the approach that we are taking and withdraw his amendment.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the Minister for his comments and for the assurances and commitments that he was able to give. I continue to disagree with him about the standard that should be required, and I still find it concerning that we are not moving towards a balance of probabilities. However, I will not press the matter to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 31

Independent review of operation of Part 1

[Mr Hanson]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 15, line 25, leave out ‘a person’ and insert ‘the Independent Reviewer of Terrorist Legislation, as appointed under section 36 of the Terrorism Act 2006.’.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 6, page 15, line 25, at end insert—

‘( ) A person may not be appointed under subsection (1) unless—

(a) the Secretary of State lays a report before both Houses of Parliament which recommends the person and sets out the process by which he was chosen,

(b) a Minister of the Crown tables a motion in both Houses to approve the report laid under this subsection, and appoint the person, and

(c) such a motion is agreed by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.’.

Amendment 7, page 15, line 31, leave out ‘send the Treasury a’.

Amendment 8, page 15, line 32, after ‘report’, insert ‘to Parliament’.

Amendment 9, page 15, line 34, leave out subsection (4).

Amendment 10, page 15, line 37, at end add—

‘( ) Appointment under subsection (1) shall be for a non-renewable term of five years.’.

[Mr Hanson]

We had a good debate on this issue in Committee. It is my contention that if we are to create a post to review the operation of this Bill once it achieves Royal Assent, it makes eminently logical sense for the person who is appointed by the Treasury to review the legislation to be the same person as the one appointed by the Home Office under section 36 of the Terrorism Act 2006 to review terrorist legislation and its impact from the Home Office perspective. As the House will know, Lord Carlile is currently appointed to that position. He is independent of government; he has an office outside the Home Office as well as a secure office in the Home Office; and he provides an independent review of a range of issues, including control orders and other legislation under the 2006 Act. Clause 31 of this Bill allows for an individual to be appointed by the Treasury. In Committee, I tested the Minister on whether he had discussed with the Home Secretary the possibility of appointing the same person under clause 31 to review part 1 of this potential Act as is currently appointed by the Home Office to review legislation under the 2006 Act.

Whatever our agreements in Committee, there is also, I hope, an agreement that we do not want to see duplication of these roles. The role of reviewing whether a designation has been made fairly and is being operated fairly is the same as that of reviewing whether an individual’s control order has been judged and operated fairly. I accept that there are differences, as alluded to by the Minister in Committee, but in broad terms an individual appointed under clause 31 to review part 1 of this potential Act will be dealing with similar issues and similar evidence—sometimes evidence supplied by agencies within government—and undertaking similar assessments of the effectiveness and fairness of the operation of the legislation.

The current reviewer, Lord Carlile, will finish his tenure in that role very shortly. Mr David Anderson QC will be the new independent reviewer of terrorism legislation from, I think, 1 January next year. He has expertise in the European Union, in public law and in human rights. He is a Queen’s counsel of more than 10 years’ standing, and he is a recorder and a visiting professor at King’s college London. The skills that are required to review control orders under the 2006 Act are, in my view, the same as those required to review the provisions in this Bill. I am making this proposal because there could be synergy between the two posts.

I am equally interested—I know that the Minister will have a wry smile at this—in the costings and the operation of the parallel regimes in the event of the Minister appointing somebody different to review the provisions of this Bill when enacted. The Home Office supplies the reviewer with administrative facilities, office support and research support as needed. He has an independent private office in central London as well as secure rooms in the Home Office that he uses to deal with information to help him in his task. I question the need to establish a parallel regime with a separate person being appointed through a separate recruitment procedure and having separate offices inside and outside the Treasury, given that very often, and potentially even more so in this current age, the individual may be reviewing activities that impact on the same small group of people who are seeking to do harm to our citizens in the United Kingdom as a whole.

I would welcome an update from the Minister on my suggestion and on whether he has had an opportunity to talk to the Home Secretary about this matter. Has the Minister had an opportunity to consider whether the person who will be appointed under clause 31 should be the same person who is appointed by the Government to review Home Office legislation under the 2006 Act?

My amendment has been unduly twinned with the rest of the amendments in the group, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). They relate to the method for appointing the reviewer—whether they are appointed as under my proposal or as under the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has again drawn on the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights in proposing that the House of Commons should ultimately be the appointing body for the independent reviewer.

Unusually, I think that I will find myself agreeing with the Minister. Whatever my views on a range of issues, I cannot accept amendment 6, because the post of the independent reviewer must ultimately be a Government appointment. It reports to and supplies information to Ministers, and it is ultimately funded by the Government to provide that information. It is crucial, however, that the post is independent of Ministers. It reports to them, provides them with information and is funded by them, but it ultimately acts independently of them. It advises them and can cause difficult issues for them, because of its independence. If the post was appointed and supported by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament, it would be in a very different position from an independent reviewer of legislation.

Lord Carlile was independent. Never once did he ask me for information that he could not access appropriately. Never once was he compromised by Ministers, of whatever hue, in relation to his jurisdiction and duties. He has provided a fair assessment of the operation of the legislation to date.

I hope that the Minister reflects positively on amendment 1. I suspect that he will not support amendments 6 to 10, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge, because the independence of the post is crucial. If we tie it to the Minister or to the House of Commons, we will betray that independence and do a disservice to the role. If the Minister cannot give me good news on amendment 1, I hope that he can encourage me generally on the appointment. I look forward, also, to hearing the hon. Member for Cambridge speak to his amendments.

[Dr Huppert]

I will speak briefly to amendments 6 to 10, which come from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I am privileged to serve. I agree with the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) that the key issue is the independence of the reviewer. The amendments seek to strengthen that independence, by ensuring that the reviewer is a creature not of Government, but of Parliament. Being nominated by Government and approved by Parliament would give the reviewer greater independence.

There is also a question of accountability. Who should hold accountability on behalf of the British public—Parliament or Government? Should the reviewer’s report go directly to Parliament, or should there be the potential for it to be filtered by Government? Although I accept that that does not generally happen, there is the potential for it to happen.

[Mr Hanson]

I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider that Ministers are accountable to Parliament. I rose because of his use of the word filter. When I was the Minister with responsibility for policing and terrorism, not once did I change a single word of a reviewer’s report to Parliament, even though such reports were produced ultimately by Ministers for this House. I do not expect that any other Minister would do so, because the independent reviewer would make a play of it and the relationship would be devalued tremendously.

[Dr Huppert]

Indeed, I was saying that I did not believe that that had ever happened, and I am grateful for the assurance that it never has. That shows exactly why amendment 6 makes sense. If no Minister would ever filter such reports, there should be no requirement for them to go through Ministers. That creates a potential filter that we hope will never be used. I hope that the Government simply agree with my position, so I will not labour the point. However, I doubt that the Minister will say that he agrees.

I will raise something that I mentioned on Second Reading, which might provide a compromise. As the Minister is aware, there is a recent precedent for Select Committees to approve independent appointments. That happened with the Office for Budget Responsibility and I hope that it will happen with other bodies. Perhaps the Minister will agree that it would be helpful for the reviewer to be confirmed by an appropriate Select Committee in a similar way, to ensure that there is certainty for Parliament as well as Government that the reviewer will perform their role properly and independently.

18:45

[Mr Hoban]

I did not know that we were going to proceed at such a quick pace this evening, although perhaps it is not as quick as you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and other colleagues might have hoped. I hope that we will not detain the House too much longer on the matters before us.

I will deal with amendments 6 to 10 first, before returning to amendment 1. As the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) pointed out, amendment 1 relates to a topic that gave rise to one of the longer debates in Committee.

The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) relate to the appointment of the independent reviewer and the terms by which he will report. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members will be aware that such amendments were debated at length during the Bill’s passage in the other place and in Committee. As I said in Committee, the proposals are based on the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 that relate to the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. That provides an effective and suitable model for the statutory independent asset-freezing reviewer.

Amendment 6 would require the independent reviewer to be approved by Parliament. I believe that the intention is to ensure that the reviewer is suitably independent of Government. I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Government are fully committed to the independence of the reviewer. Independent oversight is an essential element of the safeguards that the coalition Government have introduced into the Bill, and it will be the principal objective of any appointment. I will touch on the recruitment process later.

We do not believe that it is necessary for Parliament to approve the independent reviewer. That would be a significant departure from standard practice. The appointment of the reviewer by Government reflects the long-standing principle of ministerial responsibility. It is Ministers who are accountable to Parliament and to the public for the people whom they appoint. Parliament will, of course, be able to scrutinise the work of the reviewer and to hold him or her to account through existing mechanisms—for example, through Select Committee scrutiny.

My hon. Friend proposed the compromise of a requirement that an appropriate Select Committee approve the appointment of the reviewer. The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General is due to meet the Liaison Committee shortly to discuss the pre-appointment hearing process. A decision to add new appointments to the list of posts subject to pre-appointment scrutiny may be announced as a result of that meeting.

Amendments 7, 8 and 9 would replace the independent reviewer’s obligation to report to the Treasury and the Treasury’s obligation to lay that report before Parliament with an obligation for the reviewer to report directly to Parliament. To draw a comparison, all the annual reports and ad hoc reports produced by Lord Carlile, the current independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, have been provided in the first instance to the Home Office to check that they do not inadvertently contain any classified material that cannot be published. Hon. Members will recognise that asset freezing deals with sensitive and classified information. That is why the Government believe that a similar approach is appropriate.

The independent reviewer will have access to all relevant papers and evidence, including highly classified intelligence reports and, on occasion, material that is being considered as part of a separate criminal prosecution. It is important to ensure that published reports do not include classified or sub judice material, and Parliament could not undertake such a check. I reassure my hon. Friend that the Government will not seek to influence the outcome of any report. The reports will be provided to Parliament as quickly as possible after they have been delivered, and they will be available to the public.

Amendment 10 suggests that the appointment of the independent reviewer should be for five years, and that it should not be renewable. We do not believe it necessary or desirable to have a statutory limit on the length of time that a reviewer should remain in post. There might be valid reasons why someone wishes to step down at an earlier stage, but there might also be valid reasons why they wish to occupy the position for a longer period. They will build up significant experience and significant knowledge of how legislation works, and that will be invaluable.

It is important to take the opportunity to learn from the experience of the current reviewer and see how he feels the system should work. In the debate in the other place, Lord Carlile said about appointment procedures:

“As to the way in which the independent reviewer is appointed, I do not have any very strong views. Appointment by a Minister does not make the reviewer any less independent. Many public appointments have sprung surprises on government; for example, chief inspectors of prisons. Independence is in the way the person concerned operates.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 October 2010; Vol. 721, c. 1085.]

I notice that the right hon. Member for Delyn raises his eyebrows at the reference to the chief inspector of prisons—he clearly knows from his own experience how independent such people can be once they are appointed.

On the question of whether submitting reports to the Government, rather than directly to Parliament, would run the risk of reports being altered in any way, Lord Carlile said:

“I cannot imagine any circumstances in which any honourable person appointed to this role would be prepared to change their report at the behest of a Minister or civil servant for political reasons. It has never happened. It did not happen with any of the reviewers before I was appointed, it has not happened during my period of tenure, and I do not think it will happen with any successor I can foresee under the present or changed arrangements.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 October 2010; Vol. 721, c. 1086.]

That reinforces the right hon. Gentleman’s experiences.

It is essential that the independent review of the asset-freezing regime is robust, impartial and transparent, and we are satisfied that the provisions in the Bill regarding the appointment and operation of the reviewer are appropriate to achieve that. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge will not press his amendments.

Amendment 1, tabled by the right hon. Member for Delyn, would, as he said, ensure that whoever fulfilled the role of Home Office independent reviewer of terrorism legislation would also fulfil the role of independent reviewer of asset freezing. I shall provide the House with an update on the Treasury’s position on the appointment of an independent reviewer, but first I wish to set out why we do not support the amendment.

The Government do not accept that the independent reviewer for asset freezing must always be the same person as the Home Office counter-terrorism reviewer. Requiring them to be the same person would unnecessarily reduce flexibility, and could therefore constrain the Government’s ability to appoint the best person to the post. There might be good reasons why, in a particular case, both roles could not be held by the same person. For example, the best qualified person for the job might simply not have the time to carry out both roles to the level required.

We have to remember that both roles are demanding and important. Counter-terrorism legislation is an expansive and complex area, and the issues raised concerning the balance between protecting security and protecting civil liberties are of fundamental importance. Moreover, individuals may well wish to combine their work as independent reviewers with other ongoing professional commitments. That is entirely reasonable, as long as it does not give rise to conflicts of interest. In the light of that, it would be wrong to say that we must only ever appoint somebody who can perform both roles. We need to retain flexibility and always look for the most suitable person to do the job.

We recognise, however, that there are good arguments for combining the two roles where it is possible and desirable to do so. That might produce greater consistency and coherence and better value for money, as the right hon. Member for Delyn said in Committee. As I have said, however, we need to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis and not just assume that combining the two roles is the only approach that can work.

I now turn to the current situation. My officials have been in close contact with Home Office and Cabinet Office officials to explore the matter further. There has also been an initial discussion with the incoming counter-terrorism reviewer, David Anderson, to explore whether he would be willing to be considered for the asset freezing reviewer post. Mr Anderson has indicated that he would be willing to take up the post were it to be offered to him, and that neither he nor the Treasury is aware of any impediment to his taking on the role were it to be offered.

At this stage, the Treasury has not made an offer of appointment to the role, and in our view it would be premature to do so. After all, the Bill is not yet law and the post does not yet exist. However, I reassure the House that the Treasury is considering all the relevant issues, including value for money and the interconnection of the two roles. The process of appointing a reviewer is on track, and the appointment will be made in plenty of time for the reviewer to prepare their first report, which is due nine months after the Bill comes into force. I hope that that update will reassure Members of the progress that the Treasury is making in filling the post, and of its recognition of the points made today about costs and the interconnection of the two roles. On that basis, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be willing to withdraw his amendment.

[Mr Hanson]

I think I will take that as a sort of yes from the Minister about the principle behind the amendment, even though he is not accepting it. I feel reassured by what he has said. He has been very fair in his assessment that there are synergies between the two roles and potential cost savings. An individual could undertake both roles, and from my experience the two posts may be reviewing a similar pool of people. I believe that progress has been made.

The Bill obviously needs Royal Assent very quickly, because of the expiry of the previous legislation. I urge the Minister to ensure that, upon his final approval of a person to review the operation of the Bill, he tables a written ministerial statement. The individual needs to be in post prior to the time set out in clause 31(2) for the production of the first set of reviews, which is nine months after part 1 comes into force. It is important for the House to have feedback on that, and that will keep the House informed, at least in part, of matters related to the other amendments in this group.

I am very pleased to “bag” my amendment. The Minister has made his case and come as near as he can to saying what will happen. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Third Reading

18:58

[Mr Hoban]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I start by thanking right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the House for their participation on Second Reading, in Committee and now on Report, and for helping the Bill reach this stage. It has been given careful scrutiny, even though it has not been the most lengthy scrutiny process. The issues have been dealt with thoroughly both in Committee and on the Floor of the House.

We have considered very closely the civil liberties issues that have been raised in our debates and how best to address them without compromising national security. I am confident that the Bill strikes the right balance between protecting national security and protecting civil liberties, but it is right that we have considered carefully both in Committee and on Report amendments that would strike a different balance.

I am grateful for the Opposition’s constructive approach. The Bill’s genesis was legislation that they developed in the previous Parliament. We have taken that legislation forward and, I think, improved it by introducing additional safeguards to protect fundamental freedoms.

The Opposition could have extended the debate on these changes, had they so wished, but they did not do so. I recognise that the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) brought his experience to our debates. That helped to enlighten the scrutiny process. It is right that where there is agreement between Government and Opposition, we should make it clear that that is the case and co-operate in the national interest, in the same way as, when we were in opposition and faced with the Supreme Court judgment that triggered the Bill, we worked with the then Government to ensure that the temporary legislation reached the statute book quickly to maintain the security of our nation.

I think that we all recognise that the Bill is necessary to the United Kingdom’s continued national security. We have seen again with the events in Sweden at the weekend the threat posed by international terrorism. The Government must have the right tools to combat terrorism in the UK and overseas, and among those tools must be options to act preventively and to be able to disrupt terrorist plots in their planning stages. It is worth bearing in mind that the Bill covers assets in the UK but might relate to parties overseas. The most recent set of figures that I have shows that of the 57 freezing cases covered by this Bill, 25 of those involved are resident in the UK and the remainder are resident overseas. The most durable freezing orders are those that relate to people outside the UK. Of the 46 cases that are more than four years old, 31 relate to cases outside the UK. It is important to bear in mind that we must have the tools to combat terrorism wherever it happens.

One of the most effective ways of limiting terrorists’ actions is to limit their ability to finance attacks, maintain their infrastructure, provide training, equipment and recruitment, and promote their message of hate. The UK’s terrorist asset-freezing regime is an important and valuable tool. That is why there was cross-party support for the emergency legislation earlier this year and why I hope the House will unite behind the legislation today.

Let me reiterate some of the changes that have been made to make the Bill stronger and better. The Bill introduced in the other place was a significant improvement on the current regime. It included more targeted prohibitions to limit the impact of asset freezing on innocent third parties; a provision to ensure that, in accordance with a ruling in the European Court of Justice, the regime did not catch the payment of state benefits to the spouses or partners of designated persons and so did not have the draconian impact on family life that the Supreme Court was concerned about; and the establishment of an independent reviewer—something we talked about today and in Committee—to ensure that there is proper independent scrutiny of the asset-freezing regime.

Further safeguards were introduced by Members in the other place to raise the legal test for freezing assets for more than 30 days from reasonable suspicion to reasonable belief and to strengthen judicial oversight by ensuring that there is a full merits-based review of designation decisions. Combined, those important new safeguards will serve to make the asset-freezing regime significantly more proportionate and more transparent in its application, in addition to raising the legal threshold that must be met for a freeze to be imposed. However, I also believe that they are changes that will not undermine the effectiveness of the regime or risk the UK’s continued compliance with international best practice. I welcome the endorsement that many Members have given the changes, both in this House and the other place.

In summary, I believe that the Bill we are considering for the final time today strikes the right balance between protecting public safety and protecting civil liberties, and that the balance we have struck commands widespread and cross-party consensus in Parliament. The Bill will put the UK’s terrorist asset-freezing regime on a secure legislative footing and significantly improve it. We have made excellent progress against a tight deadline, and I am pleased to be able to commend the Bill to the House.

19:04

[Mr Hanson]

I simply want to say on behalf of the official Opposition that we welcome the Bill, which, as the Minister has said, had its genesis with the previous Government. Previous Treasury Ministers have worked with officials to develop a regime that is, in my view, about protecting civil liberties. We hear a lot about civil liberties in these debates, and the Bill is about protecting those liberties and protecting individuals’ rights to live their lives without fear of terrorist attack. The terrorist asset-freezing regime that is in place and that will be in place once the Bill receives Royal Assent will help to develop still further the protections to ensure that those who wish to do harm to our society do not use such resources to do that harm.

The Bill has obviously been subject to great and detailed scrutiny, not just here but in the other place. It has also been scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. As a House, we have considered the arguments put to us about several issues and we have ultimately decided that they do not hold merit. That is an important part of the process. The Bill leaves us with the full support of the Opposition. It will, I hope, provide greater safety for our community and help to ensure that we take action against those who use finance to undertake terrorist acts.

I am pleased that the Minister has given a strong indication that he will consider seriously the two roles of the reviewer. One is set out in clause 31 and the other—the reviewer of terrorist activity, who will soon be David Anderson, QC—is set out in previous legislation. There is merit in that synergy. Having heard what the Minister has said today, I wish the Bill well and the Opposition support it.

19:06

[Dr Huppert]

I have spoken on a number of issues already, so I shall be brief. I agree with the general sentiment that we must prevent terrorist activity and the funding that supports it. I would rather that we had seen a court-based system that was fair and safeguarded civil liberties in the ways that I tried to draw out, but I accept that that is not what we have. The system that I would like to see would provide the national security that we need while protecting the civil liberties that we deserve, but I accept that that is not the settled will of the House.

There is still one issue of detail that I would like to explore. Clause 25(1) contains the fascinating phrase:

“Nothing done under this Chapter is to be treated as a breach of any restriction imposed by statute or otherwise.”

Let me give the Minister a further chance to comment. Could he perhaps reassure me that that phrase is not intended to mean that the Human Rights Act 1998 and common law rights would not apply? That is one possible reading of it. I believe that that is not the intended meaning, so can he assure me that the Human Rights Act and common law will remain sovereign? If he wants to say that, I shall be delighted to let him intervene.

In the meantime, while the Minister reads the clause, let me reflect on what the Bill does. It is interesting to consider the scale of the problem. There was a statement from the Minister on 23 November about how many accounts had been frozen—a total of 205 accounts as of 30 September, containing less than £290,000. Although terrorist activities can be carried out on relatively small sums of money, we should be clear with ourselves and with the public about the amounts that are involved. Of that £290,000, only £140,000 would be covered by the Bill, as it was covered by the predecessor legislation. That is a relatively small amount although it can, of course, have a large effect.

The Bill is not as good as it could be and that is a shame, but it is a lot better than its predecessors. I welcome that fact and the effort that the Government have made to accept amendments in the other place, if not here. I am happy to see it pass its Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The House was due to have the opportunity to discuss the Lords amendment to the Identity Documents Bill, but I understand that Mr Speaker will not allow that to happen because of the lack of a money resolution. Will we have any opportunity to debate what the Lords have said about the fairness of ensuring that those people who bought identity cards can have some compensation?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order, of which he gave me short advance notice. As will become apparent from what I am about to say, the next bit of business will give him his answer.

Identity Documents Bill

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendment

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in the Lords amendment. Having given careful consideration to the amendment, Mr Speaker is satisfied that it would impose a charge on the public revenue that is not authorised by a resolution of this House. The amendment is therefore deemed to be disagreed to, and is not available for debate, in accordance with Standing Order No. 78(3).

Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment;

That Damian Green, James Duddridge, Mr Gerry Sutcliffe, Mark Tami and Dr Julian Huppert be members of the Committee;

That Damian Green be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(James Duddridge.)

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Business Without Debate

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

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

Road Traffic

That the draft Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Appropriate Amount) (Amendment) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 15 November, be approved.—(Mr Vara.)

Question agreed to.

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

Excise

That the Tobacco Products (Descriptions of Products) (Amendment) Order 2010, (S.I., 2010, No. 2852), dated 29 November 2010, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30 November, be approved.—(Mr Vara.)

Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Corporate Governance in Financial Institutions and Remuneration Policies

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 10823/10 and Addendum 1 relating to a Green Paper on corporate governance in financial institutions and remuneration policies; and supports the Government’s approach to work closely with the European Commission to deliver a strong, principles-based framework for financial sector corporate governance.—(Mr Vara.)

19:12

Division 156

Ayes: 281

---

Conservative: 236
Liberal Democrat: 45

Noes: 195

---

Labour: 183
Scottish National Party: 5
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Conservative: 1
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1

Pension Funds

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Commons Chamber

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

19:25

[Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)]

Somewhat earlier than I anticipated, I rise to make a few comments about the operation of pension funds and their transparency.

Everyone knows that the world of pensions is changing fast. With the decline of defined benefit schemes and the shift to defined contribution, pension savers are shouldering more and more of the investment risk to their savings, and with the advent of auto-enrolment in 2012, even more people’s future well-being will be bound up with the capital markets through their pension funds. These trends make greater transparency of pension fund investments an urgent imperative for three reasons. First, if ordinary savers are bearing the risk to their investments, it is only right that they should be in a position to scrutinise how their agents are managing those risks. If we expect individuals to take more responsibility for providing for themselves in old age, they should at least be given the tools to hold accountable those on whom their retirement security depends.

Secondly, the huge—and hugely profitable—industry charged with looking after people’s savings has an extremely poor record. In recent decades, we have seen the growth of an enormous cadre of agents and intermediaries who extract huge fees at the direct expense of ordinary savers at the bottom of the investment chain. For instance, a report published last week by the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce—known as the RSA—found that the total fees charged by pension funds swallow up an astonishing 40% of the end value of the average British pension, which is much more than in our European counterparts. One might at least expect that this is paying for superior skills and therefore higher returns on investment, but pension fund returns are actually declining: between 2000 and 2009, they collapsed to an average of 1.1% per year. Paul Woolley at the London School of Economics has calculated that excessive short-termist trading in shares is likely to erode rather than enhance the long-term value of pension pots. Pension fund investment strategies are a very real issue for any Government who are serious about tackling the looming pensions crisis, which we all acknowledge.

The third reason transparency matters is that pension funds are huge institutional investors with enormous collective influence on the financial markets and the wider economy. If the financial crisis taught us anything, it was the danger of handing over ordinary people’s money to financial institutions and assuming that they will take care of it without the need for further scrutiny. The interests of pension savers are, by definition, long term, yet in the build-up to the financial crisis, many pension funds engaged in the same short-termist strategies and herding behaviour as the rest of the market.

The American academic Keith Johnson has described the influence of these investors as akin to unleashing

“a flock of 900-pound lemmings”

into the economy. There is, therefore, a legitimate public interest in how pension funds behave, including in how they exercise their ownership rights. The financial crisis exposed the dangers of share owners acting like what Lord Myners dubbed “absentee landlords” or, worse still, actively encouraging their investee companies to pursue short-term profit at the expense of the long term. Ultimately, it is millions of ordinary people who provide the capital and suffer the economic consequences when that capital is not used responsibly. The case for greater transparency is compelling.

So what should that mean in practice for the Government? Earlier this year, the Financial Reporting Council published a stewardship code for institutional investors aimed at encouraging responsible ownership. It is far from perfect, but it is a start. In particular, its strong focus on transparency, including transparency in the exercise of voting rights, is welcome. However, there is a danger of the interests of pension savers being forgotten in this process. The code’s provisions on voting disclosure are a tacit recognition that people have the right to know how the voice of shareholders is being used on issues such as executive pay, takeover bids or environmental resolutions. However, the code is largely aimed at asset managers.

Ordinary people cannot be expected to know which asset manager their pension fund uses and proactively to seek out that manager’s disclosures. Improvements in fund manager transparency will give savers the accountability and visibility that they deserve only if pension funds play their part too. Disappointingly, although the FRC has stated that pension funds have an important role to play, the pensions regulator has not yet produced any official guidance for pension funds on how they should apply the stewardship code. The role of pension funds has often been left to the National Association of Pension Funds, which is an industry body—a less-than-ideal situation, I tentatively suggest. Does the Minister agree that it would be appropriate for the pensions regulator to look into the matter? Will he raise it when he next meets the regulator’s newly appointed chair?

Notwithstanding what I have said so far, it is clear that the stewardship code will not be a panacea when it comes to accountability and transparency. FairPensions, the campaign for responsible investment, yesterday published an analysis of fund managers’ performance on transparency, including their reporting under the stewardship code. Although it showed some improvements, almost one in six asset managers surveyed still did not disclose any information about their voting records. One manager justified that by saying that it was up to the clients—that is, the pension funds—to disclose such information. However, recently published guidance from the National Association of Pension Funds makes it clear that it thinks that disclosure is up to the asset manager and is not the pension fund’s responsibility. There is a real danger that such buck passing will result in nobody disclosing and the pension savers at the bottom of the chain remaining in the dark about how their money is being managed.

The Government could avoid that danger by doing two things. First, they could make voting disclosure mandatory for asset managers by exercising their reserve powers under section 1277 of the Companies Act 2006. I understand that this is not within the Minister’s gift, but I hope that it will be considered by his colleague the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, as part of his review of economic short-termism. Secondly, the Government could clarify pension funds’ obligations in this area by amending the regulations, which already require pension funds to disclose their voting policy, to make it clear that they should also disclose information about their voting practices. Alternatively, that could be included in the pensions regulator’s guidance.

I do not believe that either approach would impose an unreasonable burden on pension funds. If their fund managers are already required to report on their exercise of voting rights, it should be sufficient in most cases for pension funds simply to provide a link to that information on their websites. That would be a small matter for the fund in question, but a huge improvement in accountability for the pension saver. It would also make information directly accessible to the pension saver—instead of them being expected to go hunting for it—and would help to embed transparency right down the investment chain. In the US, the duty of disclosure is now a recognised part of pension funds’ fiduciary duties towards their beneficiaries. That is right, and I hope that we can move down that road here.

Those in the investment industry who are unwilling to open themselves up to scrutiny in that way have come up with various arguments over the years to defend their secretive business models. Most such arguments—the idea that such a proposal would be enormously costly, or compromise commercial confidentiality or even damage relationships with the company—have been comprehensively discredited over the years. The latest argument appears to be that it is pointless to require investors to disclose such information because nobody would read it. The Minister should be able to tell us that this argument is nonsense. I understand that in June he received some 1,500 e-mails from supporters of FairPensions asking him to support their right to access such information.

Earlier this year, more than 6,000 people contacted their pension funds to ask how they would be voting on shareholder resolutions about tar sands at BP and Shell’s annual general meetings. As it turned out, those savers’ concerns about the risks of unconventional oil extraction proved well founded, at least in the case of BP. Those pension funds might have found themselves in a better position financially if they had listened to their members a little more. There is clearly a growing movement of people who want to know what is being done with their money—a movement that is being held back by a pervasive lack of transparency and a culture of hostility to the people whose money is at stake having the impertinence to ask questions.

That brings me to the final point that I want to stress. It is vital that any moves towards greater transparency pay enough attention to environmental, social and governance issues—sometimes known as ESG. Survey after survey has shown that savers care about such issues. The rise of socially responsible investment products and the success of campaigns, such as that on the tar sands resolutions, show that people want to act on that concern, but they must be given the information and the tools to do so. The previous Government sought to give them that information some 10 years ago, by introducing regulations requiring pension funds to state the extent to which they take environmental, social and ethical concerns into account in their investment policies.

Since then, the G in ESG—governance—has received a huge amount of attention, after it became obvious that conflicts of interest, excessive pay and poor risk management contributed to the financial crisis. Yet with typical myopia, many investors still neglect the E and S of ESG—the environmental and social. The Deepwater disaster, which forced BP to cancel its dividend for the first time since the second world war, should have been a wake-up call for anyone who still doubted that companies that ignore such issues face serious financial risks. It should also have been a wake-up call for pension funds—for which the BP dividend was a significant source of steady income—to pay attention to such issues as a key part of their fiduciary duty to pension savers, as the legal opinion obtained for the United Nations Environment Programme confirmed some five years ago.

The challenge of climate change makes recognition of that duty even more urgent. Climate change is not only an investment risk, which it clearly is; it also has innumerable ramifications for the retirement security of the next generation of pensioners. A 25-year-old pension saver clearly has a broad interest in ensuring that his or her savings are reducing rather than increasing the risk that they will grow old in a world ravaged by catastrophic climate change.

The Ministers responsible for the 2000 regulations clearly intended to nudge pension funds into taking account of non-financial issues. To some extent they were successful, as the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association noted, in marking the 10th anniversary of the regulations. ESG integration is more mainstream than it was 10 years ago, but there is clearly still a long way to go. It would be wrong to say that the objectives of the 2000 regulations have been achieved. A 2009 United Nations report expressed “disappointment” that investment consultants still advise pension funds to include boilerplate statements on environmental, social and ethical issues that

“meet the letter but not the spirit of the law.”

Members who ask about specific voting decisions are often directed to such generic statements, which are of little or no use to them. Indeed, that is exactly what happened to Members of this House who inquired about their own pension fund’s stance on the tar sands resolutions earlier this year.

Research by FairPensions also suggests that such box ticking is often not accompanied by much substantive action. Its 2009 survey of pension funds showed that almost all had a policy stating that they took non-financial issues into account, but around a third did not integrate the policy into their agreements with fund managers or assess their fund managers’ ability to implement it, nor did they require them to report on its implementation. It is reasonable to ask what those funds were doing to implement their stated policies. It is also reasonable to ask how those policies gave any meaningful insight to the curious member wanting to know what their fund was doing about environmental and social issues. As the UN report concluded,

“the time may have come to review how”

the disclosure regulations’

“effectiveness could be improved with additional reporting and disclosure requirements that will supersede mere ‘tick box’ compliance.”

In other words, perhaps we need a further nudge, some 10 years on from the initial regulations.

I understand that the Minister’s official position is that the existing regulations are adequate, but in a recent parliamentary answer, his colleague Lord Freud confirmed that his Department has made no assessment of how the regulations are operating. Given that so many others who have done such analyses have concluded that change is needed, will the Minister commit to exploring how the situation might be improved? Guidance from the pensions regulator on stewardship could provide an opportunity to clarify what constitutes an adequate policy under the 2000 regulations, encouraging pension funds to go further than boilerplate positions.

Perhaps more importantly, the Government could require pension funds to report on a regular basis on how they were implementing that policy. That could be helpful in focusing minds and ensuring that these policies are not, as one fund manager described them, a “dead document” but a genuine commitment that is given full weight in investment decisions. Again, this is not an unreasonable thing to ask. Pension funds are already required to produce an annual report, including an investment report. Under the stewardship code, it is reasonable to assume that this should include a summary of their stewardship activities during the year. It is also reasonable to assume that the report exists to give pension savers meaningful information with which to judge the fund’s performance. Environmental and social issues should be no exception to this. There is popular demand for such information, and that demand should be met.

I hope I have shown that pension funds’ behaviour as responsible investors, including with regard to environmental and social issues, is neither a trivial sideshow nor an issue that concerns only policy makers dealing with corporate governance or financial services. It has real implications for our ability to meet the challenge of providing a decent pension, and a decent standard of living, for all our citizens across the country.

To recap my questions to the Minister: will he discuss these matters with the pensions regulator? Will he encourage the regulator to produce some guidance? And will he look again at the disclosure regulations and explore ways in which they could be updated or supplemented to ensure that pension savers are getting the levels of transparency that they deserve?

19:41

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) on securing this debate and raising such an important issue for many of our constituents. Pensions are sometimes seen as a bit of a minority sport for anoraks, but the issue of what is happening to our money, and of whether it is being invested well, and in an environmentally and socially beneficial way, matters very broadly, and the more we can do to reduce the barriers that people face in obtaining that information, the better.

As the hon. Gentleman was speaking, I was reflecting on the fact that I bank with Smile, the internet arm of the Co-operative bank. As a member of the Co-operative movement, I periodically receive mailings about ethical investment issues and about the policies of the bank and how they could change. I have some interest in those matters professionally, but even just as a private citizen I find that process quite engaging. The process of raising such issues directly with individuals to enable them to make informed choices without always having to be proactive and to go and dig them out, makes me feel more positive about the institution that I am dealing with.

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise these issues. He mentioned the organisation FairPensions, and I congratulate it on its research, which is often thorough and careful. It is neither broad-brush nor high-level, but it examines the detail of the law and the regulations to determine how things might incrementally be improved. I welcome the fact that he has brought to the House’s attention some of the issues that he and Fair Pensions are concerned about.

I want to respond mainly on the questions of corporate governance and accounting transparency, but I also want to touch briefly on charges. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a figure of 40% of pensions going to pay charges, and that is a figure that we often hear quoted. It is worth correcting the record on what that does and does not refer to. It is certainly not an average or a norm. Someone who pays 1.5% charges through the life of their product might end up losing 40% of the fund on retirement, but there is no reason why anyone with a standard product need pay those charges. The stakeholder cap would start at 1.5% and fall to 1%. The new National Employment Savings Trust—NEST—pension will have an equivalent average management charge of 0.5% a year. Every charge represents a bit coming out of the final return, but people are paying for a service and charges are therefore legitimate provided that they are transparent. It is important not to overstate the extent of charges.

One thing that we hope will happen as a result of introducing the NEST corporation into the market next year, and more fully in the coming years, is that it will have a downward impact on charges across the market. When stakeholder pensions were introduced there was evidence that some charges—which might have been even higher than the figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman—were brought down, and we think that the same will happen again.

That raises the issue of the relevant roles of regulation, on the one hand, and of alternative strategies, on the other. I find a lot of common cause with the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. He is an intelligent and thoughtful contributor to these debates. One of the paradoxes that he raised is illustrated by asking whether further regulation is the solution to regulation that is not achieving what we want it to achieve. Or should we consider better enforcement of existing regulation, or alternative strategies? I suspect that the answer might be a mix of all three. He used powerful terms such as “boilerplate”, “paragraphs”, “dead documents” and “tick-box” mentalities. We do not want to create new tick-boxes. We want to ensure that the spirit of the law and the guidance is adhered to.

The NEST corporation has done some interesting work on attitudes to ethical investment, which is worth sharing with the House. It was actually the predecessor body to NEST, the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority, that conducted some public consultation on how NEST should invest its members’ money. NEST will be a pension fund with the potential to cover millions of people, many of whom will never have had a pension before and who might not be financially sophisticated investors. The target market was asked whether NEST should offer

“an ethical or socially responsible investment fund”.

As the hon. Gentleman might imagine, the research evidence suggests that there was very strong support for NEST offering such a fund, and the corporation is thinking about how it will do that. At the moment, about 40% of defined contribution schemes offer an ethical fund. I appreciate that there is a difference between an ethical fund and transparency in pensions, but there are links between the two.

Back in 2007, my Department looked at the NEST target group, and more than a quarter said that they would invest in an ethical fund regardless of the return. So they thought that they were interested in that idea even if sacrificing a bit of their return was involved. Also, a whisker under half of those surveyed said that they would invest ethically if the returns were equal to other investment types. Perhaps that reinforces the hon. Gentleman’s point that there is a big market out there for such investment funds, and that people are concerned about such things. They might not understand every detail of what is happening to their money or what is going on in the financial markets, but they want to know that their money is, as it were, doing good wherever possible. Some are willing to make a financial sacrifice to achieve that, and many more would rather be in that position than not. That suggests that the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised are important and mainstream, as he said.

One of the challenges in dealing with this issue is that there are many links in the chain. We have the individual investor who puts money into a pension fund, along with their employer. Then we have the pension fund trustees, the investment managers and the businesses in which the money is invested. At each stage there are issues of transparency and reporting that need to be addressed, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says.

The present legislation on occupational pension schemes is contained in the investment regulations of 2000. It will not be entirely helpful to my case to do so, but I am going to quote exactly what they say. They require a scheme’s statement of investment principles to

“disclose the extent (if at all) to which social, environmental, or ethical considerations are taken into account in the selection, retention, and realisation of investments.”

The regulations also require schemes to disclose

“their policy (if any) in relation to the exercise of the rights (including voting rights) attached to the investments.”

As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, however, that is a requirement to disclose a policy, but not necessarily individual votes on individual issues. I know that many shareholders do not just want information on a boilerplate policy that might be cut and pasted from somewhere else; they want more specific information on how the scheme approaches its position.

The figures change from month to month, but latest figure that I have seen shows that British pension funds own about £1 in every £7 or £8 of the UK stock market, so they are powerful players. Obviously, they do not often speak with a single voice, so they are perhaps more fragmented than that single figure suggests, but the idea that vast numbers of billions of pounds are not having an influence on company behaviour seems implausible. We therefore have an incentive to have a proportionate regime that maximises the beneficial impact of that activity.

There is a lot going on in relation to corporate reporting. In looking into this in preparation for the debate, I identified at least three different Government consultations and calls for evidence that are now going on, and that are relevant to this area. I shall update the House on where we are with those, starting with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which has been consulting on the future of narrative reporting in order to address the coalition commitment to reinstating an operating and financial review. That policy was dropped a while ago, and the intention is to reinstate it. That consultation has closed and our BIS colleagues will shortly publish a summary of responses with a view to outlining the next steps in the new year.

The three key objectives, with which I think the hon. Gentleman would agree, were as follows. The first was to improve the quality of company reporting to shareholders, the second was to empower shareholders to hold directors to account on their performance, and the third was to ensure that any measures we as the Government introduce will improve the quality and relevance of disclosures; that relates to the point that the hon. Gentleman made.

Our colleagues at BIS are, as they say, exploring all the options—regulatory and non-regulatory—to make sure that companies report on matters that are material to their business and their shareholders, including consideration, where relevant, of social and environmental issues. What our BIS colleagues say is that where existing regulation is not meeting its aims, they will be looking at options to facilitate better and more relevant reporting and to empower shareholders to hold companies to account where the needed information is not provided. There is a welcome and ongoing commitment to empowerment of shareholders and to relevant reporting, not just box-ticking exercises.

That is the first exercise, which in a sense is more mature, within the few months for which the coalition has been in power. The second relates to the point that the hon. Gentleman made in his speech about short-termism. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills published in October a call for evidence on the extent of short-termism and market failures in UK equity markets, looking at issues and causes and whether the current law is suitable. A whole range of issues is covered by that, including whether investors are increasingly short term and whether—to use a bit of economic jargon—there are principal agent problems in the investment chain.

In a sense, that is how I started my remarks, by saying that we do have a chain: there are concerned citizens, perhaps pension funds, financial intermediaries, and then the companies in which they invest. At each stage, as the hon. Gentleman said, the danger is that each thinks it is the other’s job to do what is necessary: “Is it my job to report or your job to ask?” There is certainly scope for greater clarity on that subject.

One reason why I mentioned the consultations across government and the calls for evidence is that there may be more openness on such issues early in a new Parliament or new Government than when a Government have been in power for a long time and have a settled and rigid position. Clearly, the present Administration has a strong emphasis, where possible, on deregulation, so it would be fair to say that there is not an appetite for net additional regulation. That much is true, but where goals can be achieved proportionately by non-regulatory measures or by a mix of regulation and deregulation so that there is no overall increase, there would be much more openness. I would therefore encourage the hon. Gentleman and, through him, Fair Pensions and others, by saying that if they can suggest measures that have no regulatory burden or minimal regulatory burden, or identify other regulations that could be repealed because they are not effective, their ideas would find more favour, particularly with my colleagues in BIS who have overall responsibility for regulatory policy. I hope that that provides a helpful steer.

Continuing the theme of Departments listening and consulting, the Department for Work and Pensions and I have recently published consultation on guidance on default funds. Once we are in a world of auto-enrolment, people who do not make an active fund choice will end up in a default fund, so it is pretty important to see what such a fund looks like. The guidance that we put out for consultation sets out the standards by which default investment options should operate. The hon. Gentleman will be reassured to know that the key standards are about robust governance, review of the default investment option, transparency of charges and providing appropriate information to members about investment decisions. Those things will help.

In connection with the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the parliamentary scheme, I can tell him that another scheme of which I have been a member is the universities scheme. I recall speaking at a recent conference where a representative of that scheme was present. I raised the issue of scheme members wanting to know what was being done with their money. I mentioned that as a member of that scheme, I did not recall ever getting any very useful information. His answer was, “It’s on the website.” I feel that there is occasionally a need to remind those who manage our money that it is our money. That should make them proactive in communicating with scheme members: asking them what they want would be a positive factor in that respect.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Financial Reporting Council and its stewardship code. As he said, it has taken a step in the right direction. Fair Pensions’ own report “Stewardship in the Spotlight” found that the UK stewardship code had already helped to encourage voting disclosure. Examples are provided of several asset management firms that have improved their practices. I think that that is progress, but I take the hon. Gentleman’s point that although it is another link in the chain where things are perhaps improving, we need to look at the whole system. A stewardship code should, in the view of the Financial Reporting Council, be based on the idea of “comply or explain”; in other words, investors should either get on with it and comply, or at the very least explain why they have not done that, so that people can form a judgment on that.

The Financial Services Authority has expressed its belief that the principles of the stewardship code are as applicable to occupational pension schemes as to other types of pension and that, ultimately, occupational pension scheme managers will still be answerable to the scheme’s trustees. The FSA does not consider it unreasonable to require scheme managers to disclose their commitment or otherwise to the code, given the nature of the disclosure requirement.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked whether I would raise these issues with the new chair of the pensions regulator. I will be very happy to do that—although obviously, the new chair and the regulator itself are operationally independent of the Department and will form their own judgment. I know that they take a risk-based approach to what they do, so one of their top priorities is ensuring that funds are adequate and deficits are dealt with. They prioritise some pretty basic things like making sure that schemes have proper records of who is in them and how much money they have put in. There is a lot on their plate, but the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised are important as well. I will certainly flag up his and the House’s interests in such matters when I meet—as I hope I will before too long—the new chairman whom we announced last week.

In conclusion, I reiterate my thanks to the hon. Gentleman, to Fair Pensions and to other campaigners on these important issues. The Government are doing a lot of listening, consulting and calling for evidence. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and others will feed into those consultations so that the feedback that we get will help to shape the way in which we take forward this important agenda. I am very grateful to him for placing it before the House this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

19:56

House adjourned.

Westminster Hall

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 14 December 2010

[Mrs Linda Riordan in the Chair]

Legal aid

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Westminster Hall

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

09:30

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

I am delighted to have secured this important debate so soon after the publication of the legal aid Green Paper. It is a mark of how significant such issues are that there is a good attendance in the Gallery and that a number of Members of Parliament are present hoping to make a contribution.

Members of Parliament have a particular interest in legal aid, particularly in the broader context of advice services, because we are part of the family of advisers. That was brought home to me during my first week as an MP when, at my very first surgery, a gentleman asked me for assistance in having his wife deported. I was not able to refer that case to a partner legal aid firm.

Over the course of 13 years, I have made extensive use of, and am enormously grateful to, private firms, law centres and other advice centres in my constituency and elsewhere, and I will pay tribute to them by name. Paddington law centre is an excellent local facility that has assisted thousands of people in the community. The London borough of Westminster is often used as a byword for prosperity and the great institutions of central London, but in fact it includes a number of the most deprived wards in the country. Westminster citizens advice bureau is another superb organisation and I had the pleasure of attending its annual meeting a couple of weeks ago. Other organisations include the North Kensington law centre, the migrants resource centre, the Mary Ward centre—that is not in my constituency, but it is an important local organisation—Just for Kids Law, to which I will refer in a moment, and many private practices, as well as the Central London law centre and the Brent private tenants rights group, which is just over the border and provides an important service to tenants.

Those professionals in the sector provide, for the most part, a service to many of the most vulnerable and distressed people in society, and they do so for what is a challenging level of remuneration in a professional context. We hear—sometimes rightly—about the eye-watering sums of money paid in legal aid in some criminal cases. I understand that such cases cause public concern, but as in so many areas of public policy, we are being driven by policy making by anecdote. We need to address extreme examples and issues, but, overwhelmingly, legal aid practitioners are not well remunerated and they do an excellent job at astoundingly good value to the public purse.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend says that those professionals are not well remunerated. Does she agree that they are not even as well remunerated as many of the senior police officers and teachers in our constituencies? Their average income is between £28,000 and £40,000 in London.

[Ms Buck]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. It is true that legal aid practitioners who take on institutions in the public sector, and sometimes the private sector, are significantly less well paid than those professionals who make the public policy decisions that they challenge.

It is important to put on the record the fact that the previous Labour Government took decisions that bore down on legal aid expenditure. Not everyone will have agreed with those decisions—they may have challenged them—but there was a healthy debate. It must also be accepted that had Labour been re-elected, there would have been cuts in the legal aid budget. It is not the case, however, that the unfolding policy of the Labour party would have placed the pressure, which we now see emerging, on civil, family and social welfare law. Those are the areas of concern that I want to address.

It is critical to protect criminal legal aid. If it is not available at the right level and provided by quality professionals, justice will be denied. It is very important to protect a proper criminal legal aid budget. I pay tribute to Lord Bach, the former Minister with responsibility for legal aid, who looked at ways in which to bear down on exceptional costs in the criminal legal aid budget without sacrificing the principles of access to justice. I think there was consensus on that.

My concerns are about the manner in which the legal aid Green Paper attacks—and it is an attack—the legal aid budget. It bears down particularly severely on civil cases, including family and social welfare, and takes a number of areas out of the scope of aid entirely. Such areas include children and family cases in which domestic violence is not a stated factor, education, immigration where a person is not detained, clinical negligence, welfare benefits, employment, debt and some areas of housing. As a consequence, more than 500,000 people each year are less likely to receive help. Not only will that have an effect on those people unable to access legal aid services, but it will destabilise and possibly destroy such services in many areas and make it extremely hard for public services to be held to account when they are at fault.

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

My hon. Friend makes her case powerfully. The cuts are atrociously harsh on civil cases. Nottingham law centre in my constituency says that last year it helped 1,300 people avoid housing repossession. I am exceptionally worried about the impact on homelessness and the potential for people to lose their homes. This is important stuff.

[Ms Buck]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point and I will return in a moment to the issue of housing and homelessness.

Funding for judicial review is retained within the legal aid Green Paper. However, in many cases it is not based upon the legal help that allows for an effective judicial review. I have been told that retaining judicial review but withdrawing so much legal aid is as useful as having a flight of stairs between the first and second floors of a building when there is nothing between the ground floor and the first. Judicial review emerges from a wider pool of cases and there will be inadequate tests of the law if legal aid is withdrawn.

As we know from the Green Paper, eligibility for legal aid is to be further reduced. Over recent years—this is already a trend—the proportion of the population eligible for legal aid on a sliding scale of contributions has fallen from about half of the population to about a third. The Green Paper further lowers the level at which people are asked to contribute from their assets, and increases the percentage level of contributions from earnings. Moreover, for the first time, those on social security benefits should, it is suggested, be subject to a full asset test. Will the Minister write to me and state whether the Department has calculated the cost of such an exercise? Taken together, all those measures prompt the question of whether even those who are potentially entitled to legal aid can afford to take up that entitlement, and what that will mean for access to justice.

Members of the public are being asked to insure themselves to cover future legal aid cases. However, since those who lose out are, overwhelmingly, low-income households, it is extremely unlikely that they will be able to find money for a hypothetical eventuality, rather than for the daily struggle to house, heat and feed themselves. There is nothing wrong with taking out insurance in principle—it should be encouraged—but is it realistic to ask low-income groups to insure against eventualities that are simply not as foreseeable as those risks that lead people to insure their homes and cars?

The loss of legal aid will mean that most, if not all, of the 500,000 people affected will lose access to advice and representation. That figure will include many of the most vulnerable categories of people. The legal aid consultation itself acknowledges that in respect of issues such as debt, welfare benefits and education, people with disabilities are likely to be disproportionately affected. For example, 63% of legally aided clients in the sphere of welfare benefits assistance are disabled.

The excellent briefing produced for this debate by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux states that

“alternative sources of advice are simply not available, suitable or accessible for the overwhelming majority of our client group”

and

“the voluntary sector and pro bono does not have the capacity to fulfil the need currently met by Legal Aid in terms of the volume of people or the specialism required for more complex cases.”

Will the Minister say, either now or later, whether the Department has carried out a full capacity assessment to assure us that voluntary and pro bono facilities are available to fill the gap that will be created by the proposals in the Green Paper?

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

In the context of my hon. Friend’s remarks about the impact of the proposals, does she agree that yet again we are seeing a disproportionate impact on women, especially, of course, in relation to family cases?

[Ms Buck]

That is absolutely right, and I will deal with family law in a moment.

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

I do believe that the legal aid budget in this country is huge in comparison with those in other European countries, but I have had representations from the New Forest citizens advice bureau to say that it has two part-time caseworkers and it is wondering where its most vulnerable clients will go if that service is cut back in parallel with cutbacks in legal aid.

[Ms Buck]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point; it will be one of the issues that I address. There is an argument in addition to the argument about how much we fund legal aid by. There is consensus that the budget cannot expand indefinitely, but there are still issues about the speed at which and the manner in which legal aid funding is withdrawn and the impact that that could have on providers.

I think that value for money was also at the heart of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. Is it not the case that expenditure on legal aid and advice services does provide value for money, because it ensures that public services and others operate effectively and well, that errors are corrected and that public law is constantly challenged? It also helps people to redress wrongs and ensures that the take-up of benefits and other services is done properly.

The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, among other organisations, convincingly argues that there is a very poor business case for what the Government propose. Taking so much social welfare out of the scope of legal aid will undermine value for money. It is argued that between £2 and £10 is saved for every pound invested in the legal aid budget. An analysis based on data from the civil and social justice survey and on Legal Services Commission outcomes data estimates a saving of £2 for every £1 spent in relation to housing, £3 for every £1 spent on debt advice, £8.80 for every £1 spent on benefits advice and £7 for every £1 spent in relation to employment. That is besides the benefit to the individual; 80% of social welfare legal aid cases record positive outcomes for the clients.

It is impossible in a limited time—I want other hon. Members to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate—to pay proper attention to every area of civil law affected by the proposals, so I shall make just a few remarks on the areas that cause me greatest concern.

In relation to family law, no one disputes the value of mediation or the fact that in cases that go to court, the court action can have an extremely damaging impact on the families. However, relying on mediation is not always an option. It is not always the case that both partners are prepared to go to mediation. Also, it implies that there is a willingness to compromise and that the compromise should be somewhere around the middle of the argument about child welfare, maintenance or whatever. That ignores the fact that in many instances, one partner or the other has behaved excessively badly or is making unrealistic demands; indeed, it encourages them to make such demands.

Good and powerful cases have been raised by the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, and I shall read the details of two into the record as examples. One case study states:

“I am advising a client who is seeking contact with his children. The children’s mother has remarried and has a new child with her husband. She seeks to marginalize our client from the children’s lives, has denied contact, refuses to engage in mediation and has moved to a secret address. The case requires a preliminary application to ascertain the children’s whereabouts and once identified an application for contact. Clearly mediation is impossible and without early advice the client will have absolutely no idea how to re-establish contact with his children. His options would be to try to find them through any means available to him which would not be helpful or to give up which would deny the children the right to have a relationship with their father. With early advice, the application for disclosure would be made by solicitors and once the children’s whereabouts were identified a tactical attempt to negotiate and encourage mediation…would take place. This particular client has some learning difficulties and to navigate the court system as a litigant in person would almost certainly be impossible and any attempts made would be hugely time consuming.”

The other case study states:

“I am advising a client. He has 4 children and has shared residence for all those and is very active in their lives. We have helped him in the past with residence issues with the benefit of legal aid…He is now facing an application by one of the Mothers to take his 14 year old daughter to New Zealand where the Mother has a 2 year work contract. If this is allowed, from seeing his daughter half the week he will be lucky to see her in the holidays and will not be able to afford air fares…In future this client will have to deal with this on his own. This will lead to him probably giving up on fighting the application.”

Even in cases in which domestic violence is not an issue, without legal aid there are real dangers that individuals, particularly those who have difficulty in being sufficiently articulate or confident to navigate the courts system, will lose access to their children.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a very powerful case, but given that she has said that civil, family and social law are bearing the brunt of the proposed cuts, I wonder whether she will comment—or the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), will comment later—on where her party would have made the cuts had it been re-elected. As she mentioned, cuts would have been made had Labour been re-elected. The cuts proposed are less than 20%. If criminal law is to be protected, where does she or the shadow Minister suggest that the Government make the cuts? The speed and manner of the cuts seem to be the main criticism. We would like to see more detail.

[Ms Buck]

As I said, the previous Labour Government had already made cuts to the legal aid budget, which were highly controversial. Many hon. Members who are in this Chamber made fierce representations on that point. I have already said that there were areas, particularly very high-cost criminal cases, in which the Government intended to go further. Ministers were also examining ways in which the civil and social welfare budget could be protected within the global legal aid budget, because it was understood that in many cases, savings in that area would lead to a false economy. Therefore I will not be drawn into an argument about equivalence of cuts and into coming out with every figure, because I dispute the basis of what the hon. Lady has said.

One of my greatest concerns is about the proposed cuts in relation to education. The Government’s intention is to take education out of the scope of legal aid. Given the often unfulfilled statutory duty on local authorities to ensure that young people receive an education, that is bound to hit the most vulnerable the hardest.

I am indebted to Just for Kids Law, a specialist organisation in my constituency, for the information that it has provided and for its assistance with a number of cases that I have referred to it. Last year, Just for Kids Law took 34 cases, with two thirds having a satisfactory outcome. These are cases of children without a school place and cases in which there are serious disputes in relation to children who have or who require statements of special educational needs. Given that the latest figures for my borough show that we have 364 children without a school place at this point in the school year, the need for representation for parents is extremely clear.

I shall give a couple of examples of cases, from Just for Kids Law’s caseload, which would receive no representation in future.

“E…is a highly gifted boy who is on the autistic spectrum. His father was offered a job in New Zealand so the family emigrated and E…started Year 7 there. Regrettably there was no special educational needs provision for him and he was so severely bullied that, by August, his parents had withdrawn him from school and made arrangements for the family to return to the UK. They had kept in regular contact with their local authority, however, when they returned in January 2009, there was no place available...After six weeks at home with his mother he was provided with a Personal Tutor for two hours per week. His behaviour was rapidly deteriorating and he started self harming. He told JfK Law he…wanted to go to school like everyone else and didn’t want to end up”—

in a dead-end job. Just For Kids Law made representations to the local authority and, when that was unsuccessful, issued urgent judicial review proceedings. After two mediation meetings with the local authority lawyers, he was eventually offered a place at a specialist autistic centre that integrates into a mainstream school. Without representation at every stage, it is likely that that child would have ended up with no school place and no provision, with catastrophic consequences for him.

The second example states:

“R…was permanently excluded from school in 2006. He has special educational needs and had been receiving specialised support”

for his behavioural problems, which had been successfully managed in reception and year 1, but in year 2 his behaviour worsened. Instead of referring him for an assessment for a statement of special educational needs or asking for the local authority’s advice the school permanently excluded him. His mother felt that was because her relationship with the head teacher had broken down. Just For Kids Law advised the mother at the governing body appeal, which she lost.

“JfK Law then appealed to the Independent Appeals Panel…and made representations that it was not lawful to exclude a child because of the breakdown in relationship between a Head Teacher and the mother, the school should have dealt with the problem by way of a “managed move” to another school that could meet his needs….The IAP agreed with JfK Law’s representations”

and overturned the permanent exclusion, which is no longer on the child’s record. That is a case about a very vulnerable family.

We have referred to housing and homelessness. The Government intend to retain provision in cases of people at risk of imminent homelessness, but, perversely, they are taking debt and other areas of financial advice out of scope. Those issues are almost always the preliminary problems that lead to homelessness.

[Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)]

Brighton and Hove is expecting a reduction of 80% in legal aid cases—down to only 280 cases per year. Although we all agree that we should make some cuts, does the hon. Lady agree that we need to monitor that level of reduction carefully?

[Ms Buck]

I absolutely agree. I am extremely concerned. In other areas of public policy, we are seeing reductions in housing benefit expenditure and entitlement, which are coming in next year. There is, apparently, a rise in homelessness. There are major changes in housing policy, some of which were announced yesterday, which will lead to homeless households being discharged into the private rented sector, with all the associated risks of that. Yet, at the same time, the representation and advice available to people at the most critical stage of their path through the housing system is being removed. I am sure that the consequences of those changes in policy and the reduction in legal aid representation will be catastrophic for highly vulnerable families, many of which include children with disabilities and special needs. I predict that the changes will explode the budgets associated with local authority responsibilities under the Children Act 2004, as many cases will be referred to local authorities. Once again, this is a false economy.

There are many other things that I would like to say, but I will conclude simply by referring back to the argument of the impact of the cuts on providers. Of course, we have to start from the point of view of the client. The client is the most important, not the provider. However, if a client cannot access a provider, if there is an advice desert and no one within 50 or 100 miles or a reasonable distance for people to afford to get to, then justice is denied to that person. If staff contracts are lost, money withdrawn from a law centre, firm or citizens advice bureau on the piecemeal basis indicated in the proposals, and services are removed—the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) gave a good example—at a time when local authorities are facing record cuts in expenditure, many such services will go under. They will collapse in an unplanned way. There will not be a coherent pattern of advice services, because no one has overall control of ensuring that that happens.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and apologise for my late attendance; I had dreadful problems with my computer. I received an e-mail from Flintshire CAB, which is very worried about losing the equivalent of five posts—a total of £170,000. It deals with some of the most vulnerable people in our society, who are often the same people who end up coming to see Members of Parliament. It is worried that the cuts will devastate the area.

[Ms Buck]

That is absolutely right. I shall now sit down to listen to examples from, possibly, both sides of the Chamber. I urge the Minister to ask his colleagues to think again about how the changes are being implemented. The dangers are that they will lead to advice deserts and reduced access to justice for many cases—500,000—involving the most vulnerable people. They will lead to the perverse consequence of greater expenditure in many other areas of public services and, because the providers will not be held to account efficiently by lawyers, worse public services. I hope that the Minister will hear not only what I have to say but what other Members have to say, and go back to the Department to ask for an urgent review of the Government’s proposals.

09:57

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I understand and appreciate that there is some merit in the Government’s decision to simplify legal aid and that the costs in recent years have spiralled and become unsustainable, particularly at a time like this. Considering what the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) has said, however, I feel that the decision has not really been fully thought through. The impact to local legal services could be devastating. In my constituency, the changes will mean that only two legal firms can continue to provide vital, high-quality family law legal aid services—previously, it was nine. Those two firms will now be taking on the work that nine firms undertook formerly, so the effectiveness and speed with which sensitive family issues are dealt with will be compromised.

We will also lose expertise in what, from my perspective, is one of the most challenging areas of law—that which deals with divorce and child custody. From a legal aid perspective, people from disadvantaged backgrounds will be hardest hit, which will be a challenge in Eastbourne.

I recently met a constituent who was unable to find legal representation in Eastbourne, because, of the two remaining firms that would have been able to offer legal aid, one was representing her ex-husband and the other her son. Due to a possible conflict of interest, she had to look elsewhere, to either Rye or Brighton, which is a round trip in excess of 50 miles. That does not sound very far, but the constituent, whom I know quite well, is disabled and unable to travel by public transport. She would have had to travel by taxi; I do not need to tell anyone here that a taxi fare is not an easily affordable luxury for someone in receipt of disability living allowance.

As well as the threat to legal service provision in my constituency, I am profoundly concerned that the proposals include the removal of funding for large areas of specialist social welfare-related help and guidance. That is often delivered by local community-based charities, such as BHT Eastbourne Advice and the Eastbourne citizens advice bureau in my constituency. They complement that specialist help and guidance with a more general advice service provided by volunteers. There are such crucial service providers in every constituency. In Eastbourne, those charities risk losing in the region of £230,000 to £250,000 per annum of legal aid funding.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s sympathetic comments, but what would he say to my constituents in the Bargoed area of the Rhymney valley, 375 of whom claim legal aid for welfare benefit issues and 450 of whom stand to lose access to legal aid for debt issues?

[Stephen Lloyd]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Although the overall legal aid budget has spiralled out of control, I have real concerns about the Government’s proposals—they are based on the previous Government’s proposals, which is one of the ironies—for changing legal aid. I do have concerns, which I why I am here this morning.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case, and I agree with some of his points, but does he acknowledge that the previous Government reduced the cost of civil legal aid by 24% over 10 years? We have to disaggregate the civil and criminal cases and concentrate on where the Government’s cuts are having an effect—on the most vulnerable in our society.

[Stephen Lloyd]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. That is a fair comment, and I certainly will not dispute the facts of what she says.

I was talking about the upwards of £250,000 that the two charities in Eastbourne stand to lose. They use that funding to support more than 1,500 of the town’s most vulnerable residents with complex debt, benefit and housing problems, many of which have been alluded to. I and many others believe that the social welfare help that the Government plan to reduce is very much preventive and enabling; it is focused not on generating unnecessary litigation, but on preventing crises by solving complex problems at an early stage.

[Kate Green]

Does the hon. Gentleman not also accept that people face clusters of problems? Even if people can still access some legal help, removing some categories of legal help altogether will inevitably mean that there will be areas of difficulty where people can no longer get the help that they need.

[Stephen Lloyd]

That is a fair point, and I look forward to hearing exactly how the Minister will respond.

I recognise that these are difficult economic times and that the Ministry of Justice faces incredibly difficult budgetary decisions. However, I am concerned that without a clear alternative for resourcing and supporting preventive advice in particular, the proposals will increase the demands not only on the crisis-related legal advice services that remain, but on other public services.

As I indicated, legal aid cuts have a particular impact on housing. Over the past few years, legal aid has funded BHT Eastbourne Advice’s handling of 800 to 900 specialist housing cases per year. That was reduced to 530 cases per year for the most recent three-year forward contract, which commenced on 15 November.

It is estimated that the current proposals could reduce housing advice capacity by 20%, which will have a very detrimental impact on advice provision in my constituency and many other towns, at a time when such advice will be in high demand following the implementation of the housing benefit reforms. I agree that those reforms are necessary, but they will have a knock-on effect.

Advice is effective in preventing homelessness, especially if it is given early. The proposals to limit legal aid to those in imminent threat of repossession flies in the face of all the evidence that early intervention and prevention create long-term savings, as well as averting hardship for constituents.

I urge the Minister to revisit this issue to see whether the remaining funds can be targeted differently to ensure that legal aid—particularly for civil and family law cases—is more extensively protected.

10:04

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be under your chairpersonship, Mrs Riordan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on securing the debate.

When legal aid was first introduced in 1949, the late Arthur Skeffington said that the law at that time was like the Ritz, in that those who could afford to pay had access to it, while those who could not did not. Legal aid was introduced, and it is fundamental to giving everybody in this country access to justice.

When the Green Paper came out, paragraph 1.2 of the summary said:

“The Government strongly believes that access to justice is a hallmark of a civil society”,

which is great. The problem is the rest of the Green Paper; it starts well, but it is all downhill after that. We need to examine a number of issues relating to the Green Paper.

The background has to be that cuts were already being made in legal aid, and many of us in the Chamber who were in the previous Parliament were very concerned about that. Indeed, we raised those concerns consistently with Ministers, because the cuts were leaving the most marginalised, vulnerable people with no redress whatever through the legal system. That deeply concerns me.

The cuts have been accompanied by a series of ill-informed, unfair media attacks on the entire legal profession and the legal aid system, which have been led by the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and the Evening Standard. Those newspapers routinely print isolated and outrageous figures about payments to some barristers, while at no time looking at the reality of the number of legal aid firms that are paid so little that they can no longer afford to represent anybody and have gone out of business. In inner-urban areas such as the one that I represent, which is the eighth poorest part of the whole country, many people simply cannot get any representation whatever, because there is no legal aid lawyer to deal with them.

Let me quote from a letter dated 1 October 2010—many colleagues will have seen something similar at various times. It says:

“URGENT INFORMATION

CLOSURE OF

SHEIKH & CO SOLICITORS

Non practising as of Midnight on 30th September 2010”

It continues:

“We were unable to secure viable indemnity insurance despite our best efforts particularly in view of uncertainty surrounding the legal aid contracts and so it means Sheikh & Co cannot provide legal services any more.”

This was a busy local practice dealing with a whole range of issues, including housing, immigration and family and education matters, and its closure left thousands of people with no representation. Their files will be passed on through the appropriate body to another solicitor, but that solicitor may go under, and the files will then move on to somebody else and somebody else again. Along the way, they will be lost, which means that very poor and vulnerable people will be left without any representation whatever.

I am proud to represent my constituency in Parliament. I am also proud of Islington law centre, which does fantastic work. When I visited it a couple of weeks ago, the director told me that a

“10% cut across the board is being proposed”

in its Legal Services Commission contract funding and that

“we have been cut hard in both housing and employment, where, although we were ranked first in terms of our tender score, we have been given a much smaller contract from mid-November than we had previously”.

The director added that that will mean

“250 less employment clients per annum that we can help, and 185 less housing clients. I expect the total cut next year to be around £130,000,”

which is more than two full-time equivalent caseworkers. That is a busy law centre, which is doing its best. Such events could be replicated all over the country at hard-working law centres.

When the Minister replies, I hope that he will recognise the value of law centres and the need to give them support and funding.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I also hope that he will recognise that, without law centres and legal aid practices at solicitors, many of our most vulnerable constituents will simply go without any access to justice whatever.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)]

Order. I intend to start the winding-up speeches at 10.40 am, and at least six other Members want to speak. If they can keep their remarks brief, I will get everybody in. I call Robert Buckland.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Actually, Mrs Riordan, I was giving way to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). I was not concluding my contribution. If you want me to conclude, I suppose I must, but I would be grateful if you gave me just a bit more time.

[Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to you, Mrs Riordan.

I wanted to pick up my hon. Friend’s point about advice services. I wonder whether it struck him, as it struck me, that the Green Paper suggests that costly legal advice can be substituted with much less costly voluntary advice services. The problem is—and the author of the Green Paper does not seem to realise it—that most such voluntary services are themselves funded by legal aid, and that that funding will go if the proposals are implemented.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which is true. Legal aid funding goes through law centres, Citizens Advice and all kinds of other advice agencies, which will be cut. In any event, none of the advice services’ funding is ring-fenced in local authority terms. I have done a head-count audit of my borough, and there is probably less one-to-one advice available than there was 25 years ago. I suspect that colleagues could tell similar stories. We need fair access to justice.

The Law Society briefing for the debate is very good. It notes:

“The cuts in scope and eligibility for civil legal aid will mean that many fewer people will be able to bring cases to court”.

It continues by pointing out that

“solicitors will either find other areas of work or ‘cherry pick’ cases”.

We have many brilliant law students in this country—many brilliant young people who want to go into law and do their very best. They often end up, whether they want to or not, doing property and commercial law, because that is where the money can be made and where they can get work. They do not do legal aid because there is not enough money around to do it with. There are not enough companies doing legal aid work. So we have amazing levels of representation for well-off people, in commercial or corporate cases, but we do not have the same availability for criminal, housing, immigration or family cases.

There is a lot that I could say, but I take your earlier hint, Mrs Riordan—you do not want me to go on too long. It was very subtly put, if I may say so. I have two quick points that I want to make. The idea of separating family law cases so that legal aid will be given if violence is involved, but not if there is no violence, is utterly absurd. I am sure that we have all seen how families can implode under many pressures. The degeneration of a relationship into a battle and a court case can get very nasty. Mediation does not always work—of course we all want it to, but it does not always. That can degenerate into violence. If sensible, effective legal advice is available at a much earlier stage, much of that degeneration into something far worse can be prevented.

I am pleased that the Green Paper specifically excludes any cut in representation for asylum cases. I welcome that and pay tribute to the Minister for it. Those who face deportation in asylum cases, possibly with the prospect of death or torture on their return to where they have come from, deserve legal aid. I absolutely defend that, and I am sure—or at least hope—that every hon. Member in the Chamber would too.

However, in immigration cases, which are often very complicated, legal aid is limited; it is available for dealing with detention, but not for the case itself. A family who are put in detention—quite wrongly, in my view, if children are involved—can get legal aid to try to get out of detention, but not to deal with the burden of the case. That seems a non sequitur; either we support immigration cases or we do not. I hope that the Minister will recognise that the injustices surrounding that state of affairs, in particular with regard to applications under articles 6 and 8 of the European convention on human rights, are very important and that such cases deserve legal aid.

The late Sir Henry Hodge, who was a judge at the immigration appeal tribunal, constantly made references to the Legal Services Commission wanting sufficient resources to make representation available. An immigration appeal where there is no representation for the applicant, but there is representation for the Home Office, is unbelievably, blatantly and obviously unfair. It is not a credible way of doing things.

I urge the Minister to think again, seriously, about those aspects of the matter, and to remember the principle of access to justice for all. That will not be possible if the cuts go through.

10:14

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for truncating his remarks. I shall follow his example and be as brief as I can. I should declare an interest: I was a criminal legal aid barrister for nearly 20 years, and am still in receipt of some payments for work done before the election. However, my remarks today are centred on what other hon. Members have discussed in the context of the reduction of the ambit of civil legal aid: community legal service funding for work by a number of providers, including law centres. In Swindon, the Wiltshire law centre does excellent work and provides advice for people with debt, housing and welfare benefit problems. I shall not repeat the points that other hon. Members have made. They are right about the important saving that can be made by giving early advice and help to people on welfare benefits. My remarks are focused on the detail of the helpful table towards the back of the Green Paper.

I want to preface my remarks about the Green Paper by saying that I hope it will be the last such consultation for a considerable time. The Lord Chancellor was right to note with some despair that there have been more than 30 consultations about legal aid since 2006. It led to practitioners, including me, getting our heads in a spin, when it seemed that almost month by month the previous Government—or the Legal Services Commission, to be more precise, because that was of course an arm’s length body, though it is now to come back into the Ministry of Justice—issued consultations on legal aid. We do not want permanent revolution. That has caused providers a lot of problems, and has led to some of the uncertainty about sources of work that the hon. Member for Islington North raised. The table at the back of the Green Paper is helpful, but in some cases it is unclear. I hope that the Government will take on board what is said today, and the written evidence that will be submitted by 14 February.

I want first to discuss family legal aid and what is called the domestic violence test. There is no unified definition of what is meant by “domestic violence”. Some might say that they know it when they see it, but questions arise about what the term means. Does it just mean physical violence where there is injury? I submit that that would be far too narrow a test. Does it just involve violence between spouses or partners, or does it include violence against children of the family, or in their presence? All those questions need to be answered. I have dealt with domestic violence cases for many years, and they take many forms. It is not just a question of physical violence. Often there is a course of conduct involving a mental process and psychological damage to a partner. I should like clarity about the meaning of the term “domestic violence” by the time the White Paper is issued.

To deal briefly with education, I noted with concern the suggestion that all education cases would be taken out of scope. We must not ignore the fact that soon the Department for Education will produce its own Green Paper on special educational needs. I know that Ministers intend to look carefully at reform of the current system of tribunals, and the adversarial system that is so often a barrier to parents and children with special educational needs. That is welcome news, and I hope that the Green Paper will contain a commitment to radical reform of the system, so that parents do not feel they must always fight for their children’s rights with respect to special educational needs. However, if that is not what happens, and the Government do not intend to reform the system for SEN provision, legal representation should not be taken out of scope—particularly at the upper tier tribunal level, where there is a lot of law and there are a lot of lawyers; that is a daunting prospect for any parent of a child with SEN.

The matter of clinical negligence in this context is often overlooked. There will be some cases of great complexity, such as where several different causes have led to the condition of the litigant—who will often be very vulnerable and ill, even at the time of litigation. That requires a large amount of work and costly medical expert evidence. It would be a brave set of solicitors that took on cases of such complexity on a no win, no fee basis. I ask that at the margins that aspect of the Green Paper be looked at carefully.

I end on this note: a lot has been said about legal help and representation for debt matters where someone’s home is at immediate risk. I simply ask, what does that mean? Does it mean immediate risk when possession proceedings have been commenced? Does it mean immediate risk at an earlier stage, when perhaps the householder has had a set of letters relating to unpaid debt and is, therefore, greatly concerned? There are a lot of words used, but frankly not carefully enough. I accept that this is Green Paper stage, but I ask for much more clarity when it comes to assessing the precise ambit of scope. As a former member of a funding review committee for the Legal Services Commission, I can say that these criteria are applied very carefully indeed. They have to be right.

Often for a practitioner, such as those who work in the Wiltshire law centre, a case will present itself, which at first blush will appear to be one type of problem, but will transmogrify into another, or a whole different range of problems. Therefore, questions of scope are not just academic; they are very important for solicitors and practitioners when assessing whether cases will come within or without the scope of legal aid. I urge the Minister to take on board hon. Members’ comments today, and to ask his colleagues to look carefully at the ambit of these proposals and to refine them in a way that helps not only litigators and solicitors, but, most important, those in greatest need.

10:21

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on securing this important debate. The changes and cuts proposed in the Government’s legal aid Green Paper are of great concern across the country, as we have heard this morning, but in particular in areas such as Wolverhampton, where there are high levels of deprivation. The only recourse to justice for people who are deprived and vulnerable is through the legal aid budget.

I would like to make two brief points. First, the legal aid system was instigated by the post-war Labour Government at a time of national deficit, and hot on the heels of setting up the NHS. The legal aid system has become a pillar of the welfare state. If these Green Paper proposals go forward, that pillar will be put at risk. We should not forget that before 1949 the only people able to access justice in our country were those who could afford it. I do not want to go back to that.

Secondly, I want to put on record my tremendous respect for the professionalism and work of citizens advice bureaux up and down the country, but in particular in Wolverhampton. Wolverhampton CAB deals with 14,000 inquiries every year, which is astonishing. Of those, 1,700 are legal aid inquiries. It is widely recognised by others in the region that Wolverhampton CAB is a beacon of best practice. Last year, it won the outstanding black country business of the year award, voted for by the black country chamber of commerce, for doubling its work load with the same resources.

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

As in Wolverhampton, in Swansea the CAB does a marvellous job. Its contract for legal aid for debt and welfare was terminated on 14 November and since then no one has had that contract. There has been a signal that it might get it again. Is it not appalling that there should be a hole in the budget flow, a change of provider and great uncertainty among very vulnerable groups? Does my hon. Friend share my concern about financial provision and continuity for the future for the CAB?

[Emma Reynolds]

I could not have put it better myself. There are great concerns in the CAB in Wolverhampton. It is facing a cut not only in legal aid, but in the financial inclusion fund, to which I will refer briefly later.

I want to come on to the issue of the day. I know a lot of hon. Members are concerned about the cost of the legal aid budget. Let us not forget that the starting point for our debate today, as recognised in the Government’s Green Paper, is that half a million people in our country get help from the legal aid budget. That is a sign of a civilised country; it is something to be proud of, not to be attacked or ashamed of. Although we obviously have to look at the costs, I remind colleagues of my earlier point: the previous Government were looking at these issues. In the past 10 years, there was a reduction in real terms in civil legal aid of 24%. Capping the fees paid to solicitors and barristers was also being considered, as well as getting better value for money for the taxpayer by looking at how contracts were awarded and seeking economies of scale. That sort of rationalisation is a far cry from removing wholesale entire categories of legal aid from the budget. For example, family law, which other hon. Members have mentioned, welfare benefits, debt, housing and education.

I want to refer specifically to withdrawing legal aid in cases of welfare benefits. Around 80% of the social welfare legal aid cases dealt with by the CAB record positive outcomes for the individual involved. That goes to show that there are issues there. When the Government are bringing forward deep and far-reaching welfare reforms—I do not believe that they should—it is precisely the wrong time to be taking this area completely out of the scope of legal aid.

[Kate Green]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the poor quality of decision making in the social security system also creates an increased need for legal aid? We all naturally hope that that level of decision making can be improved, and I hope that the Government will give that attention. In the meantime, it is important for people to have that protection, particularly when we look at the high rate of successful appeals against decisions on employment and support allowance.

[Emma Reynolds]

I could not agree more. Members of all parties know that such examples come up time and again in their surgeries. The other day someone came to my surgery who had been overpaid benefits and now has a massive sum to pay back, though the matter was not their fault. The state has responsibility to such people.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend as shocked as I was to hear from Nottingham law centre that 42% of the clients’ problems it helps to solve are caused by administrative or procedural errors by Departments or local authorities? Does she share my concern that many of those constituents who had help have poor levels of education and that some struggle with literacy? Without assistance from a law centre, they will not be able to resolve those problems.

[Emma Reynolds]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That goes to the heart of the argument. These cuts will affect the most vulnerable in our society; yet another example of Government cuts hitting the poorest hardest.

I want to refer to taking debt out of the legal aid budget. The Government have recognised in the Green Paper that many of the people who are mired in debt are ill or disabled, and that debt often afflicts the most vulnerable in society. Yet they are still proceeding to introduce proposals and measures that will deny those people access to legal advice and representation.

I will briefly mention something I raised in the House last week. I asked the Leader of the House what was going to happen to the financial inclusion fund, which is a great source of help for people with debt problems. In Wolverhampton, hundreds of people are helped every year by this fund. I was given wise counsel by the Leader of the House that I should raise the issue this morning. He was sure that the Minister would give me an answer. I know that the matter is being administered by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Treasury, but I urge the Minister to give clarity on whether the fund is to go ahead beyond March. Again, the uncertainty that my hon. Friends have raised applies and it is not helpful.

I do not wish to be too long because I know that other colleagues want to get in. I want to add that, apart from failing the test of social justice, these proposals also fail on a cost-benefit analysis.

My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North eloquently explained that the cuts will be a false economy in many areas. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux published a business case for legal aid this year. It said that for every pound of legal aid spent on housing advice, the state saves £2.34, and for every pound spent on debt advice, the state saves £2.98. It also stated that on welfare benefit advice, the state saves £8.80, and that on employment advice, it could save £7.13.

Have the Government looked properly at the savings that early intervention makes possible? Have they done a proper cost-benefit analysis of the costs of their proposals for public services down the line? I fear that this is short-sighted, and that the Government are seeking short-term savings that will have significant costs later. Other Members have made the same point.

The other thing that worries me is that the Government say in the Green Paper that other alternatives will be available. The document then outlines what those alternatives might be. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North has already mentioned this, but it is telling: NACAB says that the overwhelming majority of its client group will not be able to access the alternatives identified in the Green Paper.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that although one alternative, the expansion of telephone advice, is welcome—I agree that not enough telephone information available—it is not suitable for the most vulnerable, particularly those in debt, as many who use mobile phones cut themselves off in order to save money?

[Emma Reynolds]

I could not agree more. There is no substitute for face-to-face counselling and advice. As my hon. Friend rightly states, the cuts mean that the only recourse for vulnerable people will be some sort of telephone system, but they may not be comfortable with it and might not be able to afford it.

The proposals in the Green Paper will make the poor poorer and the most vulnerable more vulnerable. The cuts should fall elsewhere. There are other ways to reform the legal aid budget, and the Government should think again.

10:32

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) for initiating this incredibly important debate, which cuts to the heart of the kind of society that we want to live in. It is important for the House to record that we do not want to go back to the time when this work was being done by volunteers. We talk about access to justice, but at its heart is social justice and the kind of society that we seek. I believe that we should live in a society where the most vulnerable have access to justice.

I speak as a former Minister with responsibility for legal aid. If we go back to the earlier part of the last decade, before the 30 consultations that we heard of, I was considering fixed fees and new ways of contracting, but that is a long, long way from the Green Paper.

I remind the House of what the Prime Minister said in the run-up to the election about family policies. He said that he wanted to make Britain the most family-friendly country in Europe. Only a few days ago, he said:

“The seeds of so many problems, as well as success stories, are sown in the early years. Family is where people learn to be good citizens, to take responsibility, to live in harmony with others. Families are the building blocks of a strong, cohesive society.”

He cannot make such pronouncements and then run a coach and horses through family life in constituencies throughout the country.

The services that family practitioners provide for vulnerable families facing breakdown and for people having to decide who should have contact and how it is to be arranged, are essential in modern society. If we take that advice away, except in cases of domestic violence, we will see chaos. We will see people presenting at court as litigants in person. When those cases come to the county court, people will not be receiving advice from the court clerks or the judges; they will simply get a form to fill in. They will be on their own. What will happen? Families, but mostly women, will not get that advice. I ask the Minister to think hard about whether that is the sort of family that we want, and whether that is consistent with an undertaking to put families at the centre of British life.

[Margot James]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lammy]

I will not give way, as there is so little time.

It cannot be right that people will get a practitioner only if they already have an injunction. Are we really saying that a woman should pitch up to court on her own if she is concerned about her children having contact with her husband, who may be violent? Is it right that she should have to make her way on her own, in such vulnerable contexts, without access to legal advice? Are we really saying that when families are in dispute—perhaps one parent wants to take a child abroad—the parent fighting that decision should have to find access to justice on their own and without sufficient funds?

Are we saying—I ask as the Member of Parliament in whose constituency the baby P case occurred—to the many thousands of families affected by care proceedings that ultimately end in adoption, which changes the legal nature of the child’s relationship with its parents, that they cannot have legal aid to fight it or challenge it in court if they are concerned about losing their children? That cannot be right. That is not the kind of society that we want.

The policy is not consistent with the big society. Yesterday we saw the announcement of cuts of up to 40% in local government budgets. That will decimate much of the voluntary sector that the Ministry of Justice says people should rely upon. How can that be part of the big society? What will happen with welfare benefit cuts, given that many of the groups that support the most vulnerable—those with mental health problems, immigrants and those who have been without work for a considerable time—will find support withdrawn at this time of profound change? How can that be right?

In relation to immigration, the Churches consistently remind the state about its responsibility. We have pared back so much on legal advice about immigration and asylum matters that lawyers specialising in this area now help the system; they help constituents provide information to the bureaucracy—to the court system—that is easy to understand, which makes justice quicker. This Green Paper will drive those people underground; it will drive them into ghettos where they cannot be seen or found, as they will not have the right documents. That is the sort of thing that we see in other parts of continental Europe. We do not want that in this country.

The Green Paper is particularly worrying. It is possible to pass it off as unimportant, but we cannot call ourselves a civilised country unless we provide adequate legal aid. The previous Government stabilised legal aid. In that context, I contend that enough is enough. Now is the time to stand up and say what civilised really means. It is certainly not the time to walk alongside hypocrisy by suggesting that we can support families, that we can have a big society, that we can be fair in a civilised democracy and then run a coach and horses through the only access to justice that vulnerable people need.

10:39

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mrs Riordan, and to be opposite the Solicitor-General. It has been a privilege to listen to so many well-informed speakers from both sides. Although it invidious to pick out people, I will do so by saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) showed their decades of experience in dealing with such matters. I hope that the Minister will listen to them and to other contributions that are made during the consultation process, and realise that mistakes have been made in the proposals to cut legal aid.

I pay tribute, too, to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), who is standing down as chair of the all-party group on legal aid, for her unrivalled record in pursuing such matters and for securing the debate today. Like her, I will mention my not-for-profit agencies. For the past 20 years, I have had the pleasure of serving on the management committee of Hammersmith and Fulham community law centre, which does a fantastic job. Threshold housing advice and the Shepherds Bush advice centre were also excellent but were closed this year because of the withdrawal of local authority funding. The law centre, too, has lost all its local authority funding and is therefore under threat. I am talking about a pattern that is all too familiar.

The practitioners of legal aid, many of whom are here today, will be among the most astute and trenchant critics of all Governments when it comes to supporting the service. Even they would concede that Labour Governments, over the 60 years since the service was introduced, have—perhaps by taking two steps forward and one step back at times—increased the scope and eligibility of legal aid. Having said that, and, to save the legs of any Members on the Government Benches who want to stand up and read the Whips’ briefing about what we would cut, I shall add, “Yes, we were in a period of retrenchment and yes, there would have been cuts.”

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Slaughter]

I will not give way because there is only a short time left. There would have been cuts under a Labour Government. In some respects, we would have made cuts to private family law, although we should look again at the definition of domestic violence, as the hon. Member for South Swindon said. We would, I think, have taken a much more forensic look at criminal legal aid, which has just been brushed over. However, we would not have made cuts to social welfare legal aid. I pay tribute here to Lord Bach who, over a period of years as Minister, supported, defended and spoke out for social welfare law, and, as a Government, we did a very good job in protecting it and we would have gone on protecting it. Given the short time that we have to debate this subject, I shall devote my remaining comments to that area and follow the lead given by Members speaking today.

The briefing from the citizens advice bureau states that

“proposals to exclude most social welfare law issues from scope will mean over half a million fewer people getting help every year”.

That is the first statistic. What types of people are we talking about? Many examples of them have been cited this morning, including parents going to special educational needs tribunals; tenants facing problems of harassment or disrepair; disabled people whose welfare benefits have been cut; and people who have been unfairly dismissed. In the vision section—I am sure that no irony was intended—of the business plan for the Department, it says the aim of the programmes is to have a legal aid system

“that supports those at greatest risk, not those who are most litigious.”

Rather than being the “most litigious”, I see such people as being the most vulnerable in society.

When the Lord Chancellor made his statement to the House on 15 November, he talked about the back-to-basics principle of the Green Paper. This is very basic indeed. A truer account was given in the Sunday Telegraph the day before—if one wants the fullest account of Government policy, one should always look in the papers the day before the statement is made to the House. The Sunday Telegraph, which is no great friend of legal aid, said:

“Legal Aid for civil cases will all but disappear.”

I do not think that that is an exaggeration. There are to be cuts of 23% in the Ministry of Justice, which is one of the highest cuts of any Department, and a cut of a third in the civil legal aid budget and a 42% projected fall in the income of legal aid practitioners. The impact assessment that goes with the Green Paper says that there will be a cut of up to 92% in the legal aid funding for the not-for-profit sector.

How can the Minister defend, or explain, cuts of that order, which effectively wipe out the not-for-profit sector? Effectively, there will be a 15% cut in the CAB’s funding. For law centres, there could be a cut of up to 50%. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) pointed out, the financial inclusion fund faces an uncertain future. What is the future of that fund in the new financial year, because it alone provides 10% of CAB funding? Moreover, it was praised by the National Audit Office very recently as providing good value for money and a high-quality service.

I do not have time to go through each area of practice. I am very grateful—and I am sure that the Minister is—for the briefings that have been provided by Shelter on housing, the Special Educational Consortium and many others because they highlight the effect that these cuts will have on issues such as disrepair, allocations and the challenging of rogue landlords. The SEC’s briefing gets rid of the idea that it is a litigious organisation or that it is intent on making mischief and going to court for no reason. It states that

“most parents win their appeals (82%) once they reach the Tribunal itself, and in 30% of registered appeals the local authority concedes before the case reaches Tribunal stage.”

That is very much the case as regards clinical negligence as well. We must look at the defendants in many of these cases and consider why they are fighting them. A highly respected practice of clinical negligence solicitors told me that once legal aid is withdrawn, it will not be economic for it to take cases in which damages will be less than £100,000.

In the few moments that I have left, let me run through a few of the practical problems that the Government have not addressed when they put forward their glib response to making cuts in this area of civil legal aid. Some 10 problems have occurred to me over the course of 10 minutes. Will other agencies pick up the cases that will no longer be covered by legal aid? The Government say that the Child Poverty Action Group, Age UK, Shelter and the Disability Alliance will, but have they been approached and what have they said in response? We have been told about other funding streams. I began my remarks by talking about what had happened in my own constituency and that picture is repeated all over the country. Other funding streams have already been cut. Law centres are surviving on funding from the Legal Services Commission, because local authority funding has already been cut.

Several Members have explained that such matters are complex and often inter-related. A debt problem often arises because there has been a benefit or employment problem. Tackling one but not the other is not an option. What about the economic viability of the not-for-profit sector? Is it feasible for the Government to make swingeing cuts but cherrypick the parts that will remain? I do not believe that it is, or that many law centres or private firms will survive under such a situation.

The issues of self-representation have been raised by Ministers in regard to this matter. In response to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), the Minister with responsibility for legal aid said:

“In most cases individuals will be able to”—

this is talking about welfare benefits—

“prepare their appeal to the First-Tier (Social Security and Child Support) Tribunal without formal legal assistance.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 115W.]

I am afraid that the Government are living in cloud cuckoo land, and their own figures do not support that claim. Some 40% of cases going to incapacity benefit appeals are successful with no representation and 67% are successful with representation. One of the solicitors firms that briefed us in preparation for this debate said that it had an 82% success rate in challenging employment support allowance cases, as against a national average of 40% where there is no representations.

The gateway has been mentioned. There is nothing wrong with telephone advice, but it cannot take the place of advice that is provided in person. With telephone advice, documents cannot be shown and people who have learning or language difficulties simply cannot use the telephone for that service.

Vulnerable people are not considered in this Green Paper. Unlike in the Bradley report in 2009, which dealt with people with learning difficulties and mental health difficulties in the criminal law system, no regard seems to have been given to those people in the Green Paper. Little regard has been given to the equality impact assessment, as demonstrated by the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North. The eligibility criteria are so restrictive that very few people will get any access to free advice in this sector at all. The cost issues have also been raised, including the fact that this change is, in effect, a false economy that will cost more in the long run than it saves.

Another point that has not been raised yet is the fact that courts and tribunals will be clogged by litigants appearing in person and legal practitioners—the Solicitor-General was a legal practitioner for many more years than I was—will realise that this change will be a nightmare for the judicial and court system.

Those are only a few of the issues that need to be raised. I hope that the Solicitor-General can respond to many of those points and if he cannot do so, I hope that he will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North and to other Members who have taken part in this debate.

This is only the beginning of the debate on legal aid; the debate will continue until the end of the consultation period, in the first instance. However, I hope that the Government realise that there are serious issues that have not been properly addressed in the Green Paper and they need to be addressed if we are to have a continuing civil legal aid system in this country.

10:51

[The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on introducing this most important subject to Westminster Hall this morning. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) has said, she is the founder and chair of the all-party group on legal aid and I am sorry to hear that she is stepping down from being chair of that group. However, I hope that she will continue to take a close interest in this area of public policy.

I am speaking in the absence of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), but I think that it is fair to say that legal aid is an acutely difficult area of public policy. Everyone who has spoken today—those who have spoken directly and those, such as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who have intervened—approached the debate with no sense of political malice.

I think that in all our constituencies we find areas where there is a huge need for legal assistance; both legal advice and legal representation. My reply to this debate will be incomplete and will not come with the knowledge that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State would have brought to it, since I have taken on this—I was going to say “case”—reply for the Government from another Department, which is normally a rather non-speaking Department.

Nevertheless, I hope that hon. Members will understand that we are at the very beginning of the consultation process, which will end in February, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith said. So I urge all those who have spoken in the debate and all those who have listened to it to participate in the consultation process. I also urge all those who have contacts with others outside Westminster Hall to encourage them to participate in the process, too. It is a deliberately lengthy consultation process, so that the Government can receive the benefit of the advice and the experience of those who know a great deal more about the matter than I do, and who provide advice and assistance.

The hon. Member for Westminster North and many other Members have today praised—quite properly and justly—the work of their citizens advice bureaux and not-for-profit advice providers in their constituencies. One that does not have to represent a constituency such as those of the hon. Lady or that of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) that, on the face of it, is challenged economically and socially to know the importance of those providers. One can represent a constituency such as mine that, on the face of it, appears to be prosperous but that has pockets of deprivation and great need for social welfare.

[Guto Bebb]

I would like to associate myself with many of the comments that have been made, especially those of my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland). However, one particular issue that concerns me as the MP for a very rural constituency is the real possibility that we will end up with the hinterland of my constituency of Aberconwy not having any legal aid representation whatsoever, with people having to make round trips of 40, 50 or 60 miles to access support. Will my concern be addressed by the Ministry of Justice?

[The Solicitor-General]

I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, will ensure that the Ministry of Justice addresses those points and I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) will want to participate in the consultation process.

Another point that occurred to me as I listened to the debate is that none of the arguments that I heard this morning is new. Indeed, I was making some of them myself between 1997 and 1999 as the Opposition spokesperson for the Lord Chancellor’s Department, when Geoff Hoon was the junior Minister dealing with this area of public policy. He was introducing proposals that turned into the so-called Access to Justice Act 1999. At the time, I suggested to him that those proposals would have had Attlee spinning in his grave.

However, to be in government is to have to make decisions and choices. The main factor that we have to address at the moment is the economic difficulties that the national budget faces. Every day, we are paying £120 million in interest payments alone. Would it not be better if we could spend that money on legal advice and representation? However, we have to make choices and I do not think that the hon. Member for Westminster North ducked that issue. In essence, she said that she accepts that choices have to be made, and that reductions in public expenditure have to be made. It is the pace with which and the areas where the cuts are made that she finds controversial.

[Stephen Timms]

The Solicitor-General is right to praise the work of citizens advice bureaux. However, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux says that at the moment, a quarter of its funding nationally comes from legal aid. That funding will be entirely lost if these proposals go through unamended. Are the Government looking at an alternative way of funding welfare advice services across the country?

[The Solicitor-General]

I want to make two points. First—yes, of course the Government are doing so, and that is the point of the consultation. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will participate in that consultation. Secondly, citizens advice bureaux are funded not just by central Government, but by other funding streams. Some are funded by as many as 15 funding streams.

That is not a complete answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, but I will throw back to him, as a former Treasury Minister, a question: where do we find the money at a time when we are spending £120 million a day on interest alone? We have to make difficult choices.

I accept that none of the answers that the Government come up with during this period will provide anybody with complete satisfaction. Nobody will leave this debate and go home for Christmas dancing in the streets about what I have said. However, we have to be realistic and face the hard choices that the previous Government have left us.

[Ms Buck]

I thank the Solicitor-General for giving way. I was in error in my introduction to the debate in not welcoming him, given that he has graciously stepped in to cover the Minister whose area of responsibility legal aid is, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly).

I would just like to ask the Solicitor-General to ensure, when he passes the message about this debate on to the Under-Secretary that he says that I would like an answer to one of the questions that I posed. The assumption underlying the Green Paper is that there is some mythical capacity in the voluntary and pro bono sector to deal with the areas of service where legal aid will be withdrawn. If we accept that there are cuts that will have a major impact on services, does the Solicitor-General agree that we have to be honest about the implications of those cuts and not effectively massage them away by saying that, somehow, somebody mythical will pick all this up? What estimate have the Government made of that capacity?

[The Solicitor-General]

The Government have commissioned an impact assessment, which I believe was published at the same time as the Green Paper. However, let me do a deal with the hon. Lady. First, of course I accept that we are facing difficult choices and I do not shrink from them. Secondly, however, does she accept my point that not every problem in life that our constituents face and that we encounter as constituency MPs has to be dealt with by a lawyer? Not every problem—be it debt, housing, family-related or some other area of dispute—has to be tackled by a lawyer. We need to refocus our attention to find solutions.

I do not shrink from saying that this is a difficult area, or from saying that sometimes the state will have to provide legal assistance. However, we have to narrow the scope or ambit of the taxpayers’ responsibility for providing legal advice and legal representation. That does not mean that others in other parts of the community cannot come forward and provide the assistance that, as has been so clearly indicated by other Members, is so desperately needed.

I am sorry that this type of debate really requires rather longer time than we have had today. Nevertheless, I hope that the hon. Lady will take the debate outside into the wider community, so that the Government can have the benefit of hearing her views and those of her colleagues between now and next February.

Intensive Dairy Farming

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Westminster Hall

11:01

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

I am very grateful to have been granted this important debate on an issue that has not thus far spent too much time in the headlines, but which is fundamental to the way of life of many of my constituents. Today’s attendance demonstrates the great interest that the farming community and people who live in rural Britain have in the subject. It is a great pleasure and an added bonus, Mrs Riordan, that the debate should come under your chairmanship; that makes this, my first Westminster Hall debate, a privilege rather than the ordeal that it might otherwise have been.

I shall begin in perhaps something of an odd place, by recording what the debate is not about. It is not about—at least, not specifically about—the super-dairy that developers wish to land in Nocton in my constituency, in close proximity to a number of other villages: Branston, Dunston, Potterhanworth and Metheringham, to name but four. Now that the planning application has been validated, that issue will be properly considered in due course by North Kesteven district council. Nor is the debate about the planning process itself, at least not at this stage. Planning matters are rightly devolved to local government, where they are best dealt with, and this Government have made it clear that that arrangement will continue and be extended, which is to be welcomed.

What the debate is about—and I am pleased that Members have, for the first time, the opportunity properly to consider the issues surrounding proposals such as the one for Nocton—is the question of how we should go about producing what has been one of the staples of a balanced diet since mankind began to farm animals for his own use. It is also a debate about what is left, and about what should be the future of the British dairy industry after the 13 years of poverty for dairy farmers and their families under the previous Government. I hope that the Minister is now able to tell us that that is being brought to an end.

The simple fact of the matter, and indeed the starting point for any debate about the future of the dairy industry, is that dairy farming in this country has been in crisis for well over a decade. It has been in crisis not merely because central Government previously showed no real interest in British farming, but because of the power of the supermarkets and the other bulk purchasers to drive down prices, which they have done remorselessly and single-mindedly for far too long, without having their wings clipped.

I know that the Minister intends to do something about that. The power of the supermarkets and the large purchasers might be good for consumers in the short term, but it has not been good for farmers—nor, I suspect, is it beneficial for producers or consumers in the long term. It has driven down the price of commodities, including milk, to levels where it has become difficult, if not impossible, for British farmers to make a living or compete with producers across the world.

Those producers—and, most importantly, comparable farmers in other European Union countries—have a lower cost base than their British counterparts, principally because they are unaffected by the gold-plating of the plethora of red tape emanating from Brussels that has stymied the farming industry in this country.

To a large extent, that is an issue for another day and possibly even for another place, but it is not going away and it lies, in one sense, at the heart of this debate. It provides the reason why dairy farmers in particular have been forced to the brink, some of them into insolvency. It also provides the reason for why we are now seeing the first proposals for the sort of dairy farming industry that I know fills many ordinary people and many traditional dairy farmers with horror. Just at the moment when the British farmer is producing the food that the British consumer wishes to buy, in the way the consumer wants it, a recession and continued pressure on prices are forcing the dairy farming community to consider production mechanisms that give rise to grave concerns for animal welfare, local communities and the environment more generally.

It is often said by people in towns who have no real knowledge of how we live in rural Britain, that farmers do not care about the environment or about their animals. That argument is as wrong as it is offensive. In my experience, farmers care more about the environment and their animals than any other section of society does, but they have families to support, which is why in any debate about how we are going to produce our food and our milk in the 21st century, we need to recognise that whatever measures are introduced and whatever decisions are taken, farmers have to be paid a proper price for the food they produce.

If that were already happening with the dairy industry, we would not be having this debate today. If just a few extra pence were paid by consumers for the milk that graces our breakfast tables and tops our interminable mugs of tea, the British dairy industry would not need to consider undergoing the form of fundamental change that proposals such as those for the super-dairy at Nocton involve.

I hope that the Members who have come to today’s debate will join me in the Chamber on 12 January when I seek the House’s permission to introduce a Bill on the super-dairies and the issue of whether farmers receive a fair price for their milk. Those two issues are indisputably and irrevocably intertwined.

My particular concern is that the opening of intensive dairy farming units across the United Kingdom would inevitably drive more small dairy farmers out of the market. The cows that they keep, with which every schoolchild in this country is familiar from an early age, would effectively be replaced by extraordinarily high-yield animals, bred and milked in an intensive setting and with statistically higher occurrences of welfare problems. It is absolutely clear that the public would not support that if they knew about it and if they turned their mind to the question of how they wished their milk to be produced.

The Minister will know that a recent Ipsos MORI poll showed that 61% of the British public would not knowingly buy milk from mega-dairies. That is undoubtedly why many supermarkets have publicly expressed negative views about milk produced in that way, and have indicated that there is, as far as they are concerned, no market for milk produced in super-dairies.

What, one is driven to ask rhetorically, is the point of these intensive dairy farming operations? What is the point of British dairy farming going in that direction? If the British public and the British supermarkets are not going to buy the milk, it will have to go overseas, with all the associated implications for carbon miles. I have to ask, perhaps rhetorically, whether that is the way forward or whether, as I venture to suggest and as I ask the Minister to accept, it is simply better to pay a little more for the milk we need in this country and ensure that we are self-sufficient for all our dairy requirements from our existing farms.

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

One of the problems is not that the farmers sell directly to supermarkets, but that they sell to intermediaries who may then sell to supermarkets.

[Stephen Phillips]

My hon. Friend is correct. The real point is that the price pressure that has come down from the supermarkets, whether through intermediaries or those responsible for purchasing milk production, has been so great that many farmers have been driven out of business, and those who remain in business, however efficient they are, are effectively driven to a point where the costs of production are almost equal—and sometimes greater than—the price that they are being paid for their milk.

The Government will have to grapple with that problem in a way that the previous Government did not. I venture to suggest that we would not be having this debate if we paid our dairy farmers a proper price for their milk, because there would be no need to consider super-dairies.

I have already made it clear that every farmer I have met is concerned more for the welfare of his or her stock than is generally accepted, yet the proposals for mega-dairies undoubtedly give rise to legitimate concerns about the welfare of farm animals. Although the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Minister, in his previous utterances, are correct to say that the most significant influence on welfare is the stock keeper, rather than the system, that statement depends on the existing status quo and, with regard to the proposals for Nocton and other mega-dairies, might not take into account potential future developments in the industry.

Future intensive dairy farmers, if we are to go down that route, will have to comply with existing welfare legislation for their animals, a point that I look forward to hearing the Minister confirm. Those animals will need space to move around in and adequate bedding, and all the other regulations for the existing dairy industry will have to be complied with. If we are to go down that route, there is no reason to believe that farmers would not treat their herds as well as the vast majority of small dairy farmers currently treat their own. It would not be in their interests to mistreat their animals, and I do not suppose that that would happen. However, it is equally clear that very large dairies require better monitoring, and different—much more stringent—animal welfare guidelines, and I hope to hear the Minister confirm that.

The point is that although poor welfare can occur in both intensive and less intensive systems, the evidence available from the United States and various other jurisdictions plainly shows that intensive systems are more predisposed to increasing the risk of poor animal welfare. Intensive milk production models are driven almost exclusively by volume; they demand high yields from cows to cover their inherently high set-up and operating costs. The relentless pursuit of more and more litres of milk to reduce the unit costs of production can take its toll on health and welfare, which is what concerns so many people. The toll on health and welfare can reduce the longevity of animals and place pressure and stress on them.

Experience from overseas, as I have indicated, is not promising. The driving up of milk yields through intensive selection has come at the well-documented expense of animal welfare, so the real fear is that mega-dairies in this country would do nothing to address the lameness, infertility and other health problems that already affect too large a proportion of Britain’s existing dairy herd.

However well cows are kept while indoors, it seems to many to be wholly unnatural to keep them inside all year round, and I understand those fears, although it is fair to say that that happens in some colder parts of continental Europe. Not allowing cows outside to graze during the grazing season seems to many to savour of battery farming, someone that this country set its face against a long time ago.

We must not ignore the fact that a lack of access to pasture concerns many people and is often responsible for animal health problems, which I do not exaggerate, as I am sure the Minister will accept. A review carried out by the European Food Safety Authority in 2009 concluded that zero-grazing systems give rise to a higher incidence of various health problems in animals and reduce their capacity to engage in normal social interactions. That concerns many farmers and many consumers when they turn their minds to the question.

Dairy farming has been part of this country’s agricultural economy for many hundreds of years and is part of our rural heritage, as it is in my constituency. That is partly why the reduction in the number of British dairy farmers is of such concern to so many of us. The numbers are frightening: in 2000 there were 23,286 registered dairy production holdings in England and Wales, but today the number is 11,233.

Many of those farmers have gone out of business for reasons to which I have already alluded—they cannot get a good price for their milk and too often have to sell at below the cost of production. I accept that intensive dairy farms could provide economies of scale and allow for greater mechanisation, which would start to reduce those trends, but I hope that the Minister will accept that that must naturally come at the expense of smaller operations.

To put it another way, although such economies of scale are great for the owners of intensive dairy farms, they sound a further death knell for many smaller producers. Although many people say that they would prefer to purchase their milk from smaller producers, there is, as the Minister knows, no requirement to label the origin of milk, a fact that supermarkets know well and wish to see continue.

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

On my hon. and learned Friend’s previous point, is he aware that a number of auctioneers across the UK are simply not taking bookings to sell milking cows until well into next year because there is such a backlog of farmers going out of business and trying to sell their dairy cows?

[Stephen Phillips]

I was not aware of that, but it does not surprise me, given the state of the British dairy industry. That issue is at the heart of the debate. What do we want to see in future for the British dairy industry? I want to see existing producers paid a suitable price for their milk so that they can provide a decent living for their families and continue the tradition of farming that has gone on in this country for hundreds of years and that does not result in the environmental concerns associated with intensive dairy farming, which for the most part I set my face against.

This is not a situation that the Government can permit to continue. Given the pressures on small farmers up and down the country, it is unacceptable for the Government to say that it is all merely down to the planning process, leave it up to local authorities and allow smaller producers simply to be undercut by intensive dairy farms, which for many might be the last straw. If intensive dairy farms are to be allowed at all, I hope that the Minister will state that there will be action on price and labelling so that British consumers who wish to avoid purchasing milk from intensive dairy farms will have the opportunity to do so. If freedom of choice means anything, it certainly means that we should be able to do that.

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

I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on how he is taking the debate forward. He has made the important point that there has been enormous price pressure on existing dairy farmers, but does he agree that one way to address the problem would be to have the so-called grocery ombudsman or regulator to ensure that a few large dairies cannot take advantage of many small producers?

[Stephen Phillips]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that at the election all three main parties promised a farming ombudsman, and that the Minister intends to introduce one. Given the constituency that I come from, I hope that that will happen soon.

Be in no doubt: we need a farming ombudsman, and not just for dairy farmers. We all hear tales about how supermarkets in particular put pressure on farmers so that they can improve their bottom line. Consumers who purchase food at those supermarkets simply do not know about that; incidentally, I believe that they would be disgusted were they to know the full truth.

We need a farming ombudsman, and, if it is not out of order or inappropriate, perhaps the Minister would confirm that we will get one in due course, and that it will be soon. I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams).

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

My hon. and learned Friend has just used a phrase that I would not wish to gain currency. I can confirm happily that the Government are committed to introducing a grocery ombudsman, but he used the words “farming ombudsman”. That is not what is under discussion. I am sorry, but I wanted to make that correction.

[Stephen Phillips]

I am grateful to the Minister for that correction. At some point, we may need to have another debate about the scope of the ombudsman’s jurisdiction and powers, but perhaps we can leave that to one side for the remainder of today’s debate.

I said at the outset that this debate is not primarily about the specific proposals for Nocton, but one aspect of intensive dairy farming is that it can adversely affect local communities in several ways. As I have seen from my postbag, the ongoing application for the proposed farm at Nocton is almost universally opposed by the communities in which it would be sited, and by those who have lived in settled farming communities for all their lives. This is not nimbyism—at least it is not just nimbyism. It is a legitimate desire to maintain recognisable rural communities away from the hurly-burly of the industrialised practices that are associated with such farms, just as they are associated with light or heavy industry.

Also, let us not forget the slurry: cows produce slurry, which must be disposed of. Digesters are part of the answer for such operations, but significant quantities of dirty water remain to be disposed of either through environmentally-unfriendly tankering operations or through discharge, which, unless carefully managed, runs the risk of polluting aquifers.

As far as the opposition in my constituency to Nocton is concerned, the problem emphatically is not exclusively about odour—an odour which those of us who live in the countryside are used to and, indeed, of which we are rather fond. Effluent contains pathogens and other harmful substances, including residues of pesticides and veterinary medicines. The use of anaerobic digestion to process slurry cannot mitigate the entire problem, particularly when dealing with waste from a large number of cows.

This may not be a problem at present in Lincolnshire—although it is worth noting that it is one of the driest counties in the country—but the fact is that this country and the world face increasing pressure on water resources. Intensive dairy farming units would put a great deal of strain on those resources, as they use large quantities of water. Dairies such as those proposed for Nocton can cause strain on local water resources. I venture to suggest that, if this country were to go down the road of intensive dairy farming, the Minister might wish to regulate where such farms can be sited, given local water resources.

Another reason why local communities are right to be concerned about proposals for large-scale dairy operations—I shall end my substantive comments today with this—are the traffic issues associated with any form of industrialised process, whether in the farming industry or any other. Large numbers of cows that are milked for high yields produce large quantities of milk that need to be transported, and require deliveries of all manner of feed and other products associated with their maintenance and support. In areas where traffic is already an issue, the strain that would be placed on existing infrastructure would be, at best, undesirable.

In areas where traffic is not an issue, perhaps because of their rural nature, the position would be just as bad. Additional traffic movements, particularly of heavy and slow-moving vehicles, could contribute to accidents. Communities in those areas are not used to such traffic, and there is not the infrastructure to deal with the issues surrounding the additional movements. To some extent, that is certainly the case at Nocton, where such issues rightly concern many of my constituents.

The solution to all that, as matters are at present, is that we need to make careful inquiries about the mega-dairy bandwagon and prevent it from gaining steam. At the same time, we must recognise that the necessary price of that is developing and paying properly for the remaining existing dairy farming industry.

We need a rural economy based on sustainable, conventional dairy farming, which includes farmers breeding robust cows that retain the capacity to look after themselves—cows grazed on pasture during the grazing season, and farmers striving for and achieving greater longevity for their animals, producing valuable male calves that can be reared economically for beef.

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

I apologise for my late arrival; unfortunately, I was detained elsewhere in the House on other business. I have thoroughly agreed with and enjoyed as much of the hon. and learned Gentleman’s speech as I have been able to listen to.

Would the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that mega-dairies are actually the thin end of the wedge, and that we may well find in the future that there is almost no rural economy? The ideal location for one of these super-sheds is somewhere like Stoke-on-Trent, on a brownfield site next to major road infrastructure, where materials, feed and so on can be brought in, and waste products can be removed. This could be the start of the end of the British dairy farming industry.

[Stephen Phillips]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That was my reason for asking for this debate in the first place. It is also the reasoning behind my solution. Mega-dairies are not the road to take. The hon. Gentleman raises the prospect of super-dairies being sited in large sheds on brownfield sites, with all the difficulties that that would cause in respect of not only deliveries of milk, feed stuffs and so on, but disposal of the animals’ waste, which would have to be tankered away from such sites—nothing else can be done with it. I agree that this is the thin end of the wedge, and that is why we have to face it down. I hope to hear from the Minister that that is the Government’s view.

Intensive dairy farming is not the future that I wish to see. I hope that the Minister agrees with my view, which is that, in the best interests of the industry, rural Britain and our dairy farmers, we should create a supply chain that ensures that farmers receive a proper price for their milk. We do not need any super-dairies, whether at Nocton or anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

11:28

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

I join in congratulating my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) on securing this debate. Any discussion in this building about the plight of rural communities, in particular the agricultural aspects of it, is encouraging.

If I may, I would like to start with some of the economic context which my hon. and learned Friend mentioned, and quote some figures. I do this as a brother-in-law of a dairy farmer, the son of a dairy farmer, and the husband of a dairy farmer’s daughter—hon. Members will get a general idea of my position. At present—admittedly, this is only one set of figures—farmers are producing milk at a loss of between 1p and 2.5p per litre. The dairies sell their products for a profit in the region of 4p to 5p, yet certain supermarkets—I shall try to be careful about naming them—are selling at a profit of 22p a litre. That is the economic context which my hon. and learned Friend mentioned. I absolutely agree with him that the buying public, if they were aware of the muscle that is applied by supermarkets, would greet that knowledge with a certain amount of disdain and, indeed, disgust.

Let me take that a stage further. One supermarket prides itself on paying its suppliers a rather higher price—about 28p a litre. If the truth was known that only 800 suppliers—some 10%—qualify for that price, the public would raise an eyebrow. In addition, the supermarket in question does not fork out that extra amount itself. Instead, it has insisted on the middle man at the dairy negotiating a more stringent price with the supplier. What did the dairy do? The dairy froze its payments to farmers who are not providing that supermarket, which meant consequentially that their price was reduced. Although that supermarket is obtaining good public relations for distributing press releases talking about fair trade for farmers, it has not been impacted on at all. Yet all those farmers who are not lucky enough to provide that supermarket chain have been penalised. That is the actual, factual economic context behind this important debate. That is why—there is no other reason at all—we are looking at the prospect of super- dairies, if that is the right expression.

I want to inject a degree of measured middle ground, if I may. It is obvious that, increasingly, farmers recognise that scale is the only way that they can make money. I am not talking about making large sums, but about making sufficient money not to go bust and to be able to invest in new technology, which is not just desirable for milk production, but is required by law in the current economic and legal climate.

I represent an area of west Wales in Carmarthenshire, in probably one of the largest milk-producing areas in the UK, where there is a significant problem of tuberculosis in cattle. Fortunately, that is a debate for another day. I am aware, through my constituents, that there is an attraction to housing cattle indoors as far as possible, because doing so reduces the risk of infection from TB and enables farmers to bulk buy feed and bedding materials. Hon. Members will be aware that feed has never been more expensive than it is this year.

It is also clear that production on a larger scale reduces the chances of pollution. We are all aware, sadly, of the incidences of pollution as a consequence of leaking slurry tanks and the like over the years. Fortunately, there has been a decrease in such instances, partly because of housing measures that people have put in place and are increasingly under pressure to implement.

There is an argument, whether it is proven or not, that indoor milk production reduces the carbon footprint of particular farms. Other hon. Members will no doubt expand on whether that is a compelling argument.

I am not trying to justify or promote large-scale dairy production; I am simply trying to set out what my milk-producing constituents see as an essential consequence of the supermarket grip on the industry, and saying that they regard themselves as being much more likely to be able to invest decent sums in modern technology—we have heard about anaerobic digesters—under such conditions than they would be able to under any other system.

[Roger Williams]

My hon. Friend is generating an interesting point of view, which is that we need a range of dairy farms, from small and medium-sized ones to larger ones. The hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) said that there is a welfare code for dairy animals. Perhaps animals kept in larger units might need a different approach under the welfare code, because they will be kept in different circumstances.

[Simon Hart]

I agree. There is no greater expert on this subject than my hon. Friend.

I want to return to welfare concerns. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) made an interesting intervention on whether dairy production would be encouraged to move from its traditional countryside location to brownfield sites. Although there is a danger of that happening, I am not as convinced of it as he is. There is more to dairy farming than milking cows; there is young stock, dry cows and sick and lame animals that cannot be housed indoors. There will always be a need for animals in green fields. I do not think that we want to assume that milking is the only part of the process and that dairy farms can be located anywhere in the UK. It is not quite as simple as that.

When we discuss animal welfare in this context, there is a gulf of difference between reality and perception. My hon. and learned Friend mentioned legitimate concerns. I am always wary of legitimate concerns unless they can be backed up by evidence. The Department is assessing the welfare implications of indoor cattle. We Members of Parliament, particularly those representing agricultural areas, would be well advised to be a little bit cautious about talking about legitimate concerns until we know that there are legitimate concerns to be cautious about.

It is important to remember, in considering the scale of milk production, that thin, lame or ill cattle can be segregated in bigger herds, whereas in normal circumstances, in small-scale production, they can be prone to bullying by other animals in the herd. Being able to do such things on a larger scale, there is an argument, which I accept is unproven, that says that welfare standards can be improved. In other words, big is not necessarily bad. I suspect that we are all aware of small dairy producers—the sort that we are trying to champion—whose welfare standards are not as good as larger, slightly more industrial units, to use an unattractive term.

We have to be cautious about assuming things and being led by the nose—I am not suggesting for one moment that hon. Members are—down the road that says that big is bad and that the only kind of high-welfare milk production is undertaken by small producers. We know that that is not so. We need evidence to hand before we make judgments in that regard.

I welcome this debate, which has been waiting to be heard and which has huge consequences for the rural economy. If the Government get this wrong—I am not suggesting that they might—there will be massive social and environmental consequences and it will be hard to be put things back together.

Hon. Members have mentioned economic circumstances, but tracing this issue to its source it comes back to a simple question. How do we deal with the stranglehold of the supermarkets over our dairy industry? It is not the fault of farmers, the planning system or the Government; it is the fault of supermarkets, which are putting short-term gain at the top of their agenda, at the risk of putting the UK dairy industry either into terminal freefall or being exported.

We need to impress on the supermarkets the importance of this matter. A demonstration by Welsh farmers outside Asda in Chepstow tomorrow will express this view. I said that I would not name a supermarket, but now I have. It is a sad day when any section of the agricultural community is subject to such pressure, because the long-term downstream consequences for the rural community as a whole will be devastating unless we get this right.

11:38

[Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) on securing this debate, his measured introduction and balancing clear arguments on welfare and costs. May I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), who brings personal expertise to this debate in a way that most hon. Members cannot? It is more than 60 years since I first tried to milk a cow by hand and if I tried it today, I probably would not be good at it.

Anybody who has been brought up in the west country, as I was fortunate enough to be, cannot fail to recognise the importance of the dairy industry to the rural economy and to our countryside environment.

My hon. and learned Friend initially said that super-dairies were a planning issue, although he moved away from that posture. Technically, that is correct, as is the case with the one in his constituency, but I venture to suggest that the issue goes much deeper and is a moral one. Those of us who are sad enough to wake up too early and find ourselves listening to “Farming Today” know only too well, because we hear about it with monotonous regularity, the plight of the dairy industry. Having heard the figures—they were placed on the record again this morning—we understand how dairy farmers are being screwed by the supermarket industry. That may be inelegant, but it is accurate.

The debate so far has concentrated on the obvious economic problems to the detriment, to some extent, of the moral argument. Those of us who have knocked around in this place for a bit—some of us are here today—participated in the campaign to ban veal crates in the United Kingdom. We were highly delighted when we succeeded, and the Government of the day outlawed the use of crates in this country. With glorious hindsight, with which we are blessed, it was a pyrrhic victory, because all we did was to move the problem from A to B, and veal calves that were once reared under relatively humane conditions, albeit not desirable, in the United Kingdom are now reared under infinitely worse conditions on mainland Europe. Not only that, they are first transported to mainland Europe by sea. Far from win-win, we can fairly say with hindsight that it was lose-lose.

My concern is that unless we get the matter right, we are in grave danger of moving the dairy problem from A to B, to the detriment of the British dairy industry and of animal welfare, so again it could be lose-lose. Reference was made to regulations from Brussels being an argument for another day but, with respect, I believe that it is an argument for today. Unless we engineer a situation that overrides European regulations on free trade, and put in place measures that will not allow to be sold in the United Kingdom animal produce that has been reared under conditions that we would not permit in this country, we shall lose.

I detect that no one in the Chamber wants super-dairies to take over from traditional dairy farms, but the danger is that those who fund the super-dairies will take their money to northern France, Belgium, Holland or elsewhere close by on mainland Europe and produce precisely the same quantities of milk under precisely the same undesirable circumstances. We will import it and our British dairy farmers will go out of business.

[Robert Flello]

I am listening with great interest and appreciating the passion of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. Will he draw some parallels with what has happened in the pottery industry in my constituency, where the work has gone abroad? Pottery owners drove down prices as much as possible to try to compete with cheap imports until they were no longer competitive. Production moved abroad, goods were produced more cheaply and then imported back, and were passed off as being produced here because they were packaged here. Is not the same thing happening already in the food industry with pork being imported, packaged and sold to unsuspecting British consumers as though it were British pork? I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s line of argument, and perhaps he will draw some parallels.

[Mr Gale]

I will not be tempted down that road, simply because it is probably outside the remit of this debate, and because there is a fundamental difference. Of course, I accept that cheap imports of anything from anywhere can damage our UK producers and, therefore, to some extent our UK economy. Mass production is a feature of the world, and we import goods from all over the world, but we are talking about welfare. We still import veal that has been produced in veal crates, while not allowing veal crates here. That is a welfare issue. We still import chickens and pigmeat that are produced under intensive conditions that we would simply not allow in the United Kingdom. I fail to see how it can be right for us to shackle United Kingdom agricultural producers and to tie one, if not both hands behind their back, while cheerfully allowing European trade regulations to override all those welfare considerations so that our markets are flooded by anything from anywhere, produced under any circumstances. That is morally wrong, and we must stop it.

If the public seriously believe in the moral and welfare issues, they must be prepared to pay. We must be prepared to pay a fair price to farmers for our food—not to the middle man or the supermarket, but at the very beginning to farmers. That is the only way to secure the right to demand high animal welfare standards. But I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that in tandem with that, we must get regulation under control so that we not only pass, but enforce on Europe and the rest of the world the welfare regulations that we apply to ourselves here in the United Kingdom.

11:46

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) for obtaining this important debate. He could not have picked a more important time to do so, as we have heard. We are all aware that we are at a crucial stage with a plan for a new factory dairy farm. It will either be approved by Lincolnshire county council or, if the decision is deferred, considered by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. I hope to contribute to persuading the Minister to use his influence to encourage the Secretary of State to delay that application when it is submitted. I shall briefly explain why.

We have heard arguments on animal welfare and broader environmental concerns. A broad range of organisations, including Compassion in World Farming, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the World Society for the Protection of Animals, Friends of the Earth, the Campaign Against Factory Farming Operations and many others, have made their views known. I want to return to another major concern.

The Minister told hon. Members in the House that he welcomes the fact that people are looking to invest in our dairy sector. But is that the kind of investment that we want? No one can deny that if the mega-dairy model is a success, it will impact heavily on traditional dairy farming in this country. If the new model works, the old model will have to give way at some point. Farmers will go out of business, and for those who survive, there will be little prospect of their children taking over. We will see a profound transformation of our countryside with acceleration of the depressing trends described in the brilliant speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart).

Today, just over 16,000 dairy farms produce 12 billion litres of milk. If the CPRE research is correct, the same quantity could be produced with just 232 Nocton-style mega-dairies. We have seen in the United States how quickly intensive agriculture can take hold. In 10 years, the number of cows reared in intensive conditions nearly doubled from 2.5 million to 4.9 million between 1997 and 2007.

If we are to move to a situation in which farmers are replaced by a handful of technicians, cattle food is imported, fields are left empty, and cows are denied grazing, at the very least we should consider the implications because that shift is not inevitable, as we have been led to believe. It will not result from some kind of overwhelming evolutionary market force. It has nothing to do with the market. I have yet to meet a single consumer who wants to buy such stuff. Even some of the mega-supermarkets that have rightly taken a bashing this morning—I will give them another bashing later—and household-name supermarkets have said that they will not sell milk from mega-dairies. There is no shortage of milk. We export more than we import. The market is not what will take us towards the mega-dairy—or, indeed, towards cloned meat or genetically modified food, both of which seem to be back on the agenda. However, politicians might take us in that direction.

We have a new farming Minister who is almost unique in that he is respected by both small and large farmers. He belongs to a Government whose leaders spent a great deal of time before the election, crucially, supporting slow food, organic food, sustainable food, local food, farmers’ markets and the works—the antithesis of factory production. I do not believe that the Minister wants to preside over a process in which our countryside is effectively handed over to US-style intensive agribusiness.

I recognise that the National Farmers Union has, more or less, endorsed the Nocton plans, but the NFU stands almost alone among farmers’ groups with that support. It would be wrong to mistake the NFU for an authentic voice for farmers, given that its president casually recommended recently:

“We need to experiment…We should give it a try.”

He was not speaking for farmers but for agribusiness. That is why, outside Parliament a few years ago, representatives from countless small farming organisations lined up with posters saying, “NFU: No F…ing Use”—I was there at the time.

Nocton is opposed by a wide range of farming bodies, from FARM, the Small Farms Association and the Family Farmers Association to the Soil Association, and including the Farmers Union of Wales, which said recently:

“Given that a single super-dairy could take the place of scores of average sized family dairy farms, we would prefer to see traditional family farms staying in business and receiving a fair price for their milk, rather than single massive units pushing others out of business”.

I know that the Minister shares that concern for the future of farming in this country. I urge him to step in now, before it is too late. We do not always have to yield to the lowest possible standards. We could, for example, invest the £2 billion or so spent on food in schools and hospitals on the best quality, local, British sustainable food, cutting food miles, giving patients and children the food that they want and immediately boosting the rural economy.

As we have just heard in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale), we can insist that whatever food is imported should meet the same standards that we apply to our own farmers, so that our farmers are not unfairly outcompeted. Yes, that requires us to take on the trade rules but, if the rules make no sense, the Government’s job is to challenge them. We must do that if we are serious about protecting the British farming sector.

In addition, we could negotiate a better deal from the supermarkets. I will not repeat the arguments that we have already heard, but they are absolutely valid and I echo them. There is an imbalance of power—again, I cannot imagine any other body in this country, other than the Government, that is able or equipped to challenge and address that imbalance. That is a prerequisite for ensuring the survival of the farming sector.

We have heard that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does not have the power to stop Nocton or such a dairy model. However, if the Minister is persuaded that the risks are too great, he can raise standards without legislation, to prevent such developments from happening. I do not expect him to be persuaded in this forum, in a brief series of speeches, but I ask him to acknowledge the concerns and to use his influence to put the project on hold until he has commissioned a broad and thorough analysis of the likely impacts, not just on welfare, which is key, but on the whole farming sector. Without that information, we cannot take a proper, responsible or reasonable decision.

11:53

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Mrs Riordan, for the opportunity to contribute to a debate that is close to my own interests. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) for the way in which he introduced the debate and, in particular, his reference to the power of the supermarket—I am looking forward to that debate in the new year, when we will address what is a fundamental issue in this debate.

I have three reasons for wanting to contribute to the debate. First, for the first 15 years of my working life, I was a dairy farmer. I gave up dairy farming because, with 70 cows and a pipeline system, I was finding myself left behind. I had to make a huge investment to go up to 150 cows, so I took the decision to stop dairy farming and to switch to beef and sheep.

I also spent seven years as the chair of a local planning authority, so I have a significant interest. The issue that we are discussing is a planning one, making the debate of interest to me.

My third reason is the application for a 1,000-cow dairy unit in my constituency, quite close to my home, which has been controversial. I do not want to make particular reference to that planning application, because there are pluses and minuses. A local young farmer has general support for wanting to stay competitive in a difficult industry, but on the other hand the unit would be close to a local school, so it will be a big issue for the local planning authority to decide.

There are mixed views. I am keen to see a balanced approach to the debate. My fundamental approach to any issue is to ask, “Why not?” We are talking about a completely new type of dairy unit. It is important to start from the general principle that people should be allowed to do what they want unless there is a good, solid reason for not doing it. The same applies to planning. A planning authority starts from the position that it should grant planning permission, unless there are good planning reasons not to do so. I want to approach the debate with that general attitude.

I am as much a romantic as, probably, any of us. My first experience of dairying was on my nain and taid’s farm, where they milked seven cows. My nain milked the cows by hand. They made cheese and I used to spin the churn—it was pretty hard work, too. I am probably the only one present who has done that, and it is pretty significant work—my granny was quite elderly and had no problem at all, but I did—and milking cows by hand is not easy, either.

I have an instinctive antipathy to the idea of nearly 4,000 cows in a unit, but we need to go beyond that and look at why we might oppose such plans. It is not straightforward.

[Stephen Phillips]

My hon. Friend is concerned about 4,000 cows, but I wish to make it clear that the proposers of the development at Nocton originally put in an application for more than 6,000. If he is concerned about 4,000, it has been made clear that that will in due course become 6,000, so he ought to be even more concerned. I hope that he agrees with me.

[Glyn Davies]

I heard that the original Nocton proposal was for 7,000 cows. Once we reach 1,000, the principle is much the same—we are dealing with a big unit in which the animals are housed for almost the whole time. That is a different way of producing milk. I accept my hon. and learned Friend’s point.

Let us go into the reasons for not doing it. The first was in the more significant part of my hon. and learned Friend’s introductory speech: the driving out of small farmers as a result of the economic conditions that the larger farmers might create. I am not sure that I accept that reason. When I was milking 70 cows, I was accused of driving out small farmers. That was the position then. In truth, a person hand-milking seven cows was just not economic—that was the reason for stopping the business. In those days, the 70-cow unit was economic, but we reached a stage when it was not.

Small farmers will be and have been going out of business—we heard the numbers earlier. That has happened and will continue, irrespective of the large farming unit. I do not think that there is a direct correlation between the two issues.

[Simon Hart]

We are in danger of muddling two things, one of which is the size of the unit. Plenty of farmers have gradually crept up from seven cows to 70, from 70 to 170 and, in my family’s case, from about 100 to 400. Is there some cut-off point, above which they should not be allowed to go? That is one of the issues we are discussing. The other issue is whether it is appropriate to be milking cows indoors 365 days of the year. We are in danger of confusing the two issues.

[Glyn Davies]

Several issues are probably involved, so I want to make my second point, which is that we might want to resist the development on welfare grounds. We can include housing for 365 days a year as a welfare issue. Even with a seven-cow herd, the animals were indoors for six months of the year. Being indoors is not particularly unusual. I think that the application for a 1,000-cow unit in my constituency proposes that the animals should be indoors for almost two thirds of the year. I suspect that the application for the 7,000-cow unit proposed having the animals indoors, apart from the followers, for 12 months of the year. What we have to keep at the core of our thinking is high welfare standards, and we must be guided by science or we shall lose the argument in the end.

[Mr Edward Leigh in the Chair]

I do not accept that it is necessarily more difficult to meet welfare standards with a large herd than with a small herd. I know that some people will disagree, but I just do not think that the large size of a herd is a proven reason for that. In fact, we can argue a little bit the other way, because for a large herd, there will almost certainly be professionally trained staff, and a large unit will be able to afford to keep them professionally trained. It will be able to do the training that smaller units cannot. A large dairy unit will almost certainly have an ongoing relationship with a veterinary surgeon, who will call in regularly. The smaller units do not have that. Most farmers with herds the size of mine considered themselves to be veterinary surgeons. We were not willing to pay what I thought were excessive bills at the time—we did it ourselves. I think that we shall find that the welfare standards in large units will be very impressive, and if they are not, they will not get permission.

There are many other, environmental reasons why one might want to refuse an application for a large unit, and I think that planning authorities should be willing to turn down applications, unless they meet their exacting standards. The application in my constituency is within view of Powis castle. The local planning authority will have to consider that issue. The Environment Agency will have to examine all the implications for the environmental impact. All such issues will have to be considered by a planning authority before approval is secured.

I want to deal now with the public resistance element. During my eight years in the National Assembly for Wales, I was a huge enthusiast for organic farming and farmers’ markets. We should continue with that, but we have to persuade people to come and buy from these units. The reality is that most customers—consumers—will buy where the price is cheapest. The supermarkets will drive down the price, and unless British farmers produce the product, they will import it. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) made a very good point about exporting a problem. That is exactly what might happen in the dairy industry unless we deal with the matter. In relation to public resistance, we need a balanced and open mind and a view based on scientific knowledge.

I want to appeal not only to my hon. Friend the Minister but to everyone who participates in the debate—because it will be an ongoing debate; the issue will not be dealt with in the short term—not to take an instinctive view. Mine might be one of antipathy. We must examine the science, because in the end that is what will rule the decision. If we in this House are to have an impact on the issue, we have to present the facts and have an influence, we hope, on the purchasers, which are mostly supermarkets. Only the Government can do that now, because supermarkets have reached such a state of dominance in the market. By taking a balanced approach, we may well have some influence and, while not necessarily returning to the image of my childhood, staying rather closer to it.

[Mr Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. I want to allow time for the winding-up speeches, so I will call Neil Parish now, but he must finish his speech, please, within five minutes.

12:03

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

I should like to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) and say that my views on this issue are also mixed. If I look at the commercial situation and even the animal welfare situation, I do not think that there is a problem with the unit that we are discussing, because there will be vets on call, the buildings will be exceptional and the quality of everything on that farm will be excellent. I do not think that that is the issue.

I shall explain my concern. When we see the advertising of milk, cheese or butter, we see the wonderful Kerrygold cows hopping around the field. I do not think that the Kerrygold cows are any happier than anyone else’s cows, but of course that company is very good at marketing the product.

I worry about the dairy industry as a whole. We live in a time when people want to eat less fat and we need to market the product well, and I am not convinced in that respect with regard to 4,000, 6,000 or 8,000 cows on a farm in Lincolnshire or wherever that are kept indoors all the time. Let us say that a farm has 6,000 cows. Six fours are 24; that is 24,000 feet. Imagine turning those out into a field; certainly, if it was one of my fields in Somerset, it would not take long to turn it into a plough ground. I know that, in reality, not all 6,000 cows would be turned out together, but the chances of those cows going out into the field and being seen grazing are pretty negligible. I think that we all accept that.

We can argue the rights and wrongs of the single farm payment and the common agricultural policy, but farming does take quite a lot of public money one way or the other, and the public, rightly or wrongly, want to see a certain style of farming. They want to see cows out in the fields. We have only to think back to the time of foot and mouth disease in 2001, when so many sheep and cattle were, unfortunately, slaughtered. The one thing that the public told me was that they missed the livestock in the fields. We have to face up to that.

My hon. Friend the Minister has a huge conundrum to solve. From the point of view of the economics, welfare and planning, there is probably no problem, but in terms of the industry, the welfare of farmers and the public’s concept of farming, there is a big issue. We can argue about the economics of dairy farming, but it will be accepted that even now, people should be able to make a reasonable living from 200 cows, so do we really want to go to 4,000 or 8,000 cows, which will take out 40 or 80 of what I would call commercially viable farms?

Then what are we doing? We are handing over even more power to the supermarkets. They will love to get their milk from herds of 4,000, 6,000 or 8,000 cows, because they can send dirty great tankers along, probably all day long, to collect the milk. I suspect that the cows will be milked several times a day, so there will be milk there all the time and the supermarkets will be able to get tanker-loads of it. That suits everyone from a commercial point of view, but will it actually increase the price of milk? I doubt that very much. I suspect that it will decrease the price of milk and then the 200-cow herd, the 300-cow herd and even the 400-cow herd will be under pressure.

I know that I am perhaps wanting to have my cake and eat it. I want to say, “Let’s have commercial farming,” and then say, “Well, this is a little bit too commercial. Let’s stop it here.” However, we do have to consider the issue carefully, because we are talking about the overall health and the overall marketing of the dairy industry and what I believe is an excellent product; it is very good for people to consume. Returning my remarks to my constituency in Devon, I have to say that keeping cows out grazing is part of the landscape that people expect to see.

I do not envy the Minister his task today because he has to balance many elements, but as we move forward on this proposal, or stop it or whatever, we must be conscious of the dairy industry as a whole, of smaller farms and of the public’s perception of dairy farming.

12:08

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Leigh, as it was under Mrs Riordan’s. This has been an excellent debate. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) on securing it. He spoke with great passion and authority.

I also wish to commend the contributions of the hon. Members for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) and for North Thanet (Mr Gale), who referred to the moral argument underpinning the issue and to the need for EU-level reform. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who made an interesting and thoughtful speech. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) spoke of the need to promote further scientific research with the authority of being a dairy farmer. I also wish to commend the speech of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish).

The dairy industry in the United Kingdom has been through an extremely volatile period. Intensive farming raises three challenges: first, animal welfare; secondly, greenhouse gas emissions, to which I think the hon. Member for Richmond Park referred; and thirdly, market distortions, which we hope the work on the grocery ombudsman, begun under the previous Government, will address. I hope that that work will be implemented under the current Government. I shall develop each of the points in turn.

After a period of extreme volatility, the dairy industry in the UK is still the third largest in the EU and the ninth largest in the world, producing more than 11 billion litres per annum, amounting to more than 16% of agricultural output last year, and contributing £3.1 billion to the economy. Despite the volatility in production and prices, yield per cow increased between 1995 and 2005, and average yield per cow increased in 2008 and 2009. The NFU said earlier this year that a typical UK dairy farm with a herd of 113 is likely to produce approximately a million litres of milk per year, with the average yield per cow increasing from slightly less than 6,000 litres in 2000 to more than 7,000 in 2010.

It is clear that it is ultimately for the local council and, if brought in by the Government, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to determine what happens in Nocton. I do not wish to comment on the precise legal technicalities of the process that may come in future. However, the debate has raised wider questions on what the view of DEFRA and right hon. and hon. Members should be towards intensifying farming, based on the three points that I mentioned.

There does not seem to be consensus that intensifying farming will universally lead to negative outcomes on animal welfare. The Farm Animal Welfare Council and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have said that, in their view, intensification will not necessarily lead to a diminution in animal welfare.

[Mr Gale]

Does the shadow Minister accept that there is a fundamental difference between animal health and animal welfare? One is quantifiable and easy to identify, and the other is much harder to identify, but just as important.

[Mr Bain]

That is an extremely good point. The hon. Gentleman anticipated the argument that I was going to advance. There is a need for more research into intensification. In the United States, farms of 15,000 cows or more are not unknown, and the proportion of farms with more than 500 cows has doubled from 31.3% to 59.5% of the national herd. Less than half the farms with under 99 cows are still in business, so it is clear that there has been an impact on the small dairy farmer in the US. It is important that we conduct economic research into whether the same would happen in the EU.

[Stephen Phillips]

In the US, which is a much larger country, there is a minimum separation zone between these sorts of intensive farms and the nearest settlement. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is important? It may be one reason why these intensive dairy farms are not appropriate for many places in the UK.

[Mr Bain]

That is another excellent point, and it is why we must move with extreme care and ensure that we get the best evidence on animal welfare and on the economic impact on small farmers. I hope that the Minister can give us further information in his closing remarks on any impact assessment that DEFRA is conducting.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation said earlier this year that the global dairy sector contributes 4% to total global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, and the share from global milk production is 2.7%. There is a balance to be struck between the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which taking more cows inside and using anaerobic digestion more may diminish, and the wider arguments on animal welfare. Some concerns have been expressed by Compassion in World Farming, for example; it said that excessive intensification could lead to growing incidences of lameness, mastitis and other illnesses affecting cattle.

However, some advantages of intensification have been identified, which we must properly evaluate and not rule out. For example, the FAWC has said:

“In general, management of dairy cows that are housed all year round is easier for the farmer”.

It goes on to say that housing cows all year round allows for more effective control over feed composition and for diets that are targetable to specific groups. There is also a reduced risk of parasitic infestation and greater biosecurity. It is clear that there is no consensus on whether intensification is intrinsically bad, which is why we need further economic and scientific research to explore the issues more fully.

There have been extreme swings in the market in recent years, particularly in EU milk prices. Indeed, the Commission had to produce a package of support in 2009 to support dairy farmers in the UK and across the EU. In the discussions on CAP reform, which we hope will be concluded by 2013, there needs to be a longer-term settlement that will put the dairy industry, across the EU, on a surer footing. I hope the Minister can indicate the position that the Government will take on dairy farming in those negotiations.

This is an extremely controversial issue. The planning application for Nocton in itself raises important matters, but I think the wider debate we need to have about the three principles is more important—animal welfare, greenhouse gas emissions and correcting the problems in the dairy market. I hope the Minister can set out the Government’s position on all three in his concluding remarks.

12:18

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

I am grateful to be serving under your chairmanship for, I think, the first time, Mr Leigh. I start obviously, but genuinely, by thanking my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) for securing the debate. He feels strongly about this issue, which is obviously precipitated by his constituency. It is a matter of great concern, as we all understand and has been demonstrated in the Chamber this morning. I have received countless letters and e-mails from people all over the country expressing concern, as I am sure other Members have.

If I may, I shall make a slightly provocative statement. For the past 30 years or so, all political parties and consumer organisations have called for the dismantling of agricultural protection, in whatever form it took, and for a move to a market-based system, because the consumer pays too much for food under protectionist systems. We have moved a long way in that direction over the past few years, and the debate today is the consequence of that move.

What we have heard in the debate is almost a plea to go backwards. We have heard that consumers would pay a bit more for their milk to protect farmers, but that is a bit like the letters we get from people who say they would rather pay more tax than have the funding to their children’s school cut. However, the reality, as we all know, is that they will not pay more tax if they are given the option, and I am afraid that it is the same with dairy farming.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) referred absolutely rightly to what happened after we banned veal crates, and the same applied with sow stalls, when the pig industry was decimated. We simply exported those standards. Units in the pig and poultry industries have become larger, with fewer individual proprietors, and concern has been expressed that milk will go the same way.

The reality, of course, is that we have imported pig meat, veal and other commodities from other countries because it is cheaper to produce it abroad. As my hon. Friend made absolutely clear, that is what consumers wanted. The only protection against that is not to raise our standards or to instigate some form of import control, which, as we all know, is illegal under European law and the World Trade Organisation.

[Neil Parish]

I do not believe that we want to go backwards, but this proposal wants to go forwards too fast. It will see off too many medium-sized farmers who can make a good living. That is my point.

[Mr Paice]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, and I will try to pick it up, although I will obviously not be able to respond to all the important points that my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) have made.

There has been a bit of a battle for credibility between some of my hon. Friends as to who first milked cows. If I might join in, it is about 44 years since I first milked cows. In those days—we can all say “in those days”—most dairy herds were in the 20-to-30 cow bracket, and 100 was a massive herd. If we had had a debate about mega-dairies in those days, we would have been talking about 100 cows.

The average herd in England is now 113 cows. There are lots of herds with more than 500 cows; one has 2,000 cows and several have more than 1,000 cows. The world has moved on, and no Government of any colour—we have obviously had all shades over the past 44 years—have blown the whistle and said, “This is too big.”

[Zac Goldsmith]

The Minister is right to have identified, as others have, the perverse European rules that force us into a situation where our farmers are out-competed by farmers importing substandard products from elsewhere in Europe. Before the election, the Prime Minister pledged to challenge those rules, and my question is simply whether the Government still have any appetite to do so on behalf of our farmers and food security groups. It would be welcomed by farmers across the board if that pledge was fulfilled.

[Mr Paice]

Without wishing to duck that question, I should say that trade issues are, as my hon. Friend is well aware, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. Obviously, however, we would wish to pursue as best we can commitments made by the Prime Minister before the election.

Let me move on to the point about competition in the domestic market and about supermarkets, which all my hon. Friends have raised in various ways. First, let me reaffirm that the Government are committed to introducing legislation to bring in the supermarket code adjudicator. We will call it an adjudicator because, compared with existing ombudsmen, it is not strictly an ombudsman.

I urge those of my hon. Friends who share my view that the sooner we introduce the adjudicator the better, to press the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills because this is his legislation. We will proceed as quickly as possible, but we need to be absolutely honest with ourselves and with farmers that this proposal will not in itself lead to a price rise; it is about ensuring that we have fair and transparent terms of trade and about enforcing the code, which has been in operation since February. We must not be accused of misleading people into thinking that the adjudicator will somehow make everything all right.

My hon. Friends said a lot about supermarkets, so I will not go further into that issue. However, we also need to look at processors. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said, certain processors have massively bid for contracts to process and bottle for supermarkets. They then pass on to the producers the results of what is, in many ways, over-bidding. We are now in the absurd situation where the farm-gate price paid for milk that goes into liquid products or relatively high-value cheese products is lower than that which people could afford to pay if they were going to convert that milk into skimmed milk powder, which is the lowest-priced global commodity—although, even then, the global price for the raw milk is about 27p or 28p a litre.

The Government are, of course, committed to the concept of free trade and open markets, and the Opposition probably largely share that fundamental belief. We do not believe in interfering in how business operates, but it behoves business to operate a fair market arrangement.

I cannot stand here and say that the Government will never intervene if we clearly see unfair practices going on. We hope that the adjudicator will resolve all that, but let me make it clear to the dairy processing and retail sectors that it behoves them to operate a fair market. They must recognise that if they do not, we will, as hon. Members have frequently said, lose the British dairy industry, whatever the type of housing, to overseas competitors. The result will be ever-more volatile prices.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Paice]

I am sorry, but I cannot give way any more.

People would not have the cheap liquid milk that they want, because, as we all know, importing liquid milk is always expensive given its bulk cost. As a result, therefore, business will find that it is operating against consumer interests in the long term.

That reminds me of the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) made about imports and exports. He is right about the figures for liquid milk, but virtually all our liquid milk exports actually go over the Irish border, from Northern Ireland to southern Ireland, where they are made into cheese before coming back into the UK market.

Overall, our dairy market is massively reliant on imports of dairy products, which is why I personally believe—there is no strong evidence one way or the other—that the fear that a mega-dairy will destroy smaller dairy farmers is not necessarily justified. There is huge scope in this country to improve and expand our dairy industry. With the exception of Ireland, we grow the best grass anywhere in Europe, and we should be competitive. It is my job to try to create that competitiveness.

I am clearly running short of time, and I cannot respond to all the points that have been made. However, as my hon. and learned Friend opened the debate, I must emphasise that, as has frequently been said, I have no powers to intervene in any application. Issues to do with traffic, pollution and noise are for the local council to consider. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park talked about my using my influence on the Secretary of State if an application went to appeal, but that would be seen as illegal and would be wide open to judicial challenge, so I am afraid that I cannot accept that invitation, much as I might wish to.

In conclusion, the Government understand the great public concern about this issue and about the changes to cattle—a lot of genetic improvement has taken place—and we accept, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North East said, that there is a need for research. That is why we have commissioned research—the previous Government commissioned some of it, and we are very happy with that—from the Scottish Agricultural College on improving the robustness and welfare of cows through the development of breeding indices, as well as a further study on the management and welfare of continuously housed cows.

If those studies demonstrate that the Government need to act on welfare codes, or in any other way, we will, of course, have to consider that, but I do not wish to pre-empt the conclusions of those studies. The Government believe in being led by scientific evidence; we will examine those research studies when they come out and we will act if necessary. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for giving me the opportunity to discuss this matter.

Early Years Education

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Westminster Hall

12:30

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Leigh.

There is now almost universal agreement in the House that early years education improves children’s outcomes in school and beyond. I want to focus today on the take-up of the entitlement to 15 hours a week of free early years education for three and four-year-olds, and to stress how important it is that all children should benefit from it. Currently about 8% of three and four-year-olds do not take up their free entitlement. Figures show that children who do not receive early years education are significantly more likely to be from non-working and lower-income families.

The free places were introduced as part of a strategy to improve child outcomes, as an abundance of research has shown that attendance at high-quality settings is linked to improved outcomes, both at the time of attending and later in life. That, too, was a central message in the recent independent review of poverty and life chances by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who said that the first five years of a child’s life were the most important. The Prime Minister agreed, and wrote to him that the foundation years

“are the critical ones in terms of promoting a fairer and more mobile society”.

In short, we all agree that early years education can make a difference to outcomes, and that it has the potential to reduce inequalities.

In January 2010, according to the Department for Education, the number of three-year-olds benefiting from some free early education at maintained schools or in the private, voluntary or independent sector was 584,200—or 92% of the three-year-old population. However, close analysis of the figures shows that the take-up of early years education remains lower among non-working and low-income families, some ethnic groups and families living in more deprived areas, who, I would argue, are precisely the children who would benefit from it most.

The child care and early years survey of parents 2008 showed that uptake of free early education for three and four-year-olds was highest, at 90%, among couple families where both parents were working. The figure for working single parents was 88%. By far the lowest take-up was in couple families where neither parent was working, where the figure was 79%, and among lone parents who were out of work, where it was 76%. That pattern roughly accords with figures that I have obtained locally.

In Stockport, the average take-up of places by three and four-year-olds is 96%, which is above the national average, but in the two most deprived areas of my constituency the take-up figures are lower. In Brinnington the take-up is 92.7% and in Lancashire Hill it is 84%. I believe that the Brinnington figure is higher because it is a more settled community, has a higher working population, and has had the benefit of one of the first children’s centres in the country, whereas Lancashire Hill has lower levels of employment and the population is more unsettled and transient. Although those figures are higher than the national average they are still cause for concern, because it is extremely important that children from the most deprived families should take up their places. Research shows that that increases educational opportunities in life and means those concerned are less likely to fail in later years. It also means that the state needs to spend less money later to pick up the costs of that failure.

Improving take-up of early years education for the most disadvantaged families is crucial. Perhaps some lessons can be learned from the experience of the pilots of free nursery places providing high-quality learning for the most disadvantaged 15% of two-year-olds, which the Labour Government introduced. I welcome the fact that the coalition Government have announced that they will continue that offer, and plan to put their commitment into legislation by 2013. In a written statement yesterday, the Secretary of State for Education referred to the commitment to

“extending free early education with an entitlement for disadvantaged two year olds from 2013”

with funding of £64 million in 2011-12 and £223 million in 2012-13. That will be part of the early intervention grant, which is for early interventions across all the age ranges. The early intervention grant is not ring-fenced. However, in the statement, the Secretary of State said:

“Against the background of greater flexibility to decide priorities locally, there are key areas of early intervention where the Government are ensuring that the overall grant provides support”. —[Official Report, 13 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 68WS.]

One of the key areas is two-year-olds; indeed, specific funding was announced in the statement, together with children’s centres and short breaks for disabled children.

Will the Minister confirm that that is ring-fenced funding? If it is not, will he confirm that the continuation of the current offer for two-year-olds until there is an entitlement in law, in 2013, will be determined by local authorities? As the Secretary of State has announced that the early interventions grant will be 10.9% lower, in 2011-12, than the aggregated funding through predecessor grants, is the Minister confident that local authorities will continue to fund the offer for two-year-olds when there will also be pressure to fund services to young and vulnerable adults? Coincidentally, those are the same disadvantaged young adults whose life chances would have been much improved by early education. If the distribution of all the early intervention grant will be at local authorities’ discretion, what monitoring will the Department do to ensure that there is provision in all local authorities?

Stockport participated in the pilot for two-year-olds, which has been very successful. I believe that that is one of the reasons the take-up of the free entitlement for three and four-year-olds in Stockport is above the national average. Some of that success could be copied and transferred to help to increase the uptake by three to four-year-olds nationally. I maintain that in Stockport take-up has been high because of the nature of the proactive work that has been done in engaging families and children in the pilot for two-year-olds. In addition to high-quality places for 10 hours a week over 38 weeks, Stockport families were given access to strong family support. Although it was not a condition attached to a place, families were actively encouraged to participate in home learning support, or wider parental support. I hope that the Government’s offer for two-year-olds will involve such additional family support, which is vital. As part of the Stockport pilot parents were encouraged to ensure that they obtained an appropriate place for the free entitlement to 15 hours that their child would gain on turning three.

Stockport’s project for two-year-olds was successful also because of strong commitment from all partners. I pay tribute to Vicki Packman, from Stockport’s children and young people’s directorate, and her team, for their incredible enthusiasm and commitment to early years education in Stockport. The Stockport pilot had a data-driven approach, with a clear focus on early intervention and prevention, and family support. Allocation of places was by a multi-agency panel. It built on strong, existing universal and targeted outreach networks. Those teams took a holistic approach to the identification of support needs, and used their professional experience and judgment to refer appropriate families to the panel. They also helped to engage directly a number of hard-to-reach groups. A brokerage service offered by Stockport’s family information service was a key feature. It provided a key contact for parents, some of whom needed extra encouragement, support and advice, and offered home visits to explain the options to the family. In that way the service developed a trusted relationship with parents and carers. An initial visit to the setting was set up for the family and their support worker could attend. Those relationships, formed at an early stage, were crucial to the success of the placement and the project. It is interesting that that brokerage service ensured a very low drop-out rate. Only two children out of 117 left the project, and that was because both moved away from the area. Those figures are truly excellent.

It was very important that those disadvantaged two-year-olds had such a positive experience outside the home, as a proportion would have been on the child protection register, or the family would have experienced recent domestic abuse, or substance misuse in the previous 12 months. There are lessons to be learned, and the success needs to be transferred to encourage the families of three to four-year-olds who receive no early years education to get their children to attend and benefit from the free sessions to which they are entitled.

Kate Wood, the co-ordinator of the Two Year Old pilot project in Stockport explains things perfectly. She said:

“The Two Year Old Pilot Project is giving support to families who need it early on, before challenges become unmanageable. It is giving disadvantaged children a chance to learn and develop with new experiences outside of the home in a positive and social environment and it is giving families a chance to access other activities and services. We hope that these children will be more ready to access their free hours at three and to start school at five and will have the same opportunity to achieve as their peers.”

That is what we want for all those children who have difficult lives: an opportunity for them to learn, develop and have experiences outside the home, which will enable them to cope better and achieve when they start school. There is a variety of reasons why parents say they do not take up their free entitlement. Some parents simply want to look after their own children, but others will lead too chaotic a life and find it too challenging to get their children to the nursery on a regular basis, and we need to help them.

The Department for Children, Families and Schools 2008 survey asked parents who said that their children were not receiving free entitlement whether they were aware that the Government paid for some hours per week of nursery education for three and four-year-olds. Only 61% of those parents said they were aware of the scheme. Will the Minister tell me what plans he has to raise the level of awareness and improve the quality and accessibility of information about free early years education?

When parents were asked where they got their information about child care, the most frequently mentioned source was word of mouth, 41%; followed by school, 18%; local authority was mentioned by 10%; and families’ information services by 8%. Parents also mentioned local advertising, 8%; and health visitors, 6%. Lower income families are more likely than higher income families to mention health visitors or doctors’ surgeries as their sources of information. That suggests that health services may be a particularly good way to provide these groups with information about child care and early years education. Will the Minister, therefore, consider specific plans to use health services to provide disadvantaged groups with early years information?

The 2008 child care and early years survey of parents revealed that families living in deprived areas were less positive about the quality of child care provision than those in affluent areas. That is interesting as, according to the latest 2009 Ofsted report, the quality of early years provision is lower in areas of higher deprivation: the more deprived the area, the lower the number of good and outstanding providers. That raises the possibility that parental perceptions may reflect real geographical variations in quality. Of course, only settings assessed by Ofsted as “good” or “outstanding” were allowed to be used in the pilots for two-year-olds. I hope that in future, standards of settings will still be important criteria. It is vital that the quality of early years education is as good in deprived areas as it is in others.

In some instances, local authorities can also deliver the free entitlement through child minders, who have to be part of a child-minding network and accredited. For example, if a child has specialist needs and requires a higher level of one-to-one care, or a family needs flexible hours to fit in with a particular situation such as shift work, helping to match those families’ needs to a particular type of child care may help to improve the take-up of the free entitlement.

As I said, the clear message from the Stockport pilot was the success of the amount of support work with families. Offering places is not enough. I suggest to the Minister that perhaps one way forward is for the Government’s pupil premium, which recognises disadvantage, to be introduced earlier for three and four-year-olds, enabling that work to be done with disadvantaged families. That would enable local authorities to intervene earlier and work with families at the earliest possible stage. Although it would cost money now, it would save money in the long run. It would also help to target those children who are not classed as the 15% most deprived, and so would not have benefited from the offer regarding two-year-olds, but who are still disadvantaged and are not taking up places for three-year-olds.

The report by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, endorsed by the Prime Minister, said that we must ensure that today’s poor children do not become tomorrow’s poor adults. He said:

“Later interventions to help poorly performing children can be effective but, in general, the most effective and cost-effective way to help and support young families is in the earliest years of a child’s life."

I agree: we must not allow cycles of deprivation and failure to be handed on from one generation to another. The only way to prevent that is to ensure that those children, who, through no fault of their own, are born into disadvantaged homes, are helped. One intervention that we can make is to ensure that all children who are entitled to these very important early years education places are given the opportunity to take them up.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s proposals and ideas to ensure that all disadvantaged three and four-year-old children, who do not currently take up their free early years entitlement, are actively encouraged to do so.

12:45

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on securing the time for this important debate. I agree with the vast majority of everything she has said. As she knows, I had the opportunity to go to Stockport in October when I spent a week as a social worker on the front line. I also visited some schools in a child protection context. I saw the excellent services and dedicated professionals that she has in her authority. I applaud the trailblazing in many areas dealing with children in Stockport, to which she alluded.

The hon. Lady raised a couple of specific questions to which I will respond, and made one point about extending the pupil premium. I am delighted that she has embraced the pupil premium so early. It is very early days to say how we might extend or adapt it, given that the details were announced only yesterday. I will take that on board, but I do not think we will be adapting it straight away. She makes a fair point: to ensure that it is useful as early as possible for all the reasons she mentioned.

The provision of free early education is an area where we have broad cross-party agreement, perhaps because the case for investing in the early years has never been more compelling. This debate is timely: yesterday we announced details of the new early intervention grant that brings together funding for universal as well as specialist services, and will be worth £2.212 billion in 2011-12 and £2.297 billion in 2012-13.

Local authorities have built up considerable expertise and experience in the early years. They understand the impact that Sure Start children’s centres have on communities, and they have shown considerable commitment to raising the quality of early years settings. It is that experience that gives me confidence that local authorities are best placed to decide what is best for the families in their communities. The early intervention grant will give local authorities the freedom and flexibility to do that.

Early education is at the heart of our vision to support disadvantaged families. We know, as the hon. Lady says, that it improves children’s school readiness and longer-term cognitive and social development, which can especially benefit the most disadvantaged, helping to improve social mobility and break out of inter-generational cycles of poverty. The recent review on poverty and life chances published by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), mentioned by the hon. Lady, underlined the importance of investing in the early years, and ensuring young children are not disadvantaged from birth. The review by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) into how early intervention programmes can improve the lives of vulnerable children is continuing and doing valuable work.

Although more five-year-olds are achieving well, there is still a 14% achievement gap between those in the most disadvantaged areas and the rest. We need to close that gap. While 95% of children are benefiting from free early education, as the hon. Lady mentioned, among the 5% not currently taking up free places are children from lower income families, those whose mothers do not work, and children from families experiencing multiple disadvantage. The hon. Lady also mentioned families from BME backgrounds and others. She is absolutely right to ask how we can raise the level of awareness and promote the information. Having given a commitment to that 15-hour offer for three and four-year-olds, and having now brought in that additional offer for the most disadvantaged families for two-year-olds as well, it is key that we make it work and ensure that we access the families at which it is most targeted.

Local authorities have a statutory duty to provide information to parents about early education, and we must ensure that they are living up to that. I also believe there is a greater role for Sure Start children’s centres to promote and reach out, particularly to support disadvantaged families more effectively. The hon. Lady also mentioned health visitors. We propose increasing the number of health visitors working out of Sure Start children’s centres by 4,200. They will be going across the threshold before birth, and intensively after birth. They will work particularly with new parents, to check on their parenting skills, to give them support in those early days and to make them aware of what other services are available. That will include the free entitlement. The hon. Lady is right to say that we need to promote it more.

As an example—I have discussed this with the hon. Lady—I visited a family in Stockport. They were in desperate circumstances, living in a run-down house with hardly any furniture and no carpets, and literally no food. There were four sons under the age of 12, from three fathers, and a loving but rather inadequate mother. I visited the house with a very good social worker, who had been working intensively with the family. The social worker and various other professionals had been in and out of that house, but still things were not right. I asked why those children had not been taken into care, although doing so would raise all sorts of other problems. However inadequate, that mother doted on her four young boys. However inadequate, those four young boys doted on their mother; they relied on her and needed to stay with her. If they had gone into care, I fear that the family would have been split up, with all sorts of ramifications.

What struck me more than anything is that the mother needed almost to be taken by the arm and marched down to the children’s centre to be told about good parenting skills—let alone, if it had been earlier, about the free entitlement to ensure that her kids were getting good quality care in the nursery—and marched down to the supermarket to be told what sort of food she should be buying for her children. There is scope for social workers working with such families, with health visitors becoming involved earlier and with children’s centres helping to promote the scheme. The hon. Lady was right to mention it. Our aim is to intervene early in order to close the gaps that I have mentioned and to ensure that every child has a fair chance of succeeding. We want to focus particular support on those disadvantaged families that can benefit most. There are a number of ways in which we propose doing so.

First, all families value choice and flexibility, yet we know that disadvantaged families have less choice of provider and are more likely to cite lack of availability of free places as a reason for not taking up their entitlement. We are working with providers to explore ways of reducing the administrative burden and making it easier to establish business, particularly in disadvantaged areas. We will consolidate and substantially reduce the 200 pages of early-education guidance to local authorities, to help free up local early years markets.

Local authorities will be able to encourage new forms of provision. The Localism Bill, which was published yesterday, will give people new rights to bid to run local services. We seek to identify a national organisation that will be able to equip providers with the skills needed to run their businesses more effectively. The national implementation of the early years single funding formula will ensure that local funding decisions are more transparent. We will use the forthcoming education Bill to clarify the position of maintained nursery schools and other nurseries in schools in being able to charge for additional nursery education beyond the free 15 hours, to help increase choice for parents.

Secondly, despite an extremely difficult fiscal position, we have fulfilled the commitment that we made to early education in our programme for government, by retaining a universal entitlement to 15 hours of free education a week for all three and four-year-olds, as I mentioned earlier. We did so not only because it was the right thing to do but because evidence shows that nursery education that is free at the point of delivery is the best way to ensure that disadvantaged families do not face barriers when trying to access it. Indeed, the experience of the pathfinder local authorities shows that the increased time and the increased flexibilities that come with it have been successful in attracting more families. On average, 2% more three-year-olds accessed their free place for the first time; and those families who previously did not take full advantage of it increased the number of hours that they took by 1.8%.

From April, we will ensure through regulation that all local authorities include a deprivation supplement in their early years single funding formula, which will mean that all disadvantaged children will attract a higher level of funding. As a result, money will be provided for those children who need it most, as well as incentivising providers to offer free places to those families. When children start school, the pupil premium will follow them from reception year onwards, and as I said earlier we will consider whether it should be extended to nursery education over time.

Thirdly, all the evidence shows that only quality provision can have a real impact for young people. We want to work with local authorities and providers in supporting it, and we will focus relentlessly on ensuring that all children are able to access their free provision in a quality setting. Central to a quality setting is a quality work force. We are committed by March to announcing a strategy to improve the quality of the early years work force and the development of a new generation of leaders for that sector. Local authorities such as Stockport are experienced in offering free places for two, three and four-year-olds, and they understand well the connection between quality and the outcome for children. I anticipate that they will want to draw on this expertise when making decisions about places.

Finally, despite the extremely challenging fiscal position, we have been able to commit ourselves to extending free nursery education to all disadvantaged two-year-olds by 2013. By getting this support earlier to those families that will benefit most from it, we are confident that it will help to increase participation at the ages of three and four. Local authorities like Stockport have shown that starting even earlier can have a significant and positive impact on language ability and on the parent-child relationship. The expansion will start quickly. Subject to the approval of Parliament, measures in the education Bill will enable Ministers to introduce an entitlement to 15 hours of free provision a week for all disadvantaged two-year-olds.

In response to the hon. Lady’s concern about funding, I am happy to confirm that we will provide £64 million next year to enable local authorities to continue funding places for two-year-olds. In addition, the Department has set aside £4 million for 2011-12 to trial new approaches to delivering the entitlement. Although funding for the early intervention grant is not ring-fenced, and although decisions will be made locally, there will be a statutory entitlement for two-year-olds to access this education from 2013. Extending entitlement to disadvantaged two-year-olds is a key strategy for increasing take-up at the age of three. Total funding will rise to £223 million in 2012-13 to enable local authorities to build towards that entitlement. Funding will rise further, with an additional £300 million by 2014-15.

The lessons learned from the two-year-old pilot will be central to that expansion. Outreach will be critical. As shown in Stockport, the most disadvantaged families are far less likely to pick up the phone and ask, or to turn up at children’s centres. The pilots showed that the most effective way to engage families was to go out and find them, knock on their doors and then support them into a setting. We want Sure Start children’s centres to play a prominent role in this work, helping to ensure that the most challenged families take advantage of the free entitlements, alongside other family support. Taken together, we know that they can make a huge difference to children’s outcomes.

Our reforms place early education squarely at the centre of the Government’s efforts to combat child poverty and increase social mobility. This week’s announcement on the early intervention grant will have started the process of spending reviews in local authorities across the country. The strength and growing maturity of the sector means that it is well placed for the next stage. Early years professionals will be able to take part in these reviews confident in the knowledge that they have the full backing of the Government; confident that, in local authority members and officers, they have an audience that recognises their achievements and is proud of them; and confident, above all, that what they do really works.

I am enormously grateful for the support that the hon. Lady has given to this agenda today. She has raised some important concerns, and I hope that she is happy that the Government echo them. The steps that we have taken underline the importance of early education in getting the most disadvantaged members of society to gain access to early years education for their children. The Government have made a substantial financial commitment. We wish to ensure that it is taken up and that it works, because it is the right thing to do.

Sentencing (Green Paper)

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Westminster Hall

12:58

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Leigh. I thank Mr Speaker for being kind enough to grant me a debate on the Green Paper entitled “Breaking the cycle: effective punishment, rehabilitation and sentencing of offenders”.

Crime and the punishment of criminals is important for my constituents. Although I appreciate the Government’s good intentions, I am not sure that the Green Paper hits the appropriate nails on the head. Importantly, it says some constructive and helpful things. For example, it says that prisons should become places of hard work and industry and that community sentences should punish offenders and make them pay back to society and the taxpayer. It wants offenders to make a greater financial reparation to victims and the taxpayer, and victims to engage with the criminal justice system on their own terms. It would also like offenders to get off drugs for good and to pay their way in prison, and to prevent young people from offending.

Although the Green Paper contains laudable aims, the mood music behind it does not hit the right notes for my constituents, who believe that there is a proper place in society for prison and that prison works. Prison did not work as effectively as it might under the previous Government, largely because far too many prisoners lived in overcrowded conditions and far too many sentences were too short. Basically, my constituents are of the view that prison works when it is managed properly.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I welcome this opportunity to say what my constituents think, which is, of course, that they want law and order. They recognise that the prison system is there to deal with the worst offenders. Surely it is right that we tackle reoffending, which is one of the key thrusts of the Green Paper. Does my hon. Friend not agree that the Secretary of State for Justice has outlined a strategy that is consistent with that objective?

[Mr Hollobone]

No, I do not agree with my hon. Friend. Yes, it is right that reoffending rates are far too high and that we face a real problem in tackling them. None the less, when prison works effectively, it reduces reoffending rates, and I shall come back to that later.

[Neil Carmichael]

We have twice as many people in prison as the French. Do you think that we are twice as naughty or that our system is not quite good enough?

[Mr Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. I do not think anything. You must refer to the hon. Gentleman.

[Neil Carmichael]

My apologies.

[Mr Hollobone]

I am grateful for that intervention. I have some statistics that I shall use later about how we do not have enough people in prison in this country, which relates to the point that my hon. Friend has just made.

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

Does my hon. Friend not agree that we have to look at overall sentencing in three respects—punishment, rehabilitation and deterrence? Given what the previous 13 years have left us, I completely agree with him—criminals have had it far too easy in prison. The Government’s payback proposals will ensure that prisoners go out and work. When a compensation order is passed in court, they will no longer be able to say, “We haven’t got the money; we are on welfare.” The Secretary of State’s proposal will ensure that they have to work, earn their keep and pay back the money. That must be a good thing.

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend is right about that, but prisoners need to work more in prison. On page 9 of the Green Paper, I am pleased to see the coalition Government say:

“Prisoners will increasingly face the tough discipline of regular working hours. This has been lacking in prison regimes for too long.”

I say, “Hear, hear” to that.

[Neil Carmichael]

The Secretary of State for Justice has indicated that that is one of his intentions. I have also taken him to Stroud where we looked at a payback scheme, which was highly effective. He spoke to people there and he got the impression, as we all did, that the scheme was definitely working. Does my hon. Friend agree that that type of scheme should be pursued?

[Mr Hollobone]

It should be pursued, yes, but not for persistent and prolific offenders. Far too many nasty people commit all sorts of horrible crimes and never find themselves in prison. On page 6 of the Green Paper, the coalition Government say:

“Recent evidence suggests there is a group of around 16,000 active offenders at any one time, who each have over 75 previous convictions”.

The document goes on:

“On average they have been to prison 14 times, usually for less than 12 months, with nine community sentences and 10 fines.”

Prison works but only when people are sent to prison for an appropriate amount of time. It is clear to all of us that short prison sentences do not work. My solution is to send these very nasty 16,000 people to prison for longer so that they can be rehabilitated before being let out into the community.

[Rehman Chishti]

With regard to short sentences, is it not the case that a prisoner who is on six months will do three months and be transferred from one prison to another and then another? Therefore, there is no effective rehabilitation within the system. If the prisoner stays in one prison, he will have management and structure rather than being pushed from one prison to another. Does my hon. Friend not agree that that must be changed?

[Mr Hollobone]

That is an excellent point with which I entirely agree.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that there is a danger in just looking at statistics, in that we do not know or understand the level of criminality that lies behind them? If we look at the figures and then the length of sentences, we can see that they refer to prolific, but low-level offenders. The Green Paper seeks to address the situation of those criminals who are not the serious criminals—serious criminals will continue to be sent to prison for a long time. This is about short-term sentences of under 18 months. That is why I commend the Green Paper—or I will do in due course—to the House and to my hon. Friend.

[Mr Hollobone]

I disagree with my hon. Friend. I understand that we are not talking about serious offences. None the less, it is very serious to my constituents that someone can be convicted 75 times. That person is very nasty and is committing lots of very low-level crimes and they deserve to spend a long time in prison.

[Anna Soubry]

Let us take that example. That could be someone who is, for example, committing shop thefts on a regular basis. The maximum sentence for something such as that would be around 12 months at the most, or 18 months if they were very unfortunate. This is a persistent but very low-level offender. Clearly, in the example that my hon. Friend puts forward, prison is not working, because the person keeps on committing crimes and keeps on going back to prison. It is to end that revolving door that we are doing the things that have been laid out in the Green Paper. That person is not necessarily a nasty person; they are not violent otherwise they would go away for a lot longer. Those who steal from shops are exactly the sort of people we are addressing.

[Mr Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should be shorter.

[Mr Hollobone]

I am sorry, but that person is a nasty person. Just because someone is not violent does not mean that they are not nasty. I contend that the reason that they are reoffending is that they never serve their sentence in full. Even if someone is sentenced to 18 months for shoplifting, no one in this country will ever serve such a sentence. They might be sentenced to that, but the chances are that they will be out reoffending within six months. My contention is that such people need to be in jail for at least a year to enable proper rehabilitation to take place.

[Rehman Chishti]

My hon. Friend is spot on in terms of what went on from April 2007 to April 2010 when some 80,000 prisoners were let out on early release. That was absolutely shocking. When a sentence is passed, we must ensure that it is fully complied with.

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The previous Government made an almighty mess of this. Even though I disagree with the main thrust of this Green Paper, I commend the coalition Government for taking an organised and proactive interest in trying to address this issue sensibly, which the previous Government did not do.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has been extremely generous in giving way. The fact that four Members have already contributed to this debate from the Back Benches shows how important the issue is. Prison officers came to my surgery and said, “What we need, Mr Bone, is not these short sentences of a year. We put them on community service for a couple of occasions, but when they come back the third time, we should put them away for five years so that they can get the proper training and education that they need in prison.” What would my hon. Friend say to that?

[Mr Hollobone]

I would say that my hon. Friend is spot on. He has provided me with a helpful link to the next part of my speech which is about the length of sentences. In 2006, the Home Office report “Re-offending of adults” concluded that

“re-offending rates are lower among offenders discharged from a custodial sentence of at least a year (49 per cent.) than among those discharged from a shorter custodial sentence (70 per cent.)...This suggests that custodial sentences of at least a year are more effective in reducing re-offending.”

It is worth repeating those figures; prisoners with sentences of up to one year had a reoffending rate of 70%, while in the case of prisoners with sentences of more than two years the reoffending rate dropped to 49%. The report also showed that for people who had spent more than four years in prison, the reoffending rate was merely 35%. Looking at those figures, my constituents would say, “Well, that says to us that we need to put these nasty people behind bars for longer, so that they can be rehabilitated properly before being released and being at large again”.

I also want to address this myth that we have too many people in prison in this country. In terms of absolute numbers, yes, we have a relatively high prison population, but we are a relatively highly populated country. If we look at the number of prisoners that we have for every 100,000 people, we are nearer the average but still quite high. However, the only meaningful measure of the size of the prison population is how many prisoners there are in relation to the number of crimes committed. On that measure, I would suggest that the evidence is startling—we do not have the highest prison population in the western world, but the lowest. Compared with the US, Canada, Australia and the EU as a whole, the UK has the lowest prison population of all. For every 1,000 crimes committed in the UK, we have approximately 13 prisoners, compared with approximately 15 in Canada and Australia, well over 20 for the EU as a whole and a whopping 166 in the US.

[Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that sentencing and the number of people in prison should be determined by the sentences rather than the ability of the Government to house those prisoners, and that it is the responsibility of Government to ensure that suitable premises are available if sentences are passed?

[Mr Hollobone]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Frankly, it is a national scandal that we do not have enough prison capacity. When we have troops living in tents in theatre in Afghanistan receiving money per meal that is less than the money per meal provided for a prisoner in a UK jail, it is a disgrace that we are not making better use of the redundant military facilities that we have in this country to house a bigger prison population. With a bit of imagination and, frankly, some political backbone, we could achieve a lot more.

[Mr Bone]

That is the very point that I wanted to address today. My constituency neighbours my hon. Friend’s and it contains Her Majesty’s Prison Wellingborough, which now appears to be under threat of closure. HMP Wellingborough is under market testing. However, the market testing has been abandoned or put back. HMP Wellingborough has gone from being a rather poor prison to being the best category C prison in the east midlands. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should not be considering closing that type of prison?

[Mr Hollobone]

I agree with my hon. Friend. However, prison conditions are far too luxurious. I think that it is 1,500 prisoners who have Sky TV in their cells. I have lots of constituents in Kettering who cannot afford Sky TV. It is a scandal that prisoners receive a bigger allowance for their daily meals than our troops in Afghanistan. In many cases, prison accommodation is too comfortable.

On the other hand, I accept that when a prison is overcrowded it makes rehabilitation more difficult and it is appropriate that we have the right number of cells for the prisoners whom we need to house. However, there must be a limit on the quality of the accommodation on which we are currently spending lots of money.

The other point that I wanted to draw to the House’s attention is the fact that the country with the lowest prison rate—the UK—has the highest crime rate. Is that a coincidence? I do not think so. We have more than 10,000 crimes for every 100,000 people. The country with the highest prison rate, which is the US, has the lowest crime rate; it has about 4,500 crimes for every 100,000 people. Canada, which is the country with the second lowest prison rate, has the second highest crime rate. The EU has the second highest prison rate and the second lowest crime rate. That is not a coincidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has done a lot of very good work in this House in highlighting these statistics, which I think blow apart this namby-pamby approach to having soft community sentences to tackle the behaviour of some very nasty people.

[Rehman Chishti]

I wanted to make a point with regard to community penalties. I have been at the criminal Bar and prosecuted and defended many cases. Is it not the case that the Green Paper should be welcomed, because community penalties will be tied in with greater use of curfew orders? We should give offenders hard work during the day, make sure that it is done and that it is hard work, but we must also ensure that their liberty on Friday and Saturday nights is completely curtailed, so that rather than have them committing crimes, going out until the early hours and making a nuisance of themselves, we should make greater use of curfew orders, which is what this Green Paper is all about.

[Mr Hollobone]

I agree with my hon. Friend that if we must have these community penalties, they need to be tough and unpleasant. Frankly, the gangs that I have seen taking part in these sort of activities have not been that disciplined, were not working that hard and I very much doubt the utility of the work that they were doing.

[Neil Carmichael]

Does my hon. Friend not recognise that the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice has said that there is a place for prison, people should go to prison and that, if they have committed a serious crime, they should go to prison for a long time? We need to get this issue into perspective, because we are actually talking about reducing the prison population by 3,000 and not, as my hon. Friend suggested, about simply having a namby-pamby approach to prisons.

[Mr Hollobone]

Yes, but my contention is that there are some unpleasant people out there who will commit crime unless they are prevented from doing so by being put in prison. When half the crimes committed in this country are being committed by 10% of the offenders, those 10% of offenders do not need to be out there doing good works on the street; they need to be behind bars so that they cannot reoffend.

The concluding part of my remarks is that although I recognise the good intentions of the Ministry of Justice in trying to reduce reoffending—I do not doubt the Ministry’s efforts in that regard—the obvious thing to do to reduce prison numbers is sort out the 11,500 foreign national prisoners in our jails. The number of such prisoners doubled under the previous Government.

I have raised this issue time and time again on the Floor of the House and frankly we are not getting very far. One of the countries that has a high number of its nationals as prisoners in our country is Nigeria. When I last looked at the figures, I saw that there were something like 752 Nigerian nationals in prison in our country. Effectively, we are paying £30 million a year for incarcerating those individuals. The Nigerian National Assembly has been looking at this issue since 2007. Why are we not hauling in the Nigerian ambassador or speaking to the Nigerian President to get this arrangement sorted out, because sending 752 Nigerians back to Nigeria would go a long way to freeing up the 3,000 prison places that my hon. Friend the Minister wants to find?

[Rehman Chishti]

I fully endorse what my hon. Friend has said with regard to foreign nationals. Linked to that point, what must change is the procedure that is applied to removal orders and the time that it takes for somebody to be removed from this country. At the moment, there is a disjointed approach and that must change, so that once someone has been through the courts, their removal must be swift.

[Mr Hollobone]

As usual, my hon. Friend is quite right. However, now we have the Prime Minister launching a campaign on the front page of the Daily Mail to say that repatriating foreign national prisoners is one of his top priorities. Please can we have a joined-up approach across this Government—across the Ministry of Justice, the Foreign Office and the Home Office—to ensure that we actually get these people back to their own countries? Then we will create the space in prison that we need to rehabilitate people properly, reduce the overall prison population if need be and stop people reoffending.

13:18

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing this debate on the Government’s Green Paper “Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders”, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice laid before Parliament last week.

Given the brevity of this debate, the many and varied contributions that we have had from hon. Members have all been very helpful and show the complexity of some of the issues that we are dealing with. The Green Paper’s proposals are the initial conclusions of the wide-ranging assessment of rehabilitation and sentencing that we announced in our programme for government back in May. We are now consulting widely on the proposals set out in the Green Paper and this debate is a welcome opportunity to discuss some of those proposals.

I shall start with the point about foreign nationals that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, and about which he has long been concerned. I can confirm that as we take forward the Green Paper proposals, we will consider what more we can do to reduce the number of foreign national offenders.

Foreign national prisoners make up 13% of the prison population, and the figure has doubled over the past 10 years. That is not an effective use of expensive prison places if foreign nationals could be removed from the country. There is, however, a balance to be struck. Foreign nationals who commit serious offences should be punished by prison sentences; victims of crime would expect nothing less. But when foreign national offenders do not need to be in prison, or when they could spend some of their prison terms in prisons in their own countries, we should do everything we can to ensure that they are not a burden on our prisons.

With that objective in mind, we are looking to expand prisoner transfer agreements with other countries, so that a prisoner can serve some of their sentence in their home country whenever possible. We are also looking to divert some foreign nationals—for example, those who commit immigration document offences—away from the criminal justice system altogether, if they agree to be removed from the United Kingdom. We are considering other options, and would very much welcome further ideas in response to the Green Paper.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor made it clear last week that the current criminal justice system does not deliver what really matters. Society has a right to expect the system to protect it. We all expect offenders to be punished effectively, but we should also expect criminals to be reformed, so that when they finish their sentences they do not simply return to their life of crime and create more misery for victims.

Despite record spending, the criminal justice system falls short, in that about half of released offenders go on to reoffend within a year—and the reoffending rates for young people are even worse, with three quarters of offenders sentenced to youth custody reoffending within a year. Those high rates are unacceptable to this Government. If we do not prevent people, especially young people, from offending, they will become the prolific offenders of the next decade.

The Green Paper sets out how we propose to break that destructive cycle of crime and to ensure that offenders make amends to victims and communities for the harm that they have caused. That requires a radically different approach—a system that protects the public by punishing the guilty and reducing reoffending, makes offenders face up to their responsibilities and pay back to victims and society, and makes punishment hard work, both in prison and in the community.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering referred to the mood music of the Green Paper, so let me make it clear that prison is the right place for serious and dangerous offenders, and that we will ensure that sufficient prison places are always available. I shall come to the detail in due course, but we do not propose in the Green Paper to reduce the ability of any sentencer to send a serious offender to prison, nor do we propose to introduce, as the previous Government did, any new early-release schemes.

We want offenders to be suitably punished for their crimes. Through both the tough discipline of regular working hours in prison, and more strenuous and demanding work in the community, we aim to ensure that offenders work hard and that there is greater use of tough curfew requirements.

We want prisons to be places where offenders learn about the life of work and about the routine of getting up in the morning and doing a full day’s meaningful work. Too many offenders lead chaotic lives, and too many of them have never done a day’s work. By giving offenders the experience of work, we can put order into their lives, better prepare them for life outside prison, increase their job prospects and reduce the likelihood of their reoffending.

We also want offenders to pay back to their victims. The Green Paper includes proposals for increased reparation to victims through a greater use of restorative justice, under which an offender can make good the wrong he has imposed on others. We want restorative justice to be victim-led and not offender-led. Restorative justice can benefit both parties. It can provide reparation to victims and help offenders face up to the realities of their crime and its impact on victims—and, as a result, prevent them from offending in future.

We also want to implement the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996 to ensure that more offenders directly compensate the victims of crime through deductions in prisoners’ wages. For lower-level offences, we want to increase the use of fines and compensation orders, so that offenders make greater financial reparation to both victims and the taxpayer. An increased use of compensation orders would mean that more victims would receive financial compensation directly from the offender.

We also want to take a new approach to offender rehabilitation, getting more offenders off benefits and into honest work. That is partly about the routine of work, but crucially it is about taking action to get offenders off drugs so as to break the cycle of offending to feed a drug habit. The Government are committed to rehabilitating offenders from drug dependency to drug-free lives. We want prisons to be places where offenders tackle their drug misuse, not places where their problems get worse, and we are therefore working on preventing drugs from getting into prisons. We are also working with the Department of Health to reshape drug treatment. Within prisons, we will pilot recovery wings, which will link more effectively with community services, and we will focus more on supporting offenders to be drug free.

We also want to look at the number of offenders in prison who suffer from a mental illness. For some people with mental health issues, prison is simply not an appropriate place. In some cases, better outcomes can be achieved by diverting low-level offenders into intensive treatment for mental health problems in the community. We are working with both the Department of Health and the Home Office to ensure that front-line services identify such people. We have proposals to create a more effective and robust community sentence, with greater flexibility for the provisions of mental health requirements. If we can get treatment right, we can help to reduce offending.

The Green Paper signals a transformation in rehabilitation financing and delivery. Significant amounts of public money have been spent on trying to rehabilitate offenders, without properly holding services to account for their results. We will reward independent providers for achieving a reduction in reoffending, and will pay for that with the savings that they generate within the criminal justice system. We will introduce more competition across offender management services, to drive up standards and deliver value for money for the taxpayer. We will increase the freedom for public service providers and front-line professionals to innovate in their work with offenders. The payment-by-results system will be trialled in at least six new projects over the next two years, and the principles will be fully rolled out by 2015.

I turn now to sentencing, which is an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering mentioned. We know that a sentencing framework must provide courts with a range of options for punishing and rehabilitating offenders and protecting the public. The problem is that the current framework has been developed in an ad hoc fashion over the past 10 years, leaving it overly complex and difficult to administer. We should not underestimate how complex the law has become. The Court of Appeal spends a significant amount of time on cases in which sentencing law is unclear. If the law is often difficult for judges to understand, it is not surprising that the public have considerable difficulties.

[Rehman Chishti]

Does the Minister agree that it is completely and utterly wrong that in the past 13 years we should have had more legislation than in the past 100 years? Does he also agree that we should make legislation only when it is necessary, rather than for the sake of it?

[Mr Djanogly]

I do. The figure of more than 3,000 new offences comes to mind. We had the situation in which a new offence was being created before the previous one had commenced.

We want to simplify the sentencing framework and make it more comprehensible for the public. We also want to enhance judicial discretion, to allow the judges and magistrates who hear the cases to make the most appropriate decisions on sentencing within the legal framework set by Parliament.

I accept that some people, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, want to see longer sentences, but we need to be proportionate. We could not accommodate the much longer sentences that he suggests without raising taxes to build more prisons.

Sentences have, however, got longer and longer over the past couple of decades, and for many years offenders have not spent their sentence in custody. We do not propose to make fundamental changes to determinate sentences. At present, offenders serving a determinate sentence spend half of their sentence in custody and half on licence in the community. If an offender breaches the condition of their licence, they may be returned to prison. We recognise—

[Mr Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order.

School Sports (Colchester)

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Westminster Hall

13:30

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Although school sport partnerships are nationwide, I wish to concentrate on just one partnership in my constituency as an example to highlight how important they are for every school and every child in the country. I will first set out the national scene. The Government want to save £162 million by scrapping the highly successful school sport partnerships. That is a significant sum, but in the context of the nation’s total public spending it is not, and cutting it would be a false saving.

The sum is equivalent to about half the combined wage bills for the two premiership football clubs that played last night—Manchester United and Arsenal. The total wage bill for all the premiership clubs, boosted by the vast sums they receive from television, comes to more than £1.3 billion, according to research conducted by Deloitte and kindly provided to me by the House of Commons Library. Are we seriously saying that the well-being of around 8 million school children in their developing years and, perhaps more importantly, their prospects for better health in adulthood, are considered to have such a low priority that cutting that money from the education budget is acceptable?

I propose that, in the spirit of joined-up government, the Government should get a grip on the mismanagement of football in this country. Professional football is awash with money, but it is being squandered on grotesque salaries and on the huge amounts of money that are lost from the game and find their way to parasitic agents who contribute nothing to football and instead bleed it.

I urge the coalition Government to introduce a football school sports fund—FSSF—by placing a 10% levy on the turnover of premiership football clubs. That would comfortably cover the £162 million needed to fund the school sport partnerships. After all, many of the young participants will be wearing replica shirts of clubs such as Manchester United and Arsenal. In that way, at least some of the huge sums of money sloshing around the premiership would be put to more beneficial purposes than lining the pockets of the few. It would fund the future fitness, health and sport prospects of every child in the country. It would support the many, rather than being kept by the very few.

I urge the Minister to take forward my suggestion as a means of saving the school sport partnerships at nil cost to the public purse. I am confident that my proposed FSSF would be widely welcomed by our schools and by those responsible for the nation’s health and sports development. Cross-departmental determination involving the Department for Education, the Department of Health, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Treasury could quickly bring that to fruition by the time the £162 million is due to be cut from the education budget. I shall personally bring the proposal to the attention of the Prime Minister.

Before speaking about the Colchester academy sports hub and the seven primary schools it covers, I will conclude the national overview by quoting in full an excellent article by the award-winning journalist Mr Patrick Collins, chief sports writer for The Mail on Sunday, who wrote in his column two days ago:

“When I left for Australia three weeks ago, Education Secretary Michael Gove was being furiously assaulted by just about everybody who understands the purpose and value of sport in schools. From Olympic champions to head teachers to concerned parents, they lined up to attack Gove’s crass and myopic decision to scrap direct funding for school sports partnerships.

There are 450 such partnerships across England, and these alliances of sports colleges, primary, secondary and special schools have broadened choices and increased opportunities for young people to take part in sport. The scheme has been stunningly successful in achieving its bold objectives. Yet now, at a time when the nation is seeking to establish an enduring legacy from the 2012 Olympics, Gove has decided to imperil all its gain with a piece of knee-jerk, doctrinaire cost-cutting.

In common with far too many members of this Cabinet, Gove seems to regard sport as the sweaty pastime of tiresome oiks. The fact that it promotes a healthy lifestyle, reduces juvenile crime, combats dependence on drugs and expands educational aspirations seems not to have crossed his radar. So he swings his little axe in a pathetic attempt to appear decisive.

Three weeks on, and with ignorance no longer an excuse, the wretched Gove is busily trying to present abject retreat as generous compromise—”

[Mr Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he should not refer to the Secretary of State by name. He should refer to him as Secretary of State or by his constituency.

[Bob Russell]

Mr Chairman, I am fully aware of that, but I am quoting from a newspaper article, so those are not my words. They are the words of wisdom of Mr Patrick Collins, who continued:

“Yet the assault continues. I doubt it will be halted this side of the first Cabinet reshuffle.”

Other than giving the Secretary of State the courtesy of putting the title “Mr” before his name, I agree with every word of what Mr Collins said. I disapprove of the manner in which the Secretary of State was addressed in the article, Sir, but I was quoting from it.

It is also worth noting how the proposals to axe school sports funding are viewed by Wenda Donaldson, the director of community sport at the Australian Sports Commission, who observed:

“I am absolutely devastated to hear of the cuts to the School Sport Partnership models. I am astounded that such an amazing and world-leading initiative has been lost to the communities they serviced.”

Well, they have not yet been lost; hopefully, today’s debate will help to save them.

From the world stage, let me now concentrate at a truly grass-roots local level. There are 12 sport hubs in the area covered by the Colchester-Blackwater school partnership, involving 86 schools, the majority of them in my constituency of Colchester. I will concentrate on just one sport hub, the one centred on the Colchester academy under the inspirational leadership of school sport co-ordinator Zoe Ford, and the seven primary schools that it serves. They are: from the Greenstead estate, St Andrew’s Infants school and St Andrew’s Junior school, and Hazelmere Infants school and Hazelmere Junior school; from the St Anne’s estate, Willow Brook primary, a fresh-start school formerly known as St Anne’s primary; Parsons Heath primary; and Roach Vale primary.

Last month, I visited Roach Vale primary to meet some of those involved in the school sport programme and witnessed the wonderful sight of youngsters playing football after school with two sports coaches, assisted by volunteers. I sensed that I was watching the big society in action. What I saw clearly showed the success of school sport partnerships.

From Mrs Ford, Mr Tom Evans, who is the assistant partnership development manager of the Colchester-Blackwater school sport partnership, and Mr Barry Hersom, principal of Colchester academy, established in September this year from the former Sir Charles Lucas arts college, I have been provided with the following information: it is a record of success, success, success, and of achievement, achievement, achievement. It would be extreme folly—an own goal, no less—for the coalition Government to end funding for school sport partnerships.

Four years ago, the average time spent on high-quality physical education in the Colchester academy family of schools was 118 minutes, but it is now 147 minutes. Mrs Ford, as is the case with school sport co-ordinators working for the other sport hubs, has worked alongside teachers in primary schools to increase their subject knowledge and confidence in teaching sport and physical education. That is of great importance when looking at the holistic approach to education.

I am advised that, as a direct result of the higher quality of sport on offer and more time spent on PE, there have been large improvements in the quality of teaching; that pupils’ attainment has increased and the quality of their learning has improved; that they are more physically active; and that they are adopting healthier lifestyles. Those are four positive points.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this timely and prescient debate. What he has described is, as he said at the beginning of his speech, a microcosm that reflects the macrocosm of what is happening across the country. I can speak from personal experience because in Scunthorpe I appointed a further education sports co-ordinator who was part of the network of school sports co-ordination that helped to move things forward. I applaud the hon. Gentleman for the way he is bringing the matter forward.

[Bob Russell]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, because he had personal experience of the issue before entering the House. He can see how the partnerships have been a great success story—not only in his constituency and mine, but across the country. They have brought the education family of different schools and different age groups together in a way that I have not witnessed previously.

Clearly, the point I made before the intervention has significance for the NHS. Could the Minister state what discussions were held with the Secretary of State for Health before it was announced that school sport funding was to be axed, and what discussions were held with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport?

In addition to what happens in schools, the leadership shown by school sport co-ordinators has led to improved links with local clubs. This follows on from the point made by the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). Coaches have been invited to provide taster sessions for pupils, and that has led to two-way improvement for the pupils and the clubs.

The notion that schools are not taking part in team games or inter-school competitions is wrong. The figures show that, four years ago, 56% of pupils in the Colchester academy family participated in inter-school competitions; the figure is now 100%, with 67% competing in at least three or more competitions each year.

The number of competitions and festivals has increased from six in 2005-06 to 18 in the current academic year. Every pupil in the Colchester academy family will attend the academy at least once for a tournament or festival in the course of the year. A virtual multi-skills athletics competition—that is how it was described to me—has been developed which allows schools and individual pupils to compete with each other without leaving their own school site, and with relatively little equipment. It has proved popular with all school years, from 1 to 6.

I am assured that greater competition has increased confidence and enjoyment in physical activity. Festivals have provided pupils with a broader and extended curriculum through the introduction of new sporting activities. I am further told that the extra competition has helped pupils develop their spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. I know that the Secretary of State for Education and the Prime Minister would approve of that.

With the 2012 Olympics less than 20 months away, the sports hub has enabled all schools to link their curriculum to that major world event. There are further statistics to prove the value, in every meaning of the word, of this school sport partnership—I am sure that this is true across the country. A big bonus has been the increase in the number of pupils in each year group who have participated in one or more community sports, dance or multi-skills clubs with links to the particular school. For the Colchester academy family, in 2006-07, it was 21% of pupils; last year, it was 51% of pupils. That would never have happened without the school sport partnership.

It is also significant that non-sporty pupils, to coin a phrase, have become involved in an activity that they enjoy. There are greater links with community clubs, therefore helping to promote community cohesion—a further example of the big society in action. Another astonishing statistic—a direct result of the Colchester academy school sport partnership—is that currently 97% of pupils are actively involved in sports volunteering and leadership; five years ago, the figure was 28%.

My concluding observations, which were put to me in advance of today’s debate by the Colchester academy school sport partnership, are contained in the document, “Colchester Blackwater School Sport Partnership”. Pupils feel greater self-worth and make a positive contribution to the school and wider community. Classes are more cohesive as pupils work together as a motivational team. I am tempted to say that perhaps all political parties in the House of Commons might want to engage such services.

The leaders’ programme helps with the transition between infants and junior schools, as leaders provide excellent role models for younger children. There is better social cohesion as young pupils mix with old, pupil-organised activities result in improved behaviour at lunch time and pupils’ moral and social development improves.

Abandoning school sport partnerships would be a huge mistake and would affect today’s young people, including my two grandsons who are currently at primary school and my granddaughter who will be starting school in the year of the Olympics. I recognise the state of the nation’s economy, but I would argue that we should find ways of ensuring that we do not lose the highly successful school sport partnerships.

I opened this debate with a suggestion as to how funding could be provided in future years, and I urge the Minister to discuss that with colleagues across the Government.

13:44

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

It is a pleasure to serve for the second time today under your chairmanship, Mr Leigh. This debate is very different from the earlier one.

I ought to start by saying to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) that we must stop meeting like this. This is the second time in the past couple of months that I have responded to an Adjournment debate that he has instigated. I congratulate him on securing this important debate. He opened it and kept the flow going with his usual colourful language. Never let it be said that he is a man who only brings problems to this House, because he started his speech with an interesting solution that would involve the football premiership in the cost of school sport partnerships. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and the Olympics will read that practical suggestion in the record, and I am happy to ensure that it is brought to his attention.

The hon. Gentleman’s speech was also quite original. Not only was he described as being timely and prescient—I believe that that was how the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) described him—but he was also an unashamed plagiarist, in that he used a large part of his speech to quote from yesterday’s Daily Mail. If only making speeches were that easy.

[Bob Russell]

May I correct the Minister? It was Sunday’s paper, not yesterday’s.

[Tim Loughton]

I am grateful for that. We would not want the good burghers of The Mail on Sunday not to get credit for the piece.

I know that the hon. Gentleman is a committed campaigner in his constituency and in this House, and it is clear from his speech that he believes passionately in the work of the Colchester-Blackwater school sport partnership, which is also known as the Thurstable school sport partnership. Among other flowery references that he quoted from the article in The Mail on Sunday, he quoted a phrase that suggested that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education considers sport to be

“the sweaty pastime of tiresome oiks.”

May I make it clear again today, as I did in a debate last week on school sport, and as the Secretary of State himself made clear, that he and I and this Government are absolutely committed to the promotion of sport among the population in general and among our school-age citizens in particular? We want them to be involved with sport, particularly high-quality competitive sport, as early and as intensively as possible, and, most importantly, we want that involvement to be sustained through the school years and into adulthood. Too often, the experience in school drops off a cliff when children leave school. We must engender the ethos of the good of sport in children of all ages, and that must be carried forward into adulthood.

As the hon. Gentleman said, sport is good not only for physical health but for mental agility, its socialising benefits, the community engagement that it brings about, teamwork experiences and the personal development of children. It is not a question of being in any way against sport or in any way trying to undermine it. We want more sport, better quality sport and more sustained sport in schools. It is a question of how, not if, and it is important to make that absolutely clear. That underlies the changes that we are looking to make in how sport is delivered.

We are aware of the good work being done in many school sport partnerships, which have played an important part in helping to re-establish physical education and sport as a central part of school life. The Thurstable/Colchester-Blackwater partnership is a good example of that.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and I pay tribute to the work of Adam Finch, partnership development manager at the Thurstable/Colchester-Blackwater partnership, and his team for the excellent work that they have done improving the standards of PE and sport for their young people. I was especially pleased that an impressive number of young people are taking part in intra-school sporting competitions. However, although that partnership is performing well in a number of areas, in some year groups it is still not delivering inter-school competition at a level that the Government would like to see and the numbers taking part in competitive sport, which we would like to be better promoted, have fallen slightly below the national average in years 6, 7 and 8.

[Bob Russell]

Did I understand the Minister correctly? Do those figures relate to what was happening within what we call the Colchester-Blackwater school sport partnership? If what he has said is correct, does he accept that those figures are still vastly better than they were four or five years ago, before the partnerships started, and that removing the partnerships will do considerable damage to the figures that he has just quoted?

[Tim Loughton]

In terms of the participation and rates and where the information has come from, the hon. Gentleman gave those figures. One does not deny that. I am saying that the experience and the figures are patchy in different parts of the country and in his constituency. Some partnerships appear to be achieving a great deal more than others. I am not trying to take away from where progress has been made. We question the level of competitive sport, the quality of the sport and its sustainability and whether partnerships are changing the ethos of sport in schools, which is what we need to do.

Let us remember that when the school sports partnership scheme was first funded from 2003, it was never intended to be a permanent arrangement; it was all about promoting sport from a low level and, hopefully, being able to set schools free to be able to carry that work forward. Seven years and £2.4 billion on, we cannot afford to continue that level of funding. We are questioning whether we are getting best value for money and whether we can get better bang for our buck, looking at alternative ways of providing sport in schools. That is what this is all about: not if, but how.

From figures on sports where participation has fallen and those relating to the number of schools offering particular sports, it is an indisputable fact that, after the commitment of £2.4 billion, the number of schools providing gymnastics, rounders, netball, hockey and rugby union has fallen. The number of schools offering swimming has not changed: it was 84% in 2003-04, before £2.4 billion was spent, and it is 84% now, still. There has been no increase in participation in a significant number of sports.

The taxpayer is entitled to better for the not inconsiderable sum that has been spent in the past seven years. That is why we feel that a new approach with a renewed focus on competition is needed to make an impact. To do this, the Government want to build on the good work already being done by schools to encourage more pupils to play competitive sport in their own school and against other schools.

Although school sport partnerships have helped schools to increase participation rates in a range of areas targeted by the previous Government, they have also locked schools into a rigid network while forcing them to achieve a series of targets that this Government feel impedes schools’ ability to promote sport. The Government are concerned that, despite this heavy focus on targets, the proportion of pupils playing competitive sport regularly has remained disappointingly low. Only some two in every five pupils play competitive sport regularly in their own school and only one in five plays regularly against other schools. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has concluded that the existing network of school sport partnerships is neither good enough value for money, nor likely to be the best way to help schools achieve their potential in improving provision for competitive sport.

The hon. Gentleman asked what discussions have taken place with colleagues in other Departments, particularly with the Secretaries of State for Health and for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has had a number of meetings with those two Cabinet colleagues, particularly the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, as have I. I sit on the interdepartmental steering group on the schools olympics, which is one proposal being advanced by this Government. There has been considerable engagement between officials in all three Departments. I had responsibility for children’s health in the shadow Health team, under the now Secretary of State for Health, where we had extensive discussion on this matter. We need to tackle not only what goes in but what comes out, in terms of the obesity problem and the activity underachievement. We need to take a two-pronged approach.

In lifting the many requirements placed on them by the previous Government’s PE and sport strategy, the Government believe that schools will be able to use their new freedoms to enable more pupils to play competitive sport. I understand that this decision has not been popular in some quarters. I recently met a group of exceedingly impressive young ambassadors who voiced their concerns eloquently when delivering a petition last week. However, I am convinced that this decision is the right one to ensure that the next generation of young people enjoys and benefits from sport as never before, while laying the foundations for a lasting sporting legacy from 2012.

I have offered to meet a wider group of young sports ambassadors, after we announce our alternative proposals, to try to engage them fully in the way ahead.

[Bob Russell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Tim Loughton]

I will, although probably at the expense of being able to finish my speech.

[Bob Russell]

The Minister’s response will not be recognised by the people in the Colchester academy family, whom I have met and on whose behalf I called the debate. Would he accept an invitation to meet people and see what happens on the ground? I think that he might be pleasantly surprised.

[Tim Loughton]

I am always grateful for invitations and the Secretary of State for Education is always keen to devolve invitations to his ministerial team. I have had a number of similar offers from many colleagues, not surprisingly, among the many letters that I have received on this subject. I have visited schools and engaged in physical activities in those schools. The hon. Gentleman is good at issuing invitations to Ministers to visit his constituency; he was good at issuing them to the previous Government and the previous Secretary of State for Education was good at passing them on to the Minister with responsibility for schools, who spent most of his time heading towards East Anglia. If I can make a diversion to take in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, I will endeavour to do so at some stage in future. In principle, yes; in practice, we will see how the diary pans out or I will never get any work done in this place and I will not be able to answer his frequent debates in the House.

The Secretaries of State for Education and for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, in consultation with experts in sport and alongside officials from both Departments, are considering how to take things forward in the best interests of schools and the pupils and parents they serve. One way of doing that will be launching a national Olympic and Paralympic-style sports event that I have already mentioned, which will form the pinnacle of a pyramid of school sport competitions. Other layers will include intra-school, inter-school, local authority or county level competitions. Every school, including mainstream and special schools, will be given the opportunity to get involved. I am keen to ensure that pupils with disabilities are fully engaged in the process. I am particularly keen to meet representatives from Paralympics and disability sports organisations. We intend to use £10 million of lottery funding, distributed by Sport England, to establish this competition for young people.

While I am on the subject, let me dispel the myth that competitive sport is elitist. Competitive sport inspires people to be the best that they can be and should be a vibrant part of school life for all pupils. Sport should be for everyone. That is why we want schools to set up sports teams that cater for players of all abilities. Anyone, from the most serious football player to the pupil who enjoys a kick-about for fun, should be given the opportunity to learn the values of competitive sport and to enjoy and benefit from that experience. We want schools to have not just first teams, but second, third and fourth teams, as there were when I was at school. Indeed, in 10 schools 100% of pupils were playing regular competitive sports against other schools and in 320 schools all the pupils are regularly taking part in intra-school competitions. That does not sound like elitism to me.

We want to see a sharp reduction in the bureaucratic burden on schools, leaving them free to focus on doing what is right for their students. The previous Administration’s school sport programme was about telling schools what to do. First, it specified how many hours of sport were to be made available to pupils, by schools, each week, starting with 75% doing two hours by 2006, then 85% doing two hours by 2008, rising to all children doing four hours by 2010, reaching the ever-more prescriptive heights of five hours of sport for all five to 16-year-olds by 2011. A pupil who joined a secondary school in September 2004 would be expected to do two hours of PE and sport a week by 2006, four hours by 2010 and five hours by 2011. How can schools be expected to make decisions about the best needs of their pupils while trying to deal with the straitjacket of such central control?

Secondly, it created a new hierarchy of people to run the programme for schools, including competition managers and senior competition managers—a new hierarchy of people telling other people what to do. Every one of those people was committed to improving local school sport, but I fear that, at best, they enabled schools to leave sport to someone else and, at worst, they stifled schools’ ability to provide an offer that was best for the needs of their schools and their pupils. That neither enables innovation—

14:00

Sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(11)).

Written Ministerial Statements

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Written Statements

Tuesday 14 December 2010

Telecoms Council

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Written Statements

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

My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox) has today made the following statement:

“The Telecommunications Council took place in Brussels on 3 December and was chaired by the Belgian presidency.

I was unable to attend Council due to the travel disruption caused by the unseasonable weather conditions and I was represented at Council by Andy Lebrecht (UK’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU—UKREP) for the formal agenda items and by Martin Jones (UKREP) for the lunch-time discussion on roaming. An official from BIS also attended.

Lunch-time discussion on mobile roaming.

In order to inform and shape the debate, Ministers were asked to consider three questions on this issue and I enclose the full text within annex A to this statement. In summary, they covered issues related to: stimulating competition; the impact of new technologies; and whether a cap on retail data prices was an appropriate course of action.

I understand that the discussion was positive in nature and below is a summary of the main points made during the debate:

The Commission and most member states see the introduction of greater competition in the EU roaming market as the way to decrease what are regarded as relatively high prices for consumers;

However, price regulation was seen by both the Commission and most member states as the least preferred option;

A recognition that the recently agreed telecommunications framework package would not be re-opened in respect of mobile roaming;

Technology was seen as one way that might allow for a diversity of approaches to tackle this issue and would, therefore, bring down prices over time for consumers; and

It was preferable to adopt a solution that was based on a multi-stakeholder approach.

The UK’s contribution to the debate was as detailed in my pre-Council statement and confirmed the UK’s views that a solution may not necessarily involve regulation featuring retail price controls and that the UK preferred a solution based on a multi-stakeholder approach. I am pleased to report that these points were noted by Commissioner Kroes during her summing up of the debate.

Following lunch, the formal business of Council took place.

Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the first Radio Spectrum—Policy Programme Radio Spectrum Policy Programme (RSPP): A Progress Report and Exchange of Views. (EM 13872/10).

This discussion item focused on four previously issued questions and is attached within annex A. In summary, these questions covered: the contribution of efficient spectrum management towards Europe 2020 goals; if an inventory of EU spectrum would also contribute towards these goals; a commonly agreed date for release of certain spectrum bands and how to overcome problems associated with this; and the role of the EU in international spectrum negotiations.

The presidency began with a progress report on this item and was followed by Commissioner Kroes giving a short presentation of her views. The main points of which were:

She noted the importance of spectrum to both citizens and business—the main drivers being its contribution towards improving the EU’s global competitiveness and the social and quality life improvements it could bring through applications such as e-health;

Thus, it was no longer sustainable to “do nothing” and that it was important that member states needed to agree the bold proposals within the RSPP;

She also noted that many member states have specific issues with the proposed deadlines for clearing and authorising specific spectrum bands;

However, she indicated that she regarded the clearance of the 800 MHz spectrum—that currently associated with analogue television broadcasting—as a key step in making the Commission’s broadband strategy targets a reality (in particular the target associated with 30+Mbps—Ref: EM 13874/10) and she was keen not to see the stated deadline of 1 January 2013 slip;

She proposed that the Commission should have a greater role in international and bilateral negotiations regarding spectrum; and

Briefly covered the proposal to produce an inventory of spectrum currently used in the EU.

She concluded by stating the importance of reaching an early agreement on the RSPP.

Member states’ interventions then followed. The main points of UK’s intervention were:

Stressing the overall positive nature of the RSPP and its proposals;

We recognised that many member states, including UK, had issues regarding the deadline associated with the release of spectrum and that UK preferred an extension to the deadline associated with release of 800 MHz from January 2013 to January 2015;

UK also has concerns regarding the proposals covering “block sizes” of spectrum;

UK wished to review the Commission’s proposal on a spectrum inventory before commenting further but proposed that any inventory should cover both public and private spectrum holdings; and

That we regarded that matters relating to international spectrum negotiations as mainly a member state competency and that should remain the case.

Other member states’ interventions noted that the RSPP proposal was critical in making a positive contribution to the wider Europe 2020 strategy and generally shared UK’s concerns and supported our position on both spectrum release deadlines (especially for member states who share borders with non-EU states) and an increased role for the EU in international negotiations. However, a number of member states requested Commission assistance with negotiations with non-EU neighbours.

There was general support for UK’s call for local circumstances to be taken into account when considering spectrum release deadlines. Several member states indicated concerns regarding the necessary resource to undertake an inventory.

In her summing-up of the debate, Commissioner Kroes reiterated her preference for a January 2013 release date, but indicated the possibility of derogations for member states who share borders with non-EU states (a proposal that would not apply to nor resolve the UK’s issues with the proposed deadline).

Finally, during a final intervention, the presidency expressed concern that the Commission may not fully appreciate the extent of concerns of, and problems for member states associated with the proposed spectrum release deadlines.

Proposal for a Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 460/2004 establishing the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) as regards its duration—A Progress Report

Proposal for a Regulation concerning the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA)—A Progress Report

These two items were progress reports from the Commission on the progress regarding these proposals. (Ref: EM 14322/10)

There was little discussion covering this item. However, the Commission stated that the modernisation of ENISA was essential and that the fight against cybercrime was a top priority. The only substantive intervention was from Greece—though supported by Cyprus and Bulgaria—who indicated a view that ENISA should have a permanent mandate, as opposed to the five years proposed. In response, the Commission indicated that the EU needed the flexibility of a time-limited mandate, given the rapidly changing nature of issues related to ENISA’s work. The UK did not intervene on this item.

Cross-fertilisation between the Europe 2020 flagship initiatives “A Digital Agenda for Europe” and “Innovation Union”—Adoption of Council Conclusions; and

European Broadband: investing in digitally driven growth—Adoption of Council Conclusions

These two Council conclusions were adopted without comment from any member states.

This item was followed by the “any other business” items, which were:

Report on the state of development of roaming services within the European Union—Presentation by the Commission;

Commissioner Kroes summarised the lunch-time discussion and stated that a dialogue with all stakeholders was necessary (a point made by the UK during lunch);

Internet Governance Forum (IGF)—Briefing by the Commission and the Presidency;

The Commission noted the positive outcome of the recent renewal of the mandate of the IGF by the United Nations and thanked Lithuania for hosting the most recent IGF;

The next Presidency’s programme and events—Briefing by the Hungarian delegation;

It was noted that the incoming presidency were planning an informal Ministerial meeting on infrastructure protection and that the next TTE Council would take place on 27 May 2011.

Other than noted above, there were no substantive points made on these three items and Council concluded following them.

ANNEX A—Questions for Discussion at Telecoms Council (Dec 2010)

RSPP/Spectrum

1. Do the Ministers believe that spectrum should contribute to achieve the goals of EU 2020? In particular, should spectrum contribute to economic growth and to secure a competitive advantage in innovative wireless technologies, not only in the telecom sector but also in other sectors such as transport, the environment, energy or research and development?

2. In order to contribute fully to the goals of the digital agenda and of EU 2020, should the Commission be asked to produce, in collaboration with the member states, an inventory of the different uses made of the spectrum in Europe? Are their some types of spectrum that should be addressed more carefully in such inventory?

3. With regard to (harmonized) spectrum used for electronic communications services, do the member states wish to agree on early common deadlines for making spectrum available for wireless broadband? How should possible obstacles be addressed?

4. Should the Union play a broader role in order to better defend and promote the EU spectrum policies in international negotiations?

Mobile Roaming

1. What is the best way to stimulate competition in roaming services and achieve a well-functioning single market for the benefit of European consumers?

2. What impact will medium to long-term market developments, e.g. the transition to next generation mobile networks (LTE) and the use of all-IP technologies, have on the roaming market?

3. In the short term, should the roaming regulation be adapted to add a retail price cap for data, similar to what is foreseen for voice and SMS?”

Simple Financial Products (Consultation)

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

Today the Government are publishing a consultation on developing a new category of simple financial products. The consultation sets out the Government’s proposals in this area, and provides an opportunity for interested parties to respond. Copies of the document are available on the HM Treasury website.

The Government are committed to helping consumers to take responsibility for their finances and are already taking forward the coalition commitment to develop Britain’s first free national financial advice service. This consultation proposes a new regime of simple products that will complement current work on advice and education, giving consumers a simple alternative when they reach the market.

These products will ensure that people understand the products they need, help people make better choices and encourage competition in the market. The Government expect that these proposals will be taken forward on a voluntary basis by the industry, in collaboration with consumer representatives, and that once introduced, will have a positive impact on consumer engagement in the market.

Copies of the consultation document have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Tax Information Exchange (Liberia and Aruba)

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Written Statements

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

Tax information exchange agreements (TIEAs) were signed with Liberia in London on 1 November 2010 and with Aruba in The Hague on 5 November 2010.

The texts of the TIEAs have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and made available on HM Revenue and Custom’s website. The texts will be scheduled to draft Orders in Council and laid before the House of Commons in due course.

Afghanistan Troop Levels: Spring 2011 Roulement

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)]

The next roulement of UK forces in Afghanistan is due to take place in April 2011. The UK’s current framework brigade in Helmand, 16 Air Assault Brigade, will be replaced by 3 Commando Brigade. The forces deploying include:

Afghanistan: Monthly Progress Report

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

I wish to inform the House that today, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, is publishing the first progress report on developments in Afghanistan, which I announced we would publish every month in my statement to the House on 27 October.

The report focuses on key developments during the month of November.

At the NATO Lisbon summit, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)’s 48 contributing nations reaffirmed their enduring commitment to Afghanistan’s security and stability. NATO and Afghanistan also agreed the framework of a long-term partnership that looks beyond the end of ISAF’s current mission. The summit set out the timetable for transition of lead responsibility for security from international to Afghan forces by the end of 2014.

Transition to Afghan lead security responsibility will be dependent on the conditions in each district and province. It will see ISAF’s role evolve away from combat towards increased training, mentoring and support. In Lisbon, ISAF partners joined the UK in pledging additional trainers to help Afghan security forces build capacity and prepare to assume lead responsibility for security, as set out at the summit.

Pressure on the insurgency is increasing due to ISAF’s operations. The significant uplift in troop numbers has corresponded to an increase in military operations, particularly in those areas where insurgent activity is still strong, although this has not caused a significant increase in civilian casualties.

Progress continues to be made in developing the Afghan national army and the Afghan national police, both of which are on track to meet the targets for trained soldiers and police officers, agreed at the London conference in January this year, by November 2011. Investment continues in the training of both the army and the police, particularly their leadership.

The results of September’s parliamentary elections were declared. While by no means free of irregularities or fraud, they were broadly credible, given the circumstances. Approximately 60% of Parliamentarians are new to the National Assembly. Female candidates have done well. Both of the two seats in Nimroz province were won by women—the first time any Afghan woman has won a seat not reserved for a female candidate.

The Afghan Government reported progress on the commitments made at the Kabul conference in July on security, anti-corruption, human rights and public financial management.

An important example of the region’s commitment to supporting Afghanistan was the fourth regional economic co-operation conference on Afghanistan (RECCA), held in Istanbul, Turkey on 2-3 November. The UK was central to establishing the RECCA process in 2005, and this year funded the establishment of a centre for regional co-operation at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Kabul.

A long awaited Afghan-Pakistan transit trade agreement was finally signed by Afghanistan and Pakistan on 29 October, enabling cargo trucks to reach Pakistani ports and the border with India. This will provide a significant boost for Afghan trade.

I am placing the report in the Library of the House. It will also be published on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk) and the HMG UK and Afghanistan website (http://afghanistan.hmg.gov.uk/).

Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)]

The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council met on 6 and 7 December in Brussels. The health and consumer affairs part of the Council was taken on 7 December. I represented the UK.

At the meeting, following an exchange of views on the draft regulation on provision of food information to consumers, political agreement between member states was reached by qualified majority. The United Kingdom voted in favour of the proposal. The text will now be forwarded to the European Parliament for their consideration.

A policy debate on a possible mechanism for the joint procurement of vaccines and antiviral medication concluded that a voluntary framework should be developed.

Council conclusions were adopted on: investing in Europe’s health work force of tomorrow—scope for innovation and collaboration; innovation and solidarity in pharmaceuticals and on innovative approaches for chronic diseases in public health and health care systems.

The Commission provided an update on progress of the proposals on information to the general public on medicinal products, and the presidency provided information on a number of conferences and international events organised during their presidency.

Forensic Science

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Written Statements

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

The Forensic Science Service (FSS) was an Executive agency which was granted trading fund status in 1999, a step designed to increase its financial flexibility. Then, following the McFarland review in 2002, FSS Ltd was established as a GovCo, wholly owned by the Government, in December 2005. The intention was that this be a transitional step towards a “public-private partnership”.

In the event, however, no further progress was made. This lack of progress has led in our view to opportunities for reform being missed, and continuing reductions in the value of publicly owned assets.

The previous Government did not reform the Forensic Science Service when they had the chance, and instead allowed it to maintain a cost base far higher than its commercial rivals. This meant that FSS continued operating uncompetitive terms and conditions and expanded its employment levels between 1999 and 2003. This was undertaken without bringing down the cost base towards a level where FSS would be able to compete.

Commercial rivals, many established by former FSS members of staff, have taken market share from the former state-run monopoly.

FSS was set up as a GovCo, with an £18 million loan in December 2005. The company has met interest payments on this loan but cannot afford to repay the principal amount borrowed.

The previous Government supported the company with a further £50 million grant from early 2009 to restructure the business.

Despite this intervention and the commitment of the current management team, the current challenging forensics market has put the FSS back into serious financial difficulty. FSS is currently making operating losses of around £2 million per month. Its cash is due to run out as early as January next year. It is vital that we take clear and decisive action to sort this out.

The police have advised us that their spend on external forensic suppliers will continue to fall over the next few years, as forces seek to maximise efficiencies in this area. HMIC concurs with this assessment.

We have therefore decided to support the wind down of FSS, transferring or selling off as much of its operations as possible. We will work with FSS management and staff, ACPO, and other suppliers to ensure an orderly transition, but our firm ambition is that there will be no continuing state interest in a forensics provider by March 2012.

There is no justification for the uncertainty and costs of trying to restructure and retain the business.

We will ensure the orderly wind down of FSS does not impact on police service customers or the wider criminal justice system. With ACPO, we will put in place a central team to ensure work is transferred in a controlled way and that arrangements are put in place to ensure security of supply in future. The continued provision of effective forensics is our priority.

We know that there are real challenges ahead for FSS staff whose skills and contribution will be important as we move through the transition. We will be working hard with the company to ensure that staff are kept fully informed of developments.

We will also be working with ACPO to seek to maximise the level of competition in the market including through opportunities created by FSS leaving the field. This will help to ensure that police forces benefit from cost-effective use of forensics.

We want to see the UK forensic science industry operating as a genuine market, with private sector providers competing to provide innovative services at the lowest cost. This will preserve police resources and maximise the positive impact forensic sciences can have on tackling crime. A competitive market can help to drive down prices and improve turnaround times, meaning serious crimes can be cleared up more quickly and efficiently. Ultimately, that is what everyone in the criminal justice system wants to see.

Draft Cabinet Manual

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

The Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell, has published today the draft Cabinet Manual on the Cabinet Office website: www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/cabinet-manual.

The draft Cabinet Manual is intended to be a source of information on the UK’s laws, conventions and rules that affect the operation and procedures of Government.

Twelve weeks have been allowed for comment (until 8 March 2011).

Copies of the draft Cabinet Manual have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and also in the Vote Office.

Crossrail

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

I wish to update the House on Crossrail progress since my annual update on 15 July 2010, Official Report, columns 43-44WS, in which I undertook to report later in the year on progress made by Crossrail Ltd on their value-for-money programme.

The spending review announcement confirmed Government’s joint commitment with the Mayor of London to delivering Crossrail, and secured the funding to deliver the scheme to its original scope.

As I indicated in July, Crossrail Ltd has been undertaking a programme of value engineering, risk avoidance and mitigation, alongside indirect cost reduction to ensure that the scheme is delivered in the most efficient way possible. In line with this approach, the Government accepted an engineering-led solution to delivering the central section which has enabled substantial savings of around £1 billion to the Crossrail funding package to be identified. While the construction programme for the central section will be lengthened by around a year, this has enabled the Government to confirm that funding is available for the whole project.

We now expect that Crossrail services will commence from 2018. However, the detailed timetable for the phased introduction of Crossrail services requires additional work in a number of areas. For example, further work needs to take place on:

(i) the transfer of services from existing franchises to the future Crossrail operations; and

(ii) the development of detailed plans on the commissioning of services.

It should be noted that Crossrail services were always planned to be phased into operation over some months and it remains a priority for the Government to ensure services are commissioned in the most efficient possible way.

In addition, I wish to inform the House that Crossrail Ltd has issued its notice of intention to award the tunnelling contracts for the central section tunnels. These contracts mark a further milestone in Crossrail’s progress towards the start of tunnelling in late 2011.

Crossrail Ltd continues to work to achieve further savings in advance of the final review point for the project in spring next year. I expect to make a further update on progress then.

Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council was held on 6 December 2010 in Brussels. I represented the United Kingdom.

The main item on the agenda was a policy debate on the pregnant workers directive. Ahead of Council, the UK with the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Netherlands, Slovakia and Sweden circulated a joint minute statement. This underlined the importance of subsidiarity and member state competence in setting social security systems; criticised the EP’s First Reading position; questioned the value of further negotiations; and called for a “pause for reflection” involving a Council impact assessment and consultation with social partners. In my intervention, I argued that the negotiations may be at the “end of the road” and while Council should at the very least have a pause for reflection, I see little point in further negotiations given the gulf between the co-legislators. We will continue to argue for these proposals to be abandoned. Despite the opposition of many member states to the proposal, the presidency intends to consult with the incoming Hungarian and Polish presidencies and table a roadmap for further discussions.

The other main agenda item was on pensions. The Council adopted conclusions and in the ensuing debate, the presidency asked the member states what measures they were taking to ensure the provision of adequate pensions, and asked for their initial reactions to the Green Paper on pensions. I outlined the UK’s reforms to improve state pensions, to encourage earlier saving for retirement and to extend working lives. In reaction to the Green Paper, I acknowledged the value added through sharing of best practice at a European level but stressed that there could be no “one size fits all” solution. In particular, I argued there was no evidence for why Solvency II capital requirements should be applied to pensions, which, far from being in consumers’ interests, could seriously weaken defined benefit schemes.

The Commission presented its EU 2020 flagship “New Skills and Jobs”. Council took note of presidency conclusions on the Commission’s flagship initiatives “Youth On the Move” and “New Skills and Jobs”; of Employment Committee opinions on employment and environment and the examination of countries’ employment policies; and of a joint Employment Committee and Social Policy Committee opinion on a monitoring framework for employment policies. It also adopted Council conclusions on employment policies and the green economy, adapting to an ageing workforce, the social elements of the Europe 2020 strategy, social services of general interest and gender.

Ministers adopted a progress report on the Directive on Equal Treatment—the anti-discrimination directive and a declaration on the European year for combating poverty and social exclusion 2010. They also agreed a general approach on the decision to create a European year for active ageing 2012.

On the “A” points, the UK submitted a minute statement on the Council decision on the EU-Switzerland agreement extending social security rights to non-active persons moving between the EU and Switzerland. This explained our decision not to opt in to the decision, our intention to seek a reciprocal exemption for non-active persons, and our disagreement with the interpretation given by the Council Legal Services to how the duty of sincere co-operation applied in these circumstances.

House of Lords

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Lords Chamber

Tuesday, 14 December 2010.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

EU: Repatriation of Powers

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

14:37

Asked By

[Lord Spicer]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government which powers they are seeking to repatriate from the European Union.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, our priority has been the European Union Bill, but we have begun initial work on the balance of the EU’s existing competences and what they mean for Britain. This complements our ongoing activity with the Commission to reform the EU institutions. All this work needs to be undertaken before we can determine the way forward, but we are also taking some action now. We will want to limit the application of the working time directive in the UK and we are deciding whether to opt into legislation on criminal justice on a case-by-case basis with a view to maximising our security, protecting our civil liberties and preserving the integrity of our criminal justice system.

[Lord Spicer]

Does my noble friend agree that, so long as the acquis is at the centre of the European treaties, it will be impossible to repatriate any powers?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, the acquis obviously embodies an accumulation of powers. We are now in the 21st century and I suppose that we would all wish to see, if I may use a domestic analogy, a bit more localism in the management of our affairs. However, we are reviewing the situation. The work is at a fairly early stage and I cannot make any further detailed comments on that matter now.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, will the Minister not come clean and admit that not a comma can be changed in the treaties, nor can the smallest power be repatriated, without the unanimous consent of all 27 member states, and that therefore the repatriation of powers is really not possible?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I understand exactly the noble Lord’s concern on this, but I think that he is being a bit defeatist. It seems to me that there is a very widespread will throughout the European Union to reform it and indeed, if I may borrow a phrase, to make it fit for purpose in the 21st century. That certainly involves a sensible pattern of competences between the nation member states and the central institutions. Therefore, I think that, by gloomily saying that nothing can happen until everyone agrees, the noble Lord is taking a very negative approach to an area where European reform is perfectly possible.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords—

[Lord Tebbit]

My Lords—

[Lord Campbell of Alloway]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

This side.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords, it is obvious that the Government are up a gum-tree with their policy. An example of their prejudices is the working time directive. When he was a Minister in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, pointed out that the absence in the United States of the famous 48-hour limit for doctors, which is often quoted, costs many thousands of lives there a year, so how can the Government stick to these dogmas when the facts are against them?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I just do not recognise what the noble Lord is saying. On the question of health administration and working hours in the medical profession, constructive discussions are going on with our fellow EU members about ways in which we can go forward. On the working time directive, we want to limit its particular application in a number of areas, which we intend to do. I do not understand all the talk of dogma and gum-trees. They may be trees that the noble Lord lives with, but they do not come into my bailiwick.

[Lord Tebbit]

My Lords—

[Lord Campbell of Alloway]

My Lords—

[Lord Dykes]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Tebbit!

[Lord Tebbit]

Would my noble friend like to agree that all great journeys commence with a single step? Perhaps he could arrange for our masters in Brussels to allow children of 10 in this country to purchase crackers for Christmas.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I do not know whether the right single step would lead in the right direction, but I note my noble friend’s concern that the purchase of crackers by children of the right age should be a reasonably available and accessible freedom.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, the Minister has been very good at explaining what he would like to do but rather less good at explaining how he would do it. The question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Spicer, was what mechanism would bring into effect all this work that he has described the Foreign Office as undertaking, or is the work really pretty pointless because there is no way of bringing it into effect?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

With great respect to the noble Baroness, the Question, which is in front of me, asks,

“which powers they are seeking to repatriate from the European Union”.

I have made it absolutely clear—

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

The supplementary.

[Noble Lords]

Order.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am not sure why the noble Baroness was intervening, but I was trying to answer the question when she interrupted. We are working on this now. I confess that our priority has certainly been the European Union Bill, which places new reassurances on the transfer of further competences to the EU, but nevertheless we have begun initial work on the balance of the EU’s existing competences and what they mean for Britain. When we work that out, we shall proceed constructively to see how those things can be implemented and adjusted. I see no difficulty in that procedure and in following that process, which I hope will lead us in a constructive direction.

[Lord Dykes]

Now that my noble friend is a senior member of the coalition team, will he promise at long last to be a little bit enthusiastic about our membership of the European Union? Would it not be a good idea from now on to give a lead? Does he agree that the Lisbon treaty is an ideal basis and balance for all the things that we want to do with the other 26 member states to take the European Union forward for the good of the public?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

As my noble friend is getting a bit personal, I shall say that I have always been a very enthusiastic European and advocate of sensible reform of and working with the European Union so that it goes forward in a constructive way. I do not deny that, in the past, some of the overload at the centre and the extensive acquisition of competences have tended to slow down the best kind of Europeanism. I believe that in our coalition—of which, I hasten to say, I am a very junior member—we are all united in wanting a European Union that is constructive, goes forward positively and meets the challenges of the 21st century. That is what we are all working for.

[Lord Campbell of Alloway]

My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that we retain our residual sovereignty and that the Lisbon treaty—

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords—

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, we appreciate that this has been a very popular Question, but we are now in the eighth minute. I think that we should move on to the next Question.

Remembrance Sunday

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

14:45

Asked by

[Lord Davies of Coity]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce restrictions on opening times for retail premises on Remembrance Sunday.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)]

First, my Lords, I pay tribute to all service personnel, past and present, who have so admirably served this country. It is our duty to remember and honour the fallen. Remembrance Sunday provides us with that opportunity and I hope that this custom will remain for all time. Large retail premises—those with more than 280 square metres of trading space—are already restricted to opening for periods of only six hours on any Sunday. The Government have no plans to further restrict the opening times of shops on Remembrance Sunday.

[Lord Davies of Coity]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that on 10 March this year Sir Patrick Cormack—who is coming to this House next Tuesday to sit on the coalition Benches—supported by Dr Vincent Cable, introduced in the other place a Bill to provide for the extension of Christmas Day restrictions on the opening of retail premises to Remembrance Sunday? Is she aware that the Bill’s Second Reading would have taken place on 23 April 2010 if the general election had not been called? Finally, will she introduce a Bill accordingly to ensure that those benefits apply to Remembrance Sunday in 2011 and, if not, will the Government support a Private Member’s Bill from this House?

[Baroness Wilcox]

Yes, I understand that the Bill was introduced in the other place in March this year and that it ran out of time before it could have its Second Reading. It was of course Sir Patrick Cormack, then an MP in the other place, who introduced the Bill and, yes, he will be taking his seat in your Lordships’ House next Tuesday. I am sure that, as very often happens in this House, he will form common cause with the noble Lord. As to the second question—whether we will support a Private Member’s Bill on the same subject—the Government cannot commit to support a Bill that would prevent large shops from opening on Remembrance Sunday. It is not the place of the Government, and never has been, to regulate in an effort to enforce observance of important national commemorations. We leave observance of such occasions to the individual. Remembrance is a matter of conscience and a desire to show respect for the fallen; it is not, in the Government’s view, related to a particular activity or business, such as shopping and retailing.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

My Lords, when we have a defence Question, we often have the names of those who have fallen recited to us. Will the Government consider including the names of the fallen in the Prayers that we have at the opening of our sessions? Secondly, could not a message from Parliament be sent to the bereaved families of those who sacrificed their lives for us?

[Baroness Wilcox]

I sympathise enormously with what my noble friend says, but it is not a matter for the House. Perhaps this is a time when we should smile at the Bishops’ Bench to see whether they will speak to us about it.

[Lord Naseby]

Will my noble friend confirm that, before there is any further change to Sunday trading, the point raised by the noble Lord opposite will be given priority?

[Baroness Wilcox]

My Lords, I do not quite know how I can answer that question. I can only give the answer that I gave before, which is that at the moment we would not support the Bill if it were proposed.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, would the Minister agree that Remembrance Sunday and associated events are a matter not just of individual conscience but of national policy and for society as a whole? While it would perhaps be unreasonable to restrict shops to fewer than six hours, could consideration be given to delaying the opening of shops on that day, because so many ceremonies occur at 11 o’clock in the morning on Remembrance Sunday?

[Baroness Wilcox]

The right reverend Prelate brings an interesting question and I am very happy to answer it. There is no Act that says that anybody has to trade on a Sunday and no reason why a shop cannot be closed. The hours that shops have are between 10 am and 6 pm for six consecutive hours. They do not have to open for six consecutive hours. If they wish to, they are free on any Sunday to open from any time during those hours. They could possibly open in the afternoon rather than in the morning of this important event.

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, this is a national matter. I urge on my noble friend the idea that we need to establish certain national standards and a certain national consciousness in matters of state such as this. It seems not right that it should be left entirely to individual conscience. The Government have a duty to tell people what being British is and this is part of it.

[Baroness Wilcox]

My Lords, I can only give the answer that I gave before. In this country, we are very fortunate that so many of our citizens choose to observe Remembrance Sunday and Armistice on 11 November. The Government take the view that remembrance is a matter of personal conscience and is not something that should or can be legislated for.

[Lord Maginnis of Drumglass]

I concur with what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has just said. I suggest that the laxity in terms of respect for Sunday and for people who believe that Sunday is a special day, not only for our servicemen, is something that this Government should look at critically. I hope that they will seek to bring about amendments, at least, to legislation that might give some rights to those of us for whom Sunday is special.

[Baroness Wilcox]

I should perhaps speak of the military covenant, of which the noble Lord will know. The Government welcomed the publication last week of a report by the independent task force on the military covenant led by Professor Strachan. The Government have already announced that they will be taking forward the work to implement the recommendations in the Armed Forces community covenant. This will involve encouraging the nation to identify ways of supporting local Armed Forces communities in ways that reflect their particular circumstances. We will look at these recommendations and report next year. I hope that the noble Lord will find that helpful.

British Indian Ocean Territory

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

14:53

Asked By

[Baroness Whitaker]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Howell of Guildford on 28 October (WA 326-7), on what they spent the £1.5 million allocated to the British Indian Ocean Territory fund in 2009-10.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, the £1.5 million allocated to the British Indian Ocean Territory Administration was used to offset some of the costs of running the territory’s patrol vessel. The patrol vessel has helped to enforce the fisheries regime, and now it will enforce the marine protected area. It is also an important tool to help ensure the security of the territory and to enforce environmental and other regulations which apply in the British Indian Overseas Territory. The vessel has hosted groups of Chagossians in recent visits to the outer islands of the territory.

[Baroness Whitaker]

I thank the Minister for that very detailed Answer. Can I ask him about two further economies? Now that what the Times has described as “petty manoeuvres” by officials to keep the Chagossians from their home have been exposed, could not Her Majesty's Government be brave enough to save the legal costs of the European court case—about £5 million, I think—and start the process of return for these unfairly exiled people? Secondly, does he agree with me that the vast majority of the world’s marine protected areas have allowed the original inhabitants to remain there to help with the conservation work?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Baroness, who follows these matters very closely, has raised a number of important issues. I think that one has to reject the talk of manoeuvres to keep Chagossians from their home. Fundamental and very difficult dilemmas must be faced by those who have the responsibility, or who want to take on the responsibility, of deciding how to solve this problem. The matter is before the European Court of Human Rights at the moment, and remains before it, and that is our position. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has said that we continue to examine this policy in detail, and that is what we will do, but the fundamental position that we take was, I think, taken exactly by the previous Administration as well and is based on some very difficult but hard realities about both our needs for defence and the rights of those concerned.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, will my noble friend ask the Americans to agree to the publication of the minutes of the politico-military discussion with US officials in October 2009 in so far as they covered the return of the Chagossians to their outer islands? Does he agree that, despite attempts by the FCO to ventriloquise the Americans into making a statement that even a small number of Man Fridays—as they contemptuously refer to the inhabitants—would jeopardise military operations at the base, the Americans have said nothing official on that subject since President Obama took office?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I do not think that I can comment on the WikiLeak gossip that has circulated around the globe. Much of it is very inaccurate or taken completely out of context, so I would not like to comment further on those matters.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

I declare an interest as the vice-chairman of the all-party group that was described by a foreign official in WikiLeaks as being persistent but non-influential. The Minister mentioned defence. In our last meeting with Mr Henry Bellingham on 15 November, I mentioned to him a letter that we had had from Mr Lawrence Korb, former Assistant Secretary of Defence in America, who said that there was no good national security reason for not allowing the Chagossians to return to Chagos, including Diego Garcia. Is that the view of the Foreign Office as well?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The view of the Foreign Office is embodied in the fact that we are involved in the case at the European Court of Human Rights, and we are really not in a position to comment further except to say that we stand by the arguments and the justifications that lead us to remain in that position in the legal process. As I said, my right honourable friend has said in another place that we continue to examine this in detail and to look at the policy, but I cannot offer the noble Lord anything other than to say that the case is before the European Court of Human Rights, that the arguments are on the table there and that this matter has to be resolved there.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

As another member of that non-influential parliamentary group, I ask the Minister whether he is not concerned that it appears that Foreign Office officials have managed to irritate both the Mauritian Government and the United States Government by using the marine protection agency as a cover for denying the Chagossians the right to return.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I do not know where my noble friend gets this concept of a cover from, except presumably from WikiLeaks. There is no question of a cover; they are completely separate issues. However, when it comes to handling them, we are concerned because we have inherited a situation in which there was certainly a lot of misunderstanding and even ill feeling between us and the Mauritian Government. We are very anxious to talk to the Mauritians again and to try to handle this matter better than it has been handled in the past.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, has the Foreign Office had the opportunity, since the coalition came into office, to discuss this issue directly with the United States Government?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

There are ongoing discussions with the United States Government about this and other matters related to broad defence needs and to the particular problems we are discussing today. So the answer is yes: discussions have been ongoing at various levels.

[The Earl of Sandwich]

Does the noble Lord agree that the European court is likely to decide in favour of the Chagossians and that it is high time that the Foreign Office prepared for the massive compensation scheme which will arise and to forecast where the money will come from? The money cannot come from Mauritius, and we have the responsibility.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I cannot possibly speculate on the outcome of a legal process—but the noble Earl has rightly pointed to one of the possible outcomes should it go a certain way, which has a really vast implication in terms of resources.

Houses of Parliament: Access during Demonstrations

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

15:00

Asked By

[Lord Soley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the answer by Lord Wallace of Saltaire on 9 December (HL Deb cols. 298-300), whether they will clarify the position relating to access to Parliament by Members during demonstrations.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, the position relating to access to Parliament by Members during demonstrations does need clarifying. With the agreement of the other party leaders, the Convenor and the Lord Speaker, I have asked the Clerk of the Parliaments and acting Black Rod to report back as soon as possible on, first, what the current effect is of the sessional order passed in the Lords and, secondly, how the House authorities input into the police operations around Parliament specifically to seek to ensure access for Members and staff.

[Lord Soley]

I very much welcome that Answer, because there was considerable concern in all parts of the House about the Answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, to the Question asked last Thursday. The main problem was that he seriously understated the constitutional importance of preserving access for Members of both Houses in order to discuss, vote and decide on the affairs of the nation. It would not be the first time in the history of this country—or, indeed, many other countries—that mobs have prevented people from accessing Parliament when it needs to carry out its fundamental duty to protect our constitutional democracy. I am very grateful to the Leader of the House for answering today, but will he make sure that that point is given high status when we discuss this issue? I would be happy to give my views. This is not in any way a criticism of the police, whom we all go out of our way to help in these profoundly difficult situations. Frankly, however, this is not just about the right to demonstrate; it is about the right of a free Parliament to meet, decide and vote on the affairs of the nation.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I warmly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Soley, has just said. It is extremely important that at all times Members of this House and another place have unhindered access to go about their business in Parliament. However, the police have a very difficult job. While they do everything that they can to make sure that the entrances are not overwhelmed, very occasionally that happens. As Members of this House, we need to be aware of alternative routes so that we can still get here to do our duty.

[Lord Marlesford]

Does my noble friend agree that part of the business of Parliament is to respond to the lobbying of Members of Parliament and that maximum practical access to the Palace for lobbyists is desirable, first, so that they can make their points and, secondly, so that parliamentarians can respond? Last week, those of us who saw it would have realised that there were far fewer lobbyists here than the House could comfortably accommodate, which was a pity. Part of that was a product of the problems in Parliament Square. Does my noble friend agree with the point made by my noble friend Lady Trumpington yesterday that one of the real problems is the permanent encampment in Parliament Square, which occupies a lot of space and is therefore an obstacle to democracy?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I certainly agree that part of the role of Parliament is to accept those who wish to lobby Parliament and parliamentarians in this building, which is why we support the peaceful right to protest. I also agree with what my noble friend Lady Trumpington said. It is a view shared by many people in both Houses that what seems to be a permanent encampment in Parliament Square is no longer necessary, if it ever was. That is why the Government have published proposals to try to tackle the problem.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I welcome the report called for by the noble Lord from the Clerk of the Parliaments and acting Black Rod. On the theme of Parliament Square, in his response to the Statement yesterday the noble Lord referred to what he described as the,

“disjointed ownership of different parts of the square”.—[Official Report, 13/12/10; col. 423.]

Will the overall work of the Government in this area produce a solution to that disjointed ownership?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, we are trying to find a solution that will suit both the owners of Parliament Square. The problem is not so much one of ownership as the way in which the law is applied to the areas under different ownership. We believe that, under the proposals that we are about to publish, we will have an opportunity to solve the problem.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, concentration is inevitably on access to Parliament when it is physically difficult to get here, but access is important at all times, a view that I know the House is very enthusiastic about. Will the Leader of the House look again at the notices at the entrances to Parliament? They state:

“Trespass on this Site is a Criminal Offence. This is a protected site under Section 128 of the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act 2005”.

Will he consider whether it is necessary to have such aggressive notices around a democratic place of work?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, there is a view that some of the violent acts that we have seen perpetrated in recent weeks need to be dealt with strongly and that the police, who do a difficult job, need to have a clear role in catching the perpetrators, arresting them and charging them. As for the signs around the buildings, I think that it is also fair enough for the public to be well aware of when they are about to commit an act of criminal trespass so that there is no excuse and no defence if they are caught doing so.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is quite impossible to get into the road that surrounds the Liberal Democrat headquarters? It is now almost like a fortress. Could he use his efforts, along with those of his colleagues, to try to get the road open to the public?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the road is closed completely on occasion, although I am well aware from my own experience that residents are able to gain access to the street where the Liberal Democrats have their headquarters. I hope that we can move on from this episode of violent demonstrations by a student group. Perhaps what happened last week has had a salutary effect not only on those who organise these marches and the National Union of Students, but also on the colleges and institutions of higher education that these students attend.

Post Office Network Subsidy Scheme (Amendment) Order 2010

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Lords Chamber

National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2010

Motions to Approve

15:08

Moved By

[Baroness Wilcox]

That the draft order and regulations laid before the House on 2 and 10 November be approved.

Relevant documents: 6th and 8th Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and 12th and 13th Reports from the Merits Committee, considered in Grand Committee on 8 December.

Motions agreed.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Lords Chamber

Committee (4th Day)

15:09

Schedule 1 : Power to abolish: bodies and offices

Amendment 24 not moved.

Amendment 25

Moved by

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

25: Schedule 1, page 16, line 16, leave out “BRB (Residuary) Limited.”

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I move Amendment 25 because I want to give the Minister an opportunity to describe what the Government envisage will happen to the powers, duties and assets of BRB (Residuary) Ltd if, or rather when, that body is abolished. The Committee may be aware that this company is all that is left of the once mighty British Railways Board, which oversaw the running and ownership of the entire state-owned railway from 1962 until privatisation. BRB (Residuary) Ltd was formed in 2001 to manage most of the remaining property, rights and liabilities of the BRB. These included a diverse property portfolio and the settlement of industrial injury claims submitted by former British Railways employees. The residuary company looks after 148 non-operational sites, many of which were bought in the 19th century to facilitate railway construction. It would like to sell these when market conditions are right. Therefore, my first question to the Minister is: what organisation will be responsible for selling these sites if BRB (Residuary) Ltd is abolished? Secondly, does he feel that this is the right time to get rid of a body that has operated successfully and profitably, at least until there was a revaluation of its assets in 2009?

I should also like to ask the Minister about the property held at the discretion of the Department for Transport for future operational use, such as the platforms and other structures at Waterloo International station, the North Pole international depot in west London, the Old Dalby test track, the Temple Mills bus depot and Glasgow Eastfield depot. What does he envisage will happen to those?

Perhaps most significant and difficult are the 4,000 bridges, tunnels, viaducts and other structures throughout England, Scotland and Wales which no longer form part of the operational railway but still have to be maintained. This is called the “burdensome estate”. It includes structures such as the Thornton Viaduct in Bradford, which no longer carries a railway but is an important part of the Great Northern Trail cycle route. There has been speculation in the media about where these matters will reside once BRB (Residuary) Ltd has disappeared. It has been suggested that the Highways Agency might take over the burdensome estate, such as the redundant viaducts and stretches of land, and I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify that.

Finally, BRB (Residuary) Ltd is also responsible for handling compensation claims from former railway employees who suffered illnesses as a result of their working conditions. Many of these have been related to working with asbestos and other dangerous materials. At 31 March 2010 there were 459 disease and injury claims outstanding against the company. Who will take on the responsibility for the requirement to look after the industrial injury claims of these former railway employees? There are a number of issues here and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

My noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester has raised a number of important points about the role and responsibilities of BRB (Residuary) Ltd and what the Government’s intentions are in relation to those activities, not least its operational and non-operational property—its estate of some 4,000 bridges, tunnels, viaducts and other structures—and the management of industrial injury claims. I, too, look forward to the Minister’s reply to the points raised by my noble friend.

As he said, BRB (Residuary) Ltd is a residuary organisation staffed mainly by former employees of British Rail who have a detailed and specialist knowledge of the assets and liabilities now managed by the organisation. The company is committed, for so long as it exists, to ensuring that the knowledge held by the former BR staff is retained for use by those who might be responsible for the management of the long-term assets and liabilities in the future. In the light of that, can the Minister say what will happen to the staff of BRB (Residuary) Ltd if it is abolished? Can he give an assurance that any information currently accessible through a Freedom of Information Act request will still be accessible through such a request following any transfer of BRB (Residuary) Ltd’s duties and responsibilities elsewhere?

The criteria against which the Government said their review of public bodies would be carried out were: does the public body have a precise technical operation; is it necessary for impartial decisions to be made about the distribution of taxpayers’ money; and does it fulfil a need for facts to be transparently determined independent of political interference? A public body would stay if it was deemed to have passed one of the three tests.

In June this year, the Minister for the Cabinet Office said that the Government wanted to cut the number of public bodies to increase accountability and cut costs. Can the Minister explain why the Government have apparently decided that the BRB (Residuary) body does not carry out a technical operation, does not have to make impartial decisions and does not need to establish facts independent of political interference, when one of its roles is managing industrial injury claims supported by former BR employees and its staff have the detailed and specialist knowledge of the assets and liabilities that BRB (Residuary) Ltd manages?

Finally, since the Cabinet Office Minister has said that one declared objective of this exercise is to cut costs, can the noble Lord tell us what the contribution will be to the reduction in costs made by abolishing BRB (Residuary) Ltd?

15:15

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, missed from his list of public sector burdens the stretches of track which still exist and belong to the residuary body. He might have mentioned that—perhaps I did not hear him—but, as he is nodding, I think that he missed it out.

It is very important that some stretches of track should remain within the public sector in some way or other, pending the glorious day when the railway is returned to those lines that were closed down and had their tracks removed. Obviously, I refer to the Colne to Skipton line, much of which belongs to the county councils of Lancashire and north Yorkshire because it was transferred from the old West Riding county council. However, the track between the old county boundary and Colne was never transferred to Lancashire, so it is very important that, at the very least, it remains in public sector ownership. I declare an interest as a patron of the Skipton East Lancashire Rail Action Partnership, or SELRAP. I merely add that point to the very important list of issues. Of course, because the Colne to Skipton stretch includes lots of bridges, the county council is reluctant to take over responsibility for the former line because it claims that liability for the bridges would cost a vast amount of money, although the residuary body has not spent much on them at all in the 15 years since privatisation.

I merely add that little pebble into the pond.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, for tabling Amendment 25, because it gives the Government an opportunity to put on record the decision to include BRB (Residuary) Ltd in the list of bodies to be abolished.

As the noble Lord may know, consultations on the decision have been ongoing for some time. Many historical obligations associated with railway structures continue to rest with BRB and cannot be transferred with title through the normal property conveyancing process but must be transferred to someone else, such as the Secretary of State or some other public body under a transfer scheme. That can be done only by primary legislation, which is why BRB is mentioned in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, BRB is also liable for the industrial injury claims from former railway industry employees. It would be more difficult to transfer BRB to the Secretary of State for those claims to be dealt with without having a statutory transfer scheme, which is again why the body has been included in this Bill.

BRB (Residuary) Ltd is a public limited company that was created in 2001 to manage and dispose of British Rail’s commercial property assets, to manage historical liabilities for industrial injury claims and to maintain some 4,000 or so railway structures that are no longer used for railway purposes—to which the noble Lord referred as the burdensome estate.

The intention to abolish BRB once it has achieved its objective of maximising money from the disposal of its assets has been in place for some time. The inclusion of the body in Schedule 1 is necessary in order to wind up the body fully, as otherwise it would not be possible to transfer certain liabilities relating to the burdensome estate. Its inclusion in Schedule 1 will also facilitate the transfer of residual assets and liabilities to other parts of the public sector in the most cost-effective manner. For example, the conveyancing of the individual structures alone would cost approximately £6 million in the absence of a statutory transfer scheme, which the Bill provides for.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about the cost implications. Savings on staff costs, premises and accounts, audit et cetera are expected to be around £6 million in 2013-14 and £6.9 million per annum thereafter. On the number of jobs that may be involved, we currently envisage that roughly 30 posts would be made redundant as a result of these changes.

Although I have not provided detailed information on some of the structures that the noble Lord asked about—I hope that he will allow me to write to him when I have found out any detail on those that is available to me—in the light of the information that I have provided, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

I thank the Minister very much indeed for that helpful reply. A number of issues that remain unresolved were mentioned by myself, my noble friend Lord Rosser and, indeed, by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. If, on reflection, the Minister feels that he is able to give some more information in writing, that would be very welcome.

The decision to abolish BRB (Residuary) Ltd is not controversial—indeed, it was taken by the previous Administration—but I was anxious to ensure that things were not done in a rush or in a way that might result in the assets being sold for much less than is possible. I am satisfied by the Minister’s response, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 25 withdrawn.

Amendment 26

Moved by

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

26: Schedule 1, page 16, line 17, leave out “Chief Coroner, Deputy Chief Coroners, Medical Advisers to the Chief Coroner and Deputy Medical Advisers to the Chief Coroner.”

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, this amendment seeks to ensure that the long-awaited chief coroner, as set up in the Coroners and Justice Act, is not abandoned. I shall explain, first, why an independent chief coroner is essential for national functions to be adequately discharged and, secondly, why the cost basis of the decision to list the chief coroner, medical advisers and deputies is flawed, as dispensing with leadership to reform the coronial system will stack up costs, not save money. This amendment is strongly supported by all the experts in the field with whom I have had contact and by many from the voluntary sector, including INQUEST and the Royal British Legion.

The current system is not fit for purpose, being based on the 1887 Act. Even the 1988 Act was only consolidating, ignoring the Brodrick committee report. Repeatedly, fundamental reviews have been commissioned and, repeatedly, their key recommendation has been for a chief coroner with appropriate medical advice. In 2003, the fundamental review of death certification and investigation, the Luce review, was quickly followed by the third report of the Shipman inquiry. Both called for radical reform and leadership. As the Ministry of Justice’s own impact assessment on the Coroners and Justice Bill said:

“The Shipman Inquiry … and the Fundamental Review of Death Certification and Investigation”—

the Luce report—

“found the level of service provided to bereaved people was inconsistent; family and friends were not always involved in coroners’ investigations; there was a lack of leadership and training for coroners; and insufficient medical knowledge in the system as a whole”.

Luce’s headline recommendation was for a chief coroner from the higher judiciary to oversee standards and handle appeals.

Dame Janet found that to a large extent coroners are left to their own devices, with no guidance to coroners, no appeals system by which unsatisfactory decisions can be set aside, no job description and no appraisals. She proposed that leadership for coroners should come from a chief judicial coroner, with senior medical advice as appropriate, independent of the Government. Indeed, she said:

“In my view, it would no longer be satisfactory for the coroner service to be administered from within a Government Department”.

Four weeks ago we had the Redfern report, again calling for co-ordination and leadership.

The Coroners and Justice Act took three years of review and consultation and was supported across all parties. It made provision for such leadership. Dame Janet has noted that, with no appeal mechanism, the only route to challenge decisions is judicial review, but that a quicker and cheaper means of appeal could and should be provided whereby decisions, whether in a report or at inquest, that are wrong can be set aside, and that such an appeals system should be run by the chief coroner.

Coroners themselves have estimated that there might be up to 1,000 appeals per annum but a better local complaints procedure would decrease these. Currently, however, with the only recourse being to judicial review, there are about 25 judicial reviews a year. Each costs somewhere around £40,000 to £60,000, although no one can provide me with a good costing on it. So our current inadequate system is costing at least £500,000 to £750,000, and with such an unmet need the numbers will only rise.

The coroners need leadership that they can respect to bring about change. Where a coroner has written a rule 43 recommendation to try to avoid further deaths, without a chief coroner, where are the levers to look at the public safety issues across the UK? Military deaths deserve an inquest by a coroner with military knowledge. Inquests into child deaths require specific skills. Inadequate post-mortems, as evidenced by the 2006 NCEPOD report, need an on-going audit to drive up standards. To do that, leadership is needed.

Freddy Patel did many post-mortems—many coroners used him, not just one—but, with no leadership from a medical adviser to the chief coroner, substandard practice goes largely undetected. A poor post-mortem can result in a wrongful conclusion, a lack of justice, miscarriages of justice and a failure to prevent avoidable deaths. Coroners have such a duty to prevent further deaths. The rule 43 recommendation can be issued but, without a national overview to map trends, outliers go unnoticed. We know that they have gone unnoticed for years.

Accurate data on deaths are essential. Deaths classified as drowning are sometimes due to an inherited heart problem that results in the heart stopping on hitting cold water. With that undetected, the wrong conclusions are drawn and the relatives of the deceased are left at risk of sudden death themselves.

The training of coroners is a major problem. Participation is purely voluntary. Training instigated by the Coroners’ Society, and now supported by the Ministry of Justice, remains patchy, with some coroners, as Dame Janet said, never undertaking the voluntary training that is available because they believe that they know all there is to know. Leadership is needed for accountability and oversight to make the delays in inquests a thing of the past and ensure that inquests into complex cases such as military deaths, child deaths and incidents with multiple victims are conducted by coroners with appropriate expertise.

At a time of financial stringencies it seems sensible to disband as many costly organisations as possible, so I turn briefly to the cost basis for the decision. Set-up costs were estimated to be almost £11 million, of which almost £4 million was for IT and £2.5 million for recruitment, publications, additional coroners and transition costs. Transition from what? There is a yawning gap at present. The Ministry of Justice team has four people working on coroners’ issues; by transferring them to the chief coroner, their costs would be offset, as would the training spend by the Ministry of Justice at the moment. Indeed, training could be more cost-effective by using simpler venues and local resources. Having consulted widely, I estimate that the whole set-up cost and per-annum cost could come within a £500,000 envelope. The deputy chief coroner and medical advisers can be drawn from respected senior coroners and local medical advisers already in post, therefore not incurring the costs of new appointments. Further developments can come later; it does not all have to happen at once.

15:30

Similarly, the estimated running costs were astounding. They contained a 20 per cent contingency fund of almost £1 million—more than I have estimated it would cost to set up the proposed system. By contrast, no estimate has been taken into account of the cost to the NHS of the morbidity in these bereaved people. They often end up with complicated grief needing NHS support, and the majority have periods when they are unable to work. Consider, too, the cost of bereaved children, who live feeling that justice was never done. They have a high risk of suicide, drug addiction, teenage pregnancy and acquiring a criminal record. These are all costs that are mounting against this so-called efficiency.

I am grateful to the Ministers and officials who met me and in particular for the time that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, has spent with me on this. But even officials were unable to explain some of these budget lines. For want of a chief coroner, we are stacking up costs and problems that will cost far more than a chief coroner and medical adviser, who could even be a part timer. We ignore the numerous reports at our peril.

I am sure the Minister will say that the majority of functions will be undertaken by the Ministry of Justice, that the Lord Chancellor will oversee, that the only thing being abandoned is the appeals mechanism and that even that will be covered in part by a charter for the bereaved, which is going to be modified. He may even suggest that unless we remove the chief coroner and medical adviser, nothing can happen. But with no chief coroner to drive up standards and ensure training and no route of appeal for the bereaved to have justice, these problems will continue and the costs will escalate.

The Ministry of Justice’s own impact assessment concluded that a chief coroner was the preferred option as this would make the best use of resources to improve service delivery. It would provide leadership to meet both the interests of bereaved families and the wider public interest in terms of the quality and effectiveness of investigations, and optimum understanding about the causes of unexpected deaths, ensuring that knowledge is applied to prevent avoidable death and injury.

To abandon having a chief coroner is to deny long-awaited improvements to the coronial system to those who deserve justice. It will leave us with a system that is unfit for 21st century society. I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 26, to which I was very happy to add my name. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, was speaking, I was thinking that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, may have been very clever in putting these provisions in the Bill in the knowledge that the House would want to consider them very carefully. Perhaps this was a clever ruse on his part because really, in his heart, he supports us.

The creation of the post of Chief Coroner for England and Wales was at the heart of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The role was designed to ensure judicial oversight, enforce national standards and increase accountability. Introducing national leadership under the chief coroner’s post was a crucial step towards tackling the unacceptable delays, inconsistent standards of service delivery and lack of accountability which plague the current system.

The NCEPOD report of 2006 reviewed, in detail, autopsy reports in hospitals and in the community. There had never before been a comprehensive review of the autopsy process and reports of death at the request of coroners. It was the first time that data had been requested directly from coroners. Indeed, 88 per cent of them contributed data to this report.

The report was a major contribution to the discussion about changes in the coronial system. It recommended, among other matters, that there should be nationally uniform criteria and standards for the investigation of reported deaths and made recommendations about training and the independent review process, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred. In many ways this was the final evidence that was needed to bring forward the reform to the coronial system proposed in the 2009 Bill, which had cross-party support.

The chief coroner is needed to act as a counterbalance, as it were, to the weight of the Chief Medical Officer. Does the Minister really think that a civil servant in the Ministry of Justice will have the necessary authority to operate at the highest quasi medical/judicial level which might be required from time to time, to say nothing of ensuring that a modern, compassionate and timely coronial system for families and relatives exists, given that it is absolutely necessary? The answer to that has to be no. That is why this amendment is so important, why these Benches will support it and why we think that it is very important to get on with reforming this system by appointing the chief coroner.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I put my name to this amendment for two reasons: disappointment and respect. I am disappointed about this decision, given all the hours that we spent discussing the various stages of the Coroners and Justice Bill last year. The one constant throughout that process was a hope that, 109 years after the previous reform of the coronial system, a chief coroner would be appointed to lead us out of this morass. I say that because experience tells me that until and unless you have a named person with responsibility and accountability for actually making things happen, things do not happen. It is all very well saying that the Government intend to do this and the Government intend to do that, but that had been the situation for 109 years and it is not working. Only if a chief coroner is in place will there be a hope of leadership, consistency, drive and oversight of all the things that are listed. I refreshed my memory by reading the speeches of the late lamented Lord Kingsland, who I respected and who was so strongly in favour of the chief coroner in all our discussions. He, too, appreciated that at last this post constituted a way of reforming something that needed reforming.

At an earlier stage in the Committee, I mentioned that I was extremely disappointed in the impact assessment accompanying the Bill as it says that nothing that is proposed has any impact on either human rights or the criminal justice system. However, here we are, at Amendment 26, with goodness knows how many amendments to come, and already we have something which is driving terrible coaches and horses through both human rights and the criminal justice system. Then I looked at the so-called savings. They reminded me of a phrase that we used to use in the Army—“situating the appreciation”. An appreciation comprises examining a subject and then deciding what you are going to do about it. Sometimes people know what they are going to do and write a report to suit their solution. The maths ruthlessly exposed by my noble friend Lady Finlay shows that these costings are a sham. There has been no attempt to say how much more it would cost to have a chief coroner than to have all the improvements allegedly to be made by the Ministry of Justice which will achieve the same end. Until and unless we have an honest appraisal, it is dishonest to overturn the ruling of Parliament that something should be done to put right a system which has affected us for so long, and to endorse the decision of noble Lords in all parties to put bereavement at the heart of the process. That will be the case only if someone is responsible and accountable for seeing that it happens.

I am not going to rehearse all the cases that we dealt with affecting military inquests and inquests involving prisoners, delays, training of staff, consistency and the fact that you cannot obtain establishments in which to hold inquests because you are not a member of the court system. We have all been through all that. To risk throwing all that away is very dangerous, and I very much hope that the amendment will be supported.

[The Lord Bishop of Lincoln]

My Lords, as you might expect from these Benches, I should like to offer a pastoral word in support of the amendment.

One of the recent features of the discourse around bereavement has been closure, and the number of times that people now say, “All I want is closure”. There may be numerous reasons for that. It could be to do with the fact that we are now a society which is rather more distant from sudden and unexpected death than previous societies were, and therefore coping with those eventualities becomes that much more challenging. Closure becomes a significant dynamic in handling those kinds of bereavements. The need for closure could also relate to the culture of accountability in which we find ourselves, whereby people seem to need to be able to apportion not only a reason for why something happened, but perhaps a degree of blame and responsibility. That seems, rightly or wrongly, to be part of the culture of closure that matters to people these days.

I also have to say, of course, that another reason could be due to the declining reliance on the consolations of religion at the time of death, and therefore the search for other consolations would include a clear sense of what happened, why and at whose hand. If the amendment can enable the office of the chief coroner to add another dimension to the potential for people in their bereavement and sorrow to feel a sense of justice being done and, therefore, achieve a degree of closure, on those pastoral grounds, if no other, the amendment deserves support.

[Lord Craig of Radley]

My Lords, I have also put my name to the amendment. If we look back at Second Reading of the relevant Bill on 18 May 2009, there was, as has already been said, broad cross-party support for the approach taken to bring better oversight, management and direction to the coronal service. The establishment of an independent chief coroner with such specific responsibilities was a key step that was widely welcomed, most particularly by organisations such as the Royal British Legion, which was concerned that there had been inadequate arrangements for the inquests of service personnel killed on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Assurances were given then that the new chief coroner would issue guidance and set standards in relation to certain types of deaths, including standards in relation to deaths on active service. Handling and investigations of highly sensitive and emotive deaths due to “friendly fire” always need special care. Coroners must have clear and considered guidance when inquiring into such tragedies.

Proper oversight and training in the holding of military inquests were also promised. That is all the more important, given that such inquests are now more frequently held near the homes of the deceased, so that the relatives can get there more easily. Those who followed these aspects of the Bill were reassured that improvements would be made and that the need for them had been fully accepted.

I am not clear what alternative arrangements are contemplated. If the chief coroner, his supporting staff and the accommodation that they would have occupied are all to be scrapped to achieve a saving, we shall be back where we were before the 2009 Act came in. I hope that the Government are not seeking to go down that road. It would be a deep and cavalier betrayal of bereaved service families. It would fly in the face of the Government’s stated intention of strengthening the military covenant by statute, and would make a mockery of their assurances of greater support for the military and their families. Surely that is not contemplated. I hope that the Minister will confirm that today.

If the plan is to pass these responsibilities to others in the Ministry of Justice, or even to the Lord Chief Justice, they cannot take them on without additional staff and the IT and other support already contemplated for the chief coroner and his office. Where, then, would be the significant savings? Surely it would not be acceptable for an independent coronial service to direct responsibility to the Lord Chancellor or his Ministry of Justice. This would not, for example, provide an independent and transparent appeals process, which was to have been one of the roles of the chief coroner.

The three tests set by the Government for a public body to survive and continue in its role are whether it performs a technical function, whether it has political impartiality and whether there is a need for a body to act independently to establish facts. On these grounds, and having heard the excellent arguments produced by others in the debate, will the Minister signal the Government's intention to withdraw from the Bill the post of chief coroner and the associated posts listed in lines 17 and 18 of page 16 on Schedule 1?

15:45

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

I have not been able to take part in this Committee since the first day, when I stood on my head and managed to vote against my own amendment. My good and noble friend Lord Pannick managed to win my amendment while I loyally supported the Government. I do not intend in the rest of these debates to stand on my head again, and I have made that clear to the Minister. I took part in the debate that led to the creation of the chief coroner and I agree with everything that has been said on the subject, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.

There is a further reason why the amendment is very important: I refer to our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, which have been referred to. We have been told again and again by the European Court of Human Rights that we need an effective and independent system of investigating deaths, especially the deaths of alleged agents of the state. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, made it absolutely clear why, during the passage of the legislation under the previous Government, he, I and many others pressed for the creation of a chief coroner and an effective investigation process independent of the state.

I am now in a position where I have to act under some party constraints, which other noble Lords do not. However, I could not support the Government were they to resist this amendment and I very much hope that the Minister will show the wisdom and sense of proportion required on an occasion such as this.

[Lord Christopher]

My Lords, I support the amendment from the point of view of a layman who unexpectedly found himself consulted—if that is the right word—on an inquest. I suppose that all of us hope never to be the subject of an inquest, and very few of us wish to have any reason to be directly involved in one. The case was brought to my attention a couple of years ago—the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has a file on it in his office containing evidence from myself, the complainant and the Member of Parliament for the poor man who was deceased.

It was, in my judgment, a disgraceful occasion. The death was tragic and, because of the number of agencies and parties involved, the case had taken several years to come before the coroner. As a reasonable person looking at what was done by the coroner at the inquest, it seemed to me that he did not do his job properly. He allowed evidence that seemed irrelevant to what had been said before and that was hostile to the complainants, and he did not disclose what he knew: namely, that the parties involved in the actions that led to the death had admitted their role and made a settlement. That evidence was not allowed before the jury. As I said, I had never had any previous involvement of any shape or form with an inquest but it seemed to me that something was not right in the state of Denmark. However, the solution that has come from earlier discussions on the Bill in this House seems to offer some hope that things will be put right.

I understand that New Zealand, which, like many in our erstwhile empire, followed in our steps with its coroner system, has for some time had precisely what is sought in this Bill. I understand that a coroner from that country was here recently and was amazed that we have not gone down this route. It is appalling that ordinary people who may not be satisfied with the results of an inquest can only, as the noble Baroness said, have a judicial review. There is no other avenue for them to complain effectively.

Lastly—this may be of some comfort to the Minister—having looked at this particular case, I believe that some way can be found of dealing with the situation rather more economically. Where there are a number of official agencies—using that term in the broadest sense—it may well be possible, through the good offices of a senior coroner, to find a way of ensuring that inquests take less time than they do today, as that, again, is pretty disgraceful.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a former assistant deputy coroner—something that I did for as short a period as I could. Coroners, like judges and judicial officers, sit alone and quite often become isolated. If they always sit in the same place, there is a danger that their arrangements will not be consistent with those of adjoining coroners or indeed of coroners in other parts of the country.

Coroners receive a certain amount of training, as did I. As far as it went, it was good but it was not sufficient. The advantage for judges and judicial officers is that not only do they have the Judicial Studies Board but, infinitely more important, at the top of the ladder is the Lord Chief Justice, and under him are senior judges who keep the standards up and give very important guidance. That is absolutely essential. The purpose of the chief coroner and the deputies beneath him or her is to give important guidance to individual coroners right around the country who sit on their own and are isolated, and to offer guidance and keep the standards up, as the standards also vary. Losing a post not yet filled would leave coroners to carry on without that necessary help. It would also deny the public a sufficiently good coronial system.

In answer to a Question asked at Question Time some weeks ago, the Minister said that the guidance would be given by the Ministry of Justice. Like judicial officers and indeed judges, coroners are independent, and it is just not good enough for the Ministry of Justice to offer guidance to those who sit in a judicial or semi-judicial capacity. It just will not do. The Minister clearly did not understand—or perhaps, rather more importantly, the Ministry of Justice did not understand—that the sort of guidance it would give would not be good enough. Judges would not accept it, and why on earth should coroners accept it when it is possible to have a much better system? It is clear to me that the roles of chief coroner and the deputy coroners and so on are essential, as set out so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and that this amendment absolutely deserves to be carried.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

I declare an interest as patron of The Compassionate Friends, which is a support group both for parents whose child has died and for their families. I should have liked to put my name to Amendment 26, but three others got there before me. I support everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, said.

I feel that the charter for the bereaved being offered by the Government will be a fob-off if it is not backed up with meaningful changes in the Coroners and Justice Act, so I do not think that what is being proposed is acceptable. What was striking when that Act went through was the degree of political consensus. Indeed, your Lordships’ House was particularly important in pushing the Government to give a concession on the timeliness of inquests because, up until that stage, the chief coroner was not going to have the power or duty to enforce timeliness. That is an important issue not only for the bereaved but for witnesses, because when years have passed, it is much harder to recall the circumstances of what went on. I also echo the comments made on the costings. My noble friend Lord McNally gave us the costings on a previous occasion, but the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has explained that those are the Rolls-Royce costings. All that we are asking for is a trustworthy car to get us from A to B, not a Rolls-Royce.

My second point concerns the independence issue. As your Lordships will remember, from time to time the Government come into conflict with coroners. For example, sometimes the Home Secretary might think that a secret inquiry would be better, as happened under the previous Government and under Governments before that—perhaps the most notorious being the so-called “death on the rock” case—and as I am sure will happen again. If such cases do not promote the need for an independent coronial system, nothing does. That is the reason why this House has a duty to stand firm and why I shall be supporting the noble Baroness’s amendment.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the advisory panel on deaths in custody. That is relevant because the panel made recommendations on the back of the legislation that created the role of the chief coroner that were endorsed by the ministerial board on deaths in custody.

There are a number of reasons why Amendment 26 should be supported. The first relates to process. Whereas the passage of the Coroners and Justice Act involved a very long process in this House that included a considerable period of debate on what was a major piece of legislation, the Public Bodies Bill seeks to overturn by means of what is almost a footnote—one line in Schedule 1—all the work that was done in both Houses, which considered the issues in great detail. In addition, the Coroners and Justice Act was regarded by many people as long overdue. The process point is whether it is right and proper that such a major piece of legislation should be dismembered by a single line in the Bill.

The second process point is that we have had no adequate explanation of why the Government regard the proposed abolition as being able to produce significant savings. I am aware that every death in custody costs the taxpayer, on average, £500,000 or so for the investigation process and all that goes with it. A good and effective coronial service that picks up the lessons from deaths in custody could easily save substantial sums of money. One of the problems, on which my panel made recommendations about the role of the chief coroner, is the need to draw out at national level the material that emerges from narrative verdicts and from Rule 43 reports and to identify the best practice that emerges from those.

Another reason why my panel felt that the role of the chief coroner is important is—as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has just referred to—the impact that delays can have on families. One issue that concerns me and the panel that I chair is the very long period that can elapse before a proper hearing or inquest is held into the deaths of people who die while in the custody of the state. Sometimes there are good reasons for such delays, but sometimes the reasons are extremely obscure. There is certainly a problem in the allocation of work among coroners. The appointment of a chief coroner provided the possibility of being able to allocate work more rationally by perhaps creating specialist coroners who could look in detail at particular types of death and thereby build up a body of experience. The chief coroner could also draw attention, where necessary, to the fact that some coroners might be inadequately resourced by local authorities, which is the mechanism by which coroners are funded.

16:00

Picking up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about the charter for bereaved people, I understand that the coalition Government have said that they wish to make the charter even stronger. However, the key point about the charter is that, if a bereaved person feels that their charter rights have not been met, there is a mechanism or route that they can go to, which involves the chief coroner. Exactly how will that mechanism be strengthened in future?

We are assured that, by some magical process, civil servants in the Ministry of Justice will be able to fulfil the role that will now not be fulfilled by the chief coroner. How exactly will that be done? I hope that, when the Minister responds, he will give us chapter and verse on how that will happen. Like all other government departments, central administration in the Ministry of Justice is being reduced by 20, 30 or 40 per cent. Perhaps some of these things could have been done by Ministry of Justice civil servants before those reductions, but given that that has not happened, why should we believe that somehow, with reduced resource in future, the benefits that would have accrued from a chief coroner will magically be delivered from within the Ministry of Justice? The noble Baroness’s amendment deserves the support of the House.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, I, too, share many of the reservations that have been expressed about what is a pre-emptive strike against the chief coroner and the centralised medical functions set out in the Coroners and Justice Act. Although, having been brought up in the days when we had to consider public expenditure cuts, I know that it is often a wise strategem to abort projects that have not been undertaken rather than to remove those that have become established, nevertheless I do not think that it is just my personal and extensive involvement in Committee on the Coroners and Justice Act in another place that leads me to the conclusion that we should have at least some unease about the Government’s proposal. I will listen very carefully to my noble friend's justification of that.

As I understand it, the argument for a centralised chief coroner was essentially that, although coroners have performed their functions for centuries at local level, the demands of a more modern, more mobile society for a more technically and legally accountable service require a measure of concentration of effort, a perceived professionalism and—to paraphrase the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham—declared leadership in a single figure, such as the chief coroner. Those requirements seem to me to be very difficult to discharge by committee. In that legislation, exactly the same argument resonated across the parties about whether there should be a coroner for treasure, which is a specialist area that also had to be considered.

The House needs to remember that, although coroners have little day-to-day impact on the bulk of the population, coroners have an intimate and dramatic impact on those who are bereaved, particularly in the case of a sudden death. That is the more enhanced whenever there is any suspicion—whether or not it is justified—that the authorities may have failed in their duty of care under Article 2 of the European convention. That is probably often, but certainly by no means always, an issue in military inquests.

I can imagine that some of the centralising functions that would have been otherwise attributed to the chief coroner or to his medical adviser under the Act could be carried out administratively within the Ministry of Justice—although if that happens, I hope that Ministers will get a grip in ensuring that the outturn administrative costs are less than those that are attributed to the chief coroner under the present schema—but I come up against the basic problem about whether it is wise to remove the judicial function of detecting the need for an appeal and to have that function carried out in a way that is not perceived as being independent of government. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said in her introduction, the outcome will almost certainly be more expensive judicial review and more cases going to Strasbourg because of the apparent lack of integrity in the process.

Finally, we all accept that the need to tackle the Government’s deficit means that some bodies—even those for which there is some justification—may need pruning or abolishing, but this process of pruning should never be a one-way street of unrequited losses. From time to time, it will still be necessary for us to introduce a modest but effective social advance. I regret that this particular initiative provided under the Coroners and Justice Act seems to be in any kind of danger.

[Viscount Slim]

I spoke in one of the previous debates on this issue. I think most of us had some hope that the previous Administration would change their mind and agree to the position of chief coroner. We had a tough debate and actually defeated the Government of the day. We were hopeful that the previous Administration had seen some sense and we felt that they would, eventually, give us a chief coroner. I have seen one or two new faces on Front Benches and in your Lordships' Chamber and I want to, if I may, for a few minutes come a little closer down to earth. After any military action, it is a fairly awesome job—not a pleasant job and a very moving job—to gather one’s dead who have made the supreme and final sacrifice for King or Queen and country. They are dead. Dead is dead. Why then does it take one, two, three or more years to declare such a person, man or woman, officially dead? What about the grieving widow? What about the mother? What about the family waiting, not really understanding what a coroner’s inquest is, not being told, not being supported, not being moved to the inquest, not being paid for, not being looked after? That is one of the reasons why we need a chief coroner.

We need a leader in this outfit somewhere. We need someone who can administer, speed the process and make certain that everything is done more speedily and correctly. The chief coroner must be rather special. He must be a leader and an administrator. I do not mind whether he is a judge or not, but he must be competent. He must grip these coroners who are scattered around the country, a little lethargic and not necessarily working every day of the week. There needs to be a little bit of cohesion here. The chief coroner is vital.

Is an unproven, newly constituted Ministry of Justice good enough to do this? I do not think so. Who is the leader who will emerge from this legal morass? I wonder. I do not think that this is possible. Surely the Government have heard enough today to realise that they are on the wrong track and that there has to be a chief coroner.

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords, I offer a somewhat different point of view. What worries me particularly about the speech given by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, is that the way in which the chief coroner is set up in the Act of Parliament will not deliver the things that this House so far in this debate seems to believe are within the power of the chief coroner to deliver. I am somewhat surprised when it is said that the problem is with officials. Surely if there is a problem, it is with the Lord Chancellor of England and not his officials. Why do we elect Secretaries of State and the Lord Chancellor, now that we elect the Lord Chancellor? We elect them presumably because we believe that they can deliver, not that they cannot.

I think that there is very general agreement across the House about the objectives. The situation has not been satisfactory, and that has been exposed at great length. When I reread the proceedings on that Bill at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, my very strong impression was that the arrival of the chief coroner was a given; it was not debated in any depth or detail. That illustrates that we have got into the habit of believing that if we have serious problems, we cannot rely on our existing institutions. We must have a new one, a silver bullet institution, to solve problems.

I urge noble Lords to read Chapter 6 of and Schedule 8 to that Act. I have had quite long experience of having been on public bodies. I have been chairman, chief executive and vice-chairman on all sorts of public bodies. In fact, one of my noble friends said to me the other day, “I’m glad you’re taking part in proceedings on the Public Bodies Bill, because there are hardly any bodies in it that you have not been on”. As I think I told the House the other day, I once got a letter thanking me for being on a body that I had never been on. So I have had experience of advisory bodies, executive bodies and even a public corporation—an endangered species of which there are very few left.

The way in which the chief coroner is set up in that Act is more advisory than executive. It in no way puts the chief coroner in such a position that John Humphrys will wish to interview him or her, rather than the Lord Chancellor, if something goes wrong in the future. The accountability chain has not been changed in a way that dilutes the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor. All that has happened is that another step has been put into it, so I say to my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill that the chief coroner does not have the independence that my noble friend is looking for. There is some space within which the chief coroner can operate, but there is no independence.

I give noble Lords only one illustration. The Lord Chancellor can decide how many staff the chief coroner shall have and what each member of staff shall be paid. In my submission, this is not just a done deal or a solution for doing the things that need to be done to improve the performance of the coronial system, to achieve consistency and to do all the things with which we would all agree to make sure that things are done in a timely fashion. If one reads that debate, and what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said at the time, one will see that they qualified what they said very carefully all the way through. They talked about the problem of expense and the problem of it taking two to three years to set up the Chief Coroner’s Office. They did not promise this House that the office would have executive authority, which I think is what people are looking for. I am not an expert on appeals, but it seems to me that even in that matter, the chief coroner is not the final word. I hope that he is not, or would not be. The final word is in the Court of Appeal.

16:15

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

As the noble Viscount was good enough to refer to me, does he accept and agree that under the European Convention on Human Rights we have an obligation to ensure that there is an effective, independent system of inquests, independent of ministerial interference, and that the previous Parliament, in creating the system that is now threatened, believed that it was giving effect to that convention obligation?

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords, I fully agree that the separation of the powers of the Executive from those of the legal profession and our courts is absolutely central to our constitution. Unfortunately, this Bill does not affect that separation because the chief coroner does not have that independence. If one reads the terms under which he is employed and what he has to do to satisfy the Lord Chancellor, the real power has been left with the Lord Chancellor.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I am puzzled by the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. As I understand the Act, the chief coroner will enjoy considerable independence. He or she will be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice and will report to the Lord Chancellor. If the Lord Chancellor were to tell the chief coroner how to perform the substance of the duties, I have no doubt whatever that the courts would uphold the independence of the chief coroner under the Act.

The other point made by the noble Lord—

[Viscount Eccles]

On that point, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is correct. But the appointment can be made by the Lord Chief Justice only with the approval of the Lord Chancellor. All my experience of public appointments has shown that the power of appointment rests with the Lord Chancellor.

[Lord Pannick]

I remind the noble Viscount that the same is true of judges of the Supreme Court. There is no suggestion that people cannot be independent in their judicial role because the Government have a responsibility for their appointment or for the appointment of their staff. The performance of the function is what matters. The noble Viscount said that we elect Governments so that they can deliver. I suggest to noble Lords that there are some functions that can be delivered to the satisfaction of the public only if they are delivered by an independent body. The reason for that is that the decisions they are making are either judicial decisions or quasi-judicial decisions which often concern the relationship between the individual and the state.

These points were made with great power by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in opening this debate. She referred to the support given by Dame Janet Smith in the Shipman report to the creation of the office of chief coroner. Dame Janet put her finger on the fundamental point which has provided the recurrent theme in the debates in this Committee so far and will continue to be the recurrent theme of the debates in this Committee unless and until the Government change their general approach. The point was made by Dame Janet at paragraph 19.22 of her third report on the Shipman inquiry. She said that,

“if coroners and the Coroner Service are to command the confidence of the public, they must be and must be seen to be independent of Government”.

That applies also, as the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, said, to the views of the bereaved. They must have confidence in the coronial service if it is to perform its function. Dame Janet added:

“Although coroners investigate on behalf of the state, they might well reach verdicts and make recommendations unwelcome to Government”.

That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Dame Janet went on to say that,

“it would no longer be satisfactory for the coroner service to be administered from within a Government Department”.

But that is precisely what the Government are now proposing.

There are many functions under this Bill which the Government are seeking to bring within the Ministry of Justice, of which the role of the chief coroner is just the latest. These roles can effectively be performed only by bodies that are independent and are seen to be independent. The man or woman from the ministry simply does not know best and cannot be seen to know best. This core principle is being trampled on by the Bill. I have great sympathy for the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, because the Government’s position in relation to the chief coroner is quite indefensible.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly. Having supported my noble friend Lord McNally as loyally as I could last night, I find myself in a slightly more difficult position today. I really do think that we need some sensitive answers to the questions that have been raised in this debate. I have a peripheral historic interest in that when I was chair of the Council on Tribunals, late of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council, I was consulted in the course of the review which started off the whole process of reforming coroners. There may have been some thought at that time of making the coroners’ court arrangements a tribunal. We have not gone down that path, but it leads me to what I want to say.

Whether it is a tribunal, a court or sui generis, it is essentially part of the judicial process. That is why I think that the key issues in the debate are those that were raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and a number of others, including the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about the need for independence. We are just seeing the full establishment of a Tribunals Service, part of whose merit was that it was led, for the first time, by a senior judge. We had the Lord Chief Justice as President of Tribunals, to whom the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, referred, and judicial leaders in different ways from all parts of the judicial system. Why is this being taken out and left to civil servants in the Ministry of Justice? I cannot see any answer to that question and, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Harris, with most of whose remarks I agree, I do not believe the Ministry of Justice could do it however much money and officials it has. It is an issue of principle.

I will not go quite as far as my noble friend Lord Lester and say that if the Government will not accept the amendment, I shall vote against them. However, if we are just given an intransigent response that says that we will not even take this away and look at it, I shall be in great difficulty.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords, I ought to point out that I said I would abstain.

[Lord Bach]

We should be very grateful indeed to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for raising this matter. We on this side of the Committee support her amendment because we think it is sensible and right. As the Minister, along with my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, who took the Coroners and Justice Bill through this House, we understood clearly that reform was considered vital and not before time. The coronial system had failed to keep up with the demands of this century. There were flaws that were evident from the Shipman inquiry and other reviews. Both the inquiry and the reviews recommended a fundamental overhaul of the current arrangements and everyone agreed that reform was essential and urgently needed. After some time listening to evidence and considering the options, a consensus emerged and the Bill came to Parliament. The roles of the chief coroner and the chief medical adviser to the chief coroner sat at the heart of the reforms to which Parliament agreed. The chief coroner is intended to provide the necessary oversight, training and, above all, leadership for the coronial system and to be at the head of the appeal framework for people affected by the decisions that coroners make. While there was substantial debate in this House on many aspects of this part of the Bill, whether there should be a chief coroner or a chief medical adviser was, frankly, not an issue. Indeed, there was strong support on all sides of the House for these reforms.

The Government’s decision to abolish these positions came as a shock to all those involved in the coronial reforms. Considerable concern has been expressed by bereaved service families and those who have lost loved ones who have died in custody, and many noble Lords will have received correspondence from groups and individuals. On behalf of everyone, I thank those who have bothered to write to us, including the Royal British Legion—I declare an interest as an individual member—and the organisation INQUEST for making the issue clear to the House in considering the Bill.

It is worth putting on record what the distinguished director-general of the Royal British Legion said when hearing of the Government’s decision. He stated:

“We believe this decision would be a deep betrayal of bereaved Service families … The Legion campaigned long and hard as part of its campaign to honour the Military Covenant for reforms to the inquest process—to guarantee bereaved Service families a modern, thorough and transparent investigation”.

He concluded:

“The Chief Coroner’s Office and role are absolutely central to this”.

Will the Minister clarify whether it is really argued by the Government that people’s concerns, which are centred on having inquests that are fair and just, will be assuaged by taking in-house the role of the independent chief coroner? The argument that the responsibilities of the chief coroner can be taken inside the Ministry of Justice and somehow, at the same time, be perceived to be independent of government is, frankly, fatuous; it is a laughable argument. Coroners are intended to be judicial officers, independent of government and impartial. The leadership of these bodies obviously warrants similar independence. The public of course expect justice to be done, but also justice to be seen to be done. Indeed, it is for this reason that a distinguished judge had been appointed as the prospective chief coroner before the Government’s edict was announced.

There was a clear consensus about the role of the chief coroner and his team during the passage of the Bill and everyone looked forward to the start of the new framework in 2012—and now this. Surely, at the very least this proposal must leave a bad taste in the mouth; at the most, it is surely constitutionally inappropriate for important legislation, passed as recently as November 2009, having been through both Houses—a great amount of time was spent on it in this House—to be abolished by a mere affirmative order in council. That is what the House is being asked to approve today.

Why? It surely cannot be only a matter of costs. The noble Baroness skilfully took apart the alleged costs, as did the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in his contribution. Moreover, as I understand it, the Government have already made it clear that this Bill is not really about cost savings and the chief coroner comes well within the Maude test for public body reform. My noble friend Lord Harris referred to the charter for bereaved people. The Government say that it will survive, but the powers of the chief coroner were central to the satisfaction and comfort of people who had been bereaved. And now, if the Government have their way, there will be no chief coroner.

We all know that Governments of all colours sometimes latch on to a policy and will not come off it when it is obvious to the world and even to themselves that it is wrong. Indeed, the more sensible the criticisms, the more likely are the Government to stick to their guns. Sometimes it is the role of Parliament to step in and save Governments from their own macho tendencies. This is one of those occasions. We support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, because it is so obviously right and so obviously common sense.

16:30

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken for expressing the Committee’s views so clearly. I thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for putting the creation of the post of chief coroner in its historical and political context. Above all, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for tabling the amendment and giving the Committee the chance to debate this hugely important issue.

Throughout the passage of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the noble Baroness demonstrated her absolute commitment to improving the coronial system. Her amendment is another strong demonstration of that and provides a welcome opportunity for the Government to reaffirm their commitment to that same aim. I acknowledge that it seems counterintuitive for a Government to state on the one hand their commitment to improving the coronial system and, on the other, their plans to abolish the post of chief coroner. However, I reassure the Committee that when the detail of the Government’s proposals are examined it will be seen why in the current economic climate we have no choice but to abolish the office and transfer its key functions. It represents the best and most cost-effective option for realising many of the improvements that were envisaged in the creation of the post.

The noble Baroness and other noble Lords have given eloquent testimony as to some of the weaknesses of the current system. It is an analysis with which we agree, and we are absolutely committed to addressing those weaknesses. Paradoxical as it may first appear, that is precisely why we must abolish the office of chief coroner, thereby allowing the Government to transfer key functions away from an office which is currently unaffordable and facilitating genuine improvements to the coronial system. It is right that we should justify our doing this and, in bringing forward the amendment, the noble Baroness has acted as the Government’s conscience, but the debate has shown that a consensus exists about the need to improve the coronial system. I am grateful that the noble Baroness’s amendment has established such a consensus on reform within the Committee, and I would seek to be a part of it.

The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 envisaged these improvements being led by a chief coroner. The Government are not suggesting that this is necessarily a bad model, although we do not believe that it is the only one. For the chief coroner to have achieved these improvements would have required substantially new investment, as indicated by the noble Baroness herself, of some £10 million at start-up and £6.5 million each year thereafter. The Government are facing severe cutbacks, meaning that the office is not financially viable in the current economic climate. Let me reiterate that this is new funding and a significant amount of money that must be found. In the current environment, there is simply no prospect of that funding being available. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, asked about this. An experienced resource dealing with coroner’s policy exists within the Ministry of Justice. We accept that it means that some work, such as guidance, may take a little longer to produce without the dedicated resource provided by the office of chief coroner. The actual functions that we propose to take forward will be deliverable within the existing resource of the Ministry of Justice. It should be recognised that setting up a new office always entails costs that are not there when the existing resource is being used.

In conversations with noble Lords, I have been asked whether we should leave the chief coroner on the statute book until such time as funding was available. Indeed, that was a question that I asked myself when I first considered the issue. However, I can tell the Committee that this is not a viable option. Many of the improvements that we wish to make are vested in the office of the chief coroner. Therefore, if we want to make real improvements to the coronial system, it is absolutely necessary and right to transfer those functions to another body. The abolition of the office through the Public Bodies Bill does precisely this. Not to do so will prevent a number of improvements to the system. This amendment, leaving the role latent, would mean that the service would continue to operate with many of the same flaws that noble Lords have highlighted.

We have a good set of proposals to improve the coronial system and address those issues that noble Lords have raised. We will consult on a new charter for the bereaved in the new year. It will set out standards of service that coroners are expected to deliver to bereaved families and others, including the right to be kept informed and participate in the inquest process. The charter will also set out how people may complain if these services are not delivered.

I refer to comments made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. It is worth noting that the only statutory guidance provided for in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 was to be issued by the Lord Chancellor. That is the provision under which a charter will be produced, so it is not clear that this House felt that it was inappropriate for the Lord Chancellor to issue guidance.

I turn to the whole issue of judicial independence, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and many other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Bach. There is a suggestion that judicial independence is compromised by the involvement of the Ministry of Justice, but the chief coroner was envisaged to have a number of functions that included some of a judicial, leadership and administrative nature. Discussions are ongoing with the senior judiciary as to which functions of the chief coroner should be transferred to whom. The Government fully recognise that judicial independence and functions, including rule-making and deployment, are a matter for the judiciary and not necessarily for the Ministry of Justice. In the same way, discussions are also ongoing with the senior judiciary on whether cost-neutral judicial functions may be transferred from the chief coroner to another body. However, the key reason for not proceeding with the national leadership office remains that no additional resource is available to fund the office of chief coroner.

As my noble friend Lord Eccles pointed out, the chief coroner would have had few powers of direction and those he would have had we intend to take forward. I confirm that discussions with the senior judiciary about where these powers should reside are ongoing. The important leadership functions include: more efficient arrangements for the transfer of cases from one coroner to another; transferring inquests in the case of service personnel deaths overseas to Scotland—at present, as noble Lords will know, all such inquests must be heard in England and Wales—and any deaths overseas to Northern Ireland; the making of regulations about the training of coroners and their staff; and, the strengthening of statutory monitoring of coroners’ caseloads and backlogs, including the deaths of military personnel.

The main function of the chief coroner that will not be taken forward is that of a new appeals system. I know that a number of noble Lords have concerns about a lack of accountability and transparency in the absence of an appeals system operated by a chief coroner. In the current economic climate the costs are, I am afraid, not justifiable but it is important to note that people may still challenge the outcome of an inquest by judicial review and that an application to the High Court for a second inquest to be held can still be made by or with the authority of the Attorney-General. Complaints about the conduct of the coroner will continue to be made to the Office for Judicial Complaints.

My noble friend Lord Lester is greatly interested in the human rights implications of measures under the Bill and I respect him greatly. The coronial system has developed and will continue to be in compliance with human rights requirements, especially Article 2 on the involvement of the state in death. The absence of the chief coroner will not undermine this.

Perhaps I may return to a particular point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Findlay, when she questioned where the leadership might lie to look at public safety issues. Tackling public safety is delivered directly through reports from coroners to authorities, which can then take action to address problems. These rule 43 reports, as they are called, are sent to the Lord Chancellor, collated and published to promote public safety and they require a public response. The Act brings rule 43 from subordinate to primary legislation, promoting the importance of action to prevent other deaths.

I turn to my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. I thank her for referring to Section 16 of the new Act. That is in fact a provision requiring the chief coroner to report investigations not completed within 12 months, not an enforcement power.

The important changes that the Government want to take forward currently sit with the chief coroner and his office. In order for the functions that I have outlined to be taken forward in the most practical way, we must abolish the office of the chief coroner. With no prospect of funding to enable the position to function, this amendment will prevent the improvements to the coroner system by keeping the body on the statute books. Today’s debate has clearly demonstrated that we agree improvements are necessary. We consider that, given current financial restraints, taking this approach offers the best value for money for the public if we are to deliver significant improvements to bereaved families and other interested people. I have met—

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

I am grateful to the Minister. I am also grateful for the kind remarks that he has made about me personally, which are excessive, but would he accept that public expenditure problems are no justification for any undermining of the independence and effectiveness of the inquest system, whatever the cost, because we have international obligations to secure that? Does he also accept that that is the result we thought we were achieving during the last Parliament when we passed the Bill?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank my noble friend for that intervention. Nothing that I have said talks about the undermining of the inquest system; we are talking about enhancing it. We are seeking to improve the service. We recognise that it is currently inadequate, and we need to find mechanisms within the Government’s current financial restraints to take this matter forward.

I was just saying that yesterday I met Mr Chris Simpkins of the Royal British Legion. I said to him that I hoped that between now and Report we would have an opportunity for further discussions about this proposal, and I say the same to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who referred to the discussions that we have had on the proposal in the Bill. I think that noble Lords will understand that it is likely to take some time. We know that the Ministry of Justice has plans and proposals to bring forward in connection with the coronial service. This is an opportunity for the Ministry to demonstrate its determination to deliver what it is talking of.

16:44

[Lord Pannick]

The Minister mentioned a figure of £10 million that would be required to set up the office of the chief coroner. Has the Ministry of Justice consulted with the judge who was to be appointed as chief coroner about whether he thinks that he could perform a useful role with the amount of money that is available? I say “is available” because many of these functions are to be performed, so we are to be told, from within the Ministry of Justice, which obviously will cost additional funds.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I cannot reassure the noble Lord on precisely that point because I do not know whether the question of the budget has been discussed in detail. I can say that the whole question of the continuation of the responsibilities vested in the chief coroner have been discussed with the distinguished judge appointed to the post.

I was about to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—if I may, I shall say it now—that I hope she will consider withdrawing her amendment so that we can indeed return to this issue on Report, having had the opportunity to continue these discussions.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

Before the Minister sits down, how does the Ministry of Justice intend to create consistency among the coroners? That is a matter that really would require judicial support and leadership.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I do not want to go beyond my brief but I know the answer to that question. The Lord Chief Justice is in discussions with the Ministry of Justice, and the proposal is that regulations would be issued under the auspices of the Lord Chief Justice in order to require coroners to train and maintain a training and professional skill base, which, I think that we in the Committee all agree, is extremely variable at present. The best should not be an exception; they should be the rule. That is the process that the senior judiciary are currently discussing with the MoJ.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

Before my noble friend sits down, I would like to get this clear. Is it right that the Government’s proposal is not that officials in the Ministry of Justice should take the place of the chief coroner if the chief coroner’s position is removed but that the judicial role of the chief coroner, as was proposed in the Coroners and Justice Act, will in fact be discharged, after discussion with the senior judiciary, by an existing member of the independent judiciary? Is it right that the instructions or guidance given to coroners will be given under the statutory provisions of the Coroners and Justice Act? Am I right that there is no question of the judicial functions of the chief coroner, so far as they were provided for, being discharged by Ministry officials and that, rather, they will be discharged by the judiciary that is presently independent? Am I right in thinking that from time to time coroners’ functions are performed at present by members of the judiciary? I think that one of the most important functions is performed at the moment by a senior judge of the Court of Appeal.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank my noble and learned friend for that question. It gives me the opportunity to make it clear that to the extent that the chief coroner’s functions are judicial, they will be carried out through direction from the Lord Chief Justice, not the Ministry of Justice. Therefore, the independence of the judiciary in respect of the coronial service is preserved.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in support of this amendment. However, I fear that we cannot throw away in 109 minutes—we have two to go—what we have waited 109 years for, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said.

The Coroners and Justice Act was duly taken through Parliament; we all miss Lord Kingsland, who led on the Bill from the then Conservative opposition Benches—now they are the coalition Government. I appreciate the Minister’s response, but I am not convinced. I remain convinced that we need leadership; we cannot betray the bereaved, particularly where people have died on active service for this country. There must be complete independence and there must be consistency among coroners. As for judicial review, I just do not know how people can afford it. That is why there are not more of them taking place—people would have to sell their house to go for it.

As we come up to 109 minutes of debate, after 109 years, I beg to test the opinion of the Committee.

16:51

Division 1

Ayes: 277

---

Labour: 173
Crossbench: 80
Bishops: 5
Liberal Democrat: 4
Ulster Unionist Party: 3
Independent: 2

Noes: 165

---

Conservative: 139
Liberal Democrat: 19
Crossbench: 3

House resumed.

Higher Education (Basic Amount) (England) Regulations 2010

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

17:08

Moved By

[Lord Henley]

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29 November be approved.

Relevant documents: 10th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and 14th Report from the Merits Committee.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, I will speak also to the second Motion in my name, on the higher amount, to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, and to the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. I will explain why the House should not support either the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, or the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria.

The subject that we are considering has aroused strong feelings. I will talk about the package of measures that the coalition Government are proposing, but will start by describing factually the Motions before the House. The Higher Education Act 2004 allowed publicly funded higher education institutions to charge for their tuition costs, subject to conditions. It created the concept of a basic amount and a higher amount for these charges; there are effectively two caps, a basic cap and a higher cap. Any higher education institution can charge below the basic amount, and the Act sets no conditions for this. An institution that wishes to charge above the basic amount can do so only if it has first agreed an access plan with the Director of Fair Access. No publicly funded institution can charge above the higher amount.

More than six years after the Act was passed, the Motions before the House today propose increases to the basic amount and to the higher amount. For the basic amount, the proposed figure is £6,000; for the higher amount, it is £9,000. The basic amount of £6,000 is not a minimum figure; it is a cap, beyond which any institution looking to charge more requires an access agreement. There is nothing to stop any provider of higher education charging less. I should also explain how this translates into the Motions on the Order Paper today.

Changes to the basic cap on tuition charges, set at £1,200 by the 2004 Act, can be made by statutory instrument subject to an affirmative resolution. A Motion to approve draft regulations raising the basic amount is therefore the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper today.

The amendment to my first Motion, tabled late yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, would, if carried, prevent the regulations being approved and is consequently fatal. I should remind the House what fatal means. There is absolutely no mechanism for the Commons to address or put right a defeat in these circumstances, and accepting one or both of the noble Lord’s amendments would therefore, in practice, be a veto. There is no ping-pong in this case.

During the passage of the Higher Education Act 2004, concern was expressed in this House and in another place about the arrangements for increasing the higher level for tuition charges. There was concern that Ministers should not be able to make new regulations, setting new higher levels, without a debate on the Floor of both Houses. The solution agreed is set out in Section 26 of that Act. Regulations that would increase the higher level can be made only if both Houses have previously passed a resolution specifying what the new higher level should be and the date from which it applies. Only once that resolution has been passed can regulations be made to increase the higher level to that amount.

A resolution under Section 24 of the Higher Education Act 2004 raising the higher amount is therefore the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper today. I should stress that the amendment to my second Motion proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, is also fatal. If the amendment were carried, my resolution would no longer meet the requirements of the Higher Education Act 2004. My two Motions, which have been approved in similar terms by another place, are part of a package and they are linked.

The Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, is a free-standing resolution. Although it will be debated alongside my two Motions and the amendments thereto, it will be decided separately and independently at the end of our debate if the noble Lord decides to move it. The Motion calls on the Government not to implement increases in the higher level or basic level in 2012. The Government believe that that course of action would damage our higher education system, and I will consequently be urging the House not to support the noble Lord’s Motion.

The backdrop to our proposals is the huge fiscal deficit that we inherited. We can no longer ask the taxpayer to continue the current level of higher education funding. In tackling that deficit, we want to maintain a high-quality university sector that is more responsive to the needs of students and is underpinned by a progressive system of graduate contributions.

We have carefully studied the independent review of higher education funding and student finance undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, who reported in October after months of consultation. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for that report, in which he made a powerful case for reform. We have also listened to representations from universities, students and parents. I cannot accept the suggestion that appears in the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, that there has not been enough discussion of these issues.

In essence, we are changing the way that funding flows to our universities and colleges. From 2012-13, we will start to reduce the amount of funding that we provide to the Higher Education Funding Council for England to support university courses. This is in line with our announcements in the October spending review. The council will still get funding for the highest-cost subjects and for those that are strategically important and vulnerable.

We are correspondingly increasing the public money that we will make available as loans for students who want to attend higher education. In all, we do not expect the overall income of the higher education sector to reduce. We are also maintaining, in cash terms, our spending on the science budget with resource spending of £4.6 billion a year by 2014-15.

The regulations and resolution that we are proposing today enable those universities and colleges that can attract students to get the funding that they need to offer high-quality teaching. Universities will decide what charges they make for which of their courses. They will need to estimate the value that students place on what they are offering and adjust their charges accordingly. We believe that having to consider carefully what potential students want and need will benefit universities as well as students. Crucially, no full-time undergraduate student studying for their first degree will need to pay any of their tuition costs up front. The tuition loans from the public purse will not be means-tested and will cover the full costs of the courses. We will, for the first time, be giving part-time undergraduate students a similar entitlement to tuition loans as full-time students, on a pro rata basis. Following representations from universities with large numbers of part-time students, we are extending the entitlement to tuition loans to students studying for at least one-quarter of their time, rather than one-third of their time as was originally proposed.

17:08

A core part of our proposals are the repayment arrangements, which are a significant improvement on the current situation. We have already promised to increase the repayment threshold—the income at which graduates start to repay their contribution—from the current £15,000 a year to £21,000 in 2016. Raising the threshold reduces the monthly repayments for every single graduate. That £15,000 threshold figure was introduced by the previous Government as part of their 2004 Higher Education Act changes. It has never been uprated. We propose to uprate it annually from 2012 by RPI, subject to discussions with the devolved Administrations. From 2016, when the £21,000 figure starts to apply, we will uprate not by inflation but annually by earnings. Therefore, students who enter higher education in 2012 or beyond and complete a three-year degree can know that they will not suffer if they do not get high-paid jobs. That cost will be carried by the public purse.

The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, call for an impact assessment of the effect on students. We have published an equality impact assessment, and bodies such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies have also examined our proposals. We estimate that around a quarter of graduates will be better off under this regime than under the present regime. We know that, for example, women taking time out to bring up a family will not need to repay their graduate contribution if they are not earning £21,000. They, in particular, are likely to benefit from any outstanding graduate contribution being written off after 30 years. On the other hand, graduates who earn the higher salaries will be paying back more. That is a progressive system. Those who benefit the most from their higher education pay back the most.

We have been asked what safeguards there will be against all universities simply charging £9,000, just as they all charged £3,000 in 2006. The first difference from 2006 is that we are empowering the student and not simply giving extra money to the university. Under our proposal, universities and colleges that cannot attract students will immediately lose money and will have to change their approach, so they will have to think very carefully about the value for money of their offer to a potential student. Secondly, and also different from 2006, we are toughening the access plan requirements enforced by the director of the Office for Fair Access. In 2006 some institutions levied the maximum possible charge and gave blanket, untargeted bursaries to almost all their students. They were giving discounts on their published charges at public expense. That gave a spurious impression of uniform charging across higher education.

We are now asking the director of OFFA not to approve this sort of proposal. In 2006, the Government required access plans to be renewed every five years. Under our proposals, they will have to be renewed each year, so there will be a hard and regular look at what institutions are doing under their access agreements. If a university or college does not do what it has promised, the director can refuse to renew its agreement the following year. But we know that there is still a problem in securing fair access to some universities. Institutional bursaries by themselves have not worked. Instead, we want universities to concentrate on improving their outreach work with schools and colleges, and to support our new £150-million national scholarship programme—for instance, by universities offering a second year’s free tuition to the most disadvantaged students. A national programme of that type will provide a more visible and understandable offer than institutional bursaries to potential students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The Secretary of State has published, on his department’s website, the draft letter of guidance that he envisages writing to the Director of Fair Access. This sets out in more detail the way that we expect the access plan arrangements to work. He has said he will listen to comments before finalising that letter in early January.

The regulations and resolution being considered today form only part of our higher education proposals, but they are an urgent part.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Can the Minister confirm that there are two Motions today; one deals with the regulations, and the other deals with a Motion? Can he confirm that the second one cannot be treated as secondary legislation?

[Lord Henley]

There are two Motions. The second one is not secondary legislation at all, but it is a Motion that we have to pass under the 2004 Act, which the noble Lord’s Government passed. As I explained, they passed the concept of the Motion, because there was a concern both in this House and in another place, where I think that the noble Lord was at the time, about proposals for increasing fees. That is the proposal before us and that is why we are discussing it.

As I was making clear before I was interrupted by the noble Lord, the regulations and the resolution form only part of our higher education proposals, but they are an urgent part. We bring them forward today because students, their families, and universities all need to know what the arrangements will be from the 2012-13 academic year. The fatal amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, would put a halt to that, while the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, asks us to delay, but these decisions are needed now. We also plan to issue a White Paper early in 2011, to deal with the equally important but less urgent higher education questions. As I said, today’s proposals are part of a progressive package that will put higher education on a stronger footing for the future, and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

[Lord Triesman]

Leave out from “that” to the end and insert: “this House regrets that the Government has failed to consult adequately with parents, students, higher education bodies, employers and local authorities on raising student tuition fees and to convince many people of the fairness and sustainability of its proposals for funding higher education; urges the Government to undertake more public consultation on the issue, including consultation with future graduates and their families who did not contribute to the consultation over the Browne review; further considers that there should be an independent impact assessment on (a) the financial consequences of the proposed fees on students from both lower and middle income families, and (b) the financial consequences of the proposed fees on women, including a full assessment of the impact of the fees on equalities and fairness, and further calls on Her Majesty’s Government to commission new research to analyse the probable impact on demand for university courses of fees being increased to the range of £6,000 to £9,000 per annum from students from lower and middle income families and women; and further considers that, prior to contemplating any increase to the basic amount specified in section 24 of the Education Act 2004, the Government should publish a White Paper on reform of higher education funding, allowing for consultation and for consideration of alternative proposals”.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his clarity on the Government's propositions. We have not heard them put with that level of clarity before. It is unfortunate but necessary to move the amendments to the regulation and the resolution which follows it. Like the noble Lord, I will do so in one speech; I think that that will be welcomed by the House.

The consequences for the future of higher education policy and the damage which we believe that the Government's proposals will do cannot go unchallenged. The House has heard before my declarations of non-remunerated interests: fellowships at Cambridge and Warwick universities and at the LSE. I should add that I also served—and met a number of noble Lords on the other side of the House as education Ministers—as the general secretary of the Association of University Teachers. My regret about today's circumstances flows above all from a long connection with, and even a great love of, the United Kingdom's higher education system. I know that that is true for a great many of your Lordships, who have had at least the same contact or feel the same contact. I take no pleasure in this at all. None the less, I hope to persuade the House that what we are saying is vital.

It has been put to the side of the Chamber on various occasions that the Government’s proposals flow from the report of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, commissioned by a Labour Government. As we all know, commissioning a report does not imply agreeing with it. Indeed, I hope that I will be able to demonstrate that it was commissioned in circumstances so different from those obtaining today that we, as a House of Parliament, would be foolish not to consider whether it is today right for our universities.

May I also be clear—as clear as I can be—about what this regulation and resolution together do? It is no ordinary proposal. It is not simply an adjustment of fee levels. This proposal is the game changer. Of all the issues raised, but never fully or properly discussed in the past six weeks, this proposal changes everything. It is the most profound of the policy proposals. It doubles the starting threshold fee for students and trebles the basic student fee, with only sketchy conditions to be met. The House will not need to be reminded that no student will pay upfront—that is not a new provision —or that repayment starts at a higher level of income, which I welcome, of over £21,000 per year, but that repayment will also occur at an additional rate of 9 per cent of income and will attract an increasing, sliding rate of interest which, at the top, is 3 per cent above RPI.

The House will know that it has been pleaded in aid that there are some compensating factors said to lessen the blow to students. If a student’s parents are out of work and the student has received free school meals—that is, fortunately, a very small group in our society—there may be a fee-free period for the student to study paid for, by the way, by other students whose parents had been in work but who, nonetheless, may not have any considerable salary to dispose of. The increase in maintenance grants for lower-income students, consistently described by the Government as generous, in fact amounts to £6.70 per week. The compensating factors may give comfort to some people whose consciences may be pricking and who will, perhaps, still support the proposals today, although I hope they will not, but I would have had a sizeable bet a year ago that they would have described these arrangements as parsimonious.

Stripped back to the realities, this is a 200 per cent starting fee hike and, for most, it will be 300 per cent increase. It will, in all probability, result across the board in about a 300 per cent increase in student debt. The independent Higher Education Policy Institute predicts that £9,000 will be “the going rate” because universities must charge “all that they can”. Indeed, since these proposals are joined at the hip with an 80 per cent cut in the teaching unit of resource—90 per cent in universities without significant medical or engineering departments—the cut has imposed an average of £7,500 per student per year in university teaching income. Any institution charging less than that will lose money on teaching when compared with its current position. These are not proposals about gaining administrative efficiency in a university or unwarranted overheads that we should all properly address; they are an attack on high-quality teaching in our universities, which is a central function of our universities. That is quite simply what they are. One vice-chancellor, urging me to vote for the increases today—and I shall not—has written saying:

“The nightmare scenario would be the retention of the cuts but no means of restoring the balance through the higher tuition fees and the modified graduate tax that the Government is proposing”.

When the Government plead in aid the support of some vice-chancellors for these measures, let us, at least in this House, be candid. It is Hobson’s choice. They feel compelled to get the students to pay privately the sums that have been cut by the Government on a scale and at a rate that no other country has contemplated. Judging from my mailbox, and I cannot believe that it is particularly different from the mailboxes of others in this House, no other higher education system believes we are sane. Nobody else would contemplate introducing so blatant a division between the rich and the poorer.

17:30

I said, I think advisedly, that this is game changing. This afternoon’s decision will switch the concept of universities from being a public good, as they have always been in modern history and as they were rightly described by my noble friends Lord Giddens and Lady Blackstone on 22 October, to, in essence, a private-sector market that is driven by personal-private investment. Noble Lords might like that, or they might hate it—I am in the latter camp. Some might want to advocate it, some might want to fight it, but everyone must acknowledge that, as a concept for our universities, it has never once been debated and analysed in this House. Everyone must also acknowledge that we cannot have a monumental change of that kind on which the House has never focused.

I have suggested that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, may have intended this outcome. Perhaps he discussed it in private meetings with Cross-Benchers, but I have not had the benefit of any such luxury. Let us turn to what has happened in your Lordships' House. I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, three times in a month a question that is fundamental to the candour with which the Government treat the House. Did the noble Lord know in advance the scale of the government cuts for which his report has come to provide an alternative source of private money? If he did, he must have intended to make our universities private in so many crucial respects of their lives. However, as I say, we have never debated that or that outcome. If he did not, his plan must have been to grow university resources and the opportunities that universities provide, and then we would have a wholly different discussion. I hope that the latter is true.

For those who are intrigued by the concept of the big society, this is of real consequence. Is this a strategy of building resources that would have spoken to greater inclusiveness, breaking down individual barriers to what people can achieve for themselves, their families and their communities and building their personal capacity for the greater good? Is it a strategy of building resource that would have spoken to a policy of growth in our economy, investing in the excellence that fuels an advanced economy, generating great science and great engineering and renewing its arts, its culture, its creativity, its understanding of the social realm of life, and building the next generation of high-spec manufacturing that we all crave for our country? That would at least have been compatible with the growth White Paper. I had thought that these were the lodestones of government thinking, but obviously not.

The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that the cuts were intended irrespective of the circumstances which the Government describe and with which I disagree, and then clung to what the report by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, had said: that this was simply the strategy to raise the money that had gone by another route. This is the strategy of replacing money from the Exchequer with money from students’ pockets. It is, straightforwardly, the undeclared privatisation of universities. It has nothing to do with strengthening our universities as a vital national resource. Will it achieve the policy objectives that are set out in such detail in nearly 122 words in the Explanatory Memorandum, because that appears to count as policy these days? Who knows whether it will? We have not debated it. I doubt it. Will the trebling of debt increase social mobility, a fundamental of the big society? Hardly. Will the policy take account of student debt? Self-evidently, that is the least of the considerations. Will it ensure a properly funded university sector? Only if you can survive an 80 per cent cut and you do not care too much about non-core subjects at the heart of the United Kingdom’s culture. Will it improve teaching quality and advance scholarship? No authoritative body in higher education anywhere in the world anticipates that outcome from these proposals. Students may become customers in this system, but I tell noble Lords this: it will not give them the power to walk around switching providers as often as they feel dissatisfied—it is not that kind of supermarket. Will it attract a higher proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds? There are no first-class honours for getting that answer right; there is no prayer of it.

Let me return to the position of those from lower-income families. The raising of the repayment threshold may help, albeit to a limited extent. What we lack is an answer to the question that I asked three times—and it is an answer for the House, not just for me: where is the specific research on the appetite for debt in these poorer families? It is the question which my noble friend Lady Kennedy asked so eloquently in late October. No impact research on this is provided. I honestly do not believe that the Government know how to find this out. With respect, there may be too little experience here of growing up in a poor community, too little experience of places in which even the small-ticket items have to be bought on the never never and there is always some neighbour in your street facing repossession. People in these circumstances hate debt. You suffer it, but you do not embrace it. Big debt is as welcome as a broken leg. Of course some people may have a wealthier future, perhaps to achieve a fruitful and professional life, but overall I cannot believe that many people in this position will consider a future with major debt alongside their aspirations to own their home and to better their own family, and then face a tax rate for their working lives plus 9 per cent. Goodness knows what the position will be of those who decide to enter higher education but who drop out without even a degree and the chance of additional earnings.

In past discussions on Statements, these questions have been asked repeatedly of Ministers right across the House. I ask noble Lords seriously to judge for themselves what light is shed in the background papers. The honest answer is just about none. I have been concerned about middle class, middle income families because they are ineligible for any of the very modest compensating factors. Again, I asked three times about the impact on them. What is the probable length of their debt repayment? How does it compare with a period of repayment that is available to the wealthiest families? Will it be fair? The answer might lie with the ready reckoner that has been provided, if anyone in the House can make sense of it. Incidentally, if anyone wants to volunteer for that, I will nominate them for the Fields medal for mathematics. It is unintelligible and it does not answer these points. These families are entitled to little or no relief, and they will probably pay the higher rate all their working lives. They will certainly pay it when their own children embark on a university course of study, repeating the cycle of debt. They will never be in the position of wealthier families who can pay it up front, perhaps in much the same way in which people pay public school fees. We are entitled to detailed information on this, and it has not been provided.

And so to the impact on those who are most likely to experience career breaks: mainly, but not exclusively, women. Where is the full study of their repayment profile? Where is the basis for a judgment on whether these proposals are discriminatory? I sought this information three times, and my heart leapt when I saw a link to the statutory equality duties impact test in the supporting papers. Would this finally be an answer to the question? There are days when I regret that we cannot use visual materials in debates in the House. I have the test here in my hand. It just says that you should make an impact assessment and that this,

“relates to policies of the previous government and may not be up to date”.

The test, which is apparently now redundant, is available, but no evidence is available. The success criteria in the document outline the achievement of policy objectives but say not a word about overcoming this potential source of discrimination. If any of this is a sustained commitment to fairness, I am at loss to see how. I know very well that no one on the Front Benches of the previous Government would have tolerated a lack of evidence of this kind as a base for so fundamental a change in policy, much less one to transform our most cherished institutions: the universities.

The whole vacant space of real evidence is capped by the missing cornerstone of any market analysis alongside the policy. Will the pricing attract more students, sustain current numbers, or diminish numbers? Is the demand for university places wholly inelastic or not? Could you charge whatever you wanted without affecting demand?

I know that there are many successful business people in this Chamber and I make one assertion about each and every one of them: no one, no sane person, would wholly disregard price as a critical factor when trying to compute demand. No one would operate without market intelligence on price. Anyone today asking this House to invest in “student fees 300 per-cent-up shares” or “student debt-for-life shares” would ask whether there is basic information on what is likely to happy in the marketplace. It does not exist.

Certainly, there is evidence out there. The inestimable Sutton Trust, on which many of us have frequently relied for excellent, objective analysis, has concluded that there will be a significant decline in demand because of pricing. Peter Lampl describes the proposals of high fees and deep cuts as toxic and rash, as going far too fast and as going much too far. The Higher Education Policy Institute, on which many of us have relied for depth and independence of study over a long period, concludes that a £9,000 fee,

“would reduce demand for HE by about seven percentage points … There must be a prospect that some students will baulk at paying a fee of up to £9,000 for a course that is likely to lead to rather uncertain financial benefits”.

So I put it bluntly: this proposal lacks the rudimentary science on which policy should be based. The Government invite you—no more or less—to lick your finger and to put it in the air and see whether you like the feel of the breeze. If, as seems wholly likely, you get it wrong, the damage is done for ever. It is unacceptable.

The House Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee could have hardly written more coolly about these proposals. It commends that we should consider the Government’s assumption that student numbers will not change as a result of the proposals and consider whether the Government have made an assessment in the light of the submissions made to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, of the possible consequences of a rise in personal debt for society at large and what the real impact will be on social mobility. Clearly, the committee cannot have discovered the answers any more than I believe we have. In this light, a full, independent study is sought by these amendments—nothing less—because that is the information on which we should make policy. It should not be made on guesswork and hoping that it turns out all right. There should be no guesswork about the future of our universities and students.

Then the committee turned to process and timing. What are the reasons for bringing forward the package now when on the timetable we could work it out and reach consensus so long as we do it by 2012? It has asked us to examine the robustness of policy development, the process behind this instrument, which is as damning a question as could possibly be asked.

My concluding argument is that, by insisting on an amendment to the original Labour legislation introducing fees—Section 28 to which the noble Lord referred in his opening speech—this House insisted that it, as well as the Commons, had the right to vote on the decisions. The case was made by some of those in the coalition who I see sitting on the Benches opposite. With an inbuilt government majority, it said, in another place, once introduced, any harsh Administration might come along and raise sharply the fees to the detriment of students. It sought and won the right to have a decision taken here, because in the past no one party could dominate this place and consequently get a decision at will.

17:45

It is right that the option is sought today and agreed, because it was agreed in primary legislation in the 2004 Act. On the grounds that the Act put it into primary legislation that that right existed for this House, it cannot be objected to. The House of Commons gave its assent to that very arrangement. It cannot be wrong then to exercise the power that you sought and you achieved.

So we do, but what a decision. I have emphasised the times when we sought and failed to get answers to the fundamentals. When I asked about the Government’s response to the game-changing shift signalled in the Statements we heard repeated in October by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, the noble Baroness told us that in order to understand the policy, we must wait for the White Paper. I was disappointed, but I understood the point. When replying to the major debate on 27 October, addressing the same issues, the Minister said:

“I welcome the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, but I am sure that he will understand that I cannot pre-empt the Government's full response, which will be announced shortly”.—[Official Report, 27/10/10; col. 1302.]

That was referencing the much heralded White Paper. I was again disappointed but I can appreciate that Governments do not start with decisive legislation before they have set out their thinking in a Green Paper and/or White Paper. The White Paper is still to be produced.

Now, alongside the absence of evidence on which noble Lords are asked to take these decisions, we have an astonishing reversal of what any of us might think was the right way to treat Parliament. We now have the game-changing legislation as the first step, to be followed by the White Paper. Who knows, as we discuss that policy, we may on that occasion be promised a Green Paper and we might then, I suppose, be promised some form of consultation before that.

The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that this was all part of the Government’s proposals. Noble Lords have been given a jigsaw—

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

I sense that the noble Lord is coming to the end of his speech. Indeed, he has made a powerful case to the House, as he always does. To what extent that turns out to be a cogent case will be seen no doubt in the debate which follows. He asked for fundamentals. Perhaps I may ask him to address this one: is it not the case that the Labour Party acknowledged before the general election that there would be a sharp shortfall in the basic funds provided to universities? If not by these means, by what means would the Labour Party fill this gap?

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, it was always a likelihood that there would be some increases in fees. But increases on these kinds of scales were never contemplated.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Triesman]

A question has been asked and it is right to hear the whole of the answer. It was never contemplated at these kinds of levels. In general, it has been felt that, like all other countries which make a significant and major contribution to the education of their university undergraduates, that responsibility should continue to fall to the state because universities are emanations of the state and not supermarkets.

Mr Vince Cable in another place said that he was proud of the legislation. I think he said that a couple of days after he said that he might abstain on it, and then decided that he would vote for it. I do not know what constitutes pride in a piece of education legislation. I am sure that the 1944 Act must have been thought by those who introduced it—Lord Butler certainly—to be legislation to be proud of. The Education Reform Act 1988 steered through by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, would have been legislation of such sweeping importance that people would have been proud of it. But I wonder whether history will look on a sequence of tripling fees, cutting the EMA, and stopping funding for the arts, culture, studies of society and many things which we think are fundamental to the quality of our life in this country as being the great reforming moments of an education process of which anyone should be proud.

The noble Lord’s leader described those who oppose or, in his view, do not understand the proposals of the Government as dreamers. I do not think that people out there should be insulted in that way. Dreamers often are not people with their heads in the clouds; they are people who have an aspiration. They want opportunities in higher education and they want to be included, not excluded. I hope that the House will support the amendments, most of all because I believe that the House will want to demand the right to decide the policy by the means cherished in Parliaments over the decades, and then decide how to implement the policy, and not do it by a blind guess.

[Lord Browne of Madingley]

My Lords, a little over two months ago, I published a report outlining a sustainable way forward for higher education funding. Our conclusions are now generally well known, and I have expounded upon them in detail in your Lordships’ House on a previous occasion. Today, I will speak as directly as I can on the narrower issue of raising tuition charges, but I do not wish to mislead your Lordships that the argument rests there. The Government have accepted many of our proposals and have made a strong argument for tackling tuition charges first to ensure certainty for students and universities. Let me be clear that, although the Government’s proposals for higher charges deviate in some important ways from our own, I will support the government Motion today.

Under our system, we recommended removing the fee cap and introducing a levy mechanism that would kick in at £6,000 to ensure that institutions shared the cost of supporting their students; the Government’s proposals are for two caps—a basic cap of £6,000 and a higher cap of £9,000 for institutions that agree to tougher standards on access and widening participation. While I remain a supporter of our proposals, the Government’s plan replicates the benefits of our approach in some important ways by allowing institutions to gain increased access to private sources of finance at a time of necessary fiscal austerity, by enforcing different behaviour for institutions charging higher fees and by allowing the Treasury to budget accurately for the cost of student loans. Those are powerful arguments in favour of passing today’s Motion.

Higher charges are just one part of the proposed system, as the overarching philosophy of our report was guided by three distinct but related principles: quality, participation and sustainability. I want to outline very briefly how tuition charges fit into our approach to those three important principles. On quality, we recommended lifting the cap not only on tuition charges but on the number of students admitted to individual courses. That is a critical element of our reform package. We cannot expect institutions to change unless we first allow them to change. The panel’s view was that students, as the people who experience higher education, are best equipped to judge its quality. Allowing institutions to grow, expand and adapt according to student needs will be critical to ensuring that our universities remain the best in the world.

On participation, the panel was keen to ensure that no student felt compelled to avoid higher education for financial reasons. We should begin by drawing a distinction between tuition charges, which are paid back after graduation, and living costs, which must be paid during study. The evidence that we received was very clear that, for poorer students, having adequate cash in hand for living costs makes a big difference to whether they feel able to participate in higher education. However, on tuition charges, the panel received no evidence that higher fees have so far had an impact on participation. Most likely that is because education remains free at the point of access. We determined to maintain that important principle. That is why we recommended that all students continue to receive generous loans to cover their tuition costs. That is also why we recommended that loans be extended for the first time to the 40 per cent of students who choose to study part-time. As for the repayment of loans, we wanted to make the system much more progressive than it is at present. By increasing the graduate repayment threshold to £21,000, and raising it annually in line with earnings, that is exactly what will be achieved.

Turning to the final principle of sustainability, we wanted to create a system that could evolve organically rather than by painful contractions every five years or so. Our system—I stress again that it is a system—would achieve that by putting students very firmly in control of shaping the university landscape. Their choices would become the key variables to which everything else would respond. However, for that to work, the concept of student choice must be supported by the practical measures that bring it to life. School pupils must receive adequate information, advice and guidance from the age of 13 to ensure that they fully comprehend their choices. We recommended that money be set aside to create a professional career service for exactly that purpose. We recommended that all universities develop student charters to spell out what students will receive in return for their investment. We also recommended that a new, independent regulator be created to target funding on expensive subjects and to ensure that students can continue their studies in the rare event of institutional failure.

I hope that it is clear that what we have presented is not just a series of recommendations but a systematic approach to reform—a system in which the pieces fit together for a reason. Today we are debating the question of tuition charges, but soon we will be back to discuss the further elements of reform. I believe that these reforms are essential for this nation to maintain its hard won pre-eminence in higher education, and I therefore strongly support this step.

[Lord Bilimoria]

My Lords, the human tendency since time immemorial is for us often to take things for granted. I do not think that we stand back and appreciate enough how excellent the higher education sector in this country is. We always punch above our weight. The benchmark for excellence in higher education is the United States, yet as a country six times smaller, we consistently produce four or five of the top 10 universities in the world, the others being American. Again, I do not think it is highlighted enough that the United States spends as a proportion of GDP nearly three times as much on higher education as we do, almost 3 per cent versus 1.1 per cent. What is more, government expenditure in the United States is 1.2 per cent of GDP, higher than our combined expenditure on higher education, both public and private.

There is no question but that we need to increase overall expenditure on higher education. The ideal situation is when we get to the same place as the United States, where two-thirds of the provision is private and one-third comes from government. The two-thirds provision should come from student fees, benefaction, endowments, scholarships and sponsorships. In this light, my noble friend Lord Browne was asked how we could improve higher education. So much of his report is good and there are many excellent suggestions, but instead of moving towards what I have just outlined, the cat was let out of the bag in the last sentence of his report. It states:

“These measures create the potential to allow the numbers of student places to increase by 10% and enhance support for living costs while still allowing public spending reductions to be made”.

Here we are, on the one hand with the Government actually proposing to cut teaching support by 80 per cent to try to save £3 billion over four years, and on the other hand by almost tripling tuition fees in one go in 2012.

We all know that the finances in this country are in a dire position. We all know that cuts need to be made, and we all know that public expenditure is far too high as a proportion of our GDP. But to get out of this predicament, we do not necessarily just have to make cuts; we also have to grow as an economy, and to do this we need the elements of our economy that are our unique selling proposition—our core competences—and there is no better example than our higher education sector.

There are cuts and there is carpet bombing. We need to be selective and to cut effectively by pinpointing. There are big-ticket items where billions can be saved, such as inefficiencies and administrative savings in the NHS. It is possible that tens of billions could be saved. The Department for Work and Pensions budget is nearly £200 billion. That is where big savings can be made. But to try and save £3 billion in an area where we are the best of the best in the world, and in such a blunt way, does not make sense.

This is combined with an immigration cap. Every day I hear from businesses that say that they are hurting because of the immigration cap. I hear every day from our higher education sector, where 10 per cent of our academics are foreign and where it is estimated that foreign students bring up to £8 billion of direct and indirect income into this country. We must learn that when the United States clamped down on immigration, it lost out; we benefitted. We have competition—10 EU countries spend more on higher education as a percentage of GDP than we do.

18:00

The higher education sector has been hit from both sides. If the Government were proposing to maintain their spending on higher education and to raise tuition fees, that would be another case altogether; but the Government are trying to have their cake and eat it too, and this has caused a great deal of grief and upset across the country. None of us approves of the violence that is taking place in the protests—it does not help anyone’s cause—but the vast majority of the country sympathise with those students who will have to suddenly pay up to three times more for their higher education.

The impression is, I understand, that the cuts in the CSR budget are a fait accompli—that is it; they are irreversible; we cannot change them. What would we say if tomorrow, suddenly, we had to pay three times the amount for our petrol or for our rent? Noble Lords should consider how hard it will be for students who have no tradition of university in their families to convince their families that it is right for them to move to a future guaranteed with debt. Are we really encouraging our nation to have young people moving forward to live their lives with a noose of debt tied around their necks for 30 years?

We need to increase fees, but to do it so drastically and all in one go is too much. We need to move towards the American model of a more balanced approach to higher education funding, which puts more power in the hands of the students to create a world market, but we need to do so gradually; we need to phase it in over a period of years—whether that be three years or five years. The way we are going, it is inevitable that some of our universities will break away from government funding altogether and become completely private, as many American universities are. However, again, this move will happen gradually and will be carefully considered.

This is all being rushed through. As the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, said, we have not had the chance to consider and debate White Papers—and haste makes waste. It is only a few years since we moved to a system where £3,000 fees and loans were put in place—in fact, there are some medical students who have not yet completed their five-year courses through that system. Most of us here have benefited from free higher education in this country. The concept of students paying fees and taking on loans was a step change; however, what is now proposed is a step too far. We should increase in small steps and build towards where the report of my noble friend Lord Browne recommends we should go.

As has been pointed out, this is especially so when our country and our economy are in a fragile situation, where global uncertainty still abounds. This is not a time for sledgehammers; it is a time to nurture, care for and protect our country’s most competitive advantage, not destabilise and disrupt it. Quite frankly, in the bigger picture we are being penny wise and pound foolish.

Over the past decade our higher education industry has moved in the right direction of benefaction, with Cambridge University raising more than £1 billion and with Oxford following suit. With other universities trying to raise their own income streams—Thames Valley University, where I was chancellor for five years, has appointed a director of development—we are moving in the right direction, but we need to time to nurture it. Fifty years ago, 5 per cent of school leavers in this country went to university; today it is 45 per cent.

What the Government are trying to do now has opened up a whole host of questions. People are questioning the purpose of higher education, the use of our degrees and the quality of our institutions. They are asking why the majority of people who do not go to university should pay for those who go to university—why we should subsidise them. These debates have gone on and will go on for ever, but the bottom line is that higher education is a crucial part of the foundation of our economy which benefits not only those who go to university but the whole of society and the whole of the country.

As a country we do not have large tracts of land or large natural resources like Canada, Australia, Russia and the United States; all we have is our people, our brains and our capability. These are driven by our high-class, world-beating higher education institutions and I beg the Government not to throw the baby out with the bath-water. As the Browne report states, higher education institutions safeguard knowledge, catalyse innovation and strengthen civil society; they bridge the past and future and the local and global.

In my Motion I am saying that, yes, tuition fees need to be increased if we are to maintain and improve higher education in this country; however, that is not what is happening, because these multi-fold fee increases are there to compensate for drastic cuts in government funding for higher education. If we are to have increased fees, surely they could be phased in over a period of years and not in the blunt and cruel way of bringing them all in at once in 2012.

In its 2010 spending review the Treasury rightly states that our higher education institutions are the jewel in our crown. I welcome many of the elements of what the Government are proposing—the ring-fencing of research and science; the inclusion of part-time students; helping and encouraging lifelong learning and learning at all ages; the increasing of the income threshold to £21,000 before loans have to be repaid—but, in the rest of the G20 countries only one other country, Italy, is cutting its higher education budget, and that, too, by 19 per cent by 2012.

The coalition Government talk about their three tenements—freedom, fairness and responsibility. With their hands on their heart, can they truly say that to treat our wonderful higher education institutions, academics and students in this way is fair? I implore the Government to listen, to show compassion, to be just and to be fair.

[The Lord Bishop of Lincoln]

My Lords, I should declare my interests: I am the Visitor of King’s College, Cambridge, and of Lincoln and Brasenose Colleges, Oxford, and I am on the governing body of the Bishop Grosseteste University College. However, I speak principally as the chair of the Church of England’s board of education, which, of course, has a significant responsibility for the affairs of higher and further education in this country.

It is clear that there are no doubt many ways by which higher education can be funded—direct funding, grants, loans, public/private partnerships and so on—and the Government are largely following the recommendations of the review of the noble Lord, Lord Browne. They have opted for the principle of loans, as promoted by the previous Government. As we have heard, the task of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, was to trim the burgeoning financial commitment of central government to higher education while maintaining and improving current levels of participation in higher education across all socioeconomic groups, including those from the most deprived backgrounds. It remains to be seen whether the trick can be done using the means now before us.

Will the public purse be relieved of higher education costs? Only if loans are repaid and the recent financial crisis teaches us that policies predicated on debt and its repayment are speculative to say the least. As for maintaining and improving participation in higher education, it is surely counterintuitive to believe that students will commit to this size of future debt in anticipation of a benefit which is by no means guaranteed. Surely, even if they are prepared to so commit, we must ask whether the normalising of debt in this way is morally defensible or socially sustainable.

Even if the policy delivers on those objectives, it is still legitimate to challenge aspects of the reasoning advanced in support of it and to expose the extent to which fundamental principles in relation to education in general and higher education in particular are being compromised. Let me try to lay to rest oft repeated arguments which really should not be allowed credibility in your Lordships’ House. One can by all means argue that a high price must be paid for any recovery in the health of public finances so that even the commitment of the state to deliver an enhanced quality of education to the next generations is put on hold, or even that the prevailing government ideology is for low taxation and small government so that the state must be rolled back in relation to higher education as in relation to so much else. I personally would struggle to sign up to those arguments, but at least they have the merit of being honest when it comes to motives driving the measures promoted by the Motion before us today.

But, by and large, these are not the reasons most commonly advanced in support of this policy over recent days and weeks. Those reasons offered indicate an attitude to higher education which is radically different—the phrase “game-changer” has been used—from anything that we have known before and is deeply troubling to those of us who see education as a key component in human flourishing; that life in all its fullness which Jesus came to bring.

We hear it argued that it is the individual student who benefits from higher education, so it is reasonable for the student to pay, albeit not up front—thank goodness—but eventually, through a repayment of loans. But that flies in the face of everything that we believe and cherish when it comes to what higher education is all about and why it matters. Surely it is for the sake of the common good that the state uses taxpayers’ money to fund higher education, because that is precisely what a progressive taxation system is designed to deliver. It is the mechanism whereby the common purse funds what is for the common good. Even John Stuart Mill in his distinctly small-government manifesto, Principles of Political Economy, asserts that education,

“is one of those things which it is admissible in principle that a government should provide for the people”.

It is a masterly understatement if ever there was one. So let us hear no more of this idea that higher education is a privatised commodity to be bought and sold on the open market.

That leads on to a further point. John Stuart Mill also said:

“In the matter of education, the intervention of government is justifiable, because the case is not one which the interest and judgment of the consumer are a sufficient security for the goodness of the commodity”.

So let us hear no more about the choices of the student determining which courses will and will not be on offer in the higher education sector. No Government can abdicate their responsibility to plan for the development of such knowledge, skills and aptitudes as will be necessary for the future well-being of the nation and its people. Students can certainly exercise influence to drive up standards by having a choice as to which courses on offer they are minded to pursue and where. But the free-market model cannot extend to them determining by their choices whether certain subjects or courses will continue to be taught at all. I may well derive some satisfaction from all students opting to study theology, but I rather think that sufficient numbers of students studying engineering, medicine, English literature, foreign languages and so on to a high standard would be a good and necessary thing, and only Governments governing can ensure that balance for the common good.

18:15

Here, a further fallacious argument needs to be examined: the idea that certain subjects should attract government funding while others, especially those associated with the humanities and social sciences, should not. It is argued that all subjects will be funded equally from tuition fees, and then additional funding will be available for those courses utilising expensive laboratory and other infrastructure facilities. But, as I understand it, it has already been conceded that study of foreign languages should be grant-aided over and above the tuition fee. So what about the humanities and social sciences, which are vital to the development of rounded human beings rather than mere economic units? Surely the Government do not subscribe to the view that higher education is essentially about economic rather than human development—that most crass form of instrumentalism which I have to say to the dismay of some others in the House seemed to lurk around the corridors of power during the dying days of the previous Administration. But reasoning advanced in support of current policies seems by implication to reinforce that instrumentalist approach to higher education, so it needs to be said yet again that human development is about history, geography, philosophy and theology as much as it is about physics, chemistry and applied mathematics. Can we hear no more about the state needing to fund only courses which are believed to prepare people for work and serve the economy? Joanna Bourke of Birkbeck College recently referred to this stance as,

“vulnerable to the swaggering philistinism of management science”.

Perhaps I would not put it quite that way myself—although on further thought, perhaps I would.

What we need to challenge in relation to this legislation is, first, the elevation of individual benefit over the claims of the common good; secondly, education as a commodity subject to the vagaries of market forces, when it is truly to be for the common good—in relation to higher education, the individual student may not always know what is best for the good of all; and, thirdly, the need for higher education to celebrate and resource the widest range of subjects if graduates are to emerge as fully rounded human beings. That was precisely why our forefathers endowed universities and, in this regard at least, their wisdom has not been eroded by the passage of time.

If we are all in it together, it would appear that this and subsequent generations of students will be in it more than most. It is an issue of justice when some of the poorest young people in our society are deterred from contributing through further and higher education to the common good of all by withdrawal of, as has been referred to, the education maintenance allowances for further education and, as is the subject of this debate, the hiking of tuition fees to pay for a higher education. For all these reasons, this proposed way forward for the funding of higher education in this country is deeply flawed. The long-term costs of such a short-term gain are hardly to be countenanced, even in the most straitened of financial circumstances.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, taunted those of us on these Benches with the fact that, in the 2004 debate, we argued for, and gained the right for, Parliament being able to debate any change in the level of fees and fee regulation. This is precisely what we are doing today.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln, I regret the degree to which the present debate over fees has ignored the wider cultural and social benefits that stem from our much praised universities. “Learning is for earning” was one of the headlines that followed the report issued by the noble Lord, Lord Browne. We have to some extent lost the carefully balanced and nuanced approach taken by the late Lord Dearing in his report 13 years ago. The Dearing report suggested that university education has three beneficiaries: society as represented by the Government, the student and industry. That report also suggested that the costs of such an education should be shared among the three.

I have some sympathy with the package of proposals being put forward by my honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in the other place. The proposals have a number of distinct advantages over the present situation. First, what is on offer is undoubtedly more progressive than the current system in that the less well-off—those coming from poor households and earning low salaries—will get a bigger maintenance grant and more advantageous loan conditions than under the present fees system. The richer students, specifically those earning higher salaries, will pay more than under the present system. Therefore, as my honourable friend has claimed, the proposed scheme is more progressive than the current scheme.

I also welcome, as all noble Lords have done, the extension of loans to part-time students, which rights a long-running and major inequity in our system. For much too long, the system of loan and maintenance grants has favoured and given a very positive incentive to students to study full time. The reforms open the way to make our higher education system much more flexible, so that the student can mix part-time and full-time courses and mix distance learning with campus-based studies. In the long run, those changes will transform our university system and make it much more like the American system, which many people wish it to be. In that sense, I agree wholeheartedly both with the Minister, who said that the measure will, in essence, change how universities will move, and with the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, that the measure is a game-changing proposal.

As is now well known, I have some substantial reservations with the package being put forward. Although the new package is, as I have said, undoubtedly more progressive than the current provision, we cannot get away from the fact that, with the rise in fees possibly to as high as £9,000 a year, the size of the outstanding loans on graduation will be larger. With maintenance loans as well as the fee loans, most students will be looking to debts of between £30,000 and £40,000 a year. If two graduates set up household together, the total debt will be from £60,000 to £80,000. Whatever people say about students now being used to debts, the work undertaken by the Sutton Trust and Sir Peter Lampl shows clearly that such a sharp hike in fees may well make students very uncertain about whether they wish to go through to university.

Because the loans will be larger, they will also be less likely to be repaid. Indeed, any person earning less than £41,000 will not even be paying off the interest due on the loans. Only graduates earning more than about £50,000 will pay off substantial amounts of capital. It is estimated by a number of organisations, such as HEPI and the IFS, that something like 50 per cent of graduates will never pay off their loans. Disproportionately, those will be women, who earn less and are more likely to go part-time or to take a period out of earnings.

One good thing about the package being proposed is that, unlike credit card debts or mortgages, when a graduate’s earnings go down the payments will also go down. However, the debt will not go away. For anyone earning more than £21,000, 9 per cent of anything that they earn will be subtracted through PAYE on top of their income tax and national insurance—and that will last for 30 years. If you do not repay your debt, 9 per cent on top of your income tax and national insurance will be extracted from your pay package on anything you earn over £21,000. In effect—my honourable friend has said this—the loan will become a graduate tax of 9 per cent. Personally, I feel that that is a very high level of graduate tax. I feel very strongly that those of us who benefited from having no tuition fees and generous maintenance grants in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, are landing on young people of today—the next generation—quite disproportionate costs in that respect.

My second objection is an arcane point that relates to the financing mechanism. Loans do not come for free and substantial loans will be needed to back up the payments being made to the students. The Student Loans Company is funded by the Exchequer, which in turns borrows the money that it lends to the Student Loans Company. The Student Loans Company will then sell the debt on, on the grounds that one person’s debt becomes another person’s asset. However, because so many students will never pay off their debts, the value of those loans when sold on has to be discounted. The Treasury figure for that discount is 28 per cent, but HEPI, the IFS and London Economics all think that that underestimates the repayment issues. Even if we accept the Treasury figure, the annual cost of fee loans and maintenance loans combined to the Treasury will be roughly £2.8 billion for every £10 billion tranche, so the cost to the Treasury down the line will be just about the same as is being taken out of the higher education budget—£2.9 billion. I find myself asking why we are taking that money out of the higher education budget if down the line we will need to meet that cost, which will be more or less exactly the same. The answer, of course, is that doing so conveniently takes the sum off the current account and, through the Student Loans Company, switches it into part of the capital account that is not part of the national debt. Therefore, the cost is in effect taken off the books. That is very convenient, but it will come back on to the national debt at a later point.

Those are my reservations about the package. For all the merits of the proposed system, I end up thinking that it will be unfair to low and middle income students, who will have to pay 9 per cent on top of national insurance and income tax for a very long time. However, I have very little sympathy with Labour’s position, which I find somewhat hypocritical. The Labour Government introduced student fees after a pledge not to do so back in the 2000s. Not only did the Labour Government set up this loans system that is now being extended, they commissioned the Browne report and set its terms of reference while deliberately ducking from taking any decision on what they would do with the report until after the election. Having rejected the idea of a graduate tax when it was put to them in 2004, they are now arguing that a graduate tax would be a fairer system.

I do not hide the fact that I find myself in a dilemma. There are elements of this package that are very fair, very right and very proper. My honourable friend has lent over backwards to make it into a fair package. However, I end up feeling that there are other elements in it that I do not understand and that are unfair.

[Lord Giddens]

My Lords, I speak in this debate not primarily as a Labour Peer but as an educator and a former director of the London School of Economics. I have worked in universities the whole of my adult life and in a considerable diversity of universities. I believe that the Government’s legislation will be highly damaging for the university system and, as an educator, I should like to explain why.

The flaws in the legislation come from two sources. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, will forgive me, but the first is the erroneous view of the Browne report that higher education is a private benefit rather than a public good. The right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Lincoln, rightly drew attention to that in a forceful fashion. In contributing to the values of good citizenship and civic culture, the public role of universities ranges far beyond the areas identified in the report. Secondly, the decision to cut the teaching grant by 80 per cent is way in excess of what is necessary or sensible. I do not feel that Labour is being hypocritical in saying that, because the Government must be obliged to look at the proposals again.

No other university system in the world will charge students such a high level of fees with such inadequate safeguards to protect those from poorer and middle-level backgrounds. Comparison has been made with the American system, but the system that is proposed is not like that. We will get the worst of the American system without the safeguards that US universities have. Perhaps I might list those briefly, because they are very substantial and show that the public domain is far more representative in American universities than will be the case in the system that the Government seek to introduce.

18:30

In the American university system, first, there are state universities that charge fees a long way below those of private universities. Secondly, there is a credit system for degrees that means that it is far easier for students to drop in and out of university courses than is the case within the British system. In turn, that means that it is much easier for students to work their way through university. Thirdly, in many states, community colleges form a conduit for students from poorer backgrounds to get into elite universities. I have seen for myself, while teaching in California, how important that is. For better or worse, that is not the case in the relationship between further education colleges and universities in this country, although it should become so.

Finally, the top universities in America—the elite or private universities, to which reference has been made—are able to run a needs-blind admissions system because they have such massive endowments. There is no chance whatsoever that our top universities—barring maybe one or two—could ever achieve such endowments within the medium term. That system is not feasible here. I repeat, therefore, that we will get all the downside of the American system without the public benefits which that system provides. For this reason, I strongly endorse the amendment because the Government should be forced to think again. This legislation is ill thought through, corrosive and socially divisive.

[Baroness Shephard of Northwold]

I intend to make very brief comments because a lot of noble Lords obviously wish to come in and a lot of arguments have already been aired. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, as I have not had the chance to welcome him to his present position. I note that the same silky tongue is at work and I am certainly one of those who in the past had very cordial relations with the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, when he was in his trade union situation. Indeed, it extended to him sending me Christmas cards but I do not think that he will send me one this year. Well, he might; yes, he is telling me that he may.

I must declare three interests: I am chairman of the council of the Royal Veterinary College, chairman of the Institute of Education and chairman of the Oxford University Society. This debate is being conducted against cries of outrage from the Opposition but those cries cannot and must not conceal the facts of the matter—the situation in which we are. The Opposition, when in Government, introduced the fee system and the mechanism for uprating which we are debating. We have been castigated for doing this in a hasty manner but that mechanism was put in place by the Opposition. As Steve Smith has said, writing in the Times on 6 December, the coalition Government,

“has chosen a system that builds on the logic of the one introduced in 2006”.

The Opposition, when in Government, set up the Browne review which recommended, among many other things, the lifting of the fees cap. It was a great pleasure and a great illumination to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Browne, today. Liam Byrne, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, left office with the previous Government uttering the immortal words, “There is no money”. I have sympathy with a number of the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, because self-evidently the Opposition have no solution for the problem that they have created and it is down to the coalition Government to find the solution. It is obvious that they have no solution because when the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, asked the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, for his own policies the noble Lord threw no light. We remain in darkness in that respect.

In contrast, the coalition Government have promised a White Paper—I believe that it will be in the New Year—so that the many detailed complexities and implications of the fees decisions can be examined and consulted upon. I look forward to that White Paper because there are questions that need answering about, for example, the funding of students who are already graduates. We do not have those answers at the moment. I should have thought that almost everyone in this House would be able to produce other questions for which we need the clarity that a White Paper would provide.

The Government have proposed help with fees for the least well-off students for the first year of study and, possibly, for the second. They will invest £150 million to provide a national scholarship programme. Universities which charge fees of over £6,000 will have to demonstrate how they will attract students from the least advantaged backgrounds. The income threshold for the repayment of fees is to be raised from £15,000 to £21,000, which will make around a quarter of graduates better off than with the threshold left in place by the Opposition—not that, from listening to this debate, you would have guessed that—while for the first time, part-time students will be eligible for loan support for tuition costs on the same basis as full-time students.

I believe that the Government have made the best possible fist of the situation bequeathed to them by the previous Government. That is why I will most certainly be supporting the Government today. However, if the fee rise is rejected today, Universities UK has calculated that some 59 per cent—that is its figure, not a government figure—of current higher education places will be lost. I do not see that as fair, inclusive, or socially advantageous but it may be that some of the contributors from the party opposite will explain how they see that as fair and advantageous.

There are also those who advocate delay today. I suggest that if they have ever run an institution, an organisation or a business, they ask themselves how they could make any attempt at planning staff numbers, course numbers or student numbers if they do not know the most basic thing: what the income will be of the institution that they run. By rejecting the fee increase today, we will be imposing on all our higher education institutions the chaos of confusion and uncertainty. Everyone in this House supports higher education. Many of us are the beneficiaries of it. But I would not want to impose that uncertainty on those institutions that we hold dear by withholding a decision today.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall]

Will the noble Baroness not concede that part of the reason why Universities UK and other institutions that are not members of that organisation are worried about the possibility that this regulation may not go through is that they know that the Government propose to withdraw the teaching grant? That is what will make their financial situation so unpredictable, not the question of whether fees go up.

[Baroness Shephard of Northwold]

Who does the noble Baroness think is responsible for the situation that we are in? It is her party, the party opposite.

[Baroness Blackstone]

I declare an interest as vice-chancellor of the University of Greenwich. Like my noble friend Lord Giddens, I have worked in other higher education institutions, and at one time, as many noble Lords know—I shall return to this as one or two things have been said about the earlier introduction of fees—I was the Minister responsible for post-16 education.

I support my noble friend Lord Triesman in this amendment. I do so not in a spirit of outrage; I am not outraged—I am disappointed, saddened and worried. There is a real danger that we are walking into a trap, which we have made for ourselves and which we will later regret. It is important when making fundamental changes of this kind that we do so in a considered way, and my noble friend’s amendment asks that we should give more consideration to these serious issues.

I do not want to repeat everything that has been said before, nor to go into a great deal of detail, but I want to focus on three or four of what I consider to be the fundamental points before we go down this route. There are many issues of detail where I believe that the proposals are in fact flawed, but those are for another time.

First, I shall focus on what a number of other speakers have already touched on—the abolition of all funding for teaching in the arts, humanities and social sciences. The value of these subjects is enormous. In any civilised society, we invest time, effort and money in ensuring that our young people become well educated in these subjects. This is an investment, not a subsidy. One of the things that I found regrettable in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, was that he referred to higher education in terms of a subsidy. It is in fact an investment in our futures, our economy, our society, our well-being and the quality of our lives, and these subjects are fundamental to all that.

I cannot tell noble Lords how much misery and despair the decision to stop all teaching funding in these subjects has caused among academics right across the country and among students, both undergraduate and postgraduate. No country in the world has stopped public funding for a major part of the work that is done in teaching in its public universities, and I deeply regret that it looks, unless we can make a different decision today, as though this country will be the first to do so.

On the question of the cut in the teaching grant from £3.5 billion to only £0.7 billion, I am perfectly aware of the need to tighten our belts and to reduce public expenditure but no other part of the public sector—no other institution in receipt of public funding—has been asked to cut by 80 per cent. Why should we be asking our universities to do this?

My second point has not been given enough consideration so far today—the enormous cost of the tuition loan scheme when these new fees are introduced. Instead of fee loans for a three-year degree at less than £10,000 under the present system, the Government will have to borrow to fund loans of up to £27,000 per student. That will mean billions of extra borrowing by the Government because many universities are going to charge the full amount, as my noble friend Lord Triesman has already said, and because the Government have seriously underestimated the levels of repayment that are likely to be achieved. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, referred to the fact that the RAB costs will be much higher than the Government have claimed.

We are thus faced with the absurdity that the taxpayer will end up by paying more for the new system than for the present one. Every reputable think tank that has looked at this comes to the same conclusion, so it is not just my view; it is the view of those who have carried out careful analyses, in an objective way, of what is being proposed.

18:46

We might ask: why has the Treasury accepted these proposals? It is because of the arcane rules that it employs in public accounting so that grants to universities count as public borrowing but loans to students to cover their fees do not. As the Higher Education Policy Institute has said:

“It is smoke and mirrors, and it provides an extraordinary reason for changing the whole basis for the financing and organisation of the university system”.

I ask noble Lords opposite what their views are on this and whether they really believe that it is right that we shall end up with taxpayers having to pick up a bigger bill. Do they also really believe that the market will be bamboozled by this particular con trick? I do not believe that they will.

I turn to what the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, said; the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, also touched on this. There was a suggestion that we on the Labour Benches were being hypocritical. I resent that charge. I feel that I am saying everything with integrity, not with hypocrisy. I speak as the Minister who introduced tuition fees in 1998. I do not believe that it is wrong for students to make a contribution to the cost of higher education, otherwise I would not have been involved in that major policy change at the time. Nor do I believe that it was wrong in 2004 to increase the contribution from students, although we did so on a rather different basis.

However, we should not assume, because there was no reduction in demand when fees were first introduced and when they were increased somewhat in 2004, that this means that there will be no reduction in demand today. On the contrary, I fear that these huge increases that the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and others have referred to will have a deleterious effect on many young people. They say—and why should we not believe them?—that they do not wish to contemplate the sort of debts that they are going to have to face. It was interesting that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said that this was a more progressive system but then went on to contradict herself by describing the problems that lower-income and middle-income young people, perhaps both of them graduates, will face when they are buying their first houses and having their first children. I fear, particularly if we are talking about young people who come from ethnic-minority communities and from low-income backgrounds, that they will be hugely put off by the size of this debt.

There has been very little reference so far in the debate to mature students. We have to remember that more than 25 per cent of students coming into British universities are over 21, and that within that 25 per cent about 8 per cent are over 25 and another 8 per cent are well into their 30s. For these people, taking on this kind of debt will mean that many of them will be paying it off into their retirement. Do we not think that that will have some impact on their decisions about whether to come back into higher education? These are people who lost out earlier and were not able to go when they were younger.

There has been a certain amount of cloud-cuckoo-land talk among Ministers in suggesting that there is likely to be no impact on demand because there was none in the past. I quote from another think tank, London Economics, which says:

“There is undoubtedly a real risk that participation in higher education and in particular participation by those from lower socioeconomic groups and mature students will be undermined as a result of the significantly higher fee levels that will be required from 2012”.

I want to associate myself with the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria; I have sympathy with what he says. In many ways, it is the steepness of the rise that has led to so much anger on the part of students and so much concern on the part of their families. Doing all of this in one go is a very odd piece of public policy-making. I can think of no other example where we have introduced an increase in charges and trebled them. I would love to know why the noble Lord, Lord Henley, thinks that that is a sensible route to go down. It cannot be. It leads to huge inequities within families. One child who goes to university in 2011 will pay a fee of £3,000 or repay a loan of £3,000 as a graduate, while his or her younger siblings, who may be 18 months or two years younger, will pay three times as much. I know families who cannot understand this and feel that it is immensely divisive.

Let me turn to something that I referred to in the debate on the report of the noble Lord, Lord Browne. The Government should reconsider what I see as a rather crude market approach in which they claim that students will have greater freedom to choose universities based on quality and that the new arrangements will “drive up quality”. For the life of me, I simply cannot understand how they think this will happen. Again, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Henley, can explain it to me.

I do not believe that this approach will work for the following reasons. First, the information is not there and will always be imperfect. Young people do not get access to this kind of up-to-date information and, even if we provide it for them, I regret to say that it is unlikely that they will read it. In any case, measures of quality are extremely difficult and can often lead to misleading conclusions. Secondly, students are not paying up front but over many years, long after they graduate. Therefore, this market principle does not work in that they are not having to find the money and then spend it where it will produce the best value for them. Thirdly, student numbers have to be controlled anyway because of the public expenditure cost of the loans which I have already described. This economic orthodoxy of a perfect market simply does not exist.

Let me conclude by returning to where I started. Perhaps I can help the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, regarding his perfectly legitimate question. I have an answer, and I think that it would be shared by many of my colleagues. If the Government were to consult and do a little bit more listening and rethinking, the first thing they would do would be to restore some of the teaching grant for the arts, humanities and social sciences. That would be strongly supported by the Labour Party as something that we would have done had we won the election; we would have had to cut the teaching grant but not by 80 per cent. If that were to happen, the Government could then set fees at a considerably lower level which would be more acceptable to young people. We must remember that the very high fees are to replace an 80 per cent cut in grant so that universities can continue to operate with the facilities and staff they need to meet the standards expected of them in this country and internationally.

I passionately believe that were the Government to do that, students, their families, graduates, universities and the taxpayer would, as a result, have a better outcome but the deficit would still be cut. In turn, the Government would be congratulated on listening, on thinking again and on putting forward proposals which sustain the long-term future of higher education in the UK as a public good, as it is perceived everywhere else in the world.

[Lord Krebs]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the principal of Jesus College, Oxford, and as somebody who has spent much of his career teaching undergraduates in this country and in north America. I have to say that I have changed my mind about the view I take on the Government’s proposals. The view you take, I think, depends on where you start from. The vice-chancellors, in their view, have their feet in the coals of the fire and are looking for a way to get them out, and the only way to do that is to support a whopping great hike in student fees. If, however, you stand back and ask some fundamental questions about the justification for the proposals, I believe that you come to quite a different view.

I asked myself three questions. Are the proposals justified and fair? Do they make the funding of universities more sustainable? Do we understand the consequences of this radical change? No doubt noble Lords are on the edge of their seat waiting to hear the answers to those questions. We have heard many of the things that I am going to say already, so I will take a short cut to save anxiety and stress and give the answers in summary form. No, the proposals are not justified and fair. No, they do not make the funding of universities more sustainable. No, we do not understand the consequences. Let me explain briefly why I have come to this view and why I therefore support the Labour amendment to the Motion.

We have already heard, and I do not need to dwell on this, that a university education is partly a public good and partly a private good. Individuals benefit but the nation needs doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists—even civil servants and economists, it is sometimes said. The state should therefore pay part of a university education. I think it is reasonable that students should pay something themselves, so the debate is about how much it is fair to ask them to pay. These proposals represent, as we have already heard, a dramatic shift in responsibility for payment for an education from the public purse to the private purse.

We must not forget, as has been hinted at by other speakers, that the United Kingdom already invests a significantly lower proportion of its wealth in tertiary education than most other countries. The latest OECD figures, published this year, show us at 30 per cent below the OECD average in public investment in tertiary education and at nearly 40 per cent below the EU average. Will the Minister tell us how he can justify cutting public support for universities when we are already spending less as a proportion of our GDP than countries such as Hungary, Mexico, Poland or Brazil? Do not tell us that this is about reducing the budget deficit—it is actually about priorities.

The Minister tells us in his letter that no one should be put off from participating in higher education as a result of the changes. People have already asked where is the evidence to support that assertion. Certainly, the Institute for Fiscal Studies concludes in its report that students from the poorest 30 per cent of families will have more to pay back than they do at present. How do we know that this will not put them off? My conversations with the students I am responsible for suggests that it will.

We are also told—and this point has been raised already—that there are details of access arrangements, some of which are spelt out in the draft letter from the Minister for science and universities to Sir Martin Harris. But normally, when you want to understand the details, you turn to the fine print. I did so, and the print was so fine it was almost non-existent.

My second point was about the sustainability of universities. In his letter to noble Lords, the Minister states that the Government believe that this package offers a more sustainable future for our universities. I have always held the notion that belief should be reserved for matters of faith; no doubt the right reverend Prelates will comment on that. But when it comes to the sustainability of universities, I would prefer something more substantial than belief. We have already heard that in effect this proposal takes money with one hand and gives it back with the other, so the proposed fee increase—if we go to £9,000 a year—would barely exceed, and perhaps only just match, the amount of money that is removed in the cuts elsewhere. Therefore, universities such as my own, Oxford University, will be no better off, even if we charge £9,000 a year, and perhaps even worse off. How does this make the system more sustainable?

Thirdly, and finally, do we understand the consequences of this huge experiment? As we have heard, the proposal turns university education, to a large degree, from a public good into a private benefit. What do we know about the outcome? What do we know about its effect on the balance of students choosing to study different subjects? Do we know that it will encourage social mobility? Do we know what kind of restructuring it will result in in the university sector? I believe that the university sector could benefit from restructuring but I do not think that it is sufficient to leave that to the market. A university education is not like toothpaste or a fizzy drink; the market will not necessarily deliver what the nation needs. That can be delivered only after deliberation and consideration by Government and by Parliament.

As we have heard, universities in the UK are an outstanding success story; in fact, they are one of the very few areas in which we still have world pre-eminence. Let us not conduct a massive experiment and leap into the unknown with this success story without first understanding the outcomes and the possible consequences. For those reasons, I urge noble Lords to support the amendment and vote against this proposal.

19:01

[Lord Patten of Barnes]

My Lords, I disclose an interest as the Chancellor of the university of which Jesus College is a distinguished part. However, on this occasion, I am afraid that I do not agree with Jesus, and for reasons which have made me for 20 years a passionate believer in a bigger contribution by students to their education. I say with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that his speech was a triumph of hope over experience because for years, under Governments of both political persuasions, and one that I recall of no political persuasion whatever, we have spent substantially less on higher education as a proportion of GDP than almost all our competitors, and certainly less than the OECD average. The latest OECD comparisons, published in 2010, show that in 2007—the latest authorised figures—we spent 1.2 per cent to 1.3 per cent of our GDP on higher education. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, that British taxpayers spent less on it than did American taxpayers. We also spent less than the OECD average, and considerably less than the United States, which spent 3.1 per cent of GDP on higher education—and that was before the cuts of £1 billion which were introduced by the former Lord President. I am sorry that he is not in his place today to explain to us exactly what he intended when he asked the noble Lord, Lord Browne, to undertake his review of tuition fees.

There are only four ways in which you can get money for higher education. You can get it through research income, endowments—we know very well that only three universities in Europe would get into the top 150 in the United States in terms of the size of their endowments—the taxpayer or tuition fees. We know from the experience of the past 10, 20, 30 or 40 years that the taxpayer will not provide the money, so the only revenue stream that is left is the student. I totally agree not with the spiritual authority of the right reverend Prelate, but with almost as great a spiritual authority—I agree with what Mr Blair had to say about the social equity of students making a contribution to what will make such an impact on their lifetime earnings. It seems to me a wholly defensible proposition.

[Baroness Blackstone]

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that what the former Prime Minister Tony Blair said was that it should be a contribution? He used the words himself. He did not say, and never did, that students should pay the whole of the cost of their higher education.

[Lord Patten of Barnes]

No, as I shall explain in a moment, they will not be doing that in the case of the university that I know best. I remind the noble Baroness that the former Prime Minister wanted to introduce fees in 2004, not of £3,000 but of £5,000. He could not get that through the House of Commons largely because of the views of his honourable friends in the Parliamentary Labour Party, so let us not rewrite history. I suggest that the noble Baroness should refresh her memory by reading Mr Blair’s autobiography.

My Liberal Democrat noble friends have been teased about changing their mind. As my noble friend Lady Sharp pointed out, there are very strong reasons for their change of mind. It was slightly ironic that in his flirtation with the Liberal Democrats yesterday, the leader of the Labour Party, in a less than bravura performance, offered them the opportunity of talks with Liam Byrne. That must have set their pulses racing with excitement. But what makes it particularly ironic is that it is the same Mr Byrne who, as my noble friend Lady Shephard pointed out, gave the game away and told us after the election that there was no money left—zilch. I am not sure that it is the right moment to follow the right reverend Prelate in questioning why public debt is so terrific but private debt is such a bad thing. At some stage we could seek the authority of the New Testament on that proposition, but perhaps this is not the right moment.

When we consider changes to what one has promised the electorate, I seem to recall what happened in January 2004, after the then Labour Government had changed their position. When asked,

“Is the party open to the charge that it has broken a manifesto commitment?”,

Mr Alan Johnson replied yes. When asked:

“Is that crime of a century for a government to do?”,

he replied no. If one is to believe what is said about the public accounts under Labour, Mr Johnson did not have the excuse then of the bank having been broken.

I want to make a couple of points about the proposals themselves, not going any further into the seam of intellectual integrity which has underpinned the Labour Party’s position. I have a couple of questions. First, I think that all of us want to see an increase in the endowments for our universities, which are well behind our American competitors in that regard, as the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, pointed out. Can we be sure that the Government will look at how they can encourage philanthropic donations in the future, not just to charities in general but to our university sector in particular because it is of considerable significance?

[Lord Giddens]

Does the noble Lord agree that it would take many years for a substantial proportion of universities here to build up enough endowment to create a needs-blind admissions system?

[Lord Patten of Barnes]

Yes, it would take time, even for those universities which do not have as many foreign students as his university does.

[Lord Winston]

Will the noble Lord also address how Sheffield Hallam University, of which I have the privilege to be chancellor, will secure endowments? Many good universities contribute hugely to the local economy and educate people who would never normally have gone to university in the past. They will not now be able to raise the volume of endowments or charitable funds that the noble Lord has mentioned.

19:09

[Lord Patten of Barnes]

The noble Lord may be aware that in this country about 2 per cent, perhaps rather less, of alumnae give to their old universities. That is far less than the figure one would find at even the least well endowed university in the United States. We have to change our attitudes to supporting our old universities.

The other question that I want to ask is about the cap. I ask this not least in the interests of the Opposition, who will, I am sure, want to consider which policy they change next. Are the caps of £6,000 and £9,000 set in stone, or can we be assured that they will be revisited in due course? I ask that, not least because of my concerns about the position of the Leader of the Opposition, who said, when asked what the Labour Party’s position was, that he was not going to fall into the trap of making a promise to scrap what we have put forward, because it was a promise that he might not be able to keep.

If what the Government are proposing—which, as the IFS has said, is more progressive than the existing system—is so noxious and is worse than anything since Herod’s slaughter of the firstborn, I should like to hear from the Opposition that they will either reject or accept the proposal, because their present position is, quite simply, irresponsible.

[The Lord Bishop of Chichester]

My Lords, I declare two non-pecuniary interests. The first is as a governor of the University of Chichester, which I should not say has for many years had the highest level of student satisfaction—although I did say that. My second interest is as a Bishop with an obviously direct interest in anything which might impact negatively upon the teaching of theology, particularly for those who are to be ordained. In fact, it is neither of those matters that I want to comment on; nor do I wish to rise to the challenge made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, about belief and faith; nor do I want to comment even on what the noble Lord, Lord Patten, said about looking for New Testament comments on debt.

The noble Lord probably would not regard this as coming from a higher authority than the New Testament but, by one of those interesting quirks of history, it is almost exactly 150 years to the day—it is actually tomorrow, 15 December—that Palmerston wrote to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gladstone, warning him in relation to economic policies that the debt of citizens was by no means the same thing as the debt of states. That was a remarkably prescient comment.

What we have here is, at least in part, an attempt to deal with national debt by transferring it to individuals. The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, talked about something corrosive. The socially corrosive effects of this measure go far beyond the particular educational instincts that are at its heart. My point is therefore not really about education or the impact of this measure upon our higher education institutions, but about the potentially socially corrosive effect of high levels of individual debt in relation to national debt, which is a different matter altogether.

[Lord Winston]

My Lords, I am in a rather unusual position of representing four universities. I am chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University, which is a new university that contributes hugely to the local economy and teaches people who would not normally in the past have had an ambition to go to university. I am chairman of the Royal College of Music, which is a specialist conservatoire, representing an entirely different skill base. I am a professor at Imperial College, London, which is one of the world’s top 10 universities and is research-rich. I am also on the council of Surrey University, which has aspirations and an extraordinary portfolio that extends from the area of public services right through to nuclear physics, and is increasingly engaged in excellent research.

Because of time, I want to make two brief points. It is very unwise to think of universities as one body. The point about my portfolio and the thing that all those universities have in common is that each is entirely different. There are special problems, for example, in the conservatoires. If we lose the exceptional funding for them, there will be an unparalleled crisis in the arts that we have not seen before. There is much in the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that is worthy of serious consideration and is clearly very clever. However, much more time is needed to allow the issues between the different areas that we need to look at to be considered.

It is also true that increasing the fees will make the specialist conservatoires increasingly elitist, and we will end up with increasing numbers of Chinese students—excellent though they are—and poorer British students will not be able to study music, for example. It is also worth bearing in mind that 85 per cent of musicians probably do not earn £21,000 a year through music, even at the height of their powers. Will they be paying back fees for some other skill which was not developed in the higher education system?

The other brief point that I want to make is the question that I raised with the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, at the very beginning—on the day that the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, were first debated in this House. I said that, as I spoke, students in Sheffield were walking the streets protesting at the increased higher education fees. They did not understand what was going on, and I asked the noble Baroness how the Government intended to engage with the students. The Government have still not engaged with the students. This is a highly dangerous situation. This is a very complex measure and the idea of having this vote on fees before we have seen the White Paper is nonsense. It is not good government, and I have to say to the Government that it may be extremely dangerous to the coalition if they insist on driving this through.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

My Lords, it seems to me that those of us on this side of the House who will vote in favour of the Government’s proposals have to answer four questions. The first is directed—fairly or unfairly, you may think—particularly at the Liberal Democrats, and was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Patten: “Why do you not honour your election pledges?”. Let us put it in the stronger terms used outside this place: “Why are you betraying the promise that you made to us?”. Let us for a moment examine that promise. It was a promise that if there was a Liberal Democrat Government, we would then seek to get rid of tuition fees. Whether that policy was wise for my party is a different matter. When I was its leader, I tried to persuade my party out of that policy in 1998, but I signally failed in a democratic party. That policy was democratically arrived at. However, the truth is, I am sad to say, that there is not a Liberal Democrat Government—there is a coalition Government. In order to put that Government together, we had to come to compromise deals with another party, which gave us some of the things we wanted and some of the things which we did not want. How else could you put a coalition deal together?

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords—

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

I shall certainly give way to the noble Lord in just a moment.

I remind the Labour Party that it had an opportunity to do a deal too, but it ran away. It did not want to participate in taking the responsibility for clearing up the mess that it left behind. It is important for the House to understand that. I agree that we have had to amend the view that we took, but we did so in order to put together a coalition Government in what we believed to be the national interest at a time of crisis. The Labour Party, too, has changed its policy, but it did not have to. I know that harsh words fall uneasily on the ears of noble Lords in this House, and I understand that, but this is a piece of naked opportunism. The truth is that Labour went into the election proposing tuition fees and is now against them. In the previous election, Labour was against tuition fees, and then proposed them. What is its policy now? Frankly, we do not know. The Leader of the Opposition says that there should be a graduate tax. Mr Johnson says he thinks that a graduate tax is unworkable—precisely the position of the noble Lord, Lord Browne—but he is then persuaded to say yes. Then, in answer to my question, the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, seemed to tell me that the Labour Party was in favour of fees. What is its policy? I do not know; but at least, if we are asked, “Why did you not fulfil your election promises?”, that question should be asked of Labour too. It did not have to propose an amendment for any reasons of national interest; it did so for reasons of an opportunistic ability to attack the Government.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

The noble Lord puts forward the proposition that if a party is not elected to government, the promises that it made and on which it sought votes in the election are no longer binding. If that is the case, every minority party can renege on any promise at any time.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

I will make it very clear to the noble Lord. The deal that was made was a coalition deal between two parties. I remind my Liberal Democrat friends that the coalition deal was endorsed unanimously by the parliamentary party and by the party at its conference; it has the democratic endorsement of the party. Where we are at present is uncomfortable, but we would be much more uncomfortable if, having accepted the coalition deal and passed it by the internal mechanisms of the party, we now ran away from it. If the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, will forgive me, I would like to make progress; I have spoken for about six minutes already.

The next question that we have to address is whether this is necessary. In order to say that it is not, one would have to say that, uniquely, the higher education sector of this country should be excused from carrying the burdens that everybody else has to carry, and should be excused from the cuts. If the noble Baroness will allow me to make a little more progress, I will happily give way.

[Baroness O'Loan]

Is the noble Lord aware that government departments are being asked to take a cut of 25 per cent while universities are being asked to take a cut of 80 per cent?

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

The noble Baroness makes exactly the point that I would have gone on to, had she given me the opportunity to do so. When we consider university cuts, we may do one of two things. We may institute those cuts or ask graduates—not students—to bear a proportion of the costs. The right reverend Prelate who spoke earlier said that students should not be required to pay for higher education. They are not being required to pay; they are being asked to share in the payment. Under these proposals, universities by and large will have the same amount of funds as they had before, because graduates will pay their contributions. That is perfectly right. I cannot argue the case that the higher education sector should be removed from the burden that the rest of the nation has to carry. Those such as the right reverend Prelate seem to propose that somehow higher education should be free. It was free for my generation. I never went to higher education; my university was Her Majesty's Corps of Royal Marines. Free higher education is possible for 7 per cent of the population, but is impossible for 50 per cent. One has to find a mechanism to fill the gap.

The next question is whether it is fair. I will deal with the issue of debt. I accept that the consequence of these proposals will be to raise debt to the order of £27,000, £30,000 or perhaps more. I regret that; it is the consequence of the age in which we live and the economic position in which we were left. However, we do not complain when young people have to take out a mortgage debt of £150,000 or £200,000 to buy their house. This is not like a credit card debt; it is much more like a mortgage. There is a fixed system of repayment and a fixed mechanism for repayment. Frankly, I do not find it offensive; if one can take out mortgages for physical property, why should one not take out a mortgage to improve one's intellectual property, from which one will benefit in future? I know that I am testing the patience of the House and I am keen to make progress, but I will give way.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

On the question of personal debt, did the noble Lord see the figures released earlier this month that showed that personal debt in this country is now £1.5 trillion and that, out of 2,000 families surveyed, more than half said they were already in trouble with the debts that they had incurred? Is this any way to go into working life—with this albatross round your neck?

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

I understand the point that the noble Lord is making. However, we accept that it is reasonable for people to borrow huge sums to get themselves on to the property ladder. I see nothing different in following the same broad system. This is equivalent not to a credit card debt but to a mortgage. It is perfectly reasonable that we ask people to pay a significantly smaller amount of interest on a debt that will improve their life chances. There is nothing odd or strange in that.

My final question is that of fairness. The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, made the case that somehow or other—

[Lord Giddens]

My Lords—

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me. I would really like to draw my remarks to a close.

[Lord Henley]

Perhaps it would help if I explained that it is up to my noble friend Lord Ashdown to decide whether he gives way. My noble friend has already taken two or three interventions; he is under no obligation to take any more if he does not wish to.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

I apologise to the noble Lord. I have already been speaking for 11 minutes and if I were to take his intervention, I would be testing the patience of the House, so I will finish. The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, painted a Dickensian picture of the poor family who cannot afford to pay the fees. However, it will not be poor families who pay, but graduates when they are earning more than £21,000. The question is; are these proposals fairer or less fair than the present system? The answer is that instead of starting repayments on a salary of £15,000, students will start them on a salary of £21,000. The level of their repayment will be about half what they are paying at present. The rich will pay more than the poor; that is not the case under the present system. Part-time students will not pay up front; that is not the case at present. The fact that students will be repaying the costs for longer will mean that they will be able to repay when their salaries are higher. Many students have told me that one consequence of the present system is that they are repaying in their mid-30s, precisely when it is most difficult. They will now be repaying in their mid-40s, when it will be far easier.

When I vote tonight in favour of the proposals, I will vote not out of defensiveness but because I believe that they are progressive, that they will be followed elsewhere in the world, that they are right for higher education and, above all, that they are fairer for students, especially students from poorer families.

[Baroness Hollins]

My Lords, I will speak briefly about medical education. Undergraduate medical students currently receive NHS bursaries in their fifth year, and graduate students in their second, third and fourth years. The proposal to end NHS bursaries is also under consultation. Medical studies are full-time—45 weeks a year—and leave no opportunity for part-time employment. At St George's, University of London, where I am on the teaching staff, we pride ourselves on making progress in widening participation. I should like to know what the cost will be for a student who has to take out a loan for the full five years, and a large loan to cover their living costs, and whether the Government agree that this degree of debt will discourage prospective doctors from all but the wealthiest families. I will need assurances before being able to support this proposal that if the proposed increases in fees go ahead, at least NHS bursaries for medical students will not be stopped.

[Lord Morris of Handsworth]

My Lords, I, too—

[Lord Henley]

If the House would like me to intervene, I will make a few remarks. Others wanted to speak, but I am in the hands of the House. I will start by saying a word or two—I will give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of these regulations. I do so after spending 10 years validating the polytechnic sector on the Council for National Academic Awards. My experience is unusual; I am a non-academic who spent 10 years close to higher education. That experience leads me to suggest that if the Government's plans result in the closure of a large number of courses in the humanities departments of the former polytechnics—in particular teacher training courses—that would be a considerable achievement. It would save a lot of money that could be channelled to serious courses, and it would stop the short-changing of many thousands of students who attend humanities courses and find themselves ill equipped for the world of work, or indeed for making any useful contribution to wider society. The students themselves will be the best judges of the courses and will not enrol on those that they consider to be a waste of their time—indeed, perhaps even a waste of their lives.

I also congratulate the Secretary of State, Michael Gove, on his attempts substantially to raise the quality of teacher training. I believe that these regulations will do much to help him to achieve that.

Beyond that, and finally, I believe that these regulations will start to create something which has been sadly missing in our system of higher education—a system of quality control. I know that there is a system of quality assurance but that is not at all the same thing. The quality control brought in by these regulations will be manned by the students with the teeth to make it effective, and I cannot think of anyone better to do it. Therefore, I support the regulations.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords—

[Lord Broers]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Minister!

19:30

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, it is wonderful to be so welcome. I noticed the declaration of interests that the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, made at the beginning of his somewhat lengthy speech, although it was none the worse for that. My noble friend Lady Shephard described him as having a silky tongue. I had better declare another interest in that I was one of those higher education Ministers who saw him, and I declare the interest that I greatly enjoyed the lunch that he gave me some 13 or so years ago. I am not sure that I ever declared it at the time but it was a very useful meeting, as he explained to me just how many members of his union were in both Houses. I think he claimed that he had more than any other trade union leader in the history of trade union leaders having members in this House.

I listened with interest to the somewhat lengthy speech of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, but I heard no coherent argument in it whatever. It was a mere rant, with no solution put forward by the party that got us into the mess that my noble friend Lady Shephard described. He claims that there is no evidence and that there was no consultation, but does he not think that the report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and commissioned by the Government of whom he has been a member, provided just that? In that report there is evidence, and in the production of that report there was a great deal of consultation.

A great number of points have been made during this debate and I want to deal with some of them in order to knock the myths that are growing up. The first one—addressed, first, by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln but brought back to us again and again—is the idea that the poorest will be deterred. The right reverend Prelate referred to the removal of the education maintenance allowance for 17 and 18 year-olds. I understand that the removal of the EMA was examined in a report by the party opposite when it was in government. The report showed that some 90 per cent of the money was being wasted, and it was not encouraging the children involved to stay on at school, as they would have stayed on anyway. I think that my right honourable friend did exactly the right thing in suggesting that that money could be moved and made better use of.

In terms of the poorest being deterred, many of us made that argument when student fees were introduced. It started, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, in 1998 and was then enhanced by the 2004 Act. On both occasions we saw an increase in those from less well-off homes going into higher education, and I do not see any reason why that should not happen again. We will certainly continue to examine what happens after these changes come into force.

The next point—put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs—is that our decision to increase the upper cap to £9,000 is purely a political choice and that we have made it for no other reason than we want to save money. I must make it clear that in their Pre-Budget Report of 2009 the previous Government identified some £600 million of cuts to higher education and science to be made by 2012-13. The department responsible for universities, BIS, was not protected in Labour’s public expenditure plans, so it is hard to see what protection a Labour Government would have produced over the spending review period if they had not been able to cut departments’ budgets by some 25 per cent, which is exactly what we have done.

That deficit exists—we inherited it—and the Government are responsible for the interests of all taxpayers in meeting it. At a time of real financial hardship, we believe it is right to make cuts across public spending, but we do not believe that it is right to ask those on low incomes to pay additional taxes to prop up an unaffordable university funding system from which they do not benefit directly. Obviously there is a benefit to all of society—I accept that—but there is a greater benefit for the individuals going to university and I do not think that we can get away from that.

The second point that I want to address is the idea put forward—again, by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone—that the new system will not save any money. She quoted the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Higher Education Policy Institute, which have both questioned whether the policy will save money in the end. I say to the noble Baroness that our proposals contribute directly to paying down the deficit because they replace grants with loans, of which about 70 per cent are expected to be repaid in due course by those on higher earnings. We are reducing the direct funding of universities via the teaching grant—

[Baroness Blackstone]

My Lords—

[Lord Henley]

I shall give way when I have finished this point and then the noble Baroness can spring to her feet. However, it is up to me to decide whether I give way. We are reducing the teaching grant and increasing the loans, and therefore universities’ funding will not be affected.

[Baroness Blackstone]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that HEPI has carried out substantial analytical work which suggests that the Government have been over-optimistic in their assumptions—I do not want to go into all the detail now—about how much of the loans will be repaid? It has come up with a figure much closer to 50 per cent than 70 per cent.

[Lord Henley]

HEPI has done its research based on its assumptions; we have done ours based on our assumptions, and I am confident that our assumptions—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Henley]

This is not the time or place for the noble Baroness and me to go into these matters. The noble Baroness and I have been arguing points for 14, 15 or even 20 years and we have never necessarily agreed, so I do not suppose that we would agree if we argued for a bit longer about this. The simple fact is that we are confident about the robustness of our assumptions, and HEPI obviously takes a different view.

Those were the two principal myths that I wanted to stress. I also make it clear that we have considered all these issues carefully. However, as I said in my opening remarks, we recognise that very strong feelings have been aroused. I underline and re-emphasise that our proposals mean that when graduates come to pay—and they will not pay until they earn more than £21,000, and in due course that £21,000 will be uprated in line with earnings—they will pay less per month than they do at the moment. I also stress that that will be needs-blank and that in many cases they will not be paying anything at all, particularly if they have taken a career break or are not earning up to that limit.

These regulations will also allow us to provide a funding stream which enables our universities to attract a flow of income to sustain their world-class position. I am very grateful that noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, stressed the global status of our universities. There is unprecedented global demand for higher education and we cannot let our HE sector drop behind our international competitors. I think that the number of people coming from overseas indicates that they are maintaining their position. However, in this current fiscal climate, that requires significant changes to higher education funding and student finance.

The next thing that I want to stress, which is contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, said, is that we greatly value the autonomy of our higher education sectors. They are not emanations of the state, as the noble Lord put it. Each university and college is autonomous and each will be free to decide what contribution it sets for its courses. As we know, a number of vice-chancellors in England have indicated publicly that the Government’s proposals for university funding are reasonable and retain fundamentally important progressive elements. Again, I am grateful for all those who have stressed, like the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, the progressive nature of our proposals.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

I thank the Minister for giving way and I declare an interest in that I hold a chair with Liverpool John Moores University and am a visiting fellow at St Andrews. I want to test the Minister on whether the proposals are progressive, as has been asserted all the way through this debate, even though the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that they are regressive. The IFS says that those who will be hit the hardest are not those coming from the free-school-meals category but those in the 30 per cent category of the lowest income earners in this country. Does the Minister agree with that assessment?

[Lord Henley]

I do not agree with that assessment because no one will be paying anything until they earn £21,000 or whatever the figure will be after it has been increased. That figure of £21,000 is roughly the average wage. Thereafter, we go on up to about £42,000 before people pay the maximum, which is RPI plus 3 per cent. I do not think that that is the credit card levels of interest that the noble Lord and others seem to imply. That is not a heavy repayment to ask of someone on £30,000, £40,000 or even £50,000 or £60,000. If we take medical students as an example, a GP now earns in excess of £100,000. When one thinks of their investment, that is not a bad return.

I now want to deal with timing, as it has been alleged that we are rushing this through too fast. I want to stress again that we have a responsibility to give students, their families and the universities certainty about what arrangements will be in place for the 2012-13 academic year. One has to remember that, although the White Paper will not come out until early in the new year, already by then students will be beginning to visit the universities that they want to apply to for 2012. They will be starting to apply in the summer of 2011 for some courses, so everyone, including the institutions, need to know where they stand and when they can plan ahead.

Finally, I come back to the nature of the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, has sought to reassure the House that his amendments are merely an invitation to the Government and another place to think again. I make it clear in no uncertain terms that this is not an occasion when we can think again. These two amendments are fatal and, if carried, would negate and override the vote in another place last week.

[Lord Wills]

Before the Minister concludes his remarks, I wonder whether he will address the question of humanities in the curriculum of our universities. What guarantee can he give that humanities will continue to have an appropriate place in curriculums?

[Lord Henley]

They will have an appropriate place in the curriculum. Universities will be able to charge fees to students and will receive them up front without the students having to repay anything. The fees will then go to the universities. That is what this is all about. In the end, the good universities will flourish and good courses will also flourish.

[Lord May of Oxford]

Has the noble Lord given thought to the fact that, although a vote against the regulations would cause chaos in its immediate wake, as he just mentioned, it would prompt immediate action, whereas the alternative of embracing these regulations will set in train something that will persist for years and arguably inflict huge damage? How does he weigh the two?

[Lord Henley]

Voting against the regulations would inflict huge damage for the reasons that I have explained, given the nature of the loans and the fact that they will not be repaid until the individual is earning a reasonable amount. If the individual never earns anything or takes a career break, he will not have to repay. I do not believe that the regulations will inflict that damage. I am making it clear that for the House to reject the Motion would be fatal.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve]

The Minister is reminding us that the difficulties on the consumer side are not as great as some noble Lords have suggested. I accept that this is an ingenious splice of a graduate tax and a graduate loan system that is highly protective of the poorest. I think that many noble Lords are asking the Minister to address the question of damage to the supply side produced by moving too rapidly. I hope that, before the Minister finishes his speech, he could say a bit about the Government’s assumptions on the range of closures, mergers, bankruptcies and disproportionate patterns of damage to certain courses but not others. That will give the House a better basis for understanding what the Government anticipate than continual harping on an issue that I accept is of great concern to prospective students and their families but has not been sufficiently well explained. The students are well protected, but the institutions may not be.

[Lord Henley]

I believe that the institutions themselves can benefit from this, as I made clear in my opening remarks. The institutions are autonomous; they are not, as the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, put it, emanations of the state. Those autonomous institutions can make decisions on what courses they offer in seeking to attract appropriate students and on matters such as the length of courses and in what fields they are offered. There will be changes, but it is not for the Government to predict what will happen. We believe that we are making provision for students and those from less well-off families and we are providing opportunities for the institutions themselves. We also believe that it is necessary to put the measures in place so that everyone knows what is happening for the academic year starting in autumn 2012. That is why I stress again, as I have done two or three times, that the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, are fatal.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

Does the Minister recall that, on 17 January 2007, the elected House gave this House the right to vote on statutory instruments when they might prove to be fatal, when it debated the all-party report on the conventions between the two Houses? The other place gave us that right without dissent and this House did the same the day before.

[Lord Henley]

We have always accepted that this House has a right, if it feels appropriate, to vote down orders. However, this House should consider that very carefully before doing so. That is why I am warning the House that it ought to remember that these two amendments are fatal. For that reason, I recommend that the House rejects them.

[Lord Triesman]

I shall be brief. If I made points at length before, I apologise but I thought them important. I certainly do not apologise for the links that I have had with former Ministers responsible for education. That was always part of the consultative process. In those days I always thought that they were welcome, as I welcomed the opportunity as well. As a consequence they will make no difference at all to my Christmas card list. In those conversations we always agreed that one of the most cherished things about universities was their autonomy. It is certainly true that because some of the money that goes to universities flows through the Exchequer it was always the case that they were emanations in that sense, unless you can move it off the books, which is the cunning mechanism that is being described this time.

Of course they are fully and proudly autonomous organisations. Has there been change and reassessment on this side of the House? I hope so. There were always reasons for thinking about whether the proposals that we made were the right ones, and if you lose an election—and we did—it is essential that you think again about what you proposed, to consider whether it was most appropriate. I have no doubt that that has been the case for every party that has lost elections, including the previous one—including the Liberal Democrats, who lost that one as well.

I want to make only one or two specific comments. I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate, because it has been illuminating for me. I promise you, I could not do justice to what has been said; I would speak for too long and that would probably meet with your disapproval.

First, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that I am not chiding anyone about using the right. It was plain that the right to vote or speak against such a proposal was put into primary legislation for good reason. That is not chiding: I welcome it, I applaud it, and those who pushed it were right to push it.

Secondly, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, that I read documents and understand that students will not be repaying while they are at university. I hope that everyone in the House will do each other the credit of believing that they have read and understood the fundamental documents, without patronising one another.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I should declare an interest as chancellor of the University of Essex, of which the noble Lord is a distinguished graduate. He says that he has read all the relevant documents. Has he read the document issued yesterday by Universities UK, which is the umbrella body for all the universities in the United Kingdom? It states that, the cuts having been decided on,

“we recognise that the government's proposals are the best option in the current circumstances, and in many respects are more progressive than the current arrangements … Universities UK urges the House of Lords to support the raising of the tuition fee cap”.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, knows perfectly well that I have read it. Not only have I read it but I understand what motivates it. If the ship is going down, you get in the lifeboat. That is a simple matter. You do not quarrel about the painted colour of the lifeboat; you get in the lifeboat.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

My Lords—

[Lord Triesman]

I wanted to complete my point about the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown. It is simply this. There is no question in my mind, and it is not a Dickensian point, that people who are in the lowest-income families do not set off to attract massive debt. There is a huge dissuasion in that. Anyone who has come up through one of those families or one of those areas will know it.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

I completely share the noble Lord’s view about families with the poorest incomes, but why is it that his party—and, indeed, many of the demonstrators—consistently override the fact that the offer being made by the coalition would help those in the least well-off families by increasing the level at which they repay, by lengthening the period over which they repay and by recognising that they, including part-timers, should pay nothing up front? It is time that we had candour on both sides of this argument, not just on one.

[Lord Triesman]

I can only say to the noble Baroness, for whom I have genuinely huge respect, that the reality in those families is that they have to have confidence to believe that university is for them, despite the fact that there has often never been a history in those families of going to university. They have to believe that it will work for them and that they will not, through the rest of their lives, regret having made that change.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords—

[Lord Triesman]

I think that we are coming towards the end, and I promised that I will be brief, so let me finish.

I ask the House: please study the facts, establish the evidence and take your decisions based on the knowledge that we have, not on hopeful guesses about what may take place. If you do not think that the evidence is there, set in motion a means of achieving that evidence, so that decisions can be taken on the evidence.

Many in this House with great distinction have argued over the years that we should always go for pre-legislative scrutiny and that we should spend the time to make sure that we knew what we were doing. Two and three-quarter hours is a fair time, but it is not the scrutiny that should change the university system of the United Kingdom for decades to come, without the knowledge that is essential to take that decision.

I have argued that I believe that it will be fundamentally damaging; I know that others will argue—on the supply and the demand side, incidentally—that that is not the case. That debate cannot be held until the White Paper promised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the other bits of this picture are in front of the House, so that the entire picture can be studied.

That is my final point to the House. It is about the dignity and the way in which the House deals with itself. Fundamental change—game-changing change in legislation—to be followed by the White Paper that establishes the basic arguments? That cannot conceivably be the way for a Parliament to proceed. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

19:56

Division 2

Ayes: 215

---

Labour: 170
Crossbench: 27
Liberal Democrat: 5
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Bishops: 2
Independent: 2
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 283

---

Conservative: 165
Liberal Democrat: 58
Crossbench: 47
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
UK Independence Party: 1
Independent: 1

Motion agreed.

20:14

Motion to Approve

Moved by

[Lord Henley]

That, for the purpose of section 24 of the Higher Education Act 2004, the higher amount should be increased to £9,000, and to £4,500 in the cases described in Regulation 5 of the draft regulations in Command Paper 7986, and that the increase should take effect from 1 September 2012.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I have spoken to this Motion, and I think that I would weary the House if I spoke again. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

[Lord Triesman]

Leave out from “that” to the end and insert: “this House regrets that the Government has failed to consult adequately with parents, students, higher education bodies, employers and local authorities on raising student tuition fees and to convince many people of the fairness and sustainability of its proposals for funding higher education; urges the Government to undertake more public consultation on the issue, including consultation with future graduates and their families who did not contribute to the consultation over the Browne review; further considers that there should be an independent impact assessment on (a) the financial consequences of the proposed fees on students from both lower and middle income families, (b) the financial consequences of the proposed fees on women, including a full assessment of the impact of the fees on equalities and fairness, and further calls on Her Majesty’s Government to commission new research to analyse the probable impact on demand for university courses of fees being increased to the range of £6,000 to £9,000 per annum from students from lower and middle income families and women; and further considers that, prior to contemplating any increase to the higher amount specified in section 24 of the Education Act 2004, the Government should publish a White Paper on reform of higher education funding, allowing for consultation and for consideration of alternative proposals”.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I think that we on this side, too, have spoken as much as we need to on the £9,000 increase. I beg to move.

20:16

Division 3

Ayes: 200

---

Labour: 157
Crossbench: 26
Liberal Democrat: 4
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Bishops: 2
Independent: 2
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 273

---

Conservative: 163
Liberal Democrat: 57
Crossbench: 41
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
UK Independence Party: 1
Independent: 1

Motion agreed.

Motion to Resolve

20:31

Tabled by

[Lord Bilimoria]

To move to resolve that this House accepts that an increase in tuition fees is necessary to maintain and improve higher education in this country; but regrets the drastic cuts in higher education funding and the multi-fold increase in tuition fees being proposed to fill the gap created by these cuts; and calls on the Government to consider and report to Parliament on the possibility of staggering and phasing in over a period of years any increases in tuition fees and not to implement the increases all at once in 2012.

[Lord Bilimoria]

We have had an extensive debate and the Government have won the vote in both Houses. My Motion does not propose to change anything but acknowledges only that we as a House regret that higher education funding has been cut and that, as a result, tuition fees have had to be put up to such an extent. It requests that the Government consider not postponing the increase but implementing it in a staged manner from 2012 onwards. The reason for this is that we have balanced the books of the country and of universities but we have not thought enough about the students. They will suffer so much because of this and the Motion would have helped them. The perception at the moment is that the Government do not care enough, and we all need to be wary about that perception.

However, given the way in which the debate and the votes have gone, I shall not move my Motion.

Motion not moved.

Superannuation Bill

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Lords Chamber

Returned from the Commons

The Bill was returned from the Commons with the Lords amendments agreed to.

House adjourned at 8.33 pm.