House of Commons

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

Monday 20 December 2010

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

1. What recent representations he has received on the objectives of vocational education; and if he will make a statement.

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

The Secretary of State for Education has asked Professor Alison Wolf to carry out a review of vocational education. I am working closely with her on the development of vocational learning. Professor Wolf’s public call for evidence promoted a large number of submissions, and she will report in spring 2011.

[Guy Opperman]

My head teacher at the Prudhoe community high school makes the point that rural areas such as south Northumberland are at a huge disadvantage given that their transport costs, travel times and poor infrastructure seem to be tailored to an urban model. Will rural areas get a voice in future, and will a member of the ministerial team meet the head teachers from my region in the spring?

[Mr Hayes]

As I am sure my hon. Friend may have anticipated, I will be delighted to meet him and the representatives of those organisations. We are absolutely clear there should be a vocational pathway that is as rigorous and accessible as the academic route, and it should be available to people in rural areas, which is why I am particularly conscious of transport and other issues that might inhibit that.

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

How can we see more young people in vocational education if the Minister is taking the axe to the education maintenance allowances, 4,000 of which were paid to people in my city of Nottingham? When the Education Secretary told The Guardian on 2 March this year that he would not be scrapping EMAs, should they not have taken that statement at face value?

[Mr Hayes]

Of course, I know Nottingham very well—rather better, I might say, than the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] No, I do not say that in anything other than the kindest possible way. As a result however, I am well aware of some of the issues associated with disadvantage in that city. Might I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read the work of the late Ken Coates, “Poverty: The Forgotten Englishmen”, a definitive study of poverty in St Ann’s, Nottingham? We will fight to preserve the interests of disadvantaged people, for that is our mission.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

3. What assessment he has made of the effect on post-16 participation rates of replacing the education maintenance allowance.

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

7. What assessment he has made of the effect on post-16 participation rates of replacing the education maintenance allowance.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

May I take this opportunity to wish you, Mr Speaker, and every Member of the House the compliments of the season and a very happy Christmas? As we all know, Christmas is a season of unexpected largesse when Members will find gifts of all shapes and sizes suddenly descending into their laps from all quarters. In that respect, Mr Speaker, may I also say that I hope you, like every Member, has the chance to enjoy a well-filled stocking this Christmas time? [Interruption.] It is a tradition of this time.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Behind you!

[Michael Gove]

Behind me there are many Members who support our position on EMA and they, like me, are committed to making sure that young people participate in education and training until they are 18. Therefore, we will replace EMA with a fund that can more effectively target those young people who actually need the support to enable them to participate in learning.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My constituency has the highest unemployment rate in the country. In order to reverse that, young people in Birmingham, Ladywood need to stay on post-16, to gain skills and qualifications to enable them to find work. EMA is vital in that. At City college in my constituency, 68% of students receive EMA, and they tell me that scrapping it will have a devastating impact on students in the poorest areas, and put them off staying on. Why are the Government kicking the ladder from under the feet of young people trying to get on?

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady; she makes her point with characteristic passion and her question is, typically, well informed. At a time when, as the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, “There is no money left”, we have to ensure that every penny we spend is targeted on those most in need. I am sure that the hon. Lady agrees that it is important that policy is based on evidence, and the evidence suggests that some who are in receipt of EMA would continue in education without it. Therefore, we are going to make sure that the money we have is targeted more effectively on those who need it most, and more details will become apparent in the new year.

[Bridget Phillipson]

On the issue of evidence, the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that the economic benefits of EMA will outweigh its costs; the money put in delivers results in the long term. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the replacement scheme for EMA is just as cost-effective?

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her question, which is also characteristically well informed. I have great respect for the IFS, and it has previously reported that there is no statistically significant information that EMA has either raised the attainment of young women or increased participation rates among young men. We will ensure, however, that the replacement is sufficiently well targeted to ensure that it provides value for money. I must stress that it is in everyone’s interests that more young people stay on in education for longer.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that where discretionary spending to help students participate in full-time education is available, it should be focused on specific barriers that they face, rather than be a one-off, tokenistic payment that might not actually meet the needs of, for instance, many disabled students for whom participating in education will cost far more than £30 a week?

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and I thought it uncharacteristically discourteous of Labour Members not to listen to him in silence. As the only Member of this House to have attended a special school, he speaks with a degree of authority that Labour Members would do well to pay attention to. He makes the point crystal clear: we need to ensure that there is sufficient discretionary support for students who are living with handicaps and who have suffered from disability. I am only sorry that Labour Members saw fit to greet his comments with the sort of grumbling and mumbling more appropriate to a student union than the mother of Parliaments.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

I agree with the Secretary of State that the money paid as part of EMA should be much better targeted. The current arrangements for the learner support fund exclude payments for travel, so can he assure me that travel costs will be considered a legitimate part of the future discretionary learner support fund?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, describing one of the reasons for reviewing the travel entitlement for all students and learners. We want to make sure that any support we provide is to overcome barriers, which include travel to work costs, as well as paying for rent, subsistence or the supply of textbooks and other materials that are needed. It was striking that during the Labour leadership election the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) said that he would be happy to see EMA go if it were replaced by an allowance for travel, so there is a consensus that the current system is capable of reform. It is one that unites the two Front-Bench teams, even if it does not embrace everyone in the House.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I start by reciprocating on behalf of the Opposition Front-Bench team the good wishes of Government Front Benchers, including the Secretary of State. We are grateful for the gift that he has delivered to us today, although I cannot promise that the good will is going to last for this entire Question Time.

I would like to treat the House to the full quotation referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) a moment ago:

“Ed Balls keeps saying that we are committed to scrapping the EMA. I have never said this. We won’t.”

Will the Secretary of State today apologise to the 600,000 young people who receive EMA and who took him at his word?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful for the generous seasonal words offered by the right hon. Gentleman, but when it comes to apologies, it is those of us on the Government Benches who are waiting for an apology from him and from all his colleagues who were in government. When he says that we should spend money on this, that or the next thing, one thing is never acknowledged: his and his colleagues’ responsibility for the dire economic mess in which we were left. As a result of forming the coalition Government, two parties are working together to get us out of the mess that his party left us in. May I suggest that he gives us all a Christmas present: a single act of contrition? He should give us a single word for the economic mess that he created: sorry.

[Andy Burnham]

When we hear bluster like that, we see a pattern repeating itself. It is school sport all over again: a bad decision with dodgy statistics to justify it. Let us take the Secretary of State’s only argument against EMA head on: the 90% deadweight. On the Government’s own figures, because of EMA 76,000 young people stay on who might otherwise have become NEETs—those not in education, employment or training. Research for the Audit Commission puts the annual cost of a young person not in education, employment or training at £55,000, and 76,000 times £55,000 is more than £4 billion. Do these figures not demolish the Government’s last remaining argument against EMA and show that the IFS is right to say that EMA more than pays for itself?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful for that display of mental arithmetic, which means that Carol Vorderman’s place on Countdown can easily be succeeded by the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] It is time to bring it back, if only to provide him with a platform equal to his talents. The truth is that only 12% of young people who are eligible for EMA say that they would not participate without it. We need to ensure that money is better targeted on those who need it most. His Government commissioned the National Foundation for Educational Research to conduct a survey on who was receiving support and who should receive support to stay in learning. That report, commissioned by his Government, pointed out that it would be beneficial better to target financial support at the most vulnerable groups—that was the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). The right hon. Gentleman’s own Government’s research points out that this money is spent inefficiently. Of course it was spent inefficiently under his rule, but this coalition Government will ensure that the money available for 16 to 18-year-olds is targeted at those who need it most, so that those in the poorest circumstances get more.

[Andy Burnham]

I have seen enough of the right hon. Gentleman in action to know that weak jokes clearly mean he is in trouble. I think we can now safely give him his end-of-year report card. On Building Schools for the Future, school sports and now the education maintenance allowance he has shown poor attention to detail and a failure to do his homework. On the big decisions, things that people care about, he is cavalier—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. This is Question Time. We must have short questions and short answers, so may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to conclude his question?

[Andy Burnham]

Let me quote briefly from the Secretary of State’s White Paper. It states:

“No-one is helped when poor performance remains unaddressed.”

Will he make a new year’s resolution today to live by the same exacting standards as he expects schools to apply to their teachers?

[Michael Gove]

I am afraid that that performance fell below even the right hon. Gentleman’s flawed standards. The truth is that the shadow Education Secretary needs to learn that, instead of simply providing a draft of an op-ed piece as a question, he needs to come up with policies that will convince people that he has learned the lesson of his Government’s defeat. He cannot simply say that the answer to every problem is more money. He cannot simply say, as he said during the leadership election, that he wants

“closer ties to the trade union movement”

at the same time as that trade union movement is calling for an all-out assault against this Government. He cannot consistently move to the left, opportunistically—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Secretary of State will resume his seat. That response—I use the word response, rather than answer, advisedly—has nothing to do with the subject matter on the Order Paper.

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

4. What plans he has to review the curriculum for science and mathematics A-levels.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

We will ensure that A-levels assess the knowledge that universities demand from candidates. We have asked the regulator, Ofqual, to examine how to ensure that re-sits and modularity are not damaging in-depth study and we are working with it to develop a process for involving universities and learned societies in the design and development of A-levels, which commands wide support. Mathematics and science A-levels will be reviewed through the new arrangements in due course.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that he shares my concern that we have slipped down the international competitiveness ratings for educational attainment, especially in maths and science. My personal experience of A-levels and my more recent experience of speaking to examiners show that the number of topics that students have to cover to get exactly the same A-level has contracted. That is a worrying trend; will my hon. Friend look into it with Ofqual?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend is right to raise those concerns. That is why it is so important to involve universities and learned societies in A-level development and to ensure that qualifications in this country are on a par with those in the highest performing jurisdictions in the world. That is why we have asked Ofqual to review the impact of the recent changes to A-levels, to which my hon. Friend referred. We are talking to universities about how we can ensure their effective involvement in determining the knowledge and aptitude expected in A-levels, not only in science subjects and maths but in other academic subjects, too.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

We welcome the review of the science and maths curriculum, but why are this Government so obsessed with science, technology, engineering and maths—the STEM subjects? Will this Government’s war on the humanities in the universities not affect the balance of teaching in our schools? Why are this Government quite so philistine?

[Mr Gibb]

I think that that is an unnecessary comment. We have made it very clear—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is on record countless times talking about the importance of history, and I have talked about the importance of geography. The international baccalaureate, which we have introduced, sets out a key minimum that we expect schools to teach: English, maths, a modern foreign language and history or geography as a humanity. That demonstrates the importance that we attach not only to STEM subjects but to the humanities.

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

The Institution of Mechanical Engineers has produced a report noting that broad choices about STEM subjects are taken between the ages of 11 and 14. I agree with looking at A-level science subjects, but should we not concentrate particularly on helping younger children progress into science and maths?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and it is disappointing that too few young people study the three separate sciences—biology, chemistry and physics—through to GCSE. That is why we have introduced the concept of an English baccalaureate: to encourage a broad range of academic subjects to be taught and taken up to the age of 16, particularly in maths and the other STEM subjects.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

5. What plans he has to ensure the availability of high-quality, affordable child care in all areas.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)]

Local authorities have statutory duties to secure sufficient child care for working parents and to assess child care provision in their area. They also have a duty to secure 15 hours a week of free nursery education for 38 weeks per year for all three and four-year-olds. Statutory guidance requires local authorities to take into account the quality, flexibility and accessibility of places and the range of provision available to meet the needs of parents.

[Phil Wilson]

What assessment has the Minister made of the effects of removing the requirement from Sure Start children’s centres to provide child care?

[Sarah Teather]

That has not happened. What has been removed is the requirement to provide full day-care services in the most disadvantaged areas. We have done that because early-years providers have consistently told us that in some areas the demand is not there. When that happens, children’s centres find that they have to subsidise child care, or at least empty places, at the expense of providing early-intervention programmes that might have made a real difference for those families. This is simply about providing flexibility. In areas where demand continues, I would expect local authorities to want their children’s centres to go on providing that service, but where the demand is not there, it does not make sense to divert money that could be better spent.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The Independent on 5 May quoted the Deputy Prime Minister as saying that

“Sure Start is one of the best things the last government has done and I want all these centres to stay open.”

How many Sure Start children’s centres does the Minister estimate will close down next year on his and her watch? And I wish her a merry Christmas.

[Sarah Teather]

I also wish the hon. Gentleman a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

Sure Start children’s centres are at the heart of the Government’s programme for early years. They are absolutely vital, and that is why we asked the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) to do the work on early intervention that will be coming forward in the new year. It is also why we are considering piloting payment by results—to try to make sure that local authorities have an incentive to do such work. There is a legal duty to ensure that there are sufficient children’s centres available, but the hon. Gentleman will be well aware that it is for local authorities to decide. However, I have been very clear with local authorities that we expect them to look at the evidence on early intervention and to make sure that they prioritise it. I think that children’s centres are an absolutely vital part of that work.

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

6. What recent discussions he has had with head teachers, teachers and governors of educational establishments on the implementation of any replacement for education maintenance allowance.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

We are currently working with representatives of schools, colleges and training providers to finalise the arrangements for the enhanced discretionary learner support fund, including how the funding will flow from local authorities to institutions and what guidance is required to administer the fund effectively.

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Some 4,000 young people in Wolverhampton benefited from the education maintenance allowance last year and, as my right hon. Friend the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) have said, the Institute for Fiscal Studies demonstrates that the EMA is cost-effective. Has there been a cost-benefit analysis of the EMA’s replacement and will the loss of productivity of the young people whom the replacement will fail to support be taken into account?

[Michael Gove]

There was a cost-benefit analysis under the previous Government of the EMA by the NFER—that is enough initials—which pointed out that it would be more beneficial and would cost less to target funds on the learners who are in the most need.

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

This Government are to increase the compulsory age of education to 18, thereby removing the need to incentivise 16 to 18-year-olds to stay in education. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that will increase social mobility if we offer vocational and academic studies?

[Michael Gove]

Yes, my hon. Friend makes an impeccable point. We are committed to raising the participation age, and we have funded the raising of the participation age. The Opposition have not yet explained how they would pay for the maintenance of the EMA or any of their other spending cuts, but I look forward to hearing from hon. Members in the course of the next half hour how they would pay for their promises.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Three thousand, seven hundred and fifty-six young people have lost EMA in Tottenham, and Tottenham now has the highest unemployment in London. In light of that cut, will the Secretary of State tell the House how many apprenticeships he has delivered since May?

[Michael Gove]

We have secured funding for an additional 75,000 apprenticeships beyond those that the previous Government secured. As a result of that additional investment, we will be making sure that young people have a better chance than they had under the previous Government.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

8. What steps his Department is taking to ensure that children’s centres meet the needs of new parents.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)]

The early-intervention grant contains enough money to maintain the network of Sure Start children’s centres so that they are accessible to all and supporting families in greatest need. Local services, including outreach, family support and health have a critical role in linking new families to centres that use evidenced-based programmes. The Department of Health will shortly provide more detail on its plans to recruit 4,200 extra health visitors to provide increased support to all families.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the most profound impact on a baby’s life is its earliest relationship with its parents or carers, and that the best thing that Sure Start children’s centres can do is to provide support for those new parents in forming those relationships that will lead to lifelong mental health?

[Sarah Teather]

I absolutely agree. That is why the Government are committed to recruiting so many new health visitors. It is also why we have doubled the family nurse partnership programme, which particularly supports very young families who are vulnerable and has been shown to have a dramatic impact on child development and that bond between parents and child.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that cutting the money provided to Sure Start children’s centres can hardly be a good idea? Is it not a fact that the budget is shrinking, and that the budget for the new health visitors will come out of that for the children’s centres? That means an overall decline in the amount of money.

[Sarah Teather]

No, that is not true. The early-intervention grant is a substantial, flexible grant that contains more than enough money to maintain the network of Sure Start children’s centres. It is a deliberately flexible grant because we want local authorities to think innovatively about the way in which they link services together. I want them to use the assets that are children’s centres. I want them to make sure, for example, that they are providing family support in children’s centres and perhaps providing services for older children where that is appropriate. The flexible grant, which is larger than that for Sure Start, should allow them to do that.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

How will the work of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) on the foundation years—improving life chances for disadvantaged children—help to inform my hon. Friend’s approach to the early years?

[Sarah Teather]

The report by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) is an extremely useful contribution to the debate, especially given his focus on prioritising early years, which supports the work that the Government are already doing to make sure that we are investing particularly in a free entitlement for two-year-olds, which will become statutory by 2013. We are also taking forward the work that he did on life chances indices, which will support the wider work of the Government on child poverty.

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

10. What assessment he has made of the effects of local government funding allocations on services provided to schools by local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

Schools have been protected in this spending round. The schools budget has been protected in cash terms, and in addition schools will receive the pupil premium. Funding for local authorities has been reduced, so local authorities will need to prioritise services where they have greatest effect and look at opportunities for delivering services more cost effectively, which will include working with other local authorities.

[Natascha Engel]

Deincourt school in my constituency was closed on the understanding that its pupils would move to the neighbouring school in Tibshelf, which was waiting for Building Schools for the Future funding to expand. Deincourt students have now arrived at Tibshelf but the BSF money, of course, has not. Tibshelf is now facing the prospect of having its services cut as a result of the local government funding settlement. What has the Minister got against Tibshelf school?

[Tim Loughton]

I assure the hon. Lady that neither I nor the ministerial team has anything against Tibshelf school. I remind her that Derbyshire has been allocated £91 million of capital funding support for BSF, and to date it has been paid £25 million in conventional funding for BSF, too. If there are special circumstances regarding that school, I am sure that she will make representations to the ministerial team accordingly, and that we will respond.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

When Tony Blair came to power, he said that his first three priorities were education, education, education. During the Labour Government, however, standards fell in reading, science and maths. Does the Minister agree that what counts is not the amount of money one puts in, but how it is spent?

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which, although not just about education, is more starkly about education than anything else. Just investing money without focusing it on the quality of the outcomes does not make for a good investment, and this Government see things differently from the previous Government, who purely grandstanded on the amount of taxpayers’ money that they could throw at a problem, without taking account of the quality of the outcomes for the students leaving our schools.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

It is the end of term, and if the Minister had been a pupil in my A-level economics class I would have to give him a grade E, because, although he shows some understanding of basic economic concepts, he cannot seem to grasp the difference between a real-terms change and a money change in a budget. I will give him the chance to re-sit, however. Now that his Department has admitted that schools will see a real cut in their budgets amounting to 3.4% or £170 per pupil by the end of the spending review period, will he finally admit that there is no real pupil premium, just a pupil con?

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that, if his Government had left any money in the kitty, none of those funding assessments would be necessary. The truth is that schools funding, above many other things, has been protected, with an extra £3.6 billion in cash terms by the end of the comprehensive spending review period. In addition, pupil premium money will be focused on those pupils most in need—those who were most neglected by his Government.

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

11. What steps his Department is taking to increase the ranking of schools in England in international league tables of educational attainment.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

The OECD’s programme for international student assessment—PISA—report, published on 7 December, shows that this country fell from fourth to 16th in science, from seventh to 25th in reading and from eighth to 28th in maths. The lessons from PISA on the hallmarks of high-performing systems are clear, and they are reflected in the direction of policy in our White Paper, “The Importance of Teaching.”

[Stephen Phillips]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. According to the OECD report that he mentions, UK teenagers in full-time education were outscored by their peers from, among other countries, Estonia, Liechtenstein and Slovenia. Does he agree that, if the previous Government’s watchword was supposed to be education, education, education, the record that they left for this Government and for far too many of our young people was one of failure, failure, failure?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend raises a very good point. However one wants to describe the previous Labour Government’s record, it is clear that we have fallen in the international educational attainment rankings, and that is why our White Paper focuses on reducing the bureaucracy that confronts our schools. We want to trust professionals and to increase the autonomy of schools. In our White Paper, we have a real focus on behaviour, on raising standards of reading, on raising the quality of the curriculum and on reviewing the national curriculum—should I go on Mr Speaker?—in all the policy areas that we intend to implement over the coming years in order to improve the quality of education in this country and to see a rise in our international rankings.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

12. What discussions he had with Baroness Campbell and the Youth Sport Trust during his review of school sports policy.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

Baroness Campbell and the Youth Sport Trust have been closely involved in developing our proposals to create an Olympic and Paralympic-style school sport competition. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is leading that work and has held regular meetings with a range of interested bodies, including the Youth Sport Trust. Ministers and officials from this Department attend those meetings. My officials and I have had a range of discussions with Baroness Campbell in the course of developing our wider proposals for school sport, and we are delighted that she, like so many others, supports our new approach to school sports, with a new emphasis on encouraging participation in competitive sports.

[Clive Efford]

This is a very humiliating day for the Secretary of State. He wrote a letter to Baroness Campbell, saying that he would spend the £162 million in funding for school sport through schools, but we now know that he has secured only less than half that money. So, it was his intention to pass on those cuts and make schools responsible for them, not to take responsibility for them himself. If Baroness Campbell is so involved in developing school sport, why did it take 600,000 people to sign a petition before he even met her? Should he not get up at that Dispatch Box and apologise?

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, but he should do his homework first. I met Baroness Campbell on two occasions before we made our announcement: I enjoyed dinner with her and I enjoyed meeting her when we were launching our school sports Olympics at a school sport partnership in south-east London. I subsequently met Baroness Campbell and many other sports people. I have been meeting more sports people in the course of the past two weeks than I might have anticipated at this time of year, and every one of those conversations has been fruitful and constructive. As a result of those conversations, we have ensured that we are able to strip out the bureaucracy that characterised the worst of the previous Government’s legacy and concentrate on building on the best. That is why not just Baroness Campbell but Dame Kelly Holmes has said that our approach to school sport is right. In the spirit of seasonal good cheer, I hope that the rest of the House will get behind those two fantastic female standard-bearers for sport.

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

May I say how refreshing it is to have a Government who listen to representations and are prepared to think again? However, will the Secretary of State give the details of any change as soon as possible to people who will be affected? Redundancy processes are already in place, including at a school in my constituency in relation to the roles of development manager, part-time assistant and administrative worker for sports schemes.

[Michael Gove]

The important point about our scheme is that we are giving schools additional money to support the participation of more children in competitive sports. As the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) pointed out, we are ring-fencing schools spending in cash terms and ensuring that the pupil premium is there to help the most disadvantaged. There will also be additional funding for every secondary school to ensure that it can maintain, if it wishes, its full role in a school sport partnership. However, let me make it clear: that money is for head teachers to spend. We are making sure that the bureaucracy that tied their hands in the past goes.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

John Barker runs the school sport partnerships in Bolsover and works at Tibshelf school, which has already been mentioned today, in my constituency. If the Secretary of State could, under this new deal, give him a job running the whole Bolsover school sport partnership and provide a new school building at Tibshelf as well, he would kill two birds with one stone. The school sport partnership will be happy; the Tibshelf people will be happy; and the 100-year-old school in Tibshelf that is being held up by pit props will be replaced. Can he give that guarantee?

[Michael Gove]

I have to say that if I leave the House at the end of today having made the hon. Gentleman a happy man, I will consider my political career to have reached its peak. I seriously accept both the case that he makes for capital funding for Tibshelf school, which is in his constituency, not that of the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), and the case for support for the gentleman he mentions. I am sure that the money will be there to ensure that that gentleman can carry on his good work. As the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), made clear, capital funding is available for Derbyshire and I will ensure that capital funding is in future targeted on those areas of greatest need. There are few areas of greater need than those that the hon. Gentleman represents, and few are lucky to have such an eloquent advocate.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

We welcome the Secretary of State’s humiliating climbdown on the school sport partnerships. It is hard to know what is most disgraceful: the refusal to meet Baroness Campbell or the way the Government badmouthed the Youth Sport Trust, the hundreds of school sports co-ordinators and the thousands of volunteers. The Secretary of State said that school sport partnerships had failed, another Minister slammed them and even the Prime Minister said they had a terrible record. Now, in the face of a storm of protest, the Government claim to be leaving them in place until shortly after the Olympics, albeit with dramatically less funding. We hope that the Secretary of State learns a lesson from this, which is just the latest shambles he has presided over. Will he acknowledge that school sports partnerships have not failed and have not got a terrible record, and will he promise to back them up to the Olympics and beyond?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In future, questions must be briefer, and I know that the Secretary of State will now provide an example of a brief reply.

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s pre-written question, which was so old that it could have been a primary source in a GCSE history paper and so long that one could have used it instead of the Bayeux tapestry. Anyway, I am very happy to say that the money is now there from the budget that we had already allocated for sport. If only he had been paying attention during the Opposition day debate that we had four weeks ago, he would have known that.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

13. What recent progress has been made on his Department's academies programme in (a) Tamworth constituency and (b) England.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

Ministers have recently agreed proposals for two new academies to replace four Tamworth schools to be taken to the next stage of development, subject to the approval of the governing bodies. In addition, Landau Forte academy in Tamworth opened in September for 11 to 16-year-old pupils, and its new sixth-form centre will open in September 2011. Across England, there are now well over 350 academies, of which 158 have opened during this academic year.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he, with me, congratulate all the other secondary schools in Tamworth that are now pursuing academy status beyond the dead hand of the LEA? Will he agree to support, to the best of his ability, those potential academies and academies sponsored by E-ACT that may wish to offer sixth-form provision if there is demand for it in the town?

[Mr Gibb]

I congratulate Queen Elizabeth’s Mercian school, Belgrave high school, Rawlett community sports college and Wilnecote high school on seeking academy status. The OECD research is clear that autonomy at school level, combined with objective external assessment, is the key to success. We are keen to improve the quality of sixth-form provision and to look at all proposals. In the case of Tamworth, that would mean considering this in the light of the new sixth-form centre that is currently being built and due to open next year.

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

14. What funding his Department provides through local authorities for the education of children with chronic medical conditions who spend significant periods of time in hospital.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)]

My Department does not collect this information, but we are committed to ensuring that children with long-term illnesses receive as normal an education as possible. Statutory guidance published jointly with the Department of Health sets out the national minimum standards for the education of children who are unable to attend school because of medical needs.

[Dr Poulter]

I thank the Minister for her reply. I am sure she is aware of the excellent work done by all staff in hospital school rooms in looking after pupils who have long-term illnesses. Will she join me in congratulating Ipswich hospital school room on treating, on average, 2,200 pupils every year who have chronic medical conditions? Does she agree that it is very important that all local education authorities invest properly in these school rooms and ensure that they have permanent staff who can work properly with children who are the most vulnerable and the most sick?

[Sarah Teather]

I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating those involved in the example from his constituency. This is an issue to which I feel personally very committed, having spent many of my teenage years in and out of hospital, experiencing not always good educational provision in hospital schools. I am afraid that not everybody is as lucky as the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. I am very committed to working on this issue with the Department of Health to try to ensure that quality is as good across the country as it has been in his constituency.

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

Of course a child who is off school ill may not necessarily be in hospital, so their education has to take account of that. Will the hon. Lady have a word with her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about this? The way that the benefit system works, particularly regarding disability living allowance, means that many such families are finding it very difficult to provide security to their children so that they can learn, because their mobility allowance or care allowance is stopping and starting as the children move in and out of hospital, and that is causing huge disruption because the family cannot plan and their finances are on a precarious footing.

[Sarah Teather]

The hon. Lady is correct to say that particularly now, when there is more of a focus on not being in hospital and being treated in the community, children with chronic medical conditions are less likely to be educated in hospital schools. I am sure that my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions will take note of her comments, which I will bring to their attention.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

17. What recent representations he has received on school standards in (a) Central Devon constituency and (b) England.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

No representations have been received on school standards in Central Devon. We have, of course, received many representations about standards in schools nationally. In 2010, at key stage 2, 78% of pupils in Central Devon achieved level 4 or above in English and maths combined, compared with 73% in England. In 2009, at key stage 4, 55.5% of pupils in Central Devon achieved five or more GCSEs at grade A* to C, including English and maths, compared with 50.9% in England as a whole.

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Historically, Devon has suffered from a lower dedicated schools grant than other parts of the country. Will he confirm that he is looking closely at per pupil funding, and that schools in my constituency can expect a fairer deal in the future?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend will be aware that last Monday we announced the school funding settlement for 2011-12. The overall schools budget is being maintained at a flat cash per pupil rate so that as pupil numbers rise, the overall budget rises. In addition, we are introducing a pupil premium, which will be worth £625 million next year, and will provide schools with £430 for every pupil who is known to be eligible for free school meals. In Devon, the dedicated schools grant is £4,602 per pupil and the capital amount is £24.6 million for 2011-12. We recognise that the school funding system is currently unfair, opaque and illogical. A number of local authorities, particularly those in the F40 group, believe that they are not funded correctly. We will consider that over the longer term to address that unfairness.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I encourage the Minister to address the House. It is no good his looking behind him, because hon. Members cannot hear him.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

18. What assessment he has made of the effect on school budgets of funding allocations to local authority education services for 2011-12.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

The Government recently announced the 2011-12 school funding settlement. Indeed, the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), has just been dilating on it. The schools budget will stay at a flat cash per pupil rate, before the addition of the pupil premium. The actual level of budget for each school will vary according to its local authority’s funding formula and pupil numbers. There will be a minimum funding guarantee, so that no school will see a reduction, compared to 2010-11, of more than 1.5% per pupil before the pupil premium is applied.

[John Cryer]

May I return to reality for a couple of minutes? I represent some of the poorest wards in London, and that is against some pretty stiff competition. The schools in those wards face a sharp increase in pupil numbers over many years, in particular over the next year or two. At the same time, funding is being cut, whatever the Secretary of State says. Even taking account of the pupil premium, funding per pupil will reduce. Is that what he had in mind when he drew up his plan?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but the truth is that facts are chiels that winna ding. The facts are that we are ensuring that the education budget increases by £3.6 billion.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

In real terms?

[Michael Gove]

That is in real money, actually. It will increase by £3.6 billion over the next four years. The Labour party could guarantee increases in education funding only for two years; we have guaranteed them for four, along with £2.5 billion for the poorest children and £1.1 billion to take account of pupil numbers. We are delivering growth in education spending that Labour could not afford and could not promise. That is a vindication of the progressive goals that the coalition has set itself.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

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

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

I am delighted to say that the Government are looking closely at the matters that affect disadvantaged students who attend the college that my hon. Friend represents.

[Jane Ellison]

The Minister has visited South Thames college in my constituency. Like many further education colleges, it has warmly welcomed the freeing up of colleges from bureaucracy, and the extra freedoms and flexibilities that they have been granted. Such colleges would like more information, if the Minister can provide it, on how they might use the enhanced discretionary support fund to support the most disadvantaged young people, particularly those who are starting two-year courses.

[Mr Hayes]

I was pleased to visit the college with my hon. Friend and I am delighted that it recognises the progress that we are making in giving colleges additional freedom, so that they can innovate and excel. I understand from looking at the figures before today that the college has among its learners a number of disadvantaged students. We will look closely at these matters to ensure that those students get every opportunity to fulfil their potential, for my party is the party of Wilberforce, Shaftesbury and Disraeli, and the elevation of the people is in our hearts.

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

T2. On the education maintenance allowance, will the Secretary of State comment on two findings of the Institute for Fiscal Studies? The first is that the A-level results of recipients are, on average, four grades higher on the UCAS tariff than those of people who do not receive EMA. The second is that the so-called dead-weight costs of the EMA are less than those of initiatives that the Government are introducing, such as the relief on employers’ national insurance contributions. Does that not show that the Government are making less a policy based on evidence and more a cut based on ideology?

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

That is a very good question, actually—much better than any of those from the Labour Front Bench. Unfortunately, the evidence does not stack up. The IFS actually pointed out that there had been no increase in participation and only a modest increase in attainment, and the National Foundation for Educational Research pointed out that the dead-weight cost was roughly 88%, so only 12% of students were participating who would not otherwise have participated. Clearly we can have more effective targeting. Just because many policies carry a dead weight, that does not mean that all policies should. Neither, indeed, should all Front Benches carry dead weight.

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

T3. My right hon. and hon. Friends will be aware of Operation Golf, the Metropolitan police’s operation in London that has identified several hundred trafficked children on the streets of the capital, mostly from eastern Europe. What consideration have they given to ensuring that those children receive a decent education while they remain in the United Kingdom?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I recently had a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who takes the lead on trafficking. We want to ensure not only that those children are picked up at the border whenever possible and that we can track their whereabouts in this country, but that when we do know their whereabouts we work with local education authorities to ensure that they get the education to which they are entitled and which they desperately need. We must help them to shake off the people who have trafficked them, in many cases under the most gruesome circumstances.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

T5. Can the Minister confirm that the budget for the new early intervention grant, which includes funding for Sure Start, will be almost 11% lower next year than the current funding for the various programmes, and 7.5% lower in 2012? Can she tell the House by what definition of flexibility that is not a cut?

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)]

The hon. Lady will be aware, especially if she has listened to the answers to previous questions, that when her party was in government it unfortunately spent all the money. We simply cannot fund everything at the same level as before; otherwise we will never be able to tackle the deficit.

By producing a flexible grant, we are responding to what local government has asked us to do. It has asked us, especially at a time when money is difficult, to create one large, flexible budget to ensure that it can prioritise based on local need. That means it will be able to fund things in a different way. If we tell local government that it has to fund things in one exact way, with certain priorities and in a certain order, it has no flexibility to focus on local areas. A flexible grant will allow it to prioritise funds and change the way in which it provides services locally.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

T4. I am currently representing two families in my constituency who have been unable to get their children into a primary school along with their older siblings, owing to infant class size legislation. That has caused considerable distress to the families involved. Will my hon. Friend review the impact that infant class size legislation is having on families who wish their children to attend the same primary school?

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

As my hon. Friend knows, the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 places a duty on local authorities and schools to limit the size of infant classes taught by one teacher to 30 pupils. It makes exceptions for exceptional circumstances, such as when a child moves into an area outside the normal admissions round and there is no other school within a reasonable distance. Under current legislation, however, siblings are not included in the list of permitted exception criteria. We announced in the White Paper a review of the school admissions framework so that it will be clearer for parents, and that review will consider the over-subscription criteria, including siblings and the important issue of twins and children from multiple births. In other words, yes.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

T7. Young people may be forgiven for thinking that the Government do not like them very much following their decisions on EMA, tuition fees and the future jobs fund, and the destruction of the youth service. Can we assume that they have abandoned “Aiming High for Young People”, the 10-year strategy for positive activities? As many local authorities are not now fulfilling their statutory duties under the Education Act 2005, will the Secretary of State intervene?

[Michael Gove]

Another beautifully read question. I can tell the hon. Lady which Government betrayed young people—the one whom she supported, who left young people with a huge burden of debt around their necks and record levels of youth unemployment. A higher number of young people were not in education, employment or training when they left office compared with what they inherited. She has a right cheek to ask a question like that at this time of year. The first thing she should do is apologise on behalf of the previous Government for the dreadful mess in which they left the economy.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I endorse the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders). The Government have listened and responded on school sport partnerships. I urge the Secretary of State to ensure that the system is put right as quickly as possible so that staff do not lose their jobs. May I draw his attention to a Westminster Hall debate last week and an excellent suggestion from me on how the rest of it could be funded?

[Michael Gove]

I have always benefited not just from listening to the hon. Gentleman, but from reading his speeches in Hansard. I am thinking of having them bound and giving them as Christmas gifts to many of my friends. On this occasion, I will read with particular attention his contribution to that debate, which I am sure will make us all happier in the new year.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State or one of his ministerial colleagues agree to meet me to discuss Nottinghamshire county council’s proposed closure of Gedling school in my constituency? It is a well supported school and there has been a big campaign against its closure, but despite that, the county council is to continue with its proposals.

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman was a distinguished schools Minister. I should be delighted to meet him at the earliest opportunity.

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

The Secretary of State will be aware that North Yorkshire is the most rural and largest county in the country. We have problems with school transport, even outside the current extreme weather conditions. Will he give an undertaking that the pupil premium will apply first and foremost to rural counties such as North Yorkshire, and not to inner-city schools?

[Michael Gove]

The pupil premium will apply equally across the country, and we will ensure that the disadvantaged children in North Yorkshire who deserve it will receive it on the same basis as every other disadvantaged child.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Since October, I have been requesting that the Secretary of State visit two schools in my constituency, but as yet I have had no reply. As he will be in North Tyneside on 3 February, will he commit to visit Longbenton and Seaton Burn community colleges?

[Michael Gove]

I always enjoy visiting the north-east. I particularly enjoyed my visit a couple of weeks ago, when I had the chance to visit the Duchess high school, Alnwick, and schools in Stanley and Consett. I already have a packed schedule for the day to which the hon. Lady refers—I am due to be in Newcastle and Stockton—but I hope that I can visit North Tyneside, because I also want to visit south Tyneside to congratulate a school in Whitburn that has opted to become an academy. I have to remind the House that the number of schools that have opted to become academies under this Government has dramatically increased. Ninety-four schools have converted, 40 more will convert in January, and 333 have applied to convert, including 64 in the last week alone. [Interruption.] That is a record of reform of which I am afraid the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) can only dream.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

There is considerable concern among many parents that elements of the current sex and relationships education contribute to the early sexualisation of children. What can the Secretary of State do to reassure the House that parents and governors will have significant local input into the framework for sex and relationships education in the curriculum review, so that they can know what is being taught in their local schools?

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. There is a recognition across the House that we need to strike a sensitive balance between the need to protect the innocence of young people and the need to equip them for the modern world. To my mind, that means that sex education needs to be both inclusive and rigorous, and ultimately subject to parental veto. Parents must have the right to withdraw their children from sex education if they consider it inappropriate, and a right to be informed on a local basis how that curriculum is generated. It is right that sex education is a compulsory part of the national curriculum. My Department wants to look at the guidance it provides, in consultation not just with faith groups but with other organisations such as Stonewall, to ensure that the correct balance between inclusivity, tolerance and respect for innocence is maintained.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

In September, I raised concerns on behalf of my constituents about Seaham school of technology, and the Secretary of State kindly wrote back indicating the criteria that would be applied to replace schools cancelled under the Building Schools for the Future programme—notably those in the worst state of dilapidation and where there are pressures on school rolls. May I remind him that Seaham school of technology is in a serious state and is the only school serving a population of about 26,000 in the town of Seaham? He indicated in his letter that he would try to respond by the end of the calendar year, and I am now looking for that response.

[Michael Gove]

That is a fair constituency case. As I pointed out in reply to an earlier question, I am interested in supporting schools in County Durham and the north-east that have faced difficult circumstances, and I have had the chance to see schools in Consett and Stanley that are also in a bad way and need support. They have embraced academy solutions, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to explore such a solution for Seaham, I would be delighted to explore that. In any case, I will look closely at the situation he described to see what can be done.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

The 2009 OECD assessment of UK schools referred to earlier concluded that 77% of the differences between schools in student performance are explained by differences in socio-economic backgrounds—only Luxembourg has a higher figure. What assessment has the Minister made of that, and what will the Government do to address the situation?

[Mr Gibb]

It is still too often the case that a child’s background will determine educational outcome and opportunities in life, which is something that the coalition Government are determined to tackle. That is why we have introduced a pupil premium starting at £430 per child qualifying for free school meals, rising to a total of £2.5 billion by 2014-15, and it is why we are focusing on raising standards of behaviour in schools and supporting teachers and head teachers to take a zero-tolerance approach to poor behaviour. It is also why we are putting such an emphasis on children learning to read and using systematic synthetic phonics.

Petition

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I present this petition on behalf of my constituent, Mr Savile Burdett, of Axminster in Devon. He is petitioning the House to ask the Secretary of State to amend existing legislation in December 2010 so that photovoltaic solar collection systems may be installed by any householder who believes himself competent either alone or with the assistance of others whom he chooses, provided that the system is inspected for electrical safety by his local authority or by a local electricity supply authority.

The Petition states:

The Petition of Savile Burdett, of Axminster, Devon,

Declares that the Petitioner believes that the present regulations concerning Feed-in Tariffs for photo voltaic generated energy in homes are unfair, reward richer rather than poorer people and deter new ideas and technical development; that Feed-in Tariffs (FITs) were introduced by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) to start on 1st April 2010; that these are payments for various energy saving systems including photo voltaic solar generated electricity (pv solar); that payments are made to the householder, to encourage energy saving and consequential reduction of carbon emissions and additionally to encourage the growth of the industry; that, provided the system is installed to certain preset standards by MCS certified companies, specified payments are made for each unit of electricity generated; that additionally, when more is generated than is needed by the householder at the time, an export tariff is paid for electricity exported to the Grid; notes that if, however, the system is not installed by MCS certificated companies it will not be eligible to receive the FIT generation tariff or the guaranteed FIT export tariff; notes that the Petitioner believes that there are a number of disadvantages to this system; that the current regulations give some degree of monopoly power to certain companies, by in effect charging a householder who chooses to forgo the MCS certificate guarantees and either have the system installed by a contractor whom he trusts, but who is not MCS certified, or to do the work himself, which may be cheaper; notes that householders who install their own equipment or use a contractor who is not MCS certified receive no payment for surplus electricity generated and supplied to the Grid; and further notes that the current regulations may deter development, by discouraging developers from installing and testing new technologies. The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons asks the Secretary of State to amend existing legislation during November 2010 so that photo voltaic solar collector systems may be installed by any householder who believes himself competent, alone or with the assistance of others whom he chooses, provided the system is inspected for electrical safety by his Local Authority or by the local electricity Supply Authority.

And the Petitioner remains, etc.

[P000871]

Temporary Immigration Cap

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

15:32

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on Friday’s High Court decision on the temporary immigration cap.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

In June, when the Government announced that we would consult on how to implement a permanent limit on economic migrants, we also said that we would impose an interim limit until the permanent one took effect. This was to avoid a surge of applications in anticipation of the permanent limit.

The interim limit was given effect through changes to the immigration rules that were laid before Parliament, and on which an oral statement was made. On Friday we received the judgment that the changes announced provide an insufficient legal basis for the operation of the interim limit. The judgment was based on a technical procedural point known as Pankina grounds. The Court decided that this meant that more detail about the manner in which the limit is set, including its level, should have been included in the immigration rule changes laid before Parliament.

I would like to make it clear that the judgment of the Court was concerned solely with the technicalities of how the interim limits were introduced. It was in no way critical of, or prejudicial to, the Government’s policy of applying a limit to economic migration to the United Kingdom, either permanently or on an interim basis. The policy objective of a limit in migration has not been called into question, and I am now considering what steps are required to reapply an interim limit consistent with the findings of the Court. Tomorrow I will be laying changes to the immigration rules that will set out the details that the Court required. This will enable us to reinstate the interim limits on a clear legal basis.

The House will be interested to know that tomorrow I will also be laying changes to the rules to close applications under the tier 1 general route from outside the United Kingdom immediately, as the original level specified on this tier has been reached. I can reassure the House that the policy of using these limits as part of our overall policy of reducing net migration is unchanged.

[Ed Balls]

On 28 June the Home Secretary herself came to the House to announce, without consultation, an immediate and temporary cap on non-EU migration. Details of the cap were then posted on the Home Office website, but not presented to Parliament. On Friday the High Court ruled that the Home Secretary’s actions were, in fact, illegal. Lord Justice Sullivan said:

“There can be no doubt that she”—

the Home Secretary—

“was attempting to sidestep provisions for parliamentary scrutiny…and her attempt was for that reason unlawful.”

As a result, the Government’s much-heralded cap—deeply unpopular with business—does not today exist. As Lord Justice Sullivan said,

“no interim limits were lawfully published…by the secretary of state…there is not, and never has been, a limit on the number of applicants who may be admitted”.

In the light of this chaos, it is surprising that the Home Secretary has not chosen to come to the House to answer for her actions, so let me ask the Minister for Immigration two sets of questions.

First, on the consequences of the error, can the Minister tell the House what the status is of those who applied under the illegal cap but were rejected? Will their applications now be granted retrospectively? Can the Minister tell the House how many more migrants he expects to enter the UK because of the failure to implement the cap? In the light of that, is it still the Government’s target to cut net migration to the tens of thousands by 2015, as the Prime Minister pledged before the election, or is this mistake one reason why the Home Secretary is trying to water the target down to just an “aim”?

Secondly, on how we got into this mess in the first place, did the Minister and the Home Secretary ask for and receive legal advice before the summer about the legality of the temporary cap and the rushed way in which they were introducing it? Is it correct that he and the Home Secretary were warned by officials and lawyers that there was a risk of legal challenge if Parliament was bypassed in that way? If he and the Home Secretary did disregard legal advice, did they have the support of senior Home Office officials in so doing? Finally, will the Minister now agree to lay before Parliament all the legal advice on which the decision to proceed was based, to dispel the impression that he and the Home Secretary have acted in a reckless and chaotic manner, and to show that she has nothing to hide?

[Damian Green]

There were, I think, one or two substantive questions in the midst of that bluster. On the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, about why the Home Secretary is not here, it seems perfectly reasonable that if a question is asked about immigration, the Immigration Minister should answer it. He will also be aware that there is a serious counter-terror operation going on today. I would suggest that he and other Opposition Front Benchers who are attempting to bluster their way through this should recognise that fact.

The right hon. Gentleman asked a substantive question about the status of those who applied, but whose applications were not granted. The answer is that, as he is aware, the judgment was handed down on Friday; however, as he does not seem to be aware, the written judgment will not be available until January. Until the Home Office receives that written judgment, it is obviously impossible for us to decide whether to appeal against Friday’s judgment. All the questions that he asked about that are, therefore, simply inoperative until we see the written judgment. I am happy to confirm that, as the Home Secretary has said, it is still our target to bring immigration down from its uncontrolled, unsustainable level under the previous Government. As for the idea of publishing all legal advice given to Ministers, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that this is a not a practice that was ever followed by the Government of whom he was a member. [Interruption.]

In response to the right hon. Gentleman’s sedentary heckling, I am happy to assure him that the announcement that the Home Secretary made on 28 June was changed as a result of the Pankina judgment, but clearly all legal judgments are open to interpretation. What I will set out in a written statement tomorrow will absolutely clear up the legal issues and address the narrow technical points made by the judge, and will mean that the interim limits can proceed on a completely legal basis. I hope that the House is reassured by that.

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

What is very clear is that the policy is not being challenged. Has the Minister had any discussions with other Departments, such as the Cabinet Office, about what lessons can be learned about how the process has to be followed, and what consultation needs to be carried out?

[Damian Green]

That is a perfectly valid question. We are in constant discussions with the Cabinet Office. There are, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, many court cases involving immigration issues. The lesson that I draw is that more and more should be put in the immigration rules and not simply in the guidance notes. We have already started to adopt that as a policy, and will do so in the future.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

May I assure the Immigration Minister that, whatever the courts decide, there is huge support in the country, including in Labour constituencies, for the policy that the coalition Government are pursuing? Of course, if he were able to bring those measures within the law that would be an advantage, but voters want to see the numbers coming down.

[Damian Green]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that question. He shows a wisdom on this issue that is not available to the shadow Home Secretary, and he is right about what the public are asking—in Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour constituencies—about our policy of introducing a limit. The shadow Home Secretary has said:

“as many of us found in the election, our arguments on immigration were not good enough”,

and I have to say that they are still not good enough.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

How does the Minister think the voters of Oldham East and Saddleworth, which borders my constituency, will react when they hear that the shadow Home Secretary opposes limiting economic migration?

[Damian Green]

I imagine that the voters of Oldham East and Saddleworth—who have great knowledge of immigration, owing to the unfortunate activities of my predecessor in this job—will take the view that the Labour party is, as ever, attempting to mislead them completely on immigration, and that that is why it should not be trusted.

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

Can the Minister please answer the question that my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State asked him earlier? What is the status of those who applied under the illegal cap and were rejected, and will their applications now be granted? I draw to his attention the example of the international scientist who was unable to come to this country to take part in a cancer research project.

[Damian Green]

I am sorry that the hon. Lady did not listen to the answer that I gave the shadow Home Secretary, but I am quite happy to repeat it. The judgment was given on Friday but we do not have the written judgment yet, and we will not get it until January. It is clearly absurd to ask us to decide what to do about individual applications in advance of deciding whether to appeal against the judgment, and we cannot do that until we have the judgment in writing.

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

Does the Minister agree that it is a bit rich for the shadow Home Secretary to talk about chaos, given the parlous state of the immigration system that the new Government inherited?

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly good and valid point. The reason why we needed the interim limit was that we inherited an immigration system that was in complete chaos. We said at the election that we were going to introduce a permanent limit that would come into force next April. Between that point and next April there would have been an unimaginably large surge in applications if we had not imposed an interim limit. It is a perfectly sensible policy, and we will take steps tomorrow to ensure that it meets the Court’s requirements so that it can continue to do the essential job of bringing immigration numbers back down to a level with which this country can feel comfortable.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that, in paragraph 110 of the Home Affairs Select Committee’s report on the immigration cap, we warned that this might happen. It is not just this Government but successive Governments who have legislated on immigration without giving Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise what was happening. Can he give the House an assurance that the consultation that he is now undertaking on students and on the permanent cap will not be affected in any way by the judgment? Clearly, if there are lessons to be learned from the judgment, when he gets it, it will be important to extend that consultation period.

[Damian Green]

I absolutely can give the right hon. Gentleman that guarantee. I was grateful for the Select Committee’s report; as ever, it was extremely thoughtful and useful. The judgment has no effect at all on the permanent limit, and the lessons will certainly be learned. As he will have seen, our consultation on the permanent cap was a genuine consultation, and the policy that we announced at the end of it was welcomed by many business groups, including the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce, that had expressed worries about it in advance. That shows that this Government’s consultations are genuine, that we listen to people and to Parliament, and that we change policies in sensible ways after those consultations.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

For the benefit of my constituents, will the Minister make clear beyond any shadow of doubt that the ruling, which is simply about process, will not deter the Government from their aim of reducing net migration from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands?

[Damian Green]

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that complete assurance. As I said, the ruling is technical. We want to obey it as fast as possible, which is why we will change the rules tomorrow. I think that the only people in the House who do not want a reduction in immigration and a sustainable immigration system are those on the Opposition Front Bench.

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

Can the Minister confirm that this is not the first occasion on which Ministers have had difficulties with the courts? Can he also confirm that Ministers in his Department—he and the Home Secretary—received clear and unambiguous legal advice from their officials before they introduced this temporary measure?

[Damian Green]

Ministers in all Governments receive clear legal advice before any measure is introduced. The hon. Gentleman has been around for long enough to know that all Home Office Ministers have had issues with the courts. Indeed, that was happening even before he and I entered the House. I should love to stand here and say that it will never happen again, but I have been around for too long to say that.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree with the shadow Home Secretary that Labour’s arguments on immigration during the general election campaign were not good enough?

[Damian Green]

I do agree with the shadow Home Secretary on that point. He has said many interesting things about immigration—facing both sides of the issue, as he frequently does. However, I think that the country has decided. People want immigration limits, they want immigration brought down, and they elected this Government to do precisely that.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

As the Minister appears to be under some pressure from employers in the private sector and the academic and research institutions with regard to the operation of the cap, is it such a good idea to reimpose a temporary cap tomorrow, rather than letting the consultation run its course and then coming up with a more thoughtful answer early next year?

[Damian Green]

I think that the hon. Gentleman is, perhaps understandably, confused about the nature of the consultation. The consultation was on the permanent limit. That consultation is now over, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a statement a few weeks ago which was, indeed, welcomed by business groups. We have laid to rest the legitimate concerns that business groups had about the operation of the permanent cap, which will now proceed—as was always intended—from April.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The “Listening to Wellingborough and Rushden” survey has shown that for the last two years immigration has been the No. 1 issue. My constituents would congratulate the coalition Government on what has been their most popular measure, and would urge the Minister to continue the policy.

[Damian Green]

I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend’s constituents say. They are representative of many people around the country in wanting this issue to be gripped, after 10 years of chaos. I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that that is precisely what we are doing, and precisely what we will continue to do.

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

Unless I misheard him, which is perfectly possible, the Minister said that tier 1 was being closed with immediate effect because the cap had been reached. Does that include the two-year post-study visa? Will it too be closed immediately?

[Damian Green]

No. What is being closed is the tier 1 general visa for people from outside the United Kingdom. That was part of the interim cap, and that is what will be closed tomorrow. As the hon. Lady knows, from April we will completely recast tier 1 to make it a tier for exceptional people such as entrepreneurs and investors—the brightest and best people, whom the country needs and from whom we continue to benefit.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the immigration controls that he inherited from the last Government? Does he know that, according to the shadow Home Secretary, Labour “actually addressed” immigration—that, according to him,

“We’d put in place controls on immigration”?

[Damian Green]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As he has helpfully reminded the House, the Minister is very experienced, and I know that he will want to relate his answer to the policy of the Government rather than that of the Opposition.

[Damian Green]

I shall be happy to do so, Mr. Speaker. The Government’s policy is to operate an immigration cap, and to operate an interim cap on the way to a permanent cap as part of a much wider set of measures that will bring immigration down to sustainable levels. The only thing that I can say about the previous Government’s policies is that immigration was running at totally unsustainable levels, causing social tension and pressures throughout the country. I am surprised that the shadow Home Secretary did not take the opportunity to apologise for that.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Did the Minister consult the Attorney-General? Given that he has said he is going to reimpose the cap, can he now tell us what the status is of those who have applied during the period?

[Damian Green]

This is the third time I have been asked that question, and I will give the same answer for the third time. Until we get the details of the judgment we do not even know whether we will appeal against it, so until then it is impossible to discuss sensibly the status of those who applied and were turned down between July and now. [Interruption.] As I have said, Labour Members can keep asking that question, but they will keep getting the same, truthful, answer.

European Council

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

15:50

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on last week’s European Council. Britain had three objectives at this Council: first, to help bring stability to the eurozone, which is in Britain’s interests; secondly, to make sure that Britain is not liable for bailing out the eurozone when the new permanent arrangements come into effect; and thirdly, to build on the progress we made with the 2011 EU budget, with tougher settlements in the years to follow.

Let me address each of the three objectives in turn. First, no one should doubt that stability in the eurozone is in our interests. Nearly half our trade is with the eurozone, London is Europe’s international financial centre, and no one can deny that the eurozone faces very real challenges at the moment. We see that in the Irish situation, and with Spain and Portugal paying interest rate penalties in the financial markets. Britain’s approach should not be simply to say, “Well, we told you monetary union would require fiscal union,” and leave it at that. We want to help the eurozone to deal with the issues it faces. We have a clear interest in other member states taking fiscal and structural action and in the cleaning up of banks’ balance sheets. The fact that we have set out a path to deal with our own deficit and seen our own interest rates come down lends weight to our argument.

Following the dinner, at which leaders of all the EU countries had a wide-ranging discussion on the state of the eurozone, eurozone leaders issued a statement saying that they

“stand ready to do whatever is required”

to return the eurozone to stability. Part of that is the new permanent mechanism for assisting eurozone countries that get into financial difficulty. Enabling eurozone countries to establish such a mechanism is in our interests, but how that mechanism is brought about is equally important. After the October Council I made it very clear to the House that any possible future treaty change would not affect the UK, and that I would not agree to it if it did. I also said that no powers would be transferred from Westminster to Brussels. At the Council we agreed the establishment of a permanent mechanism with a proposed very limited treaty change. This change does not affect the UK, and it does not transfer any powers from Britain to the European Union.

Secondly, on the issue of liability for any potential bail-out of the eurozone in future, Britain is not in the euro and we are not going to join the euro, and that is why we should not have any liability for bailing out the eurozone when the new permanent arrangements come into effect in 2013. In the current emergency arrangements established under article 122 of the treaty, we do have such a liability. That was a decision taken by the previous Government, and it is a decision that we disagreed with at the time. We are stuck with it for the duration of the emergency mechanism, but I have been determined to ensure that when the permanent mechanism starts, Britain’s liability should end, and that is exactly what we agreed at the European Council.

The Council conclusions state that this will be a “stability mechanism” for

“member States whose currency is the euro”.

This means it is a mechanism established by eurozone countries for eurozone countries.

Britain will not be part of it. Crucially, we have also ensured that the current emergency arrangements are closed off when the new mechanism comes into effect in 2013. Both the Council conclusions and the introduction to the decision to change the treaty itself—the actual document that will be presented to this Parliament for its assent—are clear that article 122

“will no longer be needed for such purposes”

and that

“Heads of State or Government therefore agreed that it should not be used for such purposes.”

Both the Council conclusions and the decision that introduces the treaty change state in black and white the clear and unanimous agreement that from 2013 Britain will not be dragged into bailing out the eurozone. Before the Government agree to this treaty change, Parliament must, of course, give its approval—and if this treaty change is agreed by all member states, its ratification in this country will be subject to the terms of our EU Bill, and so will be subject to primary legislation.

Thirdly, let me turn to the issue of the EU budget. Securing a tight budget for the future remains my highest priority for the European Union. I believe that it is a priority shared by the vast majority of people in this country. At the last Council, we managed to do something that we have not done in previous years. We were faced with a situation where the Council had agreed a 2.91% increase—that was not the UK’s position; we had wanted a tougher settlement, but we were outvoted—yet the European Parliament went on and called for a 6% increase. Instead of just splitting the difference between what the Council asked for and what the Parliament called for, which is what happened last year, Britain led an alliance of member states to reject decisively the European Parliament’s request. We insisted on no more than the 2.91% increase that the Council had previously agreed. Many predicted that this would be impossible and that Britain would be defeated, but we succeeded, which will save the British taxpayer several hundred million pounds compared with what could have happened.

We also agreed a new principle that from now on, the EU budget must be in line with what we are doing in our own countries. We did this by taking the initiative and galvanising others to join us. We sent a clear message that when we are making cuts at home, with tough decisions on pensions, welfare and pay, it is simply not acceptable to go on spending more and more and more through the European Union. At this Council, I wanted to keep up the momentum on the EU budget by forging an alliance with like-minded partners and starting to work towards securing a tougher settlement for future budgets.

At the weekend Chancellor Merkel, President Sarkozy and I, together with the Prime Ministers of Finland and the Netherlands, sent a letter to the President—[Hon. Members: “That’s an alliance?”] Well, it involves the three largest countries in Europe. We sent a letter to the President of the European Commission setting out our goals for the 2012 and 2013 budgets and the longer-term financial perspective, which covers the rest of this decade right up until 2020. It states clearly our collective view that

“the action taken in 2011 to curb annual growth”

in European spending should be “stepped up” in 2012 and 2013. Together, we say that there must be a real-terms freeze in the period 2014 to 2020. I want us to achieve a decade of spending restraint in Europe, and the three biggest powers in Europe—the three biggest net contributors to the budget—have committed to that. I believe that this is an important step forward.

There are two problems that Europe must urgently address. The first is that the eurozone is not working properly. It needs major reform, and it is in our interests not to stand in the way of that. Indeed, as I have argued, we should be actively helping the eurozone to deal with its issues. Secondly, Europe as a whole needs to be much more competitive. Collectively, we must press ahead with measures that will help European countries pay their way in a world where economic competition internationally is becoming ever fiercer. We must expand the single market in areas such as services, press forward on free trade and, crucially, avoid burdening businesses with costly red tape. We must promote stability, jobs and growth. That is the agenda that this Government are pursuing in Europe, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I want to ask him about three issues: the agreement on the European budget, the treaty change, and the wider but perhaps most fundamental question of all, European growth.

First, on the budget, I welcome the call for restraint in the European budget in the years ahead. On the budget for this year, we heard from the Prime Minister after this Council, in his own modest way, rather what we heard after the previous Council: he applauded the outcome because he said that it avoided the ultimate sin of European negotiations—simply “splitting the difference” between positions. But that rather depends on whose positions we are talking about.

Let me remind the Prime Minister of some rather inconvenient facts. He originally wanted a freeze in the budget, whereas the European Parliament wanted a 5.9% increase. He did not just want a freeze back in August; he was still arguing for one days before the previous European Council in October. Perhaps he can tell the House what figure splits the difference between 0 and 5.9%. By my reckoning it is about 2.9%, which is the outcome we ended up with after his negotiations. So after all his rhetoric, his grandstanding and his description of this as a “victory for common sense”, we have ended up splitting the difference. I congratulate him on his heroic achievement.

We welcome the Prime Minister’s support for the treaty change agreed at the Council. It is right that the eurozone should replace its ad hoc arrangements with a more permanent mechanism, but we have to ask why the Prime Minister has to fall over himself to try to justify accepting a fairly minor change. He is simply showing—I congratulate him on this—a sensible piece of what might be called “Europragmatism”. Of course, his problem is that, before the election, he claimed to be not the Europragmatist but the great Eurosceptic. We all remember his cast-iron guarantee, and his promise that if there was any chance at all of a reopening of the treaty and a referendum on Lisbon he personally would make it happen. The Foreign Secretary admitted in November that this treaty change offers a pretext for a referendum, but it would clearly be absurd to use it to try to derail the whole of Lisbon. That is the problem—the Prime Minister’s absurd position before the election, and the fact that he was believed.

The Prime Minister also used to say that he would take the first opportunity to repatriate powers over employment and social legislation to Britain, but we heard nothing of that in his statement. It is no wonder that his Back Benchers are not very happy with him on Europe, because he led them up the garden path. He said, “I am one of you. I feel your pain. I am the great Eurosceptic.” Can he explain, most of all for the benefit of his Back Benchers, why he has abandoned those pre-election commitments? We know that he has broken his promise to parents on child benefit and to young people on education maintenance allowance, but things have got so bad that he is even breaking his promises to his own Eurosceptics.

Let me turn to the economy. The agreement on a permanent crisis mechanism for the eurozone after 2013 does not address the challenges faced by Europe’s economy right now. I think that he and I would agree on that. Does he agree that eurozone members should do more to promote stability in the eurozone before 2013? Does he also agree that we need European action to promote growth for there to be any chance of serious export growth in the United Kingdom? The Prime Minister’s plans, with VAT set to rise and spending cuts kicking in, rely on an extra £100 billion of exports to the UK over five years. More than 50% of exports, as he said, are to Europe, but the European Commission forecasts slowing growth next year.

In our view, the Prime Minister should be doing more to work with colleagues in Europe to improve prospects for growth. He should do three things in particular: first, he should argue that all countries engaging in fiscal consolidation, including Germany and the UK, should do so at a pace that supports economic growth domestically and across Europe as a whole; secondly, he should ensure that those countries facing problems, including Ireland, are not locked into repeated rounds of austerity measures, with higher taxes and lower spending hitting the growth those countries need to pay down their debts and recover; and, thirdly, he should ensure that Europe’s voice in the G20 argues for a growth-oriented strategy. Given the nature of his statement, people will wonder whether he sees the connection between his optimistic forecast about exports and growth and the summit he attended this weekend.

The Prime Minister’s problems on Europe reflect his wider domestic approach. He breaks his promises and thinks one can reduce an economic policy to a pure deficit reduction policy with no focus on growth and jobs. In 2011, he needs to stop spending his time in Europe trying to grandstand and start engaging on a growth agenda for Europe and Britain that can help us here at home.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about grandstanding, but for the past couple of years we were told endlessly that we were going to be isolated in Europe, that we would have no allies in Europe and no friends in Europe, but when we put together an alliance of the three biggest countries in Europe for budget restraint, the first thing he ought to do is stand up and congratulate us.

Let me take the right hon. Gentleman’s three questions in turn. First, on the budget, he talked about some inconvenient facts. Let me give him some inconvenient facts from last year. Last year, when we had a Labour Government, a 3.8% increase was proposed by the European Council and supported by that Government. The European Parliament then came forward with a 9.8% proposed increase, and they split the difference so the budget went up by 6%. That is what happened last year, supported by Labour. The difference between that and what we achieved is hundreds of millions of pounds. That is what this Government’s actions have saved. When it comes to changing positions, I note that in her statement after the European Council the shadow Foreign Secretary said that “Labour voted against” this budget rise “from the beginning”. That is simply not true—Labour MEPs opposed our call for a freeze in the European Parliament.

Secondly, on treaty change, the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that this very limited treaty change is in our interests so we should support it. We should use this opportunity to get rid of the risks of Britain being drawn further into eurozone support in the future. We are liable to that because of the weak actions of his Government before the last election. It is absolutely right that we use our negotiating capital to make sure that Britain is not liable when the new mechanism comes in. What we are doing, once again, is clearing up the mess left by Labour.

The third issue that the right hon. Gentleman raised was the economy. He says that we should call for measures that will achieve greater stability in Europe, but that is exactly what we are doing. Just imagine what stability we would get in Europe if he were sitting at the Council table saying that we should not be bothering with deficit reduction. We would be putting ourselves in the same camp as Ireland, Portugal and other countries.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman tells me how unhappy my Back Benchers are, but I would swap their unhappiness for that of his Back Benchers any day of the week. I am sure that they will want to remember that important thing at Christmas time—always keep your receipts in case you want to exchange for something bigger.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

As a happy Back Bencher, I congratulate the Prime Minister on winning the budget battle with the European Parliament, where there was clearly no splitting the difference. Enlargement was also on the agenda. On Turkey, does he agree that the problems that many predicted would have occurred by now do not seem to have materialised? However, we still seem to have deadlock, with no new chapters being opened and no progress being made on the Ankara protocol. The General Affairs and External Relations Council said last week that progress is now expected without further delay: how does he see that materialising?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right that we should push for progress with Turkish accession—and we are. I raised this with the Hungarian Prime Minister when he came to Downing street last week, because Hungary is going to hold the future presidency of the European Union. We have to win the argument in Europe—too many are opposed to Turkish membership. I think that all the arguments are in favour and that we should push this as hard as we can and keep opening those chapters to show that we are doing so in good faith.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Before the Prime Minister boasts so much about freezing the budget, he might reflect on the fact that although that will save the British rebate, it means the common agricultural policy will not be reformed for several years. It also means that there will be no money for our new partners in east Europe. From Margaret Thatcher to Tony Blair, British leadership was based on acts of solidarity with poor, incoming members of the EU. The Prime Minister is the first one to sign up to the Sarkozy-Merkel agenda of being as mean as possible to our new friends and allies in east Europe.

[The Prime Minister]

I do not accept that the only way we can make progress with helping partners in eastern Europe is by having an ever-rising EU budget. Indeed, there are countries in eastern Europe that support the position we take that the budget should not go up and that we should spend the money better. As I have argued before, we should be making more progress on transparency and using it as a weapon to shine a light on the EU budget and some of the disastrous ways in which it is spent. It is an absolute counsel of despair to say that the only way we can help other countries in Europe is with an ever-rising budget: it is not.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Whilst the new bail-out mechanism has thankfully comforted the markets, do not many of our EU partners need to rein in their public spending, follow Britain’s example and introduce some meaningful financial austerity measures?

[The Prime Minister]

To be fair to other countries in Europe, the conversation around the Council table is very much about the action that everyone is having to take. Britain has set quite a pace in setting out a five-year programme about how we are going to do this and what we have seen in Britain is market interest rates coming down since the election, whereas in other European countries they have sometimes gone up. What is required is some credible fiscal plans. Fiscal consolidation alone will not settle down the eurozone but that has to be a part of it.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is clear that, despite everything the European Union has done, the euro is still in crisis—and that crisis will not end any time soon. Has the Prime Minister been aware of or involved in any private discussions about how the euro might be deconstructed in a controlled way?

[The Prime Minister]

We had a very good discussion at the dinner, which involved all EU members, not just eurozone members. As someone who has never supported Britain’s joining the euro and who has always had concerns that the currency area was not optimal—as I said in my statement, I would make the argument that with a single currency, a move towards a single fiscal policy was needed, but that was never done—I must say it is profoundly not in Britain’s interest to see the break-up of the eurozone. If that happened, there would be very bad consequences not just for eurozone countries, but for Britain. We should take a hard-headed, practical view and recognise that 44% of our exports go to eurozone countries. If that broke up, it would be bad for Britain. We should be making positive suggestions about what eurozone countries can do to make sure that they get the stability and growth that we all need. There is fiscal consolidation, active monetary policy, cleaning up bank balance sheets, getting ahead of the markets and showing that we want this to be a success. That is what needs to happen and, as I say, standing on the sidelines and saying, “Well, we told you this wasn’t a great idea” is not the right approach.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Although it is not my normal practice to call a Member who was not present at the very start of the statement, I note that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) chairs the European Scrutiny Committee and therefore, exceptionally, I shall call the hon. Gentleman on this occasion.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful, Mr Speaker. I really only came here to wish the Prime Minister a happy Christmas. Does the Prime Minister share the concern of many of us that the present financial mechanism is unlawful, and that Britain is exposed until 2013 while the black hole of Portugal and Spain opens up before us? Does he therefore think there are serious grounds for challenging the unlawfulness of it and not exposing the British electorate to the prospect of having to contribute to that while suffering such severe austerity cuts?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your leniency. No European statement would be complete without a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash). He may have a good point. Article 122 of the treaty refers to help in the case of natural disasters and other emergencies. There are some people who question whether it should have been used in this way to support eurozone countries.

That argument was had and was conceded under the previous Government in two ways. First, they agreed the establishment of the mechanism. Secondly, if we go back to the Nice treaty, it was the then Europe Minister, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is in his place, who argued from the Dispatch Box that it was perfectly okay for article 122 to go to qualified majority voting, which is where we are today. So in two ways the previous Government made a bad mistake. As I say, we are clearing up the mess and we will certainly do that from 2013, but the mechanism remains in place till then.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Was there any discussion at the Council of the case of Sergei Magnitsky, who was working on behalf of a British investment firm in Russia and was tortured and murdered a little over a year ago? I am sure the Prime Minister is aware that there was a vote in the European Parliament last week, supported by MEPs from all parties in this House, to say that those who took part in his murder, who have not faced any criminal prosecution at all, and those whose corruption he unveiled should be banned from the European Union, and that Senator McCain in the United States of America is supporting a similar ban. Will he support a ban?

[The Prime Minister]

The Government continue to raise all these cases and issues around them with the Russian authorities. Our embassy in Moscow is closely watching developments in the cases of Mr Khordorkovsky and Mr Lebedev, and we remain very concerned about Mr Magnitsky’s case, as raised by the hon. Gentleman. We await with interest the conclusion of the official investigation into the case, which was announced by President Medvedev in November 2009.

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

I congratulate the Prime Minister on a robust performance in Brussels. Resisting the Parliament’s demand for an extravagant budget was absolutely the right thing to do. As he looks ahead towards the justified freeze on the budget post-2014—and not just because of the weather—can he assure us that it does not mean that the budget will be frozen, but that subsidies that are not justified and expenditure that is wasted will be replaced by, for example, expenditure on energy and climate change issues, which are both the priority of this Government and ought to be the priority of the European Union as well?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which goes to the point made by the former Europe Minister, the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), which is that we must do better at trying to re-order the priorities of the European budget, but I do not accept that we can do that only by allowing an increase. I accept that we are taking a tough position, because we are trying to get a freeze with major partners for 2014 to 2020, but we also want budget reform and reform of the CAP. We are in the vanguard of arguing for that because we want to see the money better spent. It is right to set out down this path and try to achieve those goals.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister will recall that six months ago he and other EU leaders set out the Europe 2020 strategy as a successor to the Lisbon agenda, which was agreed in 2000. Is he confident that nothing discussed at the weekend will affect the benchmarks that were set in June? With the European Union, what is important is not just getting an agreement, but making sure that countries meet benchmarks on jobs and growth.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which is that we should not amend those benchmarks, but the Europe 2020 document is slightly disappointing, because Europe’s real problem is that it has become uncompetitive, has expensive welfare systems and overbearing pension systems and is not complete as a single market. We need a more robust conversation in Europe about how we get growth—how we reform and improve the structure of our economies to get growth. Europe 2020 is only part of that, and we should be more ambitious for next year.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

As another happy Back Bencher, may I convey the thanks of the British taxpayer for the hundreds of millions of pounds that the Prime Minister saved us over the weekend? However, I should be interested in the clarification of an issue. The problems in the eurozone are likely to occur between now and 2013. What is the extent of Britain’s liability under the emergency arrangements signed up to by the previous Labour Chancellor?

[The Prime Minister]

I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend is a happy Back Bencher. The answer to her question is that a mechanism was established under article 122 of the Lisbon treaty, allowing the European Union to spend the headroom between its budget and the money it can spend under the previous financial deal on such bail-outs. The headroom was €60 billion, some of which has been used with respect to Ireland, and the mechanism is established under qualified majority voting. That is the problem we face, so we are dealing with that in the fastest way we can by saying that, when the new mechanism comes in, it will rule out action under the old mechanism. Of course, as they like to say in Limerick, we shouldn’t have started from here.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Why is the Prime Minister so besotted with the idea that he wants Turkey in the European Union and, possibly, the eurozone? Eighty million Turks will be on the move, and it will not be two-way traffic. How can that improve financial stability?

[The Prime Minister]

I know lots of people in Turkey I would willingly swap with the hon. Gentleman. Maybe we could have a transfer. I would make a serious argument, however, which is that, if we want the European Union to be a force for stability in our world, we should try to include a country that wants to look to the west, is a democracy and wants to be part of the European economy. All those would be great advantages for the European Union.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister clarify whether the minor treaty amendment will specifically exclude Britain from any liability, or whether that will merely be implied? Will he also ensure that article 122 is never used again for that purpose under the treaty? The reason I ask so specifically is that the previous practice of Europe has not always been to do precisely what it has implied it might do, and we really want to have that nailed down.

[The Prime Minister]

I think my hon. Friend asks absolutely the right question, because there is a history in Europe of such agreements not always being stuck to, and of there being a rather federalist ratchet. That was why I was very clear that we needed language, not just in the European Council conclusions, about article 122 not being used in future. I actually wanted it in the article that will be presented to this House for us to look at as a treaty amendment, so, in what is called the recitals—don’t worry, I’m not going to start singing—or the introduction to the article, it says:

“As this mechanism”—

the new mechanism—

“is designed to safeguard the financial stability of the euro area as whole…Article 122…of the TFEU”—

the treaty on the functioning of the European Union—

“will no longer be needed for such purposes. Heads of State or Government therefore agreed that it should not be used for such purposes.”

That seems to me to be quite a good belt and braces—no need, no use; and it is not just in the Council conclusions, but in the introduction to the treaty article itself.

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

This seems to have been a pretty significant Council, as a result of which we will have treaty changes that will involve legislation here. Treaties cannot be amended, so we will have a debate but not be able to amend them. Is the Prime Minister aware that, for this Council, the House did not have a pre-Council debate in the Chamber, on the basis that the Leader of the House said—and the Foreign Secretary will whisper to the Prime Minister—that it is Back-Bench business? If the Prime Minister takes Europe seriously, how on earth can he defend a discussion on something as significant as that being Back-Bench business?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is so astute about this House she even knows when I am being whispered to while sitting down. I am hugely impressed because she is absolutely right. I answer her in two ways. First, the new Backbench Business Committee—some of its members are in the Chamber—has 30 days a year in which to discuss such matters. Secondly,—this is the important thing—at this Council, we agreed the type of treaty change and gave some clarity about what needs to be done. However, there is now a proper process, which means that this Parliament has to be formally consulted, which it will be, before the treaty change goes through and there will then be a proper process of parliamentary approval. It is all very well the shadow Chief Whip chuntering from the Front Bench, but I do not remember the previous Government being anything like as generous as to give 30 days for the consideration of Back-Bench business. We just dreamed of such things in those days.

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

May I say that I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart): it is extraordinary that we did not have a pre-Council debate. I also wish to press my right hon. Friend on the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin). The Prime Minister said that we will not have liability for the eurozone after 2013, and we very much hope that that is correct. However, the European stabilisation mechanism seems to be an open-ended liability. On 22 November, the Chancellor said:

“we would certainly not be in favour of somehow replenishing it”.—[Official Report, 22 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 43.]

Are we going to refuse to replenish the European stabilisation mechanism while it continues to exist?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said, the stabilisation mechanism is based on the difference between the European budget and its headroom. That is a fact set out in the decision made by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling). The debate in Europe at the moment is about replenishing the other facility. That is known as the facility rather than the mechanism, which, of course, Britain is not in. That is a eurozone facility, and there is a debate in Europe about whether that should be topped up and increased. Obviously, from our perspective, we are keen on Europe using the facility rather than the mechanism.

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

The permanent mechanism will not be introduced until June 2013. Meanwhile, we are left with this temporary mechanism, which is widely viewed as inadequate to the task. That is likely to mean repeated austerity measures on behalf of Spain, Portugal and perhaps others who are caught in this contagion. That cannot be good for the United Kingdom and its export performance. What is the Prime Minister doing to raise our case at a European level?

[The Prime Minister]

I would make two points to the hon. Gentleman. First, as I have described, there is the mechanism, which has that headroom. However, eurozone countries should be using the eurozone facility. We do not have a say over eurozone member states’ financial and fiscal policies, so it makes much more sense for eurozone countries to raise that money and subsidise each other if that is what they choose to do. That is what the eurozone facility, which is hundreds of billions of euros, rather than €60 billion, is there to do. I make one other point to the hon. Gentleman: only a limited amount can be done to help countries just by making these transfers. There must be fundamental reforms in those countries, whether that involves cleaning up banks, dealing with labour markets, having more active monetary policies or making their fiscal policies real. All those things will make a difference.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

In noting the Prime Minister’s considerable achievements in the European Council, does he agree that it is critical that Britain plays an important role in creating a vibrant, dynamic European economy, so that we can get on with the job of being competitive with the far east and other growing economies?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and this also relates to the previous question. Of course, everyone in Europe wants to see higher growth rates. That is one of the ways we will get deficits down and ensure that we have more jobs in our countries. However, Europe needs to ask itself, “How can we get higher growth?” That should be done by completing the single market, extending it to services, taking a more forward position on the Doha round and, frankly, stopping some of the things that the European Union is currently doing that add massive costs and burdens to business. At the European Council dinner, I pressed the point very strongly that unless Europe starts making those decisions, people will not take its growth strategy very seriously.

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

The Prime Minister has not referred to one of the most important issues that is currently going on internationally, and I would be grateful to know whether it was considered and discussed in the European Council—that is, the deteriorating situation in west Africa, specifically the fact that the former defeated President of Côte d’Ivoire, with the support of the military and brutal thugs, is clinging on to power and threatening to expel the United Nations from that country. What is the European Union, with its common security and defence policy, going to do to assist the African Union and the UN to restore democratic government in Côte d’Ivoire?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. We did discuss at the European Council the problems in Côte d’Ivoire, and we took a very clear view, which is that everyone there should accept the result of the election and support the United Nations, as we support the United Nations and its continued presence in that country.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

What progress did my right hon. Friend make in persuading other countries in the European Union of the merits of a single market in services, not just for their companies here but for our companies there?

[The Prime Minister]

This is an argument that we can win and have got to win in Europe. We now have like-minded Governments who want to see completion of the internal market, progress on services and progress on Doha, with countries like the Netherlands, Finland and Germany all wanting to see a more open-market Europe. We have to push this very hard, because it is the growth agenda. Clearly, fiscal stimulus is not available to Europe because everyone has such large budget deficits. The best stimulus that we could give to the European economy and our economy is to make these structural changes.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Do I take it from the Prime Minister’s statement and the facility that he has shown in his answers for using Euro-jargon that he has gone native on Europe?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very sorry—I will do my best. It is extremely difficult when there is a mechanism, a facility, and article 122, which used to be article 100 before it was changed by QMV in the Nice treaty. [Interruption.] There is also the recital, and as I said earlier, I am not going to sing. There is a lot of junk that you have to mug up on, but the basic principles are simple—get in there, stand up for your country, and do a good deal.

[Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)]

A structural lack of competitiveness is one of the fundamental problems underlying the current crisis. Can the Prime Minister say whether there was any discussion of the Lisbon 2020 agenda and how it will differ from the original Lisbon agenda in 2000, which failed dismally to make Europe the most competitive and dynamic economy in the world by 2010?

[The Prime Minister]

We did discuss the 2020 agenda. I think there is a feeling among a number of other Heads of Government that it is all very well—it has some good targets and a lot of sensible things about investing in skills and education and the rest of it—but it does not really do the hard things that we need to do in Europe to make our economies more competitive with those in the far east. That is the agenda that we need now—not just easy-to-agree targets and headlines but the tough things we need to do to make us more competitive.

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

In opposition, the Prime Minister spoke regularly about the need for radical reform of the common agricultural policy, but there is no reference to it in the statement he made today. Can he assure the House that, in pursuit of this alliance with France and Germany over the budget, he is not abandoning the principles of CAP reform that are shared across this House?

[The Prime Minister]

I can absolutely give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. There has been no back-stairs deal between us and the French. What has happened is that the French and the Germans have agreed with us that, with all the difficult things we are doing in our own countries, it is a real priority to stop the endless rise in the EU budget. That has been done without any guarantees about what happens or does not happen to CAP reform. I remain passionately committed to reforming the CAP. That is right for Europe and for Europe’s farmers, and it would leave room in the European budget to spend the money in a more sensible way.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

May I just put it on record that I am a very jolly Back Bencher, particularly as I received the Prime Minister’s Christmas card this morning? Along with the vast majority of my constituents, I would very much have welcomed a cut to the EU budget. However, back in the real world, will the Prime Minister confirm that the decisions and arguments he has made in the past few weeks are good for the long-term future of the United Kingdom?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend; I am glad that Royal Mail is working effectively. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are shouting, “Where are ours?” Any unhappy Back Benchers who do not feel that they are getting enough love from their Front Benchers can join the love train and get a “Happy Christmas” card from me.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Bankers’ bonus payments rankle with ordinary hard-working families. Did the Prime Minister discuss—formally or informally—with his colleagues at the summit making a collective EU agreement to limit bankers’ bonus payments?

[The Prime Minister]

Normally, there are long discussions about banks and bonuses. We had a lot of discussion about the need to improve the performance of banks, their balance sheets and their lending practices, but there was no long discussion about bank bonuses. There have been good international agreements on bank bonuses, and we have added to them in this country through the bank levy, which will raise more in every year than the previous Government’s bonus tax raised in just one year.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is best for the poorer countries of eastern Europe, which were mentioned earlier, is best for people in this country? That is economic recovery in Europe. Although he rightly says that fiscal changes alone will not deliver that, without fiscal changes and restraint not only by Governments but by the EU, there will be no sustained economic recovery.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. Some Labour Members talk as if there were a choice between going for growth and dealing with the deficit. The truth is that the deficit must be dealt with to get the confidence that is needed for growth. If Labour Members sat in the European Council and argued that deficits were not a problem, their fellow socialists in Portugal, Spain and Greece, who are in difficult circumstances, would think that they had gone completely and utterly mad.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

During the summit, did the Prime Minister talk to Government leaders about the growing levels of unemployment in some European countries, the increasing severity of public spending cuts and the impoverishment of working-class families, which is growing as a result? Did they discuss the danger of the whole of Europe tipping into recession because of the drive to cut public expenditure and lay off public sector workers, whereas the socially just thing to do would be to maintain social levels of expenditure?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes—of course we had that conversation. We had a conversation about how we can create growth and jobs in Europe. However, if one listens to the left-wing leaders of Portugal, Greece and Spain talk about the problems in their economies, they say that they know that they must deal with their deficits and show that they have a plan to get their deficits down. At the moment, their interest rates are rising higher and higher, making growth more difficult. The idea that there is an alternative socialist wonderland where one can forget about how much money one is borrowing is for the birds.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I am the happiest of Back Benchers now that we have a Prime Minister who stands up for British interests in Europe—although I have not received a Christmas card. Does the Prime Minister agree that the biggest scandal of the previous Labour Government was their surrender of Mrs Thatcher’s rebate, the result of which is that we will pay £41 billion to the EU in the next five years, which is twice what we paid in the previous five years?

[The Prime Minister]

The card is in the post. I want to make my hon. Friend not just happy, but ecstatic. He is right about the rebate. We now get lectures from the Labour party, saying that we were not tough enough on the European budget. That is from the people who gave away the rebate and in return got absolutely nothing.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

The eurozone economy is vital to manufacturing and defence firms in Pendle, which export products across Europe and the globe. Alongside currency fluctuations and economic uncertainty, many businesses say that red tape and bureaucracy is the main challenge that they face. Was that issue addressed at the European Council?

[The Prime Minister]

I am glad that my hon. Friend asked that, because it is exactly the point that I made at the dinner of the 27 member states. We have to go through what would make a difference in creating more growth in the European Union. Of course, there are positive things that we have to do, such as completing the single market and extending it to services. However, there are also things that we should stop doing. There is a problem of endless directives coming through that add to the cost of business. There are some things that Europe must stop doing to give businesses the chance to invest and expand.

High Speed Rail

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

16:34

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I want to make a statement on the Government’s plans for the development of a national high-speed rail network, and on the proposed route that we will put forward next year for public consultation.

One of the coalition’s main objectives is to build an economy that is more balanced both sectorally and geographically, and that will deliver sustainable economic growth while also delivering on our climate change targets. Investment in infrastructure, and transport infrastructure in particular, will be a key part of that approach. To deliver economic growth and carbon reduction, we must provide attractive alternatives to short-haul aviation while addressing the issue of scarce rail capacity between city centres. Network Rail has calculated that by 2024 the west coast main line will effectively be full, with no further enhancements that could reasonably be made to meet future demand.

The Government believe that the best long-term solution to those challenges is the development of a national high-speed rail network. Our proposed strategy is a Y-shaped network, to be delivered in two phases, the first being a line from London to the west midlands and the second the onward legs to Manchester and Leeds, with connections to points further north via the east and west coast main lines.

Our proposals will provide an unprecedented increase in capacity on the key north-south routes out of London through a combination of new infrastructure and released capacity on existing lines. Reliability will be improved and journey times between major cities slashed. Central Birmingham will be brought within 49 minutes of London—potentially less for non-stopping services—and within one hour five minutes of Leeds. The released capacity on the west coast main line offers the possibility of commuter-frequency fast services to London from places such as Coventry and Milton Keynes.

By running trains seamlessly on to existing inter-city routes, the proposed network will also bring Glasgow and Edinburgh within three and a half hours of London, which is fast enough to induce a major shift of passengers from domestic aviation. In the longer term, we will also explore with the Scottish Government the options for further reducing journey times to Scotland.

The development of a high-speed rail network has been a key factor in our decision on additional runways at London’s airports, which is why we said from the outset that any such network must be linked to our principal gateway airport and integrated with the European high-speed network via High Speed 1. In June, I asked HS2 Ltd to carry out additional work on such links. I have studied that work and the recommendations of Lord Mawhinney’s review, and I have also examined Arup’s proposals for a transport hub near Iver.

I have concluded that a spur route to the airport, running on the surface close to the M25 for part of its length, is the best option. It is lower-cost than the other options considered by HS2 Ltd, will keep journey times between London and Birmingham to a minimum and will retain the flexibility to be extended into a loop in future. To deliver the best possible value for taxpayers’ money, I propose that a spur route be constructed as part of the second phase of the network, opening at the same time as the routes to Manchester and Leeds. I have today asked HS2 Ltd to carry out further work on such a spur route, with a view to public consultation later in this Parliament alongside the routes to Manchester and Leeds. For the period prior to the opening of that second phase, high-speed rail travellers to the airport will be able to change to fast Heathrow Express services at Old Oak Common, where there will also be a direct interchange with Crossrail.

With regard to a link to HS 1, HS2 Ltd’s report identifies that a connection can be made via a new tunnel from Old Oak Common to the North London line near Chalk Farm, from where existing infrastructure can be used to reach the HS 1 line north of St Pancras. That proposal is significantly cheaper than any other option for a direct link, and it will enable direct trains to run from the midlands and the north to Europe without affecting existing service levels on the North London line. Such a tunnel can be constructed only before the Old Oak Common interchange comes into operation, so the link will be included in the phase 1 scheme put forward for consultation.

The Government believe that the construction of a high-speed rail network will support economic growth and the rebalancing of the UK economy, but we recognise that the proposed line will have significant local impacts on the areas it passes through and that we have a duty to do everything practically possible to mitigate those impacts. That is why, since my appointment as Secretary of State, I have reviewed the proposals of the previous Administration. I have looked at the case for high-speed rail, at the corridor options for a north-south route, at the different route options put forward by HS2 Ltd and in detail at the route option recommended in its March report. I have reached the conclusion, as the previous Administration did, that the route option recommended in March represents the most appropriate general alignment for the high-speed railway between London and the west midlands.

However, before finalising the detailed route that I am publishing today for consultation, I travelled the length of it and talked directly to local authorities, property owners, and many of the protest groups and their Members of Parliament, and I commissioned additional work on the options for improving the proposed alignment. As a consequence, significant amendments have been made to both the vertical and horizontal alignment, and to the proposed mitigation measures. In total, around 50% of the preferred route proposal published in March has been amended in some respect.

I am confident that solutions have now been found that can significantly mitigate the impacts of the railway at local level which, when properly understood, will reassure many of those who have been understandably apprehensive about the potential impact on their lives and their property values. For instance, in Primrose Hill, work to identify the most appropriate locations for the necessary vent shafts has shifted the proposed tunnel, and thus also the vent shafts themselves, to the north, away from the most sensitive areas of that part of London, locating them alongside the existing railway.

Between Amersham and Wendover, opportunities to cover sections of the proposed cutting to create a green bridge and a longer green tunnel have been incorporated into the route design to reduce its visual impact and avoid severance of public rights of way. By moving the alignment away from the historic property of Hartwell house, HS2 Ltd has been able to ensure that the line would not be visible from the house itself and that additional earthworks and planting can be undertaken to further reduce visual and noise impacts. In the most northerly section of the route, an improved alignment has been identified that would move the line further from Lichfield.

Despite our best efforts at mitigation, however, we will not be able to avoid all impacts on property values. Where a project that is in the national interest imposes significant financial loss on individuals, it is right and proper that they should be compensated fairly for that loss, so I have asked my officials to prepare a range of options for a scheme to assist those whose properties will not be required for the construction of the railway, but who will none the less see a significant diminution of value as a result of the construction of the line.

The forthcoming consultation will include proposals for such a scheme, which will sit alongside the statutory blight regime, which covers those whose properties would need to be taken to build the line. I am publishing today on my Department’s website, and placing in the Library of the House, a set of reports by HS2 Ltd that sets out for each route section the options considered and the changes proposed, together with detailed maps showing the revised preferred route from London to the west midlands in full. That route will form the basis for the public consultation, which I expect to begin in February next year.

When the consultation is launched, I will also publish a revised business case, a full appraisal of sustainability, noise contour maps and route visualisations, all of which can be completed only now that the final preferred route for consultation has been determined. Let me be clear that the consultation will encompass the Government’s strategy for a national high-speed rail network, the choice of corridor and the detailed line of route that I have outlined for the initial phase from London to the west midlands. As part of the consultation process, roadshows will be held along the length of the preferred route from London to the west midlands to ensure that local people have the opportunity to find out more about the project and to discuss specific concerns with those involved in developing the scheme.

It is my view that a high-speed rail network will deliver a transformational change to the way Britain works and competes in the 21st century. It will allow the economies of the midlands and the north to benefit much more directly from the economic engine of London, tackling the north-south divide more effectively than half a century of regional policy has done, expanding labour markets and bringing our major conurbations closer together. The consultation exercise that we will launch in the new year will be one of the biggest and most wide-ranging ever undertaken by any Government, and I urge all hon. Members with an interest to participate and to encourage their constituents to do so. These proposals have the support of political and business leaders from all parts of the United Kingdom, and I hope they will gain cross-party support in this House. I commend this statement to the House.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement. Today, he is facing a rising tide of criticism over the transport chaos gripping the country, so it is unlucky that he is scheduled to update the House on high-speed travel on a day when most people would settle for travel at any speed at all. As he knows, it was Labour in government which set out a vision for a high-speed rail line running from London to Birmingham from 2026, and on to Leeds, Manchester and Scotland in phases during the following years. I pay tribute to the tenacity and determination of his predecessor, the noble Lord Adonis, whose exhaustive work on the scheme has allowed the right hon. Gentleman to pick up and run with the vision he has set out today for high-speed rail.

I recognise the importance of increasing rail capacity and connectivity, particularly in respect of the west coast main line and the Chiltern line beyond 2020. I assure the Secretary of State that Labour remains committed to investing in a world-class rail system, and that high-speed rail could have an important role to play in delivering it. That is why we began the planning process when in government—in fact, I suspect that his proposals probably have more support on the Labour Benches than on the Benches behind him. He is the one sitting in a divided Government, although for once the divisions do not involve the Liberal Democrats. No doubt, he will find out in due course whether he has done enough today to persuade the Secretary of State for Wales, who is in her place, not to resign in protest at his plans.

We have just embarked on a fundamental review of our policies, just as the Conservatives did after the Prime Minister became leader of his party—and just like the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who appears to have looked again at all his party’s policies since joining the Government. It would be ridiculous for our future support for high-speed rail not to be at the heart of that review—and it will be at the heart of it—given that it is a £30 billion commitment on future Parliaments. In the meantime, however, the Secretary of State has the support of Labour Members as he moves forward with the next stage of planning the route he has set out today.

It would be good if the Secretary of State were to show the same determination and commitment to other critical investment in our rail industry—investment needed now, not in future Parliaments. He has cut and delayed the vital investment we had planned for this Parliament; he has delayed the new generation of inter-city express trains and cut our plans for 1,300 new carriages; he has delayed much of the electrification that we planned and cut Great Western line electrification beyond Bristol and into Wales; and he has delayed the Thameslink and Crossrail schemes, which will not now benefit passengers until 2018—or is it now 2019? It keeps slipping.

We have set out an additional £7.5 billion of capital investment from which significant sums would have been invested in our rail networks in this Parliament. Does the Secretary of State realise that because he has cut so much spending in this Parliament while post-dating a £30 billion cheque for a high-speed rail scheme, the cost of which will fall in future Parliaments, people may well be sceptical about the extent of his commitment to Britain’s railways today? Does he understand how he puts at risk public support for future investment such as high-speed rail, given that he cannot even get the investment to keep our trains and other transport infrastructure running during severe weather?

Does the Secretary of State also understand the anger that will be felt in communities across the country when people hear him claim that his support for high-speed rail is due to concern about the north-south divide in Britain? His party’s support for high-speed rail is a fig leaf to disguise the fact that it has no strategy for investment, jobs or growth in the north. If he were really bothered about the north-south divide, he would not be supporting the scrapping of the regional development agencies, the future jobs fund and the education maintenance allowance, or the trebling of student fees, the delaying of broadband roll-out or the increase in VAT to 20%—another broken promise from both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. If he were really bothered about the north-south divide, he would not be loading the largest cuts on to councils in the midlands and the north. If he were really bothered about transport links beyond the south, why is it that authorities in the north are facing the biggest cuts in their road maintenance and local travel projects, with Merseyside facing cuts of 49% and Manchester cuts of 42%, while midlands and southern counties are doing much better?

Let me ask the Secretary of State some specific questions about the scheme that he has announced today. What impact will the changes to the route, the additional compensation and hardship payments, and the other commitments that he has made today have on the £750 million that he has allocated in this spending period? Can he offer an assurance that that will not have a knock-on effect on other rail schemes already facing cuts and delays, and that it will not set a precedent for compensation in other cases where infrastructure is driven through people’s homes and businesses? He has previously referred to the construction costs for major projects in the UK being significantly higher than for comparable projects elsewhere in Europe. What progress has he made, working with Infrastructure UK, to find ways of bringing down the cost of the scheme to the taxpayer?

Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the cost of the trains to run on the high-speed line has been included in the figures used for the cost of the scheme; or, as with other schemes, such as Crossrail, do they constitute separate expenditure yet to be identified? One of the things missing from the debate on high-speed rail to date has been the likely cost of using the service. Does he agree that if all taxpayers are to contribute so significantly to the cost of constructing the route, it cannot be a service with ticket prices outside the grasp of most people? Does he agree that many people will question his commitment to take the line beyond Birmingham, when he is restricting his proposed legislation to the first part of the route? Why is he not taking powers in the hybrid Bill to build the line to the north of Birmingham?

The Secretary of State’s party has no credibility when it comes to investing in our railways. We remember the 18 years of Tory under-investment in Britain’s railways, and the botched privatisation, which resulted in years of instability and uncertainty. It was Labour that delivered years of sustained investment, leading to a doubling of passenger numbers. He is right to continue the work, which Labour began, to prepare for high-speed rail in the UK. However, we must also see investment in rail schemes that will benefit the country and assist growth and economic recovery now, not just in 15 to 20 years’ time. We must see investment in technology to improve the resilience of the network to severe weather, and we must see passengers protected from the spiralling cost of fares. If the Secretary of State is really serious about maintaining a consensus on high-speed rail and building public support for his plans, he should think again about some of the decisions that he has taken in his first few months in the job. He should think again about cuts to new carriages, the delays to electrification and the massive hike in fares.

[Mr Hammond]

I will start with the good bits. I thank the hon. Lady for what I think was her support for the next stage of the process—going through the consultation and introducing a Bill later in this Parliament, if that is what we decide as a result of the consultation. I am also happy to pay tribute, as she did, to the work of my immediate predecessor in developing the case for high-speed rail, although it is worth noting that not all his predecessors seemed to have been quite so committed to the project.

I am afraid that it is the hon. Lady who lacks credibility, in talking about our failure to invest in the railway. She can talk about a decade of Labour investment as much as she likes. What most people will have noticed is a decade of driving us towards the brink of bankruptcy. What we have done is salvage a substantial programme of investment in rail infrastructure—a programme the scale of which neither she nor many commentators outside this place predicted we would be able to continue with—in the context of the extreme fiscal constraints that we face. We have gone ahead with Crossrail and Thameslink, and with a programme of additional rail vehicles—gone ahead with, not merely announced unfunded promises, which is her legacy. We will go ahead with the inter-city express programme, as I have already announced. We will announce to Parliament the details of that programme, along with the electrification associated with it, in the new year. The hon. Lady can go on all she likes about proposing £17 billion of additional investment. Her party has no economic plan, no policies and no credibility.

Turning to the specifics of the hon. Lady’s response, the high-speed rail investment that we are proposing will be approximately £2 billion a year over a period of 16 years. That is roughly what we are spending now on Thameslink and Crossrail, so large infrastructure projects can be funded while the investment in the mainstream main line railway is funded as it is now.

The hon. Lady asked about our commitment to high speed rail as a means of addressing the north-south divide, and she reeled off a string of tried and failed mechanisms for addressing that persistent problem. We have decided to take a new approach to closing the gap between economic growth rates in the north and south, and the experience of other countries suggests that investment in strategic infrastructure is the best way to deliver that outcome.

The hon. Lady asked whether the change of route and the exceptional hardship scheme will impact on the £750 million that has been set aside for HS 2 during this Parliament, and the answer to that is no. She also asked whether there would be an impact on other rail schemes’ budgets, and the answer is again no. The HS 2 budget is ring-fenced; other rail schemes are typically funded through Network Rail and through support to train operators.

The hon. Lady asked about the compensation scheme. I have indicated that we will seek to go further than has happened with previous such infrastructure schemes in the UK, because it is right and proper that individuals who suffer serious financial loss in the national interest should be compensated. She also asked whether we will be setting a precedent in that regard. She should be aware that developing European jurisprudence in the area of property rights and the need for Governments to compensate is pointing towards more generous compensation becoming the norm, and I suspect that that will be the case for future projects.

On construction costs, yes, we are of course anxious to get such costs down to something closer to European norms. The hon. Lady will know that Sir Roy McNulty is carrying out a review, one element of which relates to the cost of UK rail construction, and Infrastructure UK is also engaged in that issue. A report will be published in April. She asked whether the cost of the trains is included in the total figure, and I can confirm that it is.

The hon. Lady also asked about the assumption with regard to ticketing and to the prices of tickets. I can tell her that the business case modelling assumes the same ticket pricing structures as those that are now in place on the west coast main line. In practice, however, the west coast main line and High Speed 2 will be in competition with each other. The operator of High Speed 2 will have a very large number of seats to fill, and we anticipate that the processes of competition in the marketplace will create opportunities for passengers who are prepared to buy advance tickets and to shop on the internet to get bargains for travel between London, the midlands and the north.

Finally, the hon. Lady asked about the strength of our commitment to going beyond Birmingham. With respect, when her party was in government, its position was always focused on a line from London to Birmingham. It was us who took the debate beyond Birmingham and made the case for Manchester and Leeds. Indeed, the business case for this railway, for the connection to Heathrow airport and for the connection to HS 1 depends on a railway that forms a complete network linking Britain’s four principal population centres, so I can assure her of that commitment.

I put it to the hon. Lady, however, that if we had sought to carry out the detailed work required for a hybrid Bill that covered the entire route, including the legs to Manchester and Leeds, it is unlikely that we would have been able to introduce such a Bill until the end of this Parliament. Our decision was therefore to introduce a hybrid Bill to deal with the London to Birmingham section—which is already a massive undertaking—in 2013, and that, while that Bill is going through Parliament, we should continue our detailed work on the legs to Manchester and Leeds, so that they can be included in a further hybrid Bill in the next Parliament.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

The Secretary of State kindly visited my constituency to investigate the impact of the route there. He will recall that he himself noted how high it would be. There would be large gantries and viaducts crossing motorways. At the time, he said that he would ask HS2 Ltd whether it could do anything to mitigate the impact. He did not mention North Warwickshire in his statement; is he able to give people in the area any good news?

[Mr Hammond]

I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the point at which the railway will cross the M6 at Coleshill. At my request, HS 2 looked into whether it was possible to build under the motorway, but I am afraid that that is not technically possible. HS 2 has managed to reduce the height of the proposed flyover by a modest amount, but I am afraid that it will still be quite high at Coleshill.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that what he has announced will involve the demolition of 350 flats in my constituency, the building over of a well-loved park, and the abandonment of a proposal to rebuild a girls’ Catholic secondary school on the part of the site that has been taken over? While people in Primrose Hill may welcome the minor changes that he has announced, they will feel a little surrounded if there is to be a further tunnel on the other side of Primrose Hill, emerging at Chalk Farm, because they will have a tunnel on both sides. Does the Secretary of State accept that HS2 Ltd really ought to go back to the drawing board? The idea that the connection of a significant network will be dependent on a spur connecting HS 2 with HS 1 is preposterous, and the company really ought to start again.

[Mr Hammond]

Before the right hon. Gentleman describes the proposal as preposterous, he should look at what has been published and consider it carefully. It is a carefully worked-out engineering solution that provides a value-for-money answer for people who believe that it is essential for trains to run directly from the midlands and the north of England, through the channel tunnel, and onwards to the European high-speed network.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the impact on his constituency, which arises largely from the planned expansion of Euston station. Yes, there will be a number of property demolitions and replacements. It is planned to replace the properties that I have seen alongside the railway in his constituency with new properties. Some of the existing properties date from the 1920s and 1930s, and could do with being replaced. As he said, part of a small park will also be required.

The detailed design for the replacement Euston station has not yet been completed, but it is possible that it will be largely below ground level. At present, a large piece of the structure effectively creates a barrier down the middle of the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, separating east from west. Camden council is keen for that barrier to go, and for a natural pattern of streets to be opened up at the back of Euston station. I hope that we shall be able to facilitate that through this project, and to bring a positive benefit to the people of Camden.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is well aware that my constituency has been severely blighted by the proposed route of the high speed railway, and he has received about 500 letters from me explaining quite how devastating that is for my constituents, so I shall not dwell on that now. Let me ask him, however, whether this is really the best value for money and the best solution to the undoubted need for new transport infrastructure. In particular, is the demand for seats really going to grow by 3% every year, as has been forecast to make the economic case? Is it really true that people do nothing when they are sitting on a train, and that that is dead time? There is also a lack of connectivity: there is nothing in it for anyone who is under the track.

Let me say finally—as you are looking at me crossly, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that there is a risk that other trains will be axed later to make way for HS 2 trains on the platforms. I should be grateful for the Secretary of State’s comments on that.

[Mr Hammond]

I can reassure my hon. Friend on the last point. Other trains will not be axed to make way for HS 2 trains. This will be a dedicated high-speed passenger line, and it will not affect other railways.

My hon. Friend asked about the impact on South Northamptonshire. Obviously I am well aware of her concerns: I spend most Sunday afternoons signing letters to her and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan). We have gone to great lengths to try to minimise the impacts on my hon. Friend’s constituents and the communities she serves. If she looks at the maps and plans we have published today, she will see that we have been able to achieve a reduction in the impact, and I hope that, during the course of the consultation, I will be able to engage with local communities about the mitigation measures that will be put in place, including extensive planting, bunding and sound barriers to reduce that impact further. On the question about growth in passenger numbers, the model the Office of Rail Regulation uses is based on demand for travel growing broadly in line with the economy and all the evidence suggests that that is the case. Those growth forecasts are robust and we expect them to be achieved.

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

High Speed 2 is about vital economic development, as well as about providing essential additional capacity for passengers and freight, but when will the Secretary of State explain how this essential economic development will take place, and will he guarantee that the line will run past Birmingham so as to bring benefits to the north, as well as between London and Birmingham?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Lady is, I think, repeating the suspicion—I can only describe it as that—of the Opposition spokesman, who expressed some concern that we might not be going to continue beyond Birmingham. Our firm intention is to go to Leeds and Manchester. Indeed, the business case will be based on the completion of the Y network to Manchester and Birmingham, but I would not like anyone to be—

[Frank Dobson]

And Leeds?

[Mr Hammond]

Yes, and Leeds. However, I would not like anyone to be under the illusion that benefits for people living north of Birmingham will begin to accrue only when the second phase is built. The point of reconnecting the first phase of the line to the west coast main line is that people travelling to Manchester, Liverpool and Scotland will enjoy journey-time savings from the point at which the first phase to Birmingham is opened. That is because the trains we will operate on this proposed railway will run straight off the high-speed line and on to the classic line, dropping the speed down to the line speed of the classic line, but allowing passengers to enjoy the benefit of the journey-time saving between London and Birmingham.

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

I hope it is in order, Mr Deputy Speaker, briefly to congratulate you on your brave announcement yesterday, and to welcome you to the club.

Has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had an opportunity to study the experiences of countries such as France, Germany and Spain and the lessons they learned in the construction of their high speed lines? I am thinking in particular about their very effective schemes to minimise noise pollution. Also, please can we ensure that our new railway infrastructure is not a series of new ugly concrete constructions, but instead that we have structures of which we can proud, as we have had in the past with, for example, the Forth bridge and Brunel’s tunnels and viaducts?

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Yes, we have looked very closely at what has happened in France and at what is happening in Spain, and we have drawn on the experience of those countries in modelling the business case and addressing the approach to mitigation. My hon. Friend’s question reminds me to make a rather important point. We will not be committing to orders for trains for this railway until almost 2020, so there is another 10 years’ worth of train design development before the commitment has to be made.

[Frank Dobson]

Like for the aircraft carriers.

[Mr Hammond]

Well, they were your aircraft carriers, and I am not going to let the right hon. Gentleman anywhere near designing our trains; that is for sure.

The Eurostar trains that run on HS 1 were designed nearly 20 years ago and have concentrated power cars at front and rear. There will therefore be about 30 years of evolution in train design in respect of reducing noise and increasing fuel efficiency between the design of the Eurostar trains and the design of the trains that will run on these lines.

I also say to my hon. Friend that where we can hide this line, we will hide it. Where we cannot hide it, we will ensure that it is architecturally designed and that it is something that people are pleased to look at, not a British Rail engineering-style eyesore.

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

Given the massive cuts to regional and local transport systems that have already been announced and the fact that the capacity problem could be dealt with by investment in the existing west coast main line, why are the Government wasting billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on this scheme?

[Mr Hammond]

Because the capacity problem could not be dealt with by further investment in the west coast main line. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that it could, but if he looks at the engineering reports that have been published, he will see that, in practice, it could not. We are going ahead with additional rail cars and additional train sets on the west coast main line, and the Network Rail route utilisation study published two weeks ago shows that by 2024 the line will be operating at capacity between London and Manchester, and London and Birmingham. It is not possible, because of the design of the infrastructure—we are not just talking about platform lengths—to put longer trains on a railway that is designed in the way that the west coast main line was designed. If he recalls the chaos that lasted for years when the west coast main line was upgraded a couple of years ago and if, on the back of that, he is seriously proposing that we should add two additional tracks to its entire length while resignalling the whole thing, he needs to think again.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on having the foresight to add a connection from High Speed 2 to High Speed 1. Can he tell me what the capacity will be for this link and so give this House an indication of the proportion of services from Birmingham that will be able to be through services to the continent?

[Mr Hammond]

The determining factor, of course, will be commercial considerations: how much passenger load there is and where interchanges might be made in the system between Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Old Oak Common and the route through the channel tunnel. However, the proposed single bore tunnel will have capacity for four trains per hour in each direction.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s response to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) will bring little comfort to people in Warwickshire or those living on the outskirts of Coventry. I wish to ask the Secretary of State specifically about the increase in the frequency of service between Coventry and London that he mentioned in his statement. Does he understand that what will anger a lot of people is the blighting, which can go on for many years? What sort of compensation scheme will he offer? Normally, such schemes are based on market values, but the market value of some of the properties involved is set to drop drastically. Can he answer that one?

[Mr Hammond]

The consultation will set out the proposals for compensation. Of course compensation arrangements have to be based on market value, but they should be based on the unblighted market value of the property in question. On the frequency of services from Coventry to London, one of the points that I have tried, on several occasions, to make to the hon. Gentleman and to other hon. Members is that the west coast main line will change radically in nature once this railway is built. It will no longer be primarily about long-distance trains from Scotland, Preston, Manchester and Liverpool; it will be about long-distance commuter services. Places such as Milton Keynes and Coventry will be well within commuting range of London with fast commuter services. I say to him that if he looks around the south-east, he will find that one of the great drivers of prosperity is the ability of people to get into London quickly and reliably on frequent services. The ability to extend that to stations on the west coast main line will greatly benefit the population of those areas.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend on his statement and the speed with which he has brought forward these proposals. He is particularly right to reject some of the criticisms of the Opposition, because I recall that their conversion came only with Lord Adonis and that proposals for anything beyond Birmingham were tacked on only in March this year. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with Transport for London? Beyond Old Oak Common, what dispersal measures will be needed in London?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

By the time the HS2 railway is built, the improvements and upgrades to the Northern line—for which we confirmed our investment funding in the recent spending review statement—will be completed. Dispersal will take place, it is estimated, with about one third at Old Oak Common, with passengers dispersing principally on to Crossrail, and about two thirds at Euston, with the upgraded Northern line. I have also asked HS2 to consider remodelling the station at Euston, so that Euston Square station can be incorporated into the main Euston station, giving access to additional underground lines.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

These things are never easy, and the Secretary of State has said that he has done a lot of listening. When he sets up the roadshows for the new proposals, will he personally attend them to hear what citizens have to say about his new plans?

[Mr Hammond]

I am not sure that that will be practical, in view of the number and frequency of the roadshow events. I can absolutely assure him that I will attend at least one—probably more than one—but I certainly cannot promise to attend all of them. Perhaps I might elaborate on this point. We intend to hold specific, locally focused roadshows at multiple points along the line of the London to Birmingham part of the route, where the exact route alignment has been defined. We envisage that those discussions will mainly be about local impacts. We also intend to hold a series of more broadly based meetings across the UK to discuss the broader principles of high speed rail and some of the more strategic issues about the route choices.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement, which I believe will help address the north-south divide. Has he made a detailed estimate that is available to Members of the huge economic benefits of this scheme to the north of England?

[Mr Hammond]

A full business case showing the economic benefits of the proposed railway will now be updated on the basis of the route that I have set out today. That will be published at the commencement of the consultation in February.

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

I am suspicious, even though I do not want to be. I want to give the Secretary of State complete support, but 90% of investment in railways already goes into the south-east. As he said, £2 billion a year goes into Crossrail and £2 billion a year into Thameslink. Now he is suggesting that another £2 billion a year should go into the Birmingham-London link. It would partially remedy the north-south divide if the work was started in the north and moved to the south. If he cannot do that and really wants the support of northern MPs, the hybrid Bill should cover the lines to the north, too. Will he consider that?

[Mr Hammond]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s suspicion. It is in the blood, I suspect. I also understand his point, and it would help to allay these concerns if, in some way, we could include in the first hybrid Bill specific commitments to Manchester and Leeds. We cannot include detailed route alignments and land acquisition because that would make the Bill vast and it would probably be in Committee for about five years. I take on board his points, and also any suggestions he might have about how we might do that practically, which is something that I have also discussed with my predecessor. Everyone who wishes this project well understands the need to give strong reassurance to those communities around Manchester, Leeds, South Yorkshire and the east midlands that stand to benefit from the second phase.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

May I, too, offer my best wishes and support to you, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Having travelled down this morning on a very packed train from Leeds, may I say how much I welcome this statement? I am looking forward to seeing HS 2 come to Leeds. Given that trains going in and out of the station in Leeds are expected to see a 40% increase in the number of passengers, what extra capacity does the Secretary of State think that HS 2 will bring to the long-suffering passengers in Leeds and the north of England?

[Mr Hammond]

The route will more than triple the potential capacity available to passengers. I suspect that the very packed train that my hon. Friend experienced this morning might have been due to some specific problems on the east coast main line caused by overhead cable difficulties. I welcome his support. This will be a major deliverer of economic regeneration to Leeds and, in the next economic cycle, I hope that Leeds can resume the dash for growth and regeneration that it has so clearly pursued over the past few years.

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

The Secretary of State will be aware of the strength of support among the Scottish business community and the Glasgow and Edinburgh economic partnership for the principle of extending high speed rail to Scotland. When does he expect to open detailed discussions with the Scottish Government about the financing of high speed track in Scotland, should the Scottish Government decide to accommodate that? Can he give us an indicative timeline, if those discussions prove successful, for when we might expect to see high speed track in Scotland?

[Mr Hammond]

It is important for the hon. Gentleman to note that the benefit is incremental. Once we have high speed to Birmingham, that will shorten journeys to Glasgow and Edinburgh, and once we have high speed to north of Manchester, that will shorten them still further. We are committed to discussions with the Scottish Government, but that would be a third phase to the project—we have to get to Manchester and Leeds first. The appropriate time to start discussing that third phase will be when we start the detailed design work on the second phase.

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

Can we support High Speed 2 as a movement toward sustainability and welcome the Government’s communication with people? I refer particularly to the extension to HS 1, which allows the modal shift from airlines to railway usage. Will the Secretary of State consider supporting the way in which the A45 is to be moved to within Birmingham international airport so that the runway extension is in place for when High Speed 2 comes through?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman has thrown a slightly separate question at me there, but I can confirm that I have had discussions with Birmingham airport, and indeed the NEC, and they are strong supporters of the project. Like many others, they see it as opening up huge opportunities for them.

Birmingham airport will be about 30 to 35 minutes’ travel from London Heathrow on the high speed rail link. That is less time than it currently takes, with a fair wind, to get from terminal 4 to terminal 5 at Heathrow. The opportunities are quite significant.

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

Returning to Birmingham, but this time to the spur that goes into Birmingham, I was intrigued by the Secretary of State’s announcement on compensation and enhanced compensation schemes. Do they apply only to the main line or also to the spur into the centre of Birmingham? As well as applying to private individuals, do they apply to institutions such as universities with halls of residence that are somewhat inconveniently located on some of the routes?

[Mr Hammond]

The exceptional hardship scheme, which is the scheme in place to deal with people who have an urgent and pressing need to move and cannot do so because of the effects of uncertainty around the proposals, applies to the complete alignment of the route into Birmingham. It applies to residential properties, but not to commercially owned properties. It is unfortunate that the halls of residence to which the hon. Lady refers—a virtually new building—sit across the route of the railway. If the railway goes ahead, that commercially owned property, or at least part of it, will have to be demolished and full compensation will be paid. I expect that it will be rebuilt in full with the proceeds of that compensation.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call John McDonnell—I am sorry, I mean Jeremy Lefroy.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. He said that after the first stage of the project is complete, trains will run on the existing west coast main line northwards. Given the limit on the number of train paths on that line even now, what effect will that have on existing services and timetables?

[Mr Hammond]

The major constraints on capacity are south of Manchester, particularly on the Birmingham to London stretch, but clearly there will still be constraints on capacity as there is not infinite capacity available. We expect a significant proportion of train paths in the early days will be on the London to Birmingham and London to Manchester routes with a smaller number going on northwards, reflecting current patterns of passenger demand.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

And now the ever-patient John McDonnell.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I say to the Secretary of State that I am just grateful we are getting a train set for Christmas and not a third runway at Heathrow. He has referred to the Heathrow link, the Mawhinney review and the Arup proposals for a transport hub near Iver and has concluded that there should be a spur to the airport running close to the M25. Does that mean that the Iver hub will or will not take place?

[Mr Hammond]

We do not favour the proposal for the Iver hub as a way of delivering high speed rail passengers into Heathrow. It is worth noting that the proposals that Arup worked up on its own account—it was not commissioned to do so—around the hub at Iver were originally intended as a proposal for getting traffic from the Great Western main line into Heathrow. HS 2 came along as a bit of an add-on to that proposal, and Arup may still wish to pursue it as a proposal that is of interest for that purpose, but it is not our preferred route for getting high speed rail passengers into Heathrow.

Severe Winter Weather

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

17:25

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

With permission, I would like to make a statement on the continuing severe winter weather. We are facing exceptional conditions. It looks set to be the coldest December since 1910 with average temperatures 4°C to 5°C below the norm for December. Many areas have had record low temperatures, and snowfall has been the most widespread since 1981. The forecast is for continued severe cold and further snowfall through the coming week and over Christmas and the new year.

Transport services have suffered extensive disruption in the past few days, and there is a likelihood, I am afraid, of further disruption through this week. I recognise that this is particularly stressful just a few days ahead of the Christmas break, and I understand the frustration of those who are trying to get away or, indeed, trying to get home.

Transport services were also disrupted in the first spell of winter weather that came unusually early, at the end of November. That period tested the systems which, in some case, had performed so very poorly earlier this year. The then Government asked David Quarmby, chairman of the RAC Foundation and a former chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, to conduct a review of last winter’s resilience. His initial report was issued in July and a final report was published in October. It made 28 recommendations, some of them directed at central Government, some at local government, and some at transport operators. Many of those recommendations have already been implemented, although some will necessarily take longer.

On 2 December I asked David Quarmby, in the light of the weather conditions that we were then experiencing, to conduct an audit of the implementation of his recommendations and to make any further observations that he felt necessary. This is an independent report and I understand that David Quarmby intends to publish it tomorrow.

One of the principal recommendations of the first Quarmby report concerned salt—levels of stocks that local authorities should hold, dosage rates for optimum use of stocks and the acquisition of a strategic stockpile by central Government. Local authorities went into this period with significantly better salt stocks than last winter and the Highways Agency, on the Government’s behalf, had purchased 300,000 tonnes of salt to form a strategic stockpile, of which over 150,000 tonnes is already at UK ports, with the remainder scheduled for delivery through December and early January.

Over the past few days, highway authorities across England have been focused on delivering their planned salting and snow clearance to keep their local strategic road networks open. Together they had ready some 1.25 million tonnes of salt at the start of the winter. As hon. Members would expect, salt usage has been significantly above the norm for the time of year and so my Department decided two weeks ago to procure, as a precautionary measure, up to an additional 250,000 tonnes of salt, to replenish the strategic stockpile as salt from it is released to local authorities. Last Friday the Department for Transport offered 30,000 tonnes from the strategic stockpile to local authorities to provide reassurance over the holiday period. That allocation has been taken up and will be delivered over the next few days.

The strategic road network inevitably suffered severe disruption in the wake of heavy snowfall this weekend, but recovered reasonably rapidly and, with isolated exceptions, has operated effectively since Saturday afternoon. Similarly, heavy snow and the formation of ice at very low temperatures caused some disruption on rail networks on Friday and Saturday, but the rail industry has pulled together to keep essential services running, using special timetables where necessary, and I am pleased to report that commuter services into main conurbations this morning are close to normal. Transport for London has successfully followed its winter weather plans and has been able to run a near-normal service across its network. However, issues with Eurostar are ongoing and have been well reported today, including the impacts of very severe weather in northern France.

Disruption due to weather conditions of this extremity is inevitable, and the measure of resilience is the networks’ speed of recovery from such events. On that measure, the strategic road network and the rail network have performed broadly satisfactorily, in view of the exceptional circumstances. The experience at airports, and at Heathrow in particular, has however been different. Conditions have been difficult throughout north-west Europe, with Frankfurt, Charles de Gaulle and Schiphol airports all struggling to cope at times. This afternoon, just before I came into the Chamber, it was being reported that Brussels airport will close until Wednesday because it has run out of de-icer. But, yesterday’s whole-day virtual closure at Heathrow, coupled with continued substantially reduced capacity, presents a very real challenge from which the system will struggle to recover quickly.

I spoke this morning to BAA, the airport operator, and to British Airways, its principal user. I am clear that BA made the right call on Saturday to cancel its flights in anticipation of the airport’s closure. Had it not done so, the scenes of the terminals on Saturday night that we witnessed on our TV screens could have been much worse.

Heathrow operates, at normal times, at some 98% of full capacity, so when there is disruption caused by snow or by the need repeatedly to close runways or taxiways for de-icing, capacity is inevitably lost and a backlog builds up. There is still a large amount of work to be done to restore Heathrow to full capacity, and further snow and severe icing is anticipated over the next few days.

The immediate focus at Heathrow must therefore be on maximising the number of flights with the available infrastructure, and in order to do that I agreed with BAA this morning to a relaxation of restrictions on night flights for the next four days. Operating hours will be extended until 1 am, and arrivals for repatriation flights will be allowed through the night. None the less, BAA advises that, with further severe weather forecast, Heathrow is likely to be operating at reduced capacity until Christmas.

Conditions in the terminals overnight on Saturday were very difficult, with some 2,000 passengers stranded. Once the airport has returned to normal operation, my officials will work with BAA to understand how that situation arose and what it plans to change to ensure that we do not experience a repeat. It is clear from my discussions this morning that some preliminary conclusions have already been drawn.

We recognise that the cost, both economic and social, of this level of disruption can be great. Winters such as this year’s and last have been rare in modern Britain, but we need to consider whether we are now seeing in our weather a step change that might justify investment in equipment and technologies to reduce the impact of severe weather. I will assess advice on that subject from the Government’s chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir John Beddington, and we will work with transport operators to examine the business case in each sector for increased investment in winter resilience where that makes sense—recognising always that spending more on winter preparedness inevitably means that there will be less to spend on other priorities.

This is not just about making sure that people can travel and goods can be delivered. Disrupted transport links, combined with cold weather, increasingly impact on other essential services. In particular, they threaten the vulnerable in our communities. To help those most in need to stay warm in the coldest parts of the country, the Government have so far this winter paid out some £355 million in cold weather payments, through an estimated 14.2 million payments to affected households. In addition. winter fuel payments for pensioners have been protected at the higher rate for this winter, with 12.9 million payments made to those older people who meet the qualifying conditions. We have also taken precautionary steps to ensure that the health services are well prepared, with local plans in place to deal with the extra demands that this type of weather brings.

Despite those steps, weather of this severity can cause unexpected problems for many people, including those who would not normally consider themselves vulnerable, but who might be in serious difficulty if, for example, their boiler breaks down or they cannot get to the local chemist to collect their medication. With support from the Government, the Local Government Association will therefore work closely with local authorities in England to ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place across the country. Individual local authorities will publicise information locally on how to access those advice services ahead of the Christmas holiday period.

Severe weather poses significant challenges to the energy supply industry. Difficult driving conditions have affected fuel oil and coal suppliers’ ability to make deliveries, particularly to more remote areas away from the strategic road network. That has resulted in delivery backlogs, which suppliers have been working hard to reduce in difficult circumstances. Distributors are doing all they can to prioritise deliveries to vulnerable customers and to people who are running short of fuel. Working with the Government, the Federation of Petroleum Suppliers has issued a code of practice to its members to help them prioritise orders to those most in need and to alert local authorities when they are aware of a risk of potentially vulnerable households running short of heating oil.

The severe weather has also led to a very high forecast of demand for gas, which is expected to be more than 26% above the normal for this time of year. As a result, the National Grid issued a gas-balancing alert yesterday to provide a signal to the market to bring on additional supplies and to reduce demand from large users on interruptible contracts. There is no reason to expect any disruption to domestic customers, or to commercial customers unless they have interruptible contracts. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has today issued a written statement that provides more information on that issue.

Nationally, we will continue to do whatever is necessary to support essential services and provide advice to businesses and householders on steps they can take to help themselves and others. So, for example, we have published a snow code to give common-sense advice to householders and businesses to help them clear snow and ice safely from pavements and public spaces without fear of legal action. As an emergency measure, we have relaxed the enforcement of EU drivers’ hours and working-time rules to mitigate the effect of the severe weather on critical parts of the supply chain that have been badly hit by the weather. We published guidance for local highway authorities on the range of actions that can be taken to ensure optimum use of salt stocks, and over the next few days we will publish updated technical advice based on the latest research findings, so that all authorities can adopt best practice. We have also confirmed to farmers that they can use red diesel in tractors and other equipment to help salt and clear snow from public roads during extreme weather.

We are not yet through this period of extreme weather. My priority at the moment remains working with the transport industries to allow us to return to normal as fast as the continued freezing temperatures this week permit. I will also be working with ministerial colleagues and officials from other Departments, with whom I have been in contact daily since Friday, to continue monitoring the situation, assessing the risk of further disruption and taking whatever action is needed. Those arrangements will continue for as long as necessary through the holiday period. I can assure the House that wherever Government action can help to ease the impact of severe weather or mitigate its effects, we will not hesitate to take such action. I commend this statement to the House.

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

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for updating the House. After a weekend of chaos across the country, during which there have been severe transport problems on our roads, railways and runways, families struggling to get together for Christmas are furious that they have spent hours stuck in their cars at stations or airport terminals. What has really frustrated people has been the total lack of information available. They understand that things will go wrong when we experience such severe weather and no one—not even me—is suggesting that the Government can, or ought to be able to, control the weather. However, the Government should be able to control how prepared we are for that weather, and they can co-ordinate information so that those travelling can make and alter their plans accordingly.

Right from the first hit of severe weather at the start of this month, the right hon. Gentleman and his Department have seemed woefully ill-prepared for winter, despite the fact that the report on winter resilience that we ordered in government has been sitting on his desk since July. The 17 recommendations in the interim report and the 11 recommendations in the final report have clearly not been put into action with the urgency that they demanded. At the last Transport questions, he said that those recommendations had been implemented, yet in his statement he said that some of them will necessarily take longer. Well, which is it?

The reality is that Transport Ministers were caught off guard by the arrival of winter early this year, and failed to keep the country moving at a time when so many people need to travel to be with their family and friends. I am afraid that some of the right hon. Gentleman’s words today still sound complacent. Why was only 100,000 tonnes of salt for the roads in place at the start of the month, when the report said that 250,000 tonnes was needed? Can he confirm which local authorities currently have salt stocks below the new benchmark of 12 days’ worth of salt? What conversations has he had about services to deal with the abandoned cars and jack-knifed vehicles that have caused much of the delay? What steps has he considered to manage traffic flows better—for example, by not letting people join a motorway such as the M5 when it is already blocked, so that they will end up sitting in their cars not going anywhere? He said in his statement that the strategic routes have operated effectively since Saturday afternoon or evening: tell that to the people who were stuck for 13 and a half hours on the M40 trying to travel towards London.

On our railways, why does the update report that the Secretary of State has received in the past few days contradict the claim that the rail industry has sufficient equipment? Why are essential measures such as anti-icing capability on trains and new hot fluid distribution on to tracks not going to be in place until February, according to the most recent update—a little bit too late?

Does the Secretary of State accept that the most frustrating thing for passengers is lack of information? Why is it, therefore, that the new unified national real-time passenger transport information system to allow passengers to find out where their trains actually are, not what the timetable says, will not be in place until 2014? He said that the railways had kept essential services running and that commuter services were running well and close to normal, but people were stuck at Peterborough and King’s Cross last night with very little information about when the east coast main line was going to get back to normal.

The chaos that we have seen at our major airports is not only unacceptable but risks damaging our international reputation. It is just not good enough to pass this off as a private sector problem, as the Secretary of State did earlier. Passengers stuck at Heathrow and Gatwick for days on end have every right to feel abandoned by this Government. Other countries have kept planes flying and airports open, yet here passengers have been left on planes for hours on end without food and drink, and others have been forced to sleep on terminal floors with no blankets and poor information. The winter resilience report found that those in the aviation sector

“anticipate and manage the effects of severe winter weather to a very high standard of resilience”.

That is surprising given what we have seen in the past few days. Will he examine whether there has been any complacency among those at our airports? He referred to some preliminary conclusions following his conversations today, but he has not told us what they are. It might be useful to know.

Is it not the case that the chaos that we have seen has as much to do with this Government’s values as their competence? The Prime Minister’s close ally, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), gave the game away this weekend when he said:

“I mean, bluntly, there comes a question in life…Do you believe planning works…or do you believe it can’t work? I believe it can’t work, David Cameron believes it can’t, Nick Clegg believes it can’t. Chaos therefore in our vocabulary is a good thing.”

The right hon. Gentleman has obviously volunteered his Department to pilot this new approach to government and become the official Department for Chaos. He is doing quite well, actually. No wonder he has been dubbed the “No Transport Secretary” this morning.

People want competence from Ministers. They want good-quality information when disruption happens. They want co-ordination of recovery and mitigation across the entire system. They want help when they need it; they do not want to be left to fend for themselves as though there were no such thing as society. Will the right hon. Gentleman now learn the lessons of the past month and finally get a grip on the transport chaos that threatens to see Christmas cancelled for families up and down the country?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

After a heavy dump of snow, we have had a heavy dump of political opportunism from the hon. Lady. She talks of chaos, but does she remember the chaos last year when the Government of whom she was a member ran out of salt and had to stop gritting the roads because they had not bought enough of the stuff? They had not prepared at all. I will take no lectures from her on preparedness. Local authorities, the Highways Agency, rail operators and Network Rail have all entered this winter better prepared than they were last winter.

The hon. Lady talked about Quarmby’s interim report and final report, and the implementation of his recommendations. Of course action on some of the recommendations has not been completed yet—it requires capital investment and the procurement of new equipment, such as de-icing equipment for trains in the south-east. The first of that equipment has been delivered and fitted, and is undergoing proving trials. As soon as the proving is complete, the remaining 20 units will be rolled out. She cannot sit here with no plan, no suggestion and nothing constructive to offer, simply lobbing rocks from the sidelines, and expect to be treated seriously. As for our delivery on Quarmby’s recommendations, I suggest that she wait to see his report on the audit that he has carried out. He is their man, he was appointed by their Government, and he is now auditing our response to his recommendations. She should wait and see what he has to say before making such ridiculous points.

We were not caught off guard by the onset of winter, but we were caught off guard by the severity of the weather, as was everybody in this country. The hon. Lady asked about the recommendation that a strategic stockpile of 250,000 tonnes of salt be built. The Highways Agency has purchased 300,000 tonnes of salt, 156,000 tonnes of which has been delivered. The remainder is scheduled to be delivered over the next three weeks. If one is building a strategic stockpile, there is no need to replenish local authority stocks throughout the length of the winter, nor for every last ounce of it to be sitting in place on 30 November.

The hon. Lady asked how many local authorities are below the 12 days’ resilience level recommended by Quarmby. That threshold was recommended for the beginning of winter. Of course, many local authorities that were operating at or close to the threshold are now considerably below the 12 days’ resilience level, although some local authorities have much more substantial stocks. If they wish, local authorities will be resupplied from the strategic reserve that we have built. In turn, the strategic reserve will be replenished from the salt that we are currently sourcing from locations across the world, including south America, the middle east, India and Australia.

The hon. Lady asked about vehicles joining motorways. The police have powers to prevent vehicles from entering a motorway, if they deem it appropriate to do so.

The hon. Lady also mentioned the situation at the airports, and I am happy to agree that what has happened at Heathrow airport is not acceptable. We have to work with the airport operators and the airlines to work out how to avoid such situations. I can give her further clarification on the early conclusions that have been shared with me by the airport operator. It recognises that it was a mistake to continue trying to operate the schedules that it was using on Saturday, and that it should have made a decision earlier to cut severely the number of flights departing and arriving, so that the airport would not be congested with aircraft when the snow came in. That is the kind of practical lesson learning that must be done. We will work with the airport operators to ensure that next time such lessons are learned and implemented.

Finally, the hon. Lady had the audacity to ask why the rail equipment that Quarmby recommended in his October report is not in place and operating. The answer is clear: Labour did not order it when it was in government. We have ordered it, but it does not appear by magic, simply by snapping your fingers; these things have a lead time and must be done properly. The equipment will be in place by the end of the winter, and it will make our railways operate more effectively.

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

Northumberland has had very heavy snowfall over a very long period, so I welcome the efforts being made to get domestic oil deliveries to remote homes, where people are getting really desperate. May I ask the Secretary of State to talk to his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government? Local authorities such as Northumberland are having to spend heavily from their reserves to keep roads open, at just the time when that Department is saying that using reserves is the way to fund redundancies.

[Mr Hammond]

My understanding, which the Local Government Association confirms, is that all local authorities are saying that they are adequately funded to deal with the contingencies of the severe weather, and that funding constraint will not be a problem in responding to the situation this winter.

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

In this exceptional weather, can the Secretary of State assure us that he has adequate means of becoming aware of the emerging problems as well as the current ones? Will he explain the powers and influence that he is ready to use to alleviate the situation, whether by providing additional resources, improving co-ordination or ensuring a better flow of information?

[Mr Hammond]

We are operating a cross-departmental ministerial team approach, because we need to consider matters such as health, the protection of vulnerable people and energy supplies. There is also a huge role for local government in responding to a situation such as the current one. We are receiving four-hourly update reports on the situation, including Met Office forward forecasts, and over the past few days we have been convening daily to consider the current situation, the expectations for the next 24 hours and the actions that are needed. As I said in my statement, when there is something that the Government can do, bearing in mind that we do not own or operate many of the transport networks—such as relaxing the ban on night flying at Heathrow or the restrictions on drivers’ hours—we will do it.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I spent eight hours at Heathrow terminal 3 on Saturday, and there was no information whatever about what was happening to flights. On the other hand, people who were due to fly with British Airways from terminal 5 had advance notice and did not travel to the airport. The question must be: why did operators such as Virgin Atlantic not cancel their programmes? Will the Government look into that?

[Mr Hammond]

We will, and my hon. Friend’s question has to be addressed to the operators. British Airways made the call on Saturday morning to cancel all flights, because it considered it certain that the airport would have to close. I have spoken to Willie Walsh today, and he has told me that based on the forecast he saw on Saturday morning, any airport anywhere in Europe, bar none, would have had to close. BA therefore made the decision to pull all its flights.

The lesson that is emerging for BAA, which it will take away from the situation, is that it has to be more proactive in examining forward forecasts, and that when airlines do not make a decision to stop flights, the operator might have to make that decision for them, to avoid large numbers of people being stranded in terminals.

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

I hope that the Secretary of State will join me in thanking many of my constituents and their colleagues who work at Heathrow for trying to get the airport open and fully operational again in the most difficult circumstances.

I join the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) in saying that the lesson to be learned from the last occasion when such a problem occurred, although not on the same scale, was about information. We thought that lesson had been learned. BAA and the individual airlines must be required not only to take decisions soon enough, but to communicate them proactively and directly to customers travelling with them.

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to record my thanks, and the thanks of the Government, to the hundreds of workers who have been out, often in temperatures of minus 10°C or minus 11° C, clearing snow and de-icing through the night, as well as caring for passengers stranded in terminals. They have done a fantastic job, and I am afraid they will have to go on doing that fantastic job for the next few days.

The hon. Gentleman is also right to focus on information. Nobody likes to have their travel plans disrupted, but one of the interesting features of human psychology is that somehow, things are never quite as bad if people know what is going on. As he will know, we have committed to introducing an airport economic regulation Bill during this Parliament. One thing that we are committed to doing in that Bill is ensuring that airport operators’ financial incentives are clearly aligned with the needs and interests of passengers. I will ensure that supplying information is part of that matrix, so that the operators will do it because it is in their financial interests. That certainly seems to be a motivating factor.

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

The Secretary of State will be aware that a delegation of Kent MPs recently met the management of Southeastern Trains to discuss the chaos and deep passenger dissatisfaction caused by the bad weather a few weeks ago. The latest conditions have yet again led to much disruption to services for Southeastern passengers. When the franchise is considered for extension in 2012 will he consider, among the other necessary factors, Southeastern’s poor service delivery during adverse weather?

[Mr Hammond]

Of course we examine the performance of train operators, and it is absolutely right that Southeastern’s performance was very poor during the bout of cold weather at the end of November. However, in the current weather conditions, the information that I have on Southeastern’s performance over the past 72 hours is far less clear-cut. The disruption has been no more than is to be expected in the extreme weather, and as I understand it, commuter services into London on Southeastern by and large operated normally this morning.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The public expect Ministers to be players, not just spectators. Snow happens, but it is the urgency of the response that matters. The Secretary of State said nothing about whether Cobra has been meeting, nothing about what the Government offices are doing to co-ordinate their response, and very little about what he has done with the various companies and airports. He has not said whether he has asked them why they do not have senior management down there dealing with the problems, why the train companies have not got information to people who have waited for hour after hour on trains and platforms, or why the police are not taking action to get people off the motorway. With the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change sitting next to him, he did not say why he has not done anything about the exploitation of fuel oil and bottled gas. Does he think that that is why he is rumoured to be one of the early victims of the new year reshuffle?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

May I say that we want very short questions? Obviously, it would be helpful—[Interruption.] Order, Mr Penning. It would be helpful if the Secretary of State could also shorten his answers, although I understand that this is a very important subject.

[Mr Hammond]

I can shorten the answer to that question, Mr Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman offered nothing constructive, and people watching will see that he has nothing to offer except a meaningless rant. I told him in the statement that a cross-ministerial team is meeting regularly and that regional resilience teams are in operation.

What is the right hon. Gentleman talking about, saying that none of the senior management are at airports? Of course senior management, both of the operators and the airlines, are there managing the situation hands-on. He had better ask the police why they are not taking action, because they take the action that they believe is appropriate.

As for fuel, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has asked the Office of Fair Trading to look into—[Interruption.] Labour Members seem to think that we should introduce some kind of Moscow-style central control over everything. The fuel oil business in this country is operated through hundreds of small independent firms, and if price collusion or illegal activity is driving up the price to consumers, the OFT will report back to my right hon. Friend and he will take the appropriate action.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend explain why some operators stopped flying when runways had been cleared and were still open? Secondly, why did it take four hours to remove a tanker from the M1, the country’s main arterial road, on Saturday afternoon, resulting in massive delays for southbound traffic?

[Mr Hammond]

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is referring to a tanker accident on the M25 on Saturday afternoon.

[David Tredinnick]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Hammond]

There are problems in recovering tankers after accidents. I am aware of the accident on the M25, after which there was some possibility at first of having to pump the contents out of the tanker before it could be moved. In the end the fire brigade allowed it to be moved without the contents being removed, shortening the closure of the motorway by about three and a half hours.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

What my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) was asking for was leadership. People are sleeping on airport floors, being turfed off trains, and frozen in their cars, and they are cold in their homes because they are not getting deliveries of domestic fuel. Where is the Prime Minister? He is the invisible “Cam”, but he should be taking the leadership position on this.

[Mr Hammond]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that people who are sleeping on airport floors and who are having their travel plans disrupted are not helped by such ridiculous rants from him and his colleagues. Those people need a calm, measured and considered response to the problems, which is what the Government are giving. This is an extreme weather event, and this Government will do better than the previous Government did last year.

[Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

In his statement, the Secretary of State touched upon the steps that are being taken to ensure that health services are well prepared throughout this cold snap, but he will also recall that last winter, a number of A and E departments were forced to close because of the severe weather, including ones close to my constituency. What discussions has he had with the Department of Health to ensure that the emergency services, and particularly the ambulance service, are given robust support to ensure that they can continue to give a full service throughout this difficult time?

[Mr Hammond]

I have been in discussion with my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary. As I understand it, this morning, there were no major problems across the NHS—all NHS services are operating reasonably well. Of course, there have been isolated problems of getting staff into hospitals. In some cases, including in my county, Surrey, local 4x4 owners have volunteered to drive staff to A and E departments. Such voluntary action will help to reinforce the resilience of the NHS. Ambulance services are coping well at the moment, but if there are difficulties, the military stands ready to provide support with 4x4 vehicles if it is needed.

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

The last time the Secretary of State gave a statement on the weather, I asked him about winter tyres. He told me that he did not think them appropriate for this climate and this country, and indeed that David Quarmby looked at the matter. Try as I may, I could find no reference to winter tyres in the Quarmby report. The only advice I found was from the Highways Agency, which says:

“The safest option in these conditions is to fit winter weather tyres which are specifically designed to provide extra grip and improved levels of safety”.

Will the Secretary of State please now reconsider his response?

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to clear something up—I clearly mangled my words in my reply to her. I was trying to convey that in the circumstances of the UK, and given the cost of fitting winter tyres, I do not believe it appropriate to mandate their use. However, I am happy to confirm on the record that for those who can afford winter tyres—not just the cost of buying them, but the costs of putting them on and changing them back at the end of the winter, and of storing summer tyres—they provide significant additional grip for motoring in such cold conditions.

Snow chains, however, are a different matter. It is illegal to use snow chains on roads that are not covered in compacted snow, because they cause considerable damage to the road surface.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State join me in commending the nation’s army of gritters who were out overnight—in Suffolk, that involved temperatures down to minus 12°C—to keep our roads open? Will he also answer a question that was put to me by several constituents? Can he continue his steadfast and solid leadership of the past few days, rather than responding to the histrionic opportunism displayed by the Labour party?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. People who are watching this debate on the BBC News channel in an airport terminal will not find the laughter and hilarity of Opposition Members, or the unconstructive rants from some but not all Opposition Back Benchers, at all edifying or helpful to their cause. I am happy to join him in commending the stalwart work of the people who man the fleets of gritters, who are out every night in all conditions doing their important work.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

What assessment have the Government made of the ability of aircraft and train operators to advise people who have been delayed of their statutory rights in respect of compensation? In slower time, will he arrange to meet insurance companies to ensure that they respond positively to the demands of people who have missed trains and flights, and had holidays ruined, or who have had pipes burst or damage done to their homes?

[Mr Hammond]

The right hon. Gentleman raises some important points. I can tell him that the Treasury has been talking to the insurance companies to ensure that people have the appropriate information and that companies can respond to inquiries about the extent of their cover. Often, those people will be in a real-time situation—stranded in an airport, for example—and will want to know what costs they can and cannot incur in trying to complete their journey. That is important.

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there have been developments in the past year or so in European jurisprudence with regard to compensation arrangements and the obligations on airlines to look after people who are stranded at airports. However, when the problem is caused by, for example, extreme weather conditions, compensation would not normally be payable as such.

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

What discussions has the Secretary of State had with Southern Railway about its performance during this bad weather? Do Southern Railway and Network Rail need to invest in snow-clearing equipment to ensure that services run more smoothly in future?

[Mr Hammond]

I can tell my hon. Friend that I had a conference call with Southern Railway management and Network Rail’s route director on Wednesday afternoon to talk about their preparations for this bout of cold weather. We also spoke about some of the medium-term plans—I hesitate to call them that, but I am talking about plans for beyond the end of this week. They are looking to install experimental heated rail sections as well as to invest in additional clearance equipment. Clearing snow and ice from the railway is primarily a Network Rail responsibility, but train operators are increasingly considering installing anti-icing equipment on their trains to supplement what Network Rail does.

[Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

Will the Minister at least consider additional funding for local authorities? In my area, the local authority is struggling desperately to keep streets open and roads clear, but an additional problem that people tend to forget is pavements. Many of my constituents are fearful of leaving their homes in case they fall, so will he at least consider additional funding?

[Mr Hammond]

As I said a few moments ago, local authorities indicate—the Local Government Association confirms this—that they will not have difficulty this year in funding their winter activities. However, the hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the extent of gritting and salting that local authorities plan to carry out. Those resilience plans will have been put in place well ahead of the winter, and they should be well publicised locally. In some areas, the plans will not include the salting and gritting of footways. I believe that there is a role for civic society to play in that. Many people, if they can get their hands on a supply of salt and grit, would be prepared to shovel a bit on to the pavements around their homes and their neighbours’ homes. I commend local authorities that have taken action to make supplies of salt and grit available for such neighbourly action.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

Does the Minister share my concerns that in stark contrast to the excellent work of many local authorities, developers responsible for unadopted roads all too often do not react quickly enough to adverse weather conditions?

[Mr Hammond]

I am afraid that I must tell my hon. Friend that the maintenance of unadopted roads is entirely a matter for the owners of those roads. Typically, that will ultimately be a matter for the owners of properties that front on to those roads, who often finance such work through their service charges. Like the rest of us, but through a rather different mechanism, they must decide whether they want to pay more in service charges so that they have a greater level of winter resilience for their roads.

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

Despite some of the heaviest snowfalls for decades in Newcastle, we managed to keep most of the public transport system going for most of the time. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) said, many people found that they could not make it to the end of their streets because of ice and snow on the pavements. Given that, rather than simply commending councils that make grit available to local residents, is it not time for a requirement for people to have access to the grit that will enable them to get on with their lives?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Lady might revel in the thought of a centralised state where people in Whitehall press buttons and issue commands to local authorities, but we happen to take a different view of the world. Local authorities are responsible bodies answerable to their electors. They must make decisions about their priorities, and if they get it wrong, local residents know what to do about it.

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

This time last year, the ramp leading down to the parliamentary car park was covered in snow. It closed the car park. I offered to clear it myself, but was told that I was not qualified to do the job. I said, “Well, I’ve done it before”, but the answer came back, “Well, you can’t do it because of health and safety”. Will my right hon. Friend clarify the snow code he has introduced to ensure that we do not succumb to these ambulance-chasers? There are people in Britain who have that get-up-and-go attitude and who want to get out there and clean the streets, but who are worried about being sued under legislation and the direction of travel introduced by Labour, with health and safety getting such precedence. [Laughter.]

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Labour Members may laugh, but they will remember this being a serious problem last winter, with people being afraid to clear snow and ice outside their homes and afraid to act as good neighbours. One of Quarmby’s recommendations was that we publish a snow code, compliance with which would give people a high level of protection from civil action. We have done that, and I hope that people will respond by acting in that neighbourly fashion.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government have failed to keep the emergency grit stocks at full capacity? Despite warnings of arctic blasts for weeks, grit stocks have been rationed, and emergency supplies are said to be 80,000 tonnes lower than they should be. If this is true, why has it happened and which Minister will be resigning?

[Mr Hammond]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is new and was not in the House last winter. He asked whether we are keeping emergency grit stocks at full capacity. There were no emergency grit stocks last winter. In fact, there were no grit stocks at all last winter. Local authorities and the Highways Agency have bought grit for their own use, and this year, for the first time ever, we have a strategic stockpile of salt—more than 300,000 tonnes of salt have been ordered for that stockpile, 156,000 tonnes of which have been delivered, and the remainder of which will be delivered between now and the middle of January. A further 250,000 tonnes have been sourced, and we are currently arranging transport to get it to the UK. I do not suppose that he has the faintest notion of the logistics involved in trying to uplift 250,000 tonnes of salt from around the world at short notice and to ship it to the UK in specialist vessels, so perhaps, before asking such a silly question again, he will think about what is involved.

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

The Secretary of State will have noticed that the spirit of Christmas has augmented the already happy-go-lucky nature of the shadow Secretary of State. However, she made one serious point in her reply to the statement, and it was about information. Some companies are using premium rate telephone numbers to get information to travellers. Surely the Secretary of State will be able to use some of his fantastic influence to try to make these information lines free of charge in this current crisis.

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is right that in many cases the only lever we have over private companies is to apply pressure. This is the first I have heard of this issue, but if he has specific examples, I will be happy to follow them up.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Many emergency and council workers will be working over the Christmas period dealing with the aftermath—and, indeed, the ongoing nature—of the weather conditions. Will the Secretary of State prove that he is not complacent by guaranteeing to the House that either he or one of his team will be in Whitehall during the recess, not at the end of the phone or travelling to some place else—not that they could—but at their desks, every day of the recess?

[Mr Hammond]

We have said—I said it in the statement—that we will continue with the arrangements in place for as long as necessary. We held teleconferences over the weekend with Welsh Assembly Government members, Scottish Ministers and regional resilience teams around the country. It is not practical to get all those people together in a single room—nor is it desirable when travel is dangerous and difficult—but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the team in place will continue to monitor the situation on a daily basis for as long as it is necessary.

[Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)]

I agree with the Secretary of State that in these times, calm and focused action is more important than histrionic responses. Will he let me know what steps he has taken to ensure that the airport de-icer supply chain is sufficiently robust and resilient to cope with the adverse weather conditions over the coming days?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend raises a real issue. I talked to Gatwick airport on Wednesday, and it told me that it was full to capacity with runway de-icing fluid. By yesterday evening, however, it had used about 90% of those supplies, although fortunately it will be resupplied tomorrow. However, the supply chain for airport de-icer is tightly stretched, and we are monitoring the situation on a daily basis with operators. Alternative products can be—and are—used in other places around Europe, and if supplies get really tight, operators will have to display some flexibility.

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

My constituents are now enduring their 23rd successive day of arctic weather. Schooling has been disrupted, the economy impacted and elderly and vulnerable constituents have effectively been imprisoned in their own homes for more than three weeks. Owing to the exceptional weather, North Lanarkshire council requested military assistance, but it was denied. Will the Secretary of State tell me now, or find out on my behalf, who took the decision to deny military assistance, and on what grounds?

[Mr Hammond]

I can look into the specific case, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman the general rules on the provision of military assistance. The Ministry of Defence will offer assistance to local authorities or other responders where the latter can demonstrate that no other means of delivering the required response are available. If contractors or own resources are available, military assistance will not normally be provided. Where the military has unique equipment, or where no alternative source of manpower is available, the MOD will look at requests sympathetically. We have to do it that way. We must not end up in a situation where local authorities think that they can reach for military manpower as a simple, low-cost solution to every problem. They have to exhaust all other avenues first. However, I will look into the case he raised and write to him later this afternoon.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and commitment to consider when “just in time” becomes “just too late”. I ask him to remind the Opposition that salt is not a panacea and that when temperatures fall below minus 5°C, there is little that can be done. That should be recognised. One of the legacies left to this Government by the Opposition is insufficient gas storage. Not only that, but it was not completely full at the start of winter. Furthermore, gas has been exported when taken out of storage. Will he commit to talking to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change about this issue? I am particularly concerned that we are not maintaining storage when we could.

[Mr Hammond]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is aware of the issue that my hon. Friend raises. Historically, the UK has had lower gas storage capability than many of our continental neighbours, but it is an issue that my right hon. Friend intends to address as soon as possible.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Stafford is a proud railway town. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating rail workers up and down the country who have kept services going under often atrocious conditions? I pay particular tribute to staff in Stafford last night, who went the extra mile in giving information under difficult circumstances.

[Mr Hammond]

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating staff across the railways. They have been operating in extremely difficult conditions, and I have seen for myself something of a blitz spirit where people have been mucking in. Some of the old divisions between Network Rail and train operators seem to have melted away under the weight of the snow—if that is the right way to put it. Railway staff put in a fantastic performance over the weekend to get the railways operating normally—by and large—this morning.

Points of Order

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

16:54

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In answering an urgent question earlier today, the Minister for Immigration referred to a major ongoing anti-terrorist operation taking place across the country today, with arrests being made in my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael). Could you tell me whether you have received any information from the Home Office or the Home Secretary about whether she intends to come to the House, either later today or tomorrow, to update us on the nature of this major anti-terrorist operation?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I can say to the hon. Gentleman that I have not received notification of any statement on the matter that he has raised. I understand his particular interest, and I am sure that those on the Government Benches have taken note of his point of order and that, should we need to be given any information, either he or the House will be informed directly.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. After the statement on high-speed rail by the Secretary of State for Transport, I went to the Vote Office to obtain the details—the devil often being in the detail—for my constituency, which is where the main terminal is located. I was told that it was contained in a 1,000-page document that had not been made available to the Vote Office, and I was advised to go to the Library. I went to the Library, which had one CD-ROM that it was not possible to download or forward to Members. I was told that CD-ROMs might have been sent to Members, but they have not arrived as yet. This is another instance of what is becoming a frequent occurrence—it occurred last week with the reports on court closures, and it occurred earlier in the Session with Building Schools for the Future—whereby the Government think that making available very limited data, in an inadequate, electronic form, is sufficient to give Members notice of what is happening in their constituencies. It would be a welcome ruling from you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to say that when statements are made to this House, Members should have details that explain the important implications for their constituents of what is being told to the House.

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

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point. The documents are extremely voluminous, and it is not practical to deliver them in printed form to every Member, but my understanding is that a CD-ROM has been sent to every Member whose constituency is affected. I will go out of the Chamber now and ensure that that has happened, and if it has not, I will ensure that it happens straight away.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State. It is obviously important that Members of Parliament have the information that they need with regard to statements, and I will pay attention to what he has said. In the past, he has, with his normal courtesy, written to me in the Chair to update me on the situation, in case I need to raise it with Mr Speaker. I hope that that deals with the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter).

Firearms Control

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Relevant document: The Third Report of the Home Affairs Committee, Session 2010-11, on Firearms Control, HC 447.]

18:22

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of firearms control.

I believe that I speak for the whole House when I say that as we start this debate on firearms control today, our thoughts remain with the family and friends of the victims and all those who had to deal with—and are still dealing with—the consequences of the shootings in Cumbria in June, and in Northumbria in July. Those events shocked the nation. Twelve men and women were murdered, and 11 were injured by Derrick Bird in Cumbria. One man was killed and two people were injured by Raoul Moat in Northumbria. Today’s debate fulfils an earlier Government commitment to discuss firearms control in the House in the light of this summer’s tragic events. Although I appreciate that there may be some concern that this debate has not been held until now, I am sure that hon. Members agree that one advantage in doing so is that we now have both the independent Association of Chief Police Officers review and the Select Committee on Home Affairs report on firearms control, which has been published only today, to inform us.

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

Given that the Home Affairs Committee report was published only this morning, given that we are on a one-line Whip, given that the Chamber is empty and given that Westminster itself is effectively empty, why have the Government deliberately chosen to debate this issue—an issue that I know the Minister is sincerely concerned about—on today of all days?

[Nick Herbert]

The hon. Gentleman knows that we were committed to holding this debate. We particularly wanted to hold it in Government time, even though there were a number of opportunities to hold it in other time. We wanted to wait for the outcome of the Home Affairs Committee’s inquiry, which has reported only today, and we did not want to wait any longer, so there was a difficult balance to strike. However, I assure him that we will listen carefully to the views expressed on both sides in this debate as we consider the issues, including what he says and what his constituents say. I hope that he knows that we have made every attempt to listen carefully to the views of local people who were affected by those incidents, as well as the views of the wider public and of hon. Members.

Indeed, a number of Ministers have visited the communities affected by those events, and we fully appreciate the impact that they have had on the people who live and work in those areas. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary visited Cumbria in the immediate aftermath of the shootings. I was able to visit and meet some of those affected, along with the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), in late August. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) made a similar visit last week, and he also visited Northumbria in the wake of those shootings. I want to express my admiration for the local communities who were forced to react to those horrific incidents, and who did so with such courage and dignity. Both the Under-Secretary and I have met PC David Rathbone on different occasions, the officer who was blinded after being shot by Raoul Moat. We were deeply impressed by his courage and his stoicism. Indeed, I am sure that the whole House wishes to pay tribute to the police officers in Cumbria and Northumbria who had to respond, in many cases unarmed, to the events as they unfolded.

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

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that although plenty of people in Rothbury—where people were in fear for a long time because of the presence of the gunman—are astonished that the gunman was able to be in possession of firearms, equally, many believe while sharing that astonishment, that those who use firearms genuinely for sporting purposes, in a proper, licensed manner, should not be penalised for the behaviour of that terrifying man?

[Nick Herbert]

I agree with my right hon. Friend’s sentiments. It appears that the weapons used by Raoul Moat were unlawfully obtained, unlike those used by Derrick Bird. Later, I shall underline the importance of ensuring a proportionate response to such incidents while nevertheless recognising that some areas might need a tightening up of controls, albeit one that recognises the legitimate needs and recreations of those living in the countryside or elsewhere who take part in such sporting activities.

[Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

The Minister has quite rightly paid tribute to the police. Will he join me also in paying tribute to the civil nuclear police, who played such a sterling and difficult role in those terrible times that we all went through?

[Nick Herbert]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to do that. One of the things that was impressed on me when I visited Cumbria and received a briefing from the chief constable of the Cumbrian constabulary and his team was the role that the police at Sellafield—the civil nuclear constabulary—played in helping to respond quickly to the events as they unfolded. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Copeland and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who have admirably provided a voice to their constituents. I know that in tight-knit communities, the effects of such events have been all the greater. The hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend have shown great leadership in their communities, particularly in Cumbria, where so many people lost their lives.

Although the police investigation in Cumbria is ongoing, and inquests in both Cumbria and Northumbria are yet to be held, a review carried out by Assistant Chief Constable Adrian Whiting, chair of the ACPO firearms and explosives working group, recently reported its findings. Mr Whiting has extensive knowledge of the subject matter, and we are grateful to him for his report. The review considered whether the decisions made and actions taken in granting and renewing the firearms and shotgun certificates issued to Derrick Bird were appropriate, or whether any actions could have been taken to prevent the tragedy from occurring. Mr Whiting found that the decisions made and actions taken by the constabulary on firearms licensing were reasonable. Mr Whiting did not identify any immediate changes to legislation that would have prevented those offences. However, he did make a number of general suggestions that he thought might improve public safety. Those included a number of suggestions that have been taken up by the Home Affairs Committee, to which I shall refer later.

It is clear that, following two events of such scale, lessons must be learned to ensure that, wherever possible, action is taken to help prevent such crimes from occurring again. It is crucial that proper controls are placed on those individuals who seek to own a firearm. However, it is also important to acknowledge, when discussing this issue, that licensed firearms are only one side of the debate. It is generally acknowledged that the vast majority of guns used in crime are illegally held.

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

My right hon. Friend raises an important aspect of the debate in mentioning the difference between weapons that are lawfully owned and those that are not. Page 10 of the Select Committee report states:

“There is a lack of data in the public domain showing the extent to which legally-owned firearms are used in gun crime, partly because it is difficult to collect accurate data”—

because the gun is not always left at the scene of the crime —

“and partly because the Home Office does not routinely publish the data that it does collect.”

May I invite my right hon. Friend to reconsider, and to put into the public domain more information about whether the firearms used in such events are legally or illegally held?

[Nick Herbert]

Of course we will consider carefully all the recommendations in the Select Committee report. We are also considering very carefully the question of which data the Home Office should collect. We need to strike the right balance between imposing ever more onerous conditions on local police forces and ensuring that the necessary data are collected centrally, and we will have more to say about that in due course. I certainly take my hon. Friend’s point on board, however.

Much of the harm caused to our communities by firearms is caused by those who are not licensed to own a gun. The Government attach great importance to tackling the problem of illegal firearms, and we will continue to work to ensure that whatever measures necessary are taken to cut the use of illegal firearms in criminal activity. By setting up the national crime agency, we will be introducing a body that will build on the Serious Organised Crime Agency and that will be empowered, in partnerships with police forces, to target the types of serious crime that frequently involve illegal firearms and to eliminate them from our communities. Combining early intervention work with tough enforcement, and empowering local communities to prevent the spread of violence, will be crucial. This area of work will be informed by the Government’s new crime strategy, which will be published shortly.

It is important, however, to emphasise that gun crime thankfully remains relatively rare in this country. Provisional data indicate that firearm offences accounted for just 0.2% of all recorded crime in 2009-10, and that figure has been going down. However, that still equates to nearly 8,000 recorded offences. Gun crime causes significant and lasting harm to individuals, families and communities, and, however small the number of incidents that occur in the context of the overall number of crimes, the impact of these incidents must never be underestimated. Thirty-nine lives were lost to gun crime last year, and there were 336 serious injuries. That is unacceptable, and we must work to bring the numbers down.

[Mr Reed]

Between 1997 and 2008-09, 742 people were murdered with firearms in this country. Given that it was the atrocities in Scotland in March 1996 that led to the last meaningful review of gun ownership legislation, and in the light of the events of this year, does the Minister agree that Parliament now needs to change and tighten the gun laws in this country?

[Nick Herbert]

I certainly agree that it is necessary to review the gun laws, as the Home Affairs Committee has done, and to consider whether sensible measures might be taken to improve them and, in specific areas, tighten them. I am not sure whether I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s implication that there needs to be a wholesale change in our gun laws that would restrict the legitimate ownership of guns, because most incidents relate to illegal ownership, and I believe that that is where we need to focus our enforcement activity.

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

The Minister knows that a review by the Select Committee is not the same as a Government review of this matter. What are the Government doing?

[Nick Herbert]

With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, we have said that we will take on board the Select Committee’s recommendations, which were published only today, and that we are considering the matter very carefully. I will speak in a moment about a measure that has already been introduced, and I will give a broad indication of an early response to the Select Committee report. There has also been a review by the Association of Chief Police Officers. The Government have certainly responded to the incidents that have taken place in Cumbria and Northumbria, but I believe that we are doing so in a careful and considered manner.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

A resident of Northampton to whom I am particularly devoted is my aunt, Diana Ellis, and she has always said, “If it is not broken, don’t fix it.” Will my right hon. Friend reassure her, and many hundreds of thousands of other people in this country, that Her Majesty’s Government will not act in a knee-jerk fashion on this matter and further increase the legislative burden?

[Nick Herbert]

Yes, I will reassure my hon. Friend of that. We will carefully consider the recommendations put forward by the Select Committee and others, and we will take action where we judge it necessary and proportionate, and where it will help to secure public safety. We will not, however, produce a knee-jerk response to these events. Indeed, the fact that the Government have not done so, and that we are nevertheless considering the issues carefully and with an open mind, has been generally welcomed throughout the country.

[Mr Reed]

Can we please now dispense with the notion of a knee-jerk response? It is six months since the events in my constituency, and we have now had the very thorough and considered report from the Association of Chief Police Officers and the excellent work of the Home Affairs Select Committee. The notion of a knee-jerk response now is just not applicable.

[Nick Herbert]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees, however, that it is fair for the Government to look at the Home Affairs Committee’s report, which was published only today, and to consider it carefully. When I referred to a knee-jerk response, what I meant was that it would be wrong to rule in or out without further consideration anything that the Select Committee has recommended. It is right that we should consider these issues carefully, and he will see that there are areas in which we believe action should be taken.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to take the time to review carefully all the reports, including today’s report from the Home Affairs Committee, and to ensure that any formal response by the Government does not criminalise, either by implication or in reality, the hundreds of thousands of people who use firearms totally legally for sporting purposes and the industries that feed off them? Does he agree that we must not run the risk of criminalising those people and those industries, even by implication, and that we must focus on the illegal use of firearms?

[Nick Herbert]

Again, I accept my hon. Friend’s counsel. We intend to strike a proper and proportionate balance, and we will respond in a timely fashion to the Select Committee’s report. We will then come forward with any specific proposals.

It is frequently said that we have some of the toughest gun controls in the world. Firearms control in this country has a long history and has evolved gradually, with frequent tightening of the legislation by Parliament. The first British firearms controls were introduced by the Vagrancy Act 1824. Firearms certificates have been required since 1920, and shotguns have required a certificate since 1967. There have since been amendments to the Firearms Act 1968, which sets out the framework for today’s legislation, in response to the shootings in Hungerford in 1987 and in Dunblane in 1996, banning semi-automatic weapons and handguns respectively. I think that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that the system has been made progressively tougher. In its current state, it places tight restrictions on individuals who wish to own a gun. Guns are used legitimately for pest control and sporting purposes, and the Government certainly do not believe that such activities should be curtailed provided that there are proper controls, but it is of course right to keep those controls under review and, in particular, to reconsider them in the light of recent incidents.

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way.

The debate is entitled “Firearms Control”. It deals with a wide variety of guns and their use. I invite my right hon. Friend to consider the use and legality of handguns As he has said, they were made illegal following a disaster, but given that we are to host the Olympic games, we are in the embarrassing position of having to send a British Olympic shooting team abroad to train. I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend about the issue, and I feel that it should be examined. We need cognitive legislation, such as the new Bill, rather than an outright ban.

[Nick Herbert]

My hon. Friend has illustrated the importance of striking the right balance. We all understand why the action was taken in response to the dreadful Dunblane incident in 1997. However, the issue of competitive shooting at the Olympics has been raised with the Minister for Sport and the Olympics, who I am sure would be happy to discuss it with my hon. Friend.

The Government welcome the timely report on firearms control that was published today by the Home Affairs Committee. I thank the Committee, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), for its work on the issue. As I have said, we will consider its recommendations carefully, not least in the light of today’s debate. The House will understand that it would not be right for me to respond in detail today, but I want to deal with three key points.

First, the Committee recommended that the Government should codify and simplify the laws relating to firearm ownership. As I made clear when I mentioned the history of firearms legislation, those laws are widely dispersed across different Acts of Parliament. Furthermore, they are very complex. I believe that the issue would benefit from further attention, and we will therefore consider that recommendation carefully.

Secondly, the Committee recommended tighter restrictions on the granting of firearms licences to individuals who have engaged in criminal activity. That concern clearly arose from the shootings in Cumbria, and I raised it with the chief constable myself when I visited the area in August. There may be an opportunity for careful adjustment, but that will depend on the nature of the offence. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), will listen carefully to what is said in the debate and will use it to inform any future decisions. However, we welcome the Committee’s recommendation.

Thirdly, the Committee raised the issue of the age at which an individual is permitted to shoot. I understand why that issue has been raised, but I think it important to appreciate that many young people enjoy shooting in a safe and responsible manner. Assistant Chief Constable Adrian Whiting told the Committee:

“The evidence in relation to young people shooting does not give any cause for concern”.

We will of course consider the Committee’s response in full, but it is important for legislative changes to be proportionate.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Herbert]

Of course I give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee.

[Keith Vaz]

We published our report only 18 hours ago, so I do not expect the Minister to respond to each and every one of its 22 recommendations, but the fact that he has picked up those three points makes it clear that the Government understand the nature of the inquiry and the need for further consideration of the recommendations. Can he give me an idea—without necessarily specifying a month—of the approximate time within which the Government will respond to the report?

[Nick Herbert]

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary tells me that he is going to say “two months” in his winding-up speech. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman considers that a suitable period within which to respond to such a sensitive issue.

The issue of the mental health of applicants for firearm and shotgun certificates has also been raised. As the Committee has noted, it has now been agreed between the British Medical Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers that the police will notify a GP of the grant and renewal of a firearm and/or shotgun certificate. The implementation of that arrangement is being sought within the next six months. In essence, the process will involve a system of notification by way of a standard letter, which means that GPs will be in a position to alert the police if they have any concerns. The police will then be able to request a medical report under the procedures mentioned at the start of the debate. I believe that that is a welcome move. There will be further discussions in due course about the possibility of placing a marker on computerised medical records to create a more enduring record of which patients own a firearm.

I believe that that development indicates that the authorities have been able to take sensible steps to improve the operation of firearms laws in the light of public concern. However, I agree with the Select Committee’s suggestion that requiring firearms applicants to undergo a compulsory medical check would be costly and would be regarded as disproportionate.

Overall, the Committee’s contribution to an ongoing subject of consideration is very useful, and we will consider it fully before deciding on our final course of action. As we consider our response, it will be important to provide an opportunity for wider engagement with the issues, and we will announce shortly how we will ensure that it is provided.

[Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)]

Will the Minister also consider instances where sentencing may have been too lenient? I understand that the sentence for illegal handling of firearms is five years’ imprisonment and that the sentence for an aggravated offence is seven years, but that that is rarely upheld in the courts. Will the Minister consider whether we can strengthen the position by increasing the sentence, if it does not constitute a sufficient deterrent?

[Nick Herbert]

I think that I am right in saying that such sentences have been toughened considerably in recent years. As my hon. Friend knows, we recently published a Green Paper on sentencing. There will be an opportunity to respond to it, and he will be welcome to do so. We will, of course, consider further representations about the levels of offences, but I think that this is a question of enforcement as much as penalties.

[Sir Alan Beith]

Is the Minister satisfied that the arrangements that have been discussed with the BMA will extend to encouraging GPs to report cases in which a personality disorder of some kind is apparent? Such a disorder might not be a treatable mental illness, but it might be a pretty clear indicator that someone should not be in possession of firearms.

[Nick Herbert]

I agree. It is important for GPs, who will be in the best position to raise concerns, to use the system of notification in a way that ensures that such issues can be taken into account by the police.

It is absolutely right, in the wake of such major incidents as were experienced in Cumbria and Northumbria, to reconsider the legislation that controls firearm ownership in this country, but we must also ensure that our response is considered, proportionate and evidence-led. As the Prime Minister said shortly after the shootings,

“we should not leap to knee-jerk conclusions on what should be done on the regulatory front… You can’t legislate to stop a switch flicking in someone’s head and this sort of dreadful action taking place.”

Public safety will always be our watchword, and if there is a clear need to make specific changes to legislation, we will not hesitate to present proposals. We remain committed to considering the present range of firearms controls in a measured way.

I look forward to what I am sure will be a thoughtful and constructive debate on this important and sensitive subject. We will listen carefully to points raised by all Members this evening, and we will use them in shaping our response to such incidents.

18:49

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

I begin by echoing the Minister’s comments about the victims and their families who were caught up in the dreadful events over the summer in Cumbria and Northumbria, and by paying tribute to the wider communities in those areas who went through very distressing and upsetting times. I also commend the work of the emergency services, not only when the events took place, but in the following weeks and months. In particular, I pay tribute to David Rathband, who was so tragically injured by Moat in the Northumbria shootings.

[Tony Cunningham]

My hon. Friend rightly pays tribute to the emergency services, but will she also pay tribute to the Churches in my area? The people at that time needed a lot of spiritual support. It was offered by the Churches, and I thought they did a fantastic job.

[Diana Johnson]

I am very happy to pay tribute to the Churches, and I also know that my hon. Friend spent a great deal of time working with the communities and making sure that the families and victims had everything they needed.

This debate is timely. The Select Committee on Home Affairs report on firearms control was published at one minute past midnight. It examines in detail whether, in the light of the dreadful events in Cumbria and Northumbria earlier in the year, we need to change our firearms legislation. We must remember, of course, that not all the reports on the events in Cumbria and Northumbria are available. Although we have had less than 12 hours to consider the Committee’s findings and recommendations, it will be useful for us now to start to set out some initial thoughts about the report and to raise some of the issues that will certainly impact on this policy area in the weeks and months to come.

Having read the report this morning, I commend it as excellent. The Committee undertook extensive deliberations and produced some thoughtful recommendations. I appreciate that the Government will wish to consider them carefully before responding fully in due course. I also note the strong feeling on both sides of the firearms control debate, and I thank those groups and organisations who have provided helpful and thorough briefing material. We should also note that changes to firearms control legislation are often a result of tragic events such as Hungerford and Dunblane. This is clearly a very sensitive issue.

I read with great care the report of the debate on the Cumbrian shootings that was held in the House at the instigation of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed). He has been unanimously praised for the leadership he showed in his community both at the time and since. I pay tribute to him as well, and to other hon. Members from that area whom I know also worked tirelessly at that time. I took particular note of my hon. Friend’s comments about reviewing firearms control in the wake of the tragedy in his constituency. He felt that we should not have a knee-jerk reaction, and that it was important to collect all the facts and consider all the evidence before reaching conclusions. That is the right approach. There is agreement across the political spectrum that there must be mature consideration of the key issues in respect of firearms control. My hon. Friend also made telling remarks about the media, and their portrayal of what had happened in his community. The Select Committee also commented on that.

Unfortunately, my hon. Friend has had to leave the debate early tonight, and he has made clear his concerns about its being scheduled just a few days before the House rises for Christmas. It should also be noted that he is on paternity leave at the moment, but he felt so strongly about this issue that he made a special effort to come to the House. I know he will look to the Government to respond to the Select Committee’s recommendations by way of an oral statement in the House—rather than a written statement—so that there can be further debate on these issues.

Let me say a little about the historical context to our debate. Since the 1920s, we have used legislation to control firearms. That is now set out in 34 pieces of legislation. The main one is the Firearms Act 1968, which, as the Minister said, has been amended many times. It is widely agreed that we now have some of the strictest gun controls in the world.

Shotguns are used for pest control, game shooting and target shooting. There are 1,366,082 shotguns in England and Wales, held on 574,946 certificates. Applications are made under section 2 of the 1968 Act. There are also 138,728 firearms certificates, which cover 435,383 guns in England and Wales, including barrels and sound moderators. The majority are sporting rifles that are used for pest control, deer stalking and target shooting. The application process for firearms, under section 1 of the Act, is different.

We must recognise the important role of shooting as a legitimate recreational activity in this country. In 2005, the Labour party set out its charter for shooting, which recognised that there was no connection between legitimate sporting shooting and gun crime. We also know that the sport of shooting is a £1.6 billion industry, in which 70,000 people are employed in full-time jobs. I note from the Select Committee report that it, too, recognises that thousands of people use firearms in recreation and in their employment, and that it in no way wishes to restrict such activity. However, it is always helpful to test the effectiveness of firearms control and review current thinking on it.

After the shootings by Derrick Bird on 2 June, when he killed 12 people and injured a further 11, the Association of Chief Police Officers was asked to produce a report, as Derrick Bird was in lawful possession of firearms. The report’s remit was to look both at that specific case and any wider issues. It was produced by the ACPO lead on firearms licensing and chair of the ACPO firearms and explosives licensing working group, Assistant Chief Constable Adrian Whiting, and was published on 2 November.

The report made three key recommendations. First, it recommended the establishment of formal links between GPs, mental health services and police forces to enable medical professionals to alert the police if they have concerns regarding certificate holders. Secondly, it said the cost of any GP report should be borne by the applicant. Thirdly, it recommended that formal approaches should be made to members of an applicant’s family at the grant and renewal of the certificate. It is clearly very helpful to have this report as a further source of information for the Select Committee and the Government to reflect upon.

Let me now address a few of the specific recommendations in the Select Committee report. First, on the role of GPs and their involvement with firearms control, the Committee welcomed the recent agreement between ACPO and the British Medical Association that the police will alert GPs to every new and renewal licence application. That is an important step in ensuring that the licensing authority receives accurate medical information about applicants. It carries on some of the work started under the previous Labour Government, and we support the change.

It is interesting to note that an applicant may also approach their GP as a person of good character to act as a referee or counter-signatory for a certificate application. If a GP becomes worried about his patient, the BMA has issued guidance that doctors should

“be prepared to breach confidence and inform the appropriate authorities if necessary.”

That is very important in respect of those who have held licences for some time.

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

Does the hon. Lady not agree that what she has just said might put off a legitimate holder of a certificate who feels that their health might be, for whatever reason, deteriorating from going to their GP at all, because they might believe that their certificate would be in jeopardy? That would constitute a substantial danger not only to the public, but to that person’s health.

[Diana Johnson]

Those points were aired at the Select Committee. I know the BMA has taken a certain view, and it has decided on giving this particular advice to their GPs. However, I will have a little more to say about GPs and the people who go to see them more regularly.

The view was also presented to the Select Committee that the medical records of firearm certificate holders should be tagged. That would enable a GP who becomes concerned about a person’s health to notify the authorities. The Select Committee rejected that approach. The Information Commissioner’s Office raised concerns about the effect of tagged medical records, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation believes that this would create a further burden on GPs, and GPs were concerned about the issue of liability.

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree with the following comments by Dr John Canning, who is a general practitioner in Middlesbrough and the chairman of the British Medical Association’s professional fees committee? He said:

“As a GP, I can give no judgment to someone’s fitness to hold a weapon, particularly forecasting the future. What I can do is provide factual evidence about the past. It is impossible, and I have spoken to other colleagues in specialities such as psychiatry who say equally that it is impossible to predict the future.”

[Diana Johnson]

Clearly, the decision about whether a certificate should be issued rests finally with the police. The information that GPs can provide should be factual and based on what they know.

Some 93% of shooters are male, the majority being over the age of 40. That group does not go to their GP as often as they perhaps should, so the opportunity to identify problems may be limited; it has been made clear that Derrick Bird had little contact with his GP. In addition, the Independent Police Complaints Commission has identified only six individuals a year where involvement with a medical practitioner might have had an effect in notifying the authorities that there was a problem. So this issue has to be kept under review in the weeks and months to come.

The law relating to young people and firearms control is complicated and, at times, confusing. Members of the public who read the report will raise an eyebrow when they see that 26 10-year-olds currently hold shotgun licences. The report by ACPO did not examine the age at which a certificate can be issued to a young person, as that was not relevant to the events in Cumbria; nor did this give ACPO any particular concern when considering the wider issues. However, the report referred to inconsistencies that could be addressed on some issues—for example, the definition of an “occupier” in relation to the supervision of a young person. The Committee commented on the need for a review of the minimum age limits on the use of firearms and the eligibility for firearms certificates, with the aim of reducing the inconsistency and complexity associated with the use of firearms by children.

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Lady raises an interesting point about the age at which people should be exposed or given access to weapons. I have had the opportunity to work with some youngsters who, in a different world, would not get to see these weapons. They would see them on telly and in video games, and they would consider them as trophies—the bits of kit that youngsters need to have. By allowing such youngsters to use these weapons in a safe environment and exposing them to how they work, they gain respect for these weapons and their air of mystery is removed. Does she agree that more such education is required, so that the youth of today are allowed to understand the importance and danger of these weapons and the respect that they must give them?

[Diana Johnson]

I hope that the Government will consider that very point when they consider the Committee’s recommendations. We need to wait to see how they will respond to the issue. Interestingly, the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice talked about the need for a proportionate response and recognised that young people are involved in many positive activities involving shooting, for example, through the Scout Association, which holds an annual rifle competition. In addition, the use of target shooting activities is increasing in the schools sector, Sport England provides funding for shooting and the activity is also recognised by the Duke of Edinburgh’s scheme.

Let me now deal with the recommendation relating to criminal activity. Concerns have been raised that people with criminal convictions have been able to obtain certificates. It appears that people with suspended sentences are not prevented from obtaining a certificate, and the Committee agreed that that needs to be examined. The Committee also recommended that those who receive shorter custodial sentences should not be allowed to possess firearms, and we agree that that should be considered seriously by the Government. The Committee also noted that police licensing officers are now encouraged to take into account intelligence about criminal behaviour that has not resulted in convictions, as well as convictions resulting in non-custodial sentences, when considering whether to grant a licence. The Committee felt that it must be made explicit in police guidance that officers are expected to take such behaviour extremely seriously, particularly in cases of bind-overs, arrests and police call-outs for domestic violence, and that accumulation of convictions should also be carefully examined.

That leads me to the recommendation about the further consultation that should be undertaken when an application is made for a shotgun or firearm licence. The Committee suggested a requirement to consult the domestic partners of applicants on whether to grant a licence in order to try to identify whether there are domestic issues of which a firearms licensing officer should be aware. I noted when I read the report that the Committee was particularly concerned about the use of firearms in domestic violence incidents. Evidence was given to the Committee about a system introduced in Canada, whereby the current spouse or recent ex-spouse is required to sign the application form of any individual applying for a firearms licence. Any failure to do so prompts an additional level of investigation by the registering authorities. Since the system was introduced the gun murder rate of women has reduced by 40%. The ACPO lead has also said that adults in a domestic relationship should be inquired of when an application is made for a firearm or shotgun. The Opposition believe that this recommendation merits serious consideration by the Government, and I was particularly pleased that the Minister talked about examining the matter and making careful adjustments, where appropriate.

The Committee recommended that fees should be raised to cover the costs of licensing to ensure that funding cuts do not jeopardise the rigour of the licensing process. We know that police forces are facing 20% cuts to their budgets over the coming years. Clearly this type of work is one of those areas that the report by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs was referring to when it said that although only 11% of police officers were available to the public, 89% were performing important work on behalf of the public, and I am sure that the Minister will agree that dealing with firearms licensing falls into that category.

[Tony Cunningham]

My hon. Friend will be very much aware that Cumbria police authority will be announcing strict and deep cuts. I hope that she agrees that one of the cuts that we do not want is in the number of officers dealing with firearms licensing.

[Diana Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Shooting organisations have already expressed concern about the impact of spending cuts on the rigour of the licensing process and they worry that they are going to see an erosion of the number—at least—of firearms inquiry officers and firearms licensing managers. The organisations gave evidence to the Committee suggesting that the consistency, quality, efficacy and general speed of licensing may well suffer. Those concerns were shared by Mr Whiting, who told the Committee that he had already had to recommend to chief officers that things such as home visits, which are part of our national policy on both grant and renewal, are conducted in person. A number of forces conduct these cases by telephone and, and sometimes, by post. He is concerned that such arrangements will be placed under increasing pressure in the forthcoming climate in which policing will operate. He does not foresee a wholesale collapse, but he did say that there is a risk of erosion in respect of some of the practices that are currently recommended. Such important work will need to be protected and the Committee has highlighted one way of doing it: by increasing fees.

Discussion was also had about the need to iron out the bulge in renewals, which has come about through the implementation of previous legislation. The suggestion is to extend the life of a proportion of certificates over the course of a number of renewal cycles. We understand that police representatives have made proposals on how such a system might operate, with estimated savings of £2 million, which have not, thus far, been taken up. The Opposition feel that the Government should consider urgently an opportunity to make such savings.

The report also addressed air weapons offences. The Committee recognised that airguns do not require licences yet cause a great many problems for communities. There is legislation governing their use which the Committee feels could be better enforced, and the Opposition would also support better enforcement.

As for the recommendation on legislation on firearms control, it is accepted that there is a great deal of such legislation. The Committee calls for a simplified, clear and consistent approach. One suggestion would be to have one type of certification for all firearms. The Committee recommends pursuing stronger provisions for section 1 applications, but that will obviously be a matter for the Government to consider.

Interestingly, the Committee also cites the experience in the US of the application process for handguns in Washington DC, and that seems to be far more comprehensive in its approach, requiring fingerprints and compulsory training. It is interesting that the Prime Minister says that he will give careful consideration to the possible consolidation of legislation. The Committee’s recommendations included regulations for miniature rifle ranges and the report identified problems with deactivated and replica guns, too. The Committee rejected the idea of a reduction from five-year certificates to two.

In conclusion, the report is well-researched and takes a sensible approach. It contains a sensible analysis of what is working well and of what possible changes need to be considered. I look forward to the Government’s response and, linked to this, their publication of their crime prevention strategy. I reiterate that I hope we will be able to keep to the timetable of two months for the Government’s full response and that an oral statement on this important issue will be made in the House so that there will be an opportunity for all hon. Members to question the Government on their approach to the report’s recommendations.

19:11

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

The events earlier this year in which two gunmen took the lives of 13 other people using shotguns were deeply tragic. The public interest in the two cases and the questions asked about the efficacy of our gun laws are certainly understandable, and I therefore welcome this debate. I also welcome the publication of the Home Affairs Committee’s report, although I cannot say that I agree with all its recommendations.

Seneca the younger once said,

“quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est”

or

“a sword never kills anybody, it is merely a tool in the killer’s hand”.

Almost 2,000 years later, the satirical Welsh rap group Goldie Lookin’ Chain brought the message up to date with their 2004 hit “Guns don’t kill people, rappers do”—and Chris Moyles took it even further with, “Guns don’t kill people, rabbits do”. Please be assured that I do not highlight the lyric as a slur on the rapping community, but rather in support of the message of the song, which is that each holder of a gun is responsible for its mode of use.

In this country, by and large, we have not historically seen widespread gun ownership, or indeed gun crime. As is the case under the American constitution, we originally had the right to bear arms, but that right was overturned by the Firearms Act 1920. Unlike our American cousins, however, the public have shown little appetite for domestic gun ownership—long may that continue—other than for use as a countryside management tool or among interest groups who use firearms in their leisure and sporting time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) has already mentioned page 10 of the report and the disproportionate focus on those who legally hold firearms as opposed to those who hold them illegally. In paragraph 12, on page 58, the Committee refers to the fact that there is no evidence of

“an increase in misuse of lethal firearms”

since the last review of holding the licence renewal period at five years rather than two. I am not suggesting that there has been a knee-jerk reaction, but that shows that we need to continue to be measured. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Minister said that he would do that.

Firearm control has been considered repeatedly for more than 100 years. The Pistols Act 1903 regulated the sale of pistols and later Acts placed conditions on the ownership of firearms—such as the need to apply for a certificate to own a firearm or shotgun. The Firearms Act 1968 forms the basis for our gun laws and has been amended 34 times since then, creating the confusing and complex system to which the Committee referred.

Shotguns were used by both Moat and Bird, the perpetrators of the crimes that took place earlier this year, and the latter was licensed to own his. Incidentally, in an interview given to the BBC, one of Bird’s victims who survived the incident, himself a shotgun owner, described the current gun laws as “rigorous”, an opinion shared by the independent inquiry into the incident. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also said:

“You can’t legislate to stop a switch flicking in someone’s head”.

Perhaps he, too, had been listening to Goldie Lookin’ Chain, but he was absolutely right. It appears—this seems to be the general consensus among those involved in the case—that no rule, regulation or more fierce application of the current processes would necessarily have prevented the tragedy.

It should be remembered that, although we share with many of our neighbours in Europe and the Commonwealth a comparatively low rate of gun homicide, we also have some of the most stringent gun laws in the world. A balance must be struck between legitimate use and safeguarding the public. I am not convinced that ever tighter regulation is likely to prevent each and every death caused by firearms, whether intentional or accidental, but it could prevent law-abiding, responsible citizens from using firearms in a legitimate, socially acceptable manner.

This morning the Home Affairs Committee released its report on firearms control. I agree with its conclusion that the legal construct of the various laws is rather complex and confusing. It recommends codification and simplification of the law, so that firearms owners and the police are clear about the circumstances of ownership and responsibilities. I welcome the proposals to try to simplify the law. I also welcome the potential inquiry into creating a single licensing system for section 1 firearms and shotguns.

In considering the role of GPs in the issuing of licences, I am not suggesting that simplification should be used as an excuse further to tighten already stringent regulation. The move to involve GPs in the process of awarding firearms certificates seems to be little more—dare I say it—than an exercise in bureaucracy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr Offord) has said, there is strong evidence to suggest that one cannot necessarily predict somebody’s future capacity in terms of owning a firearm.

Firearms are used in 6% of homicides, and known licensed firearms are used in 0.6% of homicides, so the move to include GPs is quite interesting. The idea of tagging medical records has already been described as potentially draconian, particularly in the light of fears about the security of NHS medical records. I join the Committee in dismissing calls for mandatory medical checks, because we cannot look into the future, and because of the guidance that has been given, which I thought was stronger than that. I thought that GPs were already obliged to notify the police of people in their practices who are potential threats to the community. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) said, there was no suggestion that Mr Bird had recently seen his GP, and there were only six people in a year with whom such checks by a GP might have had an effect.

Let me turn now to employment in the sector. If we choose to go down the route of investigating a simplification of the law, it is imperative that any changes proposed have at their heart ring-fencing the rights of legitimate users, as those people play an important economic and social part in our communities. In September 2004, a report was undertaken on behalf of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Country Land and Business Association and the Countryside Alliance in association with the Game Conservancy Trust, entitled “The Economic and Environmental Impact of Sporting Shooting”. It found that some 70,000 people are employed by the sport shooting industry, and in my area, the east of England, £140 million was brought into the economy through the sport. Indeed, seven constituents wrote to me about this matter and told me how they wanted to be able to continue shooting, seeing it as valuable as pest control and also as a sport that they enjoy.

Nationwide, shooting is worth a total of £1.6 billion. That does not take into account other forms of shooting such as shooting in gun clubs, which are also popular and serve a social as well as an economic purpose. Felixstowe rifle club, for example, was first formed in 1900. More than 100 years later, it is still going strong and has formed links with a number of local charities and local schools. It offers lessons to a number of local children as part of the Duke of Edinburgh award, and is one of only a few clubs in the country that caters for blind shooters, which is interesting.

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

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that Suffolk has the lowest recorded level of gun crime in the United Kingdom. Does she agree that that is in spite of the fact that we have 97,000 licences for shotguns and firearms in the east of England, which suggests that the focus should be on dealing with unlicensed shotguns rather than licensed guns?

[Dr Coffey]

I could not agree more strongly with my hon. Friend and neighbour. That message is reinforced not only by my constituents who have contacted me but by patrons of my local, who are all regular shooters and wish not to be demonised for being so.

Felixstowe rifle club is one of many that had to adapt to the 1997 ban on handguns, which seems to have put an end to the sport of pistol shooting but done little to prevent the use of handguns in crime. Although legitimate handgun owners have given up their weapons, criminals show no sign of abating their use of them: in 1980 handguns were used in 529 robberies, and by 2008 the number had risen to 2,565 cases—down from a peak of 3,544 cases in 1992. In 2008 handguns were involved in 28 of the 39 firearms-related homicides that year—almost three quarters of all murders perpetrated using a gun. In contrast, only seven involved a shotgun and three a rifle. Rather than spending our time and energies picking off legitimate owners as easy targets—I include young people in that—we should be grappling with the more difficult, but much more important, question of how to tackle the criminal fraternity on the illegitimate use and manufacture of guns.

Young people have been mentioned, and although there is no connection with the recent incidents I take this opportunity to remind the House that 10 years ago the Government of the time said there should be no ban, and no minimum age for the issuing of licences, because supervised shooting is an important way of encouraging young people to use weapons appropriately.

The use of illegal handguns in our inner cities to commit crimes, including murder, has gone relatively unreported by the media, who seem happy to focus more on anomalous cases than on the real problem at hand. Some 55% of all firearm offences occur in just three police areas—the Metropolitan, Greater Manchester and West Midlands areas—and many involve handguns. Given that those weapons are already illegal, I reiterate that we should not legislate further to ensure tighter control of weapons but should ask ourselves, as has been mentioned in relation to air rifles, how we can better enforce current laws.

I hope that the planned introduction of a dedicated border police force will bring material results in reducing the smuggling of illegal weapons into England. I understand that there is a problem with the smuggling of illegal weapons, particularly from eastern Europe, but we also need to tackle the illegitimate use of guns already on our shores and the ability of criminals to manufacture guns by adapting decommissioned or other guns. This, in all likelihood, requires not the introduction of new laws or regulations but a range of measures and enforcement by the police.

With gun and knife amnesties our police forces have done good work in attempting to clear those weapons from our streets and take them out of the hands of youngsters who feel that they need to carry a knife to feel safe. Amnesties have taken place across the country and should continue; indeed, I call on people in my constituency and elsewhere who hold a gun in their house to ask themselves whether they still need it. However, it is equally important to look into the causes of gun crimes. What makes somebody pick up a gun or a knife before they leave the house, and what can we do to persuade them that they do not need to purchase an illegal weapon, let alone use it?

It seems to be an increasing feature of gang culture to use or brandish a firearm or to kill somebody with one as a way of going up the respect agenda. We need to cut that out of our culture, and I welcome some of the work that has been done on that.

[Simon Hart]

My hon. Friend made an interesting point about whether young people should be allowed to access weapons at an early age. Is she aware of any evidence to suggest that having access to firearms when young leads to illegal use of them later in life?

[Dr Coffey]

I am not aware of any evidence whatever on that. Across our country, organisations such as gun clubs and the combined cadet force are often where youngsters first come into contact with weapons and are taught to use them appropriately. I am concerned that the inappropriate and illegal use of illegal weapons is a growing phenomenon, perhaps in gang culture, but I do not equate the two.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

I met Wiltshire army cadets this week, and they made big play of the fact that the respect for weapons is taught. That should be taken into consideration.

[Dr Coffey]

I support that view. Two of the schools that I attended had cadet forces and it was seen as a privilege, which was not handed out lightly, to fire such weapons.

I conclude by reminding hon. Members that we are not in this House to turn the entire population of Great Britain into criminals one interest group at a time. Knee-jerk legislation might make great headlines but it does not necessarily solve the problem. It does nothing to allow innocent lawful people to go about their daily business, and it certainly does not stamp out all criminality. I therefore encourage the Government to consider the different proposals seriously but not necessarily to say that regulating or making more laws is the appropriate reaction to the cry that more must be done. Let, instead, the legacy of these tragic deaths be a catalyst for a renewed attempt to focus on our existing laws, to elucidate the real causes of gun crime and to tackle criminals, not the innocent.

19:26

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). I am afraid that I do not have her command of Latin or popular music, but I listened with great interest to what she said. Judging by the number of Members present, I am sure that others will make an equally important contribution to this very important debate.

It is not often that on the very same day that Parliament produces a report the Government hold a debate on the same subject. I have not experienced this kind of choreography before, but I am delighted that they have chosen to have this debate so soon after the Select Committee on Home Affairs published its report. I confess that when the Committee heard about the debate being held on 20 December, we worked very hard to make sure that our report was ready for the House to consider, because it would have been rather odd to have published it after the debate. I know that some who represent constituencies in the relevant area have had concerns about the timing of the debate, but the Government pledged to hold it by a certain time and they have kept their promise—obviously, they could not hold it tomorrow because of the winter Adjournment debate.

The debate gives us an opportunity to consider what has happened in this tragic year in which so many communities were touched by the violence of Raoul Moat and Derrick Bird. It is right that the Minister began and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), completed the sequence of paying tribute to all those who have been involved in this matter, including the emergency services and the relatives who gave evidence to our Committee in such a passionate and eloquent way.

This is a debate that we would rather not have, as we would rather consider these matters when there had not been a tragedy of this kind. However, the Committee’s report was not—I hate to use this word and everyone says that we should not use it—a knee-jerk reaction. We were keen not to react in that way and we wanted to review the previous Select Committee report on this subject, which was 10 years ago. It was appropriate to reconsider the issue and to draw on the terrible experiences of Cumbria and Northumbria.

[Tony Cunningham]

I should like to pay tribute to all the emergency services, but specifically to the health workers who suffered as a result of the shootings in west Cumbria. Perhaps hon. Members can imagine dealing with the consequences of shotgun wounds and bullet wounds: it must have been absolutely horrific, traumatic and terribly difficult for the doctors and nurses to deal with. I wanted to put on the record my tribute to their work.

[Keith Vaz]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to do so. In an emergency of this kind, many people are involved in alleviating the pain and distress of members of the local community—the list is endless. I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham), to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), who wanted to stay for the entire debate but had a long-standing commitment that he could not break. The debate was scheduled after that commitment was made. We all remember the way in which my hon. Friends the Members for Copeland and for Workington and others represented the views of their constituents day after day on a 24-hour basis, and we all hope that we will never be in that situation in our own constituencies.

This is, in a sense, a House of Commons day. There was not a single area of disagreement between the two Front-Bench teams. There are points that Members in all parts of the House will want to emphasise, but there is agreement that we should look carefully at the reports that have been produced. I pay tribute to members of the Select Committee. Again, I apologise on their behalf. Most of them very much wanted to be present for the debate today but the severe weather and constituency commitments have prevented them from attending. They worked hard to make this a unanimous report where consensus was the order of the day. The report is not intended to have a go at any group in society.

I knew very little about firearms when I began the inquiry. That is why I was delighted to be involved in it—not delighted for the reasons that I mentioned, but pleased to gain some expertise in an area that I know nothing about. As Members of Parliament, we are supposed to be experts on everything, and it is not often that we say we know nothing about a subject. However, I knew nothing about firearms. The nearest I had got to a firearm was a water pistol when I was much younger.

I thank the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) who was extremely helpful to the Committee in a number of ways and to me personally. We asked that firearms be brought into the Committee so that we could look at the various types. Sometimes it is difficult for lay members—I am a lay member—to understand the difference between a section 1 firearm, a shotgun, a pistol and an air weapon. The hon. Gentleman arranged for that to happen. I thank the Serjeant at Arms and the Deputy Serjeant at Arms for allowing us to bring the weapons into the Committee. I think we gave them a bit of a fright when the firearms came in, but it was important for us to look at them.

I valued immensely my visit to Bisley, where I met so many talented individuals who had represented our country in shooting at the highest level and had won gold medals at the recent Commonwealth games. They were not bulky men with big muscles, though there were some of those about—not members of the Committee. Some were women, who had shot so successfully. One of them hung all four of her gold medals around her neck. I no longer need to be convinced of the importance of the sport. When we look at the figures, showing the hundreds of thousands who apply for a licence in good faith, with excellent characters, and get their licences, we know that we must be careful if we try to change the law.

That is not what the Committee suggested to any great extent. Like the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal, we suggested measures that we think can improve the situation. Hindsight is a wonderful gift and none of us possesses it. We do not know what is going to happen in the future. It is terribly difficult for the Government of the day, having had so many difficulties to deal with in the events that took place in Cumbria and Northumberland, to call it right. If anything happens in the future, and the odds are that it will—the evidence before us suggested that it will happen at some stage—we do not want people to be blamed for having failed to take action.

Some of our proposals are direct recommendations: we made 22 recommendations. Some are an invitation to the Government to consult further—for example, on the age at which children may apply for a licence. I was confused about that, as were the Clerks and members of the Committee. Therefore, for the convenience of the House, we set out the current law in a table that appears on page 42 of the report.

As the table shows, it is possible to apply for a licence for a shotgun at any age, but for a section 1 firearm, one can apply only from the age of 14. One may use a shotgun under supervision at any age, but, for a section 1 firearm, in certain circumstances, it is from the age of 14 with a certificate. To be in possession of a firearm unsupervised, the minimum age is 15 for a shotgun and 14 for a section 1 firearm. To purchase or hire a firearm and/or ammunition, the age is the same—18.

We did not suggest an age to the Government. We recommended that the Government look at the various ages. They may decide that there is no empirical evidence that a change is needed. However, we suggested a number of areas for consideration: the age at which an individual is permitted to shoot under supervision in the controlled environment of a shooting range, the age at which an individual is permitted to shoot under supervision outside such a controlled environment, and the age at which an individual is permitted to shoot unsupervised.

No age is specified in the report, although Mr Whiting said when I pressed him that he thought it should be 10. That was under pressure from the Chairman seeking to get him to alight on a particular figure. I was very surprised that there were 26 children aged 10 who had shotguns, even though I have a 15-year-old son who is in the Duke of Edinburgh’s award scheme. When he heard that I would be speaking about the subject, he said, “You’re not going to ban us from doing this, are you?” I said, “I’m not going to ban you from doing anything, apart from being on the computer for too long.”

We have asked the Government to consider the question of age. The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal need not fear. We are not coming to a conclusion; we are just saying that the matter requires further thought.

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

I heard the right hon. Gentleman this morning on Radio 4 on this subject. It was not clear from his response why he felt the need for a review. He did not seem to be suggesting that there was any particular problem in respect of the age at which children could hold a licence or could shoot.

[Keith Vaz]

I was trying to hedge a little because we have our personal views based on our interest in the subject, but the Committee as a whole took no view. I think it was right not to take a view because we had not taken a huge amount of evidence on the age limits. We therefore did not want to interfere with the current arrangements. We thought further examination was merited. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am not an expert on these matters so it came as a surprise to me that children as young as 10 were able to shoot. It had to be explained to me at Bisley what they were all up to and that they were doing it for a purpose. I understood much better when I had heard that.

[Mr Ellwood]

The right hon. Gentleman’s report raises a number of issues, and this one is worth looking into in more detail. More information is required if we are to dabble with the numbers. It is clear that people cannot own ammunition until they are a lot older. It is clear that they cannot even use a weapon unless they are supervised or of a certain age. By discussing the ages, we are getting into semantics and away from questions about when the gun will be used and in what context. We are talking about the age of 10, when children cannot even buy ammunition or use it unless they are supervised.

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman is right. That is why we batted the issue over to the Government for them to look at. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) is the parent of two very young children, because they are regulars at the Westminster kids club party. Any parent would be concerned if they were not in the know about what is going on. We are not saying, “Let’s make it 10.” Let us consider the issues and let the Government perhaps come back with a view in the two-month timetable that they have given themselves.

My second point is about the 34 pieces of legislation covering this area of policy. It is a no-brainer that we need to consolidate. We need to make sure that the police and those responsible for holding such firearms know the law, which needs to be clear, so that nobody is under any misapprehension. That is why clarity of law and consistency are extremely important, and that is an easy one for the Government, as the Minister hinted in his very careful speech from the Dispatch Box.

There was a debate in the Committee about the role of GPs, but we concluded that we can live with the reasonable deal struck between the British Medical Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers—and therefore the Home Office. We should not try to interfere in the judgment of a general practitioner. Let the general practitioner alert the authorities if he or she feels that it has to be done. GPs will be very careful when they write their references or provide any information to those making such decisions, because they will not want to make mistakes. They also have a duty of confidentiality, however. The Committee was reluctant to intervene on that duty, but we felt it necessary to bring it to the attention of GPs themselves, if they needed reminding, because they have a crucial role in ensuring that proper consideration is given when licences are granted.

[Tony Cunningham]

Before my right hon. Friend concludes, will he comment on the Committee’s report concerning the media? My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) was extremely disturbed by the way in which the media covered the terrible shootings in west Cumbria.

[Keith Vaz]

Yes, we considered that issue in the inquiry, and it is in the report, although I cannot remember the exact paragraph. With such tragic events, the media tend to go to the scene, and there is 24-hour coverage, which understandably upsets local residents. One witness, it might have been Professor Shepherd or the witness from the health authority—

[Tony Cunningham]

Professor Ashton

[Keith Vaz]

Professor Ashton, I thank my hon. Friend. Professor Ashton said that the constant media coverage might encourage others to do the same, so one has to be very careful not to glamorise what happens.

The report has a section on key facts, and I shall read just a couple. The most recent figures show that there are 138,728 firearm certificates, covering 435,000 firearms, and 574,946 shotgun certificates, covering 1.366 million shotguns. That is a huge number, but the number of cases, tragic though they are, in which legally held firearms have resulted in homicide, deaths or injuries, is very small indeed. That is not to excuse the number or to say it is not important, but it needs to be seen in proportion to the number of guns that are about.

So the Committee has not sought to condemn or criticise; all it has sought to do unanimously is to make suggestions, so that, by closing the loopholes and ironing out the creases, our already tough law becomes not necessarily tougher, but slightly better. It is up to the Government to adopt the measures that we suggest. They have given themselves a two-month timetable, for which I am most grateful, and we look forward to re-examining the issue.

We have decided to publish our recommendations in a grid on our website—we decided to do that after the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) left the Committee—and, as soon as the Government meet those recommendations, we give them a tick. So far, in our three reports, we have totalled about 60 recommendations, and there are 22 in the report before us. We look forward to ticking as many as possible. If we cannot tick them, and if the Government have a better measure to put in place, we will give them the credit they deserve. The Minister and the Government have handled the matter sensitively and carefully and the Opposition Front Benchers have dealt with it in an equally proper way. This is the House at its best, and I hope that the debate continues along those lines.

19:44

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

I welcome the opportunity for this debate today. I suspect that whatever day the Government had chosen, some hon. Members might have felt it inappropriate, but the fact that the debate is taking place today has not stopped us from having a well-informed discussion with Members who clearly have an interest in the subject. I welcome also the fact that the matter is under active consideration by the Government.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) and, indeed, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North has said, have given the matter mature consideration. The whole debate has been approached in a consensual and mature manner.

I further welcome the Committee’s revisiting the report from 10 years ago. One of the Committee’s strengths is that it revisits reports and checks whether recommendations have been implemented. I also welcome the recent innovation of placing recommendations on the website, so that we can see what progress is made against them. Whether the Government see the 66 recommendations in the last three reports as separate targets, I do not know, but, given that the Government are duty-bound to respond to the Committee’s reports, it might be appropriate for them to respond to the recommendations as well.

It is perfectly appropriate and right that, after the tragic incidents involving Derrick Bird and Raoul Moat, the House should consider our gun control laws and approach the issue in a suitably sombre and non-political atmosphere. We owe that to the families, who suffered so grievously from those senseless murders, and to the emergency services, who had to deal with those matters on the day and in the aftermath. It is incumbent on us to propose solutions that reduce risks not only effectively, but proportionately, and we must rely on policies with a sound evidence base. So, we, as a House and as a Government, should propose solutions that identify the differences between and risks associated with legal and illegal firearms.

On illegal firearms, I am sure that there is a consensus in the House that the current Government, just like the previous Government, must maintain pressure on those who import and convert weapons, and on the gangs that use weapons. As the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal has said, we need to rely on the border force to try to intercept weapons as they come into the country. We also need to rely on the national crime agency, when it is set up, to deal with what is a national issue, and we need to ensure that the duty of co-operation that will be placed on the elected police and crime commissioners operates effectively, so that they can deal collectively with a matter of national importance.

On legal firearms, Members have quoted some of the statistics. According to the briefing that Members have received from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, it is difficult to demonstrate a relationship between gun crime and legitimate gun ownership. The association provides statistics showing that, for instance, in Scotland in 2005-06, although gun crime fell by 6%, and was 28% lower than nine years previously, there was an increase in privately owned firearms, the number of which was at a five-year high in that country. So, there does not appear to be a correlation between gun crime and legitimate gun ownership, and the association provides a number of other statistics to support that contention. Indeed, handguns were banned following Dunblane, but they continue to be regularly used and are the weapon of choice in gun crime.

One should not draw any rapid conclusions about how to address the issue of gun crime through the licensing of legal weapons. We have heard the comments of the right hon. Member for Leicester East, the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, on the subject of young people and shooting, and I understand why his Committee called for the review. I, too, am surprised about the different age groups and about the issues on access to guns and ammunition and when someone needs to be supervised and when they do not. Therefore, it is perfectly right for him to pass the buck to the Government, which is something the Committee rarely does. He did not quite use that phrase, but I think he was quite happy to hand over responsibility for that review to the Government. I can see the need to do so, although I am not sure whether he has identified a particular problem that requires such a review to be undertaken.

On legal firearms, there is the matter of the number of firearms on private premises. Hon. Members will know that the British Shooting Sport Council does not consider the number of guns held by an individual to be an issue. That therefore does not necessarily need to be considered when discussing gun controls, particularly in relation to legal firearms. When dealing with that issue, it is essential that we rely on the evidence of what the risks are and how they can be addressed. I want to draw Members’ attention to a couple of the Home Affairs Committee’s recommendations, which warrant further investigation. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the 34 laws. I am sure it would be of great advantage to clarify or simplify that matter. There should be tighter restrictions and clearer guidance to the police on the granting of firearms and shotgun licences to individuals who have engaged in criminal activity. Again, the Government should consider more carefully whether people subject to suspended sentences should be allowed to hold firearms.

The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North, raised a strong point about the need for greater consultation with domestic partners, both current and ex-partners. That matter is certainly worthy of Government investigation, as is the greater enforcement of air weapon offences. The media have also been drawn into the matter as a result of how they sensationalise these crimes. In passing, I shall refer to a case that involves Newsquest. That organisation has done some good work on, for example, ensuring that there are no sex ads in its newspapers. However, I regret that in relation to a murder—not a gun-related murder—in my constituency, it has pursued a particular case again and again. The victim’s family are suffering the consequences because, any time there is a development in the case, it gets covered locally and the family, who want to put the matter behind them, see it constantly reported on the front pages of the paper. Clearly, that may currently and in the future affect all the families involved in the Cumbrian incident and, indeed, the incidents involving Raoul Moat. The media should carefully consider that matter themselves and take appropriate action.

The final thing that I want to mention about the Select Committee report is the fact that, interestingly, it did not recommend centralising gun storage. In the Select Committee’s view, there were perhaps advantages in having gun storage in different places, rather than in a central point. If guns were in a central point, it could be more attractive to someone who wanted to get hold of a large number of guns in one location. Will the Minister say whether he has received representations from any organisations or individuals on changes proposed by arm’s length management organisations? An ALMO in my area, Sutton Housing Partnership, has introduced a policy of not allowing people to store guns in their properties, because it is concerned about those guns getting into illegal hands. However, the evidence that we have before us perhaps suggests that, in some respects, those guns might be safer there than they would be if they were all located in one particular point. When the Minister responds, I hope he will discuss that point.

It is clearly right that, as the House—and, indeed, the Select Committee—addresses these issues, we consider the risks associated with illegal and legal firearms. Collectively, we should formulate a response that addresses those issues and ensures that the families affected by these tragedies can see that the Government have responded proportionately. The Government need to take measures that reduce the risk of similar incidents occurring in the future, without having an undue impact on a sport that millions of people enjoy. Indeed, my wife enjoyed the sport of shooting when she was a teenager. We do not want to have a disproportionate impact on a fraternity who pursue a sport in a perfectly legal fashion. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will take on board those two, at times, conflicting considerations. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that both those matters are addressed in a proportionate manner.

19:56

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Every year, deaths from gunshot wounds are an all-too-common occurrence in our country, as a result of homicide and suicide. Before this debate, I read a report prepared by the Gun Control Network, which monitors the firearms incidents that take place in our country. That report makes for shocking reading.

In one month alone—November—the Gun Control Network has highlighted huge numbers of firearms incidents. They include seven fatal shootings, five of which were apparent homicides—three in north London and two in the west midlands. In London, two men died after a double shooting in Islington and another victim died when he was shot in a car in Finchley. In the west midlands, a man was shot dead in a house in Bilston and a man whose body was found in Smethwick had died from a gunshot wound to the head.

Two apparent suicides were also reported for that month. A man is thought to have taken his own life after he was seen in a street in Ashington, Northumberland with a gun, and a man was found dead at his stables near Rosewell, Midlothian in a suspected shotgun suicide. Thirteen other victims were shot—five with airguns and imitation weapons. A teenager was shot in Croydon and two men suffered leg injuries when they were shot in Clapham. In Merseyside, a man was shot in the legs in a street in Huyton. A victim was shot in the stomach with a shotgun in Croxteth and a man was shot in the leg in Stockbridge village. In south Yorkshire, a man sustained a minor injury when a shotgun was fired through the window of a house in Totley, Sheffield.

Five other people were hit by pellets from ball-bearing guns or air guns. In Shropshire, a boy was struck by a pellet from a ball-bearing gun in Oswestry and a cyclist was shot in the head with an airgun in Arleston. In south Yorkshire, a jeweller in Rotherham was shot in the face by an armed robber with a ball-bearing gun, and in Suffolk a woman and a teenager were struck in the head by airgun pellets on the same street but in separate attacks in Lowestoft. A man was shot in the hand by police in Copthorne, West Sussex. He was later charged with possession of an imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of violence.

I make this point because the pro-gun lobby likes to imply that people who take part in so-called legitimate shooting activities are extremely responsible. We have heard a lot of talk about knee-jerk reactions, but whenever there is an appalling incident such as the one in Cumbria, there is always a knee-jerk reaction from the pro-gun lobby. The House should consider the sobering thought that back in 1987, when Michael Ryan was indulging in a massacre in Hungerford, killing 17 people and injuring 15 others, Thomas Hamilton was seen to be a fit and proper person to hold a firearms certificate. Yet we know the tragic consequences in 1996 in Dunblane, where Thomas Hamilton killed 18 people and injured 15 others. When Thomas Hamilton was indulging in that killing spree, Derrick Bird in Cumbria was deemed a fit and proper person to hold a firearms certificate, and we know what happened earlier this year when 12 people were killed and 11 were seriously injured.

In my view, the country would be a far better place if guns were completely banned and nobody was allowed to own them. I recognise that that might be a step too far at this stage, but it is essential that this Parliament takes action to address the gun culture in our country. It is a frightening statistic that almost 5,000 young people—5,000 children—hold a firearms certificate. What kind of message is that sending out to the country at large? I am a councillor in Derby as well as a Member of Parliament. In a park in Normanton in Derby, there was a tragic and fatal incident in which a young man of 15 years of age was shot dead with a gun. I accept that that gun was obtained illegally. However, when the law of the land allows 5,000 children legitimately to hold a firearms certificate, it sends a very bad signal.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) has pointed out, there are 34 separate pieces of firearms legislation. The time is long overdue for a new, simpler, unified piece of legislation covering the ownership of firearms. As I have said, I would like to see a complete ban on guns, although I accept that that will not happen in the foreseeable future. However, it is appropriate to ban the private storage of firearms in people’s own homes. I cannot see how anybody in this House can legitimately argue that somebody should be able to store firearms in their own home. Why is that necessary? There is no foolproof method of dealing with this other than a complete ban on firearms, but taking them out of people’s homes would be a huge step in the right direction towards preventing the sorts of appalling massacres that we have seen in Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria.

That is one of the measures that I would like to see, but we could go further. The hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) has referred to the notion that a person who has a firearms certificate might be deterred from seeing their GP, if they felt that that GP could report them to the police as not being a fit and proper person to continue to hold a firearms certificate. However, there is a way round that: a mandatory, annual medical test to check on individuals who hold firearms certificates would ensure that they are mentally capable and fit and proper people to continue to do so. That measure would get over the problem that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

Other hon. Members have referred to the Prime Minister’s comments in the wake of the Cumbrian shooting, when he said that nobody can

“stop a switch flicking in someone’s head”.

Adopting the approach that I am suggesting would not be foolproof but it would be a considerable step forward in preventing the sorts of terrible incidents that we have seen. I urge the Minister to take it on board and respond to it appropriately.

The Association of Chief Police Officers has considered this issue and has made a number of recommendations, including the involvement of the medical profession through allowing police to see the medical details of applicants and permitting a formal approach to applicants’ families to ensure that they are happy for their family member to obtain a firearms certificate. That would be a huge step forward. We need, as a Parliament, to take appropriate steps. In the past, we have taken measures that clearly have not gone far enough, and we need to go considerably further. I accept that these measures need to be proportionate, but how do we judge what is proportionate when we see the number of innocent lives that have been lost as a result of people who have held firearms legitimately and then, through the inadequacy of our legislation, been able to go on a killing spree? I hope that the Minister will deal with those points.

We need to take more robust measures in relation to the illegal ownership of firearms. I would not allow children to have firearms certificates at all, but addressing the age at which young people are able to do so would be a good step in the right direction in terms of the signal it sends. We also need to look at other measures that we can take by working with young people and supporting youth organisations, which do some excellent work in bringing home to young people the consequences of gun crime. That would prevent more tragic incidents such as the one that occurred in the ward that I represent in Derby, where Kadeem Blackwood, a young man of 15 years of age, had his life tragically cut short. We have to empower youth organisations to enable the sort of educative work that would help to turn young people away from firearms.

[Keith Vaz]

I, too, was concerned about this when I began the inquiry. My hon. Friend has spoken very passionately about these matters. Does he not accept, however, that it would be very odd if we did not allow people the chance to enjoy their sport in a shooting range, in properly controlled circumstances with a proper licence?

[Chris Williamson]

My own view is that I would ban guns, and there would not be shooting ranges because people would not have guns. However, at the end of the day, politics is the art of the possible. If we could have the properly controlled circumstances that my right hon. Friend has mentioned but, within that context, prevent people from having private storage of firearms in their own homes, that would deal with his point and also prevent the potential for the sorts of terrible massacres we have seen in some parts of the country.

[Mr Offord]

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he wants images of weapons to be banned, for example in rap music, which we heard about earlier, and in American TV and big screen movies? That is where young people—particularly those in the urban environment that he is focusing on—see the images and glamorisation of such crimes and tragic deaths.

[Chris Williamson]

I agree that the violent images that we see on our screens and the references to weapons in rap music do not help. However, I do not think that that sufficiently explains why young people use guns to the extent that they do these days. That is why it is so important that we give the necessary resources not just to the police, but to youth organisations that turn young people away from firearms and make them realise the consequences of using firearms. There are consequences not only for the victims of firearms incidents, but for the lives of those who use them. The life of the young man who killed the teenager in my constituency, and that of his family, has been destroyed as a result of that incident.

[Simon Hart]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in the absence of a total ban, there is evidence to suggest that when people are given responsible access to firearms at an early age, under proper supervision, it reduces the chance that they will end up in the terrible circumstances that he has described? Instead of it being a negative, it is a positive. The Home Affairs Committee and others have pointed to plenty of examples that suggest that it is a good thing.

[Chris Williamson]

I am not sure that I accept the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. I certainly do not accept the point with regard to young people, or any people, using firearms to shoot live quarry. Perhaps using firearms in a shooting range is a different matter, but I am not sure that I agree.

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful, brave and challenging speech, which is important in this debate. However, I do not agree with many of his conclusions. My constituency was the scene of a gun rampage less than 20 years ago. A number of residents who were affected by it were appalled recently when a sports shop decided to sell guns. I must say that it does so in a safe and controlled environment, with regular checks by the police. Does my hon. Friend agree that residents should have a greater say, perhaps through the planning process, over whether such shops should be allowed to set up in the high street?

[Chris Williamson]

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. I hope that the Localism Bill, which was published last week and which will give local residents greater power over planning matters, will enable what he has described. We need to take account of local people’s views on such matters. Many opinion polls find that many people find the gun culture in our country utterly repugnant and unacceptable. Frankly, I think that people find it an affront to decency when such shops crop up on our high streets.

I hope that the Government will take on board the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee, and that they will take my comments seriously. I accept that I take an absolutist position on this issue, but I recognise that short of taking an absolutist stance, the Government can go further. In my view, the Government have a moral obligation to go further to prevent incidents such as those in Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria from ever happening again in our country.

20:14

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

It is a pleasure and an honour to participate in this important debate and to follow the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) who, if nothing else, has reminded us why it is important to have a proper, thorough debate on this issue, rather than to jump to conclusions before we know all the details and understand the ramifications of any legislation that we wish to make.

I will begin with a declaration of interest. In the armed forces, I shot a number of weapons avidly. I am involved with the training of the Olympic pistol team and am vice-president of the British Shooting Sports Council, which is an umbrella organisation that deals with a number of associations from across the board in the shooting fraternity.

This debate was always going to focus on the three huge tragedies that have affected British society and, indeed, Parliament—the Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria shootings. I hope that I speak for all hon. Members in saying that our thoughts go out to the families whose lives remain shattered by those unprecedented events. Those events are as shocking as they are unprecedented. The responsibility of dissecting what went wrong is enormous. It involves not only helping the victims’ families to come to terms with the events and to seek justice, but recommending changes to the law that might prevent similar incidents.

I am pleased that there was a delay after the Cumbria shootings in which to take stock and regroup before debating or deciding on firm legislation. The legislation will therefore be based not on passion, but on logic. There is a desire to act swiftly, but we must also act soberly. Given that we can see such tragic images unfolding in real time, thanks to 24-hour television, it is understandable that the majority of people, and indeed journalists, were horrified by the events that we saw and called immediately for tougher action.

I gently remind the House that it is not only such massacres that we must consider. Gun crime, in one form or another, is committed in every hour of every day, sometimes with tragic results. Those events do not take place in the media limelight or on our television sets, but they do shatter the lives of the individuals who are affected in exactly the same way. When we debate the major issue of firearms control, we must not let the issues become polarised by looking simply at the major tragic events.

The world of legal gun ownership and use, and the laws that govern it are extremely complex. On the whole, it operates with the high level of responsibility that society expects. As has been said, 34 Acts of Parliament relate to firearms. I was pleased that in the report, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) called for some kind of consolidation of that legislation. The Prime Minister has made it clear that it is not possible to legislate to stop a switch being turned in somebody’s head, but we can make it easier for those who have to use the legislation to operate in this environment.

We cannot un-invent the weapon. It has legitimate uses in the rural community, in sports, including Olympic sports, and in law and order. However, weapons can and do fall into the wrong hands. The bullet may be the cause of death, but it is the owner’s finger that is guilty of causing harm. Our job here in Parliament is to ensure that the public are properly protected. There must be a balance in law between our being a fair society and allowing legal gun ownership, and ensuring that guns do not fall into the wrong hands.

The hon. Member for Derby North spoke at some length about wanting to ban guns entirely. I hope he did not wish to mislead the House by saying that he was calling for children not to have access to guns and that it was ridiculous that children could have a licence at the age of 10. He knows that a child cannot be in possession of any weapon unsupervised while under 14, or under 15 in the case of a shotgun. We have to keep the full context of the law in perspective, and that is why the debate is important.

[Chris Williamson]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree, though, that at the age of 14, an individual is a child and not fully aware of the consequences of the use of a firearm? Does he agree that if we are still to have guns in society, some consideration should be given to increasing the age at which an individual can have a firearms certificate, perhaps to 18, when they are an adult?

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Gentleman puts his point on the record, but what is the consequence of making weapons illegal? It makes them a trophy, a gang culture accessory and an object of desire for certain people. Introducing people to a wide variety of guns at a very young age takes the mystery out of the weapon and teaches them respect. The Duke of Edinburgh’s award scheme, the Scouts and the cadets operate guns. I would like to see statistics on the respect or otherwise that people gain by being exposed to guns at an early age. If we had that, the hon. Gentleman would then be in a commanding position to say whether the current situation worked, and we could move forward from there.

[Chris Williamson]

I think the hon. Gentleman is conflating two issues. Young people involved in gang culture already see the illegal ownership of firearms as a badge of honour, and regrettably they are all too willing to use them. That is a separate matter from my point, which is that allowing young people to have a firearms certificate sends the inappropriate signal that it is legitimate for them to have firearms at their disposal. That is why it is important that we empower youth organisations to deal with the illegal ownership and use of firearms by young people in gangs.

[Mr Ellwood]

I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman, and I would encourage him to go out and speak to the clubs and so on that participate in shooting. I have been involved in initiatives that take people from the gang culture, but who have yet to be exposed to guns and the world of crime, to a range so that they can understand what happens there. That teaches them some respect for the weapons that they have previously seen in video games or on television and thought they wanted. If he sees such initiatives, he might come back to the House with a very different view.

[Justin Tomlinson]

On youth engagement, surely the best thing to do is to involve sports clubs, the Army Cadet Force and other proper organisations that can provide respect for weapons and hands-on knowledge, rather than some do-gooding youth worker saying, “Just don’t do it.”

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I look forward to his speech, which I hope will elaborate on that point.

I welcome the general thrust of the Home Affairs Committee’s report, which states:

“We do not believe that a total outright ban on ownership and use of section 1 firearms and shotguns would be a proportionate response to the risks posed by these weapons.”

I fully agree with that, and we should bear it in mind that only one in every 330 crimes involves a gun. If we exclude air weapons, firearms offences decreased by 17% in 2008-09, the last year for which figures are available.

I have huge concerns about the data that are available. The hon. Member for Derby North rattled off a series of horrible events, but he did not once say whether the weapons involved were illegal. In the key facts section on page 3 of the Committee’s report, there is a long list of facts and figures about crimes, but again there is no indication of whether the guns used were illegal or legal. It would be a lot easier for us to debate the matter in detail and with understanding if we had that information.

[Mr Offord]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the shooting in Finchley that the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) mentioned was actually a gangland hit? I do not believe that the person involved held the firearm legally, but even if they did, that crime did not just occur because firearms are legal.

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. As I said in an intervention, the Home Office does not collect or produce such data. The situation is tougher because the perpetrator of the crime does not conveniently leave their weapon at the scene, but nevertheless, statistics that differentiate the use of illegal and legal weapons would be helpful, as the hon. Member for Derby North said.

I am concerned about the data. There were 14,250 recorded offences, but we do not know how many involved the use of illegal guns. There is some breakdown analysis, because some categories of weapons are illegal, such as handguns—there were 4,275 incidents involving handguns and all those are illegal. Imitation weapons are not totally illegal, because they are used on TV sets and so forth, but they can be altered. We do not know how many are illegal. Those data would be helpful when we debate the Government’s recommendations.

Paragraph 14 on page 10 of the report states:

“There is a lack of data in the public domain showing the extent to which legally-owned firearms are used in gun crime”.

I hope the Minister can qualify that in his summation. Can such statistics be made public? In its evidence to the Committee, the Home Office states that

“the evidence suggests that the vast majority of crimes involving firearms are carried out with illegally-held guns”.

Parliament has a duty not to throw the net of legislation across the entire gun community in the hope of pulling up some illegal weapons.

Hon. Members have pointed out the contribution that legal shooting activities make in our country. More than 1 million people participate in one form of shooting or another—whether for game, clay pigeon or targets. That makes a huge impact on the economy. The industry is worth more than £1 billion and involves the equivalent of 70,000 full-time jobs.

A recent Cambridge study showed that two thirds of the shooting community is also involved with the management and conservation of our countryside. The industry is therefore not simply about using guns and weapons, but about a relationship with the areas in which shooting takes place. Around £250 million a year is spent by those involved with gun communities. That goes towards the habitat and wildlife management of those areas.

The importance of exposure to weapons at an early age was mentioned. I hope that we agree on that now. Such exposure takes the mystery and glamour out of the weapon. That is recognised by the Government, because Sport England invests heavily to try to take out that mystery, so that people are not encouraged to get hold of an illegal weapon just to be part of a gang.

There is too much legislation, going back to the Firearms Act 1968. Firearms are also an aspect of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 and of subsequent violent crime legislation. When there is a big terrorist explosion in the UK, there is a desire for the Government to be seen to do something and for them to look strong on the day, but I am pleased that we have taken a slower approach towards firearms legislation.

It would be useful for the Minister and the Committee to qualify the role of general practitioners. I agree that a relationship between the police and GPs should be developed when the police are deciding whether to award a licence, but should a certificate be granted before or after a GP assessment? The Association of Chief Police Officers report states that we should go further and suggests some form of tagging, but that would be a step too far.

The report suggests tighter restrictions and better guidance in the granting of firearms and shotgun licences to individuals who have engaged in criminal activity already. Does the Minister believe that those serving suspended sentences should qualify for a firearms or weapons certificate?

There is also the need to consider previous unconvicted behaviour. This is when the police are allowed to consider evidence and information on their database that do not form part of a criminal conviction. This gets a bit blurred, however, so I think that the Minister needs to be clear on whether such evidence or intelligence can be taken into consideration. Furthermore, the idea of consulting domestic partners and ex-spouses is moving us into another blurred area. If the person is an ex-spouse, it suggests that things have not gone too merrily. Would an ex-spouse really want to help his or her former partner? Again we are getting into a blurred area that could be prone to abuse.

I was interested to read what has been learned from practices in America, where they have a two-year licence instead of a five-year approach. Fingerprints have to be submitted, and there must be an hour of firearms training along with further registration every three years. Is the Minister aware of what America and other countries are doing, and could we learn anything from them?

One of my biggest concerns, however, is about the blending of licences issued under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968 and shotgun licences. This is not a sensible move. The present system of shotgun licensing is more effective and efficient because it focuses on the person, not the firearm, whereas with section 1 firearm licences, a lot of time is wasted on the minutiae of the firearm type, calibre and whether the person should hold one. I shall give some examples of where section 1 licences might not work: a vermin controller would have to go through a huge amount of red tape, at great cost to himself and the police, just to swap a .22 inch rifle for another; or a deerstalker changing his weapon of choice from a .308 inch rifle to a .270 inch rifle would have to go through the entire process from the start. That would apply to any change from one calibre to another. It does not make sense. However, one section of the 1968 Act requires that good reasons be given and conditions set, and I believe that that should remain in place.

My next concern is about paragraph 84 of the report, which deals with current police guidance on firearms legislation. The guidance is out of date. Lord Cullen’s report on Dunblane suggested that better training must be put in place for our police, but there is still no standard training on firearms certification in the UK. That must definitely change. This also relates to the point about the Olympics that I mentioned in an intervention. This is an example—I look to the hon. Member for Derby North—of legislation being hammered through this place at a rate of knots that did not serve this country well. Yes, a handgun was used in that horrible massacre, but there are ways to prevent handguns from being used by the general population. For example, they could be held and stored in armouries and taken out only by professionals. That would mean that people could still use them. It would also mean that our Olympic team could train in the UK. That would be a sensible approach to the use of handguns on which the Minister knows that I have been lobbying hard.

[Chris Williamson]

If the hon. Gentleman believes it appropriate to store handguns in a secure armoury, does he agree that it would be appropriate to store all firearms in a secure armoury in a similar way?

[Mr Ellwood]

That is exactly how this debate should proceed. I am saying that on this issue, about which I have endeavoured to learn a lot, it makes sense to allow handguns to be used in the UK, if they are kept under lock and key and if appropriate measures are put in place, such as a requirement that the safe be opened by three key owners. That would make sense. If the hon. Gentleman would like to roll that out further, he could put forward that proposal. The point that I am making, however, is that because of the legislation handguns were made illegal, yet there is now more handgun crime and it is the one area that is growing.

[Mr Offord]

In addition to the number of handguns held illegally, is my hon. Friend aware that between 1997 and 2006—since the legislation was introduced—the number of offences increased?

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend makes my point, which is why it is important to debate such matters thoroughly before we jump to a conclusion that we believe will satisfy the nation’s appetite and anger. That is our role; it is what Parliament must do. This place operates badly when we rush through legislation, a point reflected in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and other examples.

My final observation on the detail is about the proposals on the clarification of the age. There is no point in going into that further, but just to elaborate, no one under the age of 14 can own any form of weapon. They may be able to have a piece of paper saying that they have a certificate, but they cannot use a weapon unsupervised. That is a sensible way forward.

My penultimate point—a point made in an earlier intervention—is about the Press Complaints Commission. There is no need for me to dwell on this, but hon. Members will be aware that my family have endured our own tragedy, with the loss of my brother in a terrorist attack. When it happened we were deluged by the media, which is exactly what happened in Dunblane, in Cumbria, and so forth. The media pile in with such an intense and relentless level of intrusion that it really becomes an invasion, and this at a time when people feel at their most vulnerable. I spoke to those at the Press Complaints Commission, which has a process to deal with the problem. Unfortunately, they are not the people whom those affected would naturally want to phone up when such things happen. However, it is important to send out the message that when such events take place, the media have a responsibility to act responsibly—and not as they do at the moment, which is very invasively indeed—and to give people the space to manage their grief.

To conclude, firearms are part of the dangerous and complex world that we live in. However, we ignore at our peril the growth of gun crime on our streets. We cannot wish away the problem by legislating against those who use guns responsibly. It is the duty of the Government and Parliament to ensure that we carefully monitor what is happening on our streets, in our society and in our communities. It is also important to have that balance of legislation, so that we support those who want to use guns and weapons legally, and deny those who want to use them illegally. I very much welcome this debate, and I am delighted to have had the opportunity to speak in it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s concluding remarks and to our being able to debate the legislation when it comes through in, I understand, the spring.

20:37

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

Let me start by associating myself with the comments of many right hon. and hon. Members about the dreadful incidents in Cumbria and other places. I was present at the June Westminster Hall debate introduced by the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed). As a proud representative of a rural area, I can only think in horror of the effect that such an incident would have on my community. Everything that I say should be understood in that context.

Since that time there have been some encouraging signs of an emerging consensus, among organisations and authorities, on what would be a proper, responsible, measured and proportionate way forward. Like other speakers, I would like to dwell on just three aspects of that, which are the availability of firearms to young people, the use of medical records in the application process, and the thorny issue of what constitutes a proper form of certification.

I shall start by establishing some context. One passage in the Home Affairs Committee report states:

“Certainly licensed firearms do not appear to be used in the majority of cases.”

That, I would suggest, is something of an understatement. I was pleased that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Committee, clarified that point earlier this evening. However, he did not go as far as the Committee did in April 2000, in its second report of that Session, which said:

“A common theme to many submissions is that illegally held weapons pose a far greater danger to public safety than those which are held in conformity with the present controls…it is clear that those determined to live outside the law are unlikely to respect the law’s requirements when they wish to acquire or use a weapon.”

Other Members have mentioned the way in which the law has performed in certain areas. It will come as no surprise to them that 52% of firearms offences in 2008-09 were committed with handguns, which were of course prohibited in 1997. That illustrates the point that both the Select Committee reports have made, albeit with a different emphasis.

The Committee went on to say:

“The proportion of licence holders who use their guns in crime is tiny”,

and added:

“Many representations were made to us…about the legitimate enjoyment of shooting…and the wider benefits that shooting brings to the UK economy.”

Other speakers have touched on that point today, but it is fair to re-emphasise that there are different approaches to firearms in urban and rural areas. In rural areas they are seen more as an essential tool of the trade than they might be in other parts of the UK. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who is not in her place, spoke of the Opposition’s recognition that 70,000 jobs were associated with the shooting industry—if I can call it that—and the fact that the industry injects £1.6 billion into the economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) also said that £250 million is devoted to wildlife and habitat management. That is a significant industry; to put it in context, it is not dissimilar in size to the UK film industry.

I want to dwell first on the issue of young people. Paragraph 7.7 of the Home Office’s “Firearms Law: Guidance to the Police 2002” is no doubt familiar to many. It states:

“It is in the interests of safety that a young person who is to handle firearms should be properly taught at a relatively early age.”

Others have expanded on that, including Assistant Chief Constable Adrian Whiting, as the Minister said in his opening remarks. I can see no evidence—emerging or otherwise—to suggest that young people who have access to firearms pose any danger whatever to society; in fact, quite the opposite. It is well within the capability of parents to make sensible and responsible decisions about the activities of their children. They do so pretty effectively every day of the week, and this is no different. There is simply no evidence to suggest that we should conjure up theories that would have a long-term downstream impact on shooting in the UK.

In case that is not sufficient evidence, I will quote a comment made at the weekend by Anita North, the Commonwealth games 2010 gold medallist and record holder, who said:

“People choose their sport at a young age. We have some extremely talented shooters in the GB team who started in their early teens. If they hadn’t been able to get involved so young, they might now be taking part in some other sport rather than winning medals for shooting.”

I shall turn now to the contentious issue of medical records, and start by taking careful note of the Information Commissioner’s concerns about the security of data on the names and addresses of certificate holders. Large numbers of individuals within medical practices could have access to this sensitive material, the leaking of which could pose a significant risk. There is therefore legitimate concern about the proportionality of this measure. The Independent Police Complaints Commission could identify only six cases in which medical involvement at the granting or renewal stage of a licence might have made a contribution to the prevention of crime.

As we have heard, some medical practitioners—not many, but some—are unfavourably disposed to firearms ownership, meaning that licence holders might not visit their GP when they need to. A GP wrote to me only this weekend to say:

“our overriding duty is to our patients, to give them the best advice and guard the confidences they give us. A patient is not going to tell me things if I am going to pass information on to the authorities. We are the guardians of the patient’s confidence, not agents of the state”.

That position is reflected not only by the GP who bothered to get in touch with me but by many others across the country who have been in touch with other hon. Members.

[Chris Williamson]

Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the tragic massacres that took place in Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria could have been avoided if Michael Ryan, Thomas Hamilton and Derrick Bird been subject to a medical examination resulting in their firearms certificates being removed and their guns taken away from them?

[Simon Hart]

Let repeat what I said to the hon. Gentleman in an earlier intervention. The fact is that there are individuals who may be perfectly healthy and competent when they apply for and are granted certificates, but in subsequent years may feel that their health is changing in a way that poses a potential threat to the ownership of their certificates, and as a result may feel fearful about approaching their GP in case their circumstances are changed forcibly. That is not good either for their health or for public safety. I understand why the hon. Gentleman has made his point, but sadly, I do not think that there is any evidence to suggest that the outcome would have been any different if different measures had been in place at that time.

[Chris Williamson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hart]

I will, but that is not an indication—

[Chris Williamson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Two Members cannot be on their feet at the same time. Is the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) giving way?

[Simon Hart]

Yes, of course.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call Chris Williamson.

[Chris Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire for giving way.

I think that the hon. Gentleman’s argument reinforces my own point. Does he agree that rather than a voluntary arrangement—which I acknowledge could deter people from going to their GP for fear of losing their firearms certificate in the circumstances that he has outlined—there should be a mandatory test, perhaps annually? If he does not agree, will he explain why?

[Simon Hart]

I apologise for the earlier exchange, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

My answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is no. I will give my reasons for that answer in due course. I think that it is quite difficult to come up with a concept that would appeal to those who, like the hon. Gentleman, start from the absolutist position—which he is perfectly entitled to take—that nothing short of a total ban on all forms of firearms, whatever their purpose, is acceptable. However, I shall do my best in the few moments that I have left.

Let me try to nail the theory that consulting the spouse, or ex-spouse, of a certificate applicant or holder is somehow in the interests of safety. I cannot think of a more divisive and potentially litigious proposition. Some of the healthiest marriages and family arrangements are based on strong disagreement about almost every important issue, and arrangements of that kind often survive rather longer than others. On a flippant level, I think that such consultation would be a ridiculous intrusion into the way in which people conduct their lives. On a more serious level, I think that in acrimonious circumstances in which a marriage fell apart, the idea that an offended ex-spouse, male or female, should have a say in the future enjoyment of his or her partner is ludicrous. I have read, seen and heard no evidence suggesting for one minute that that would have contributed greatly to a lessening of the chance of serious crime involving shotguns or firearms. The idea that we can expect spouses to become moral adjudicators on applications is clearly nonsense.

Finally, let me deal with the difficult question of certification. Here, the devil really is in the detail. I may have got this wrong—I am sure that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) will put me right if I have—but it seems to me that there is an implication that it would improve the position if the baseline criterion for applications for shotgun certificates were aligned with that applying to section 1 firearms. I cannot imagine that it is being suggested that the opposite should be the case, so I assume that the criterion for all shotgun certificate applications would rise to the section 1 level. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), I can see why that might be attractive on the face of it, but I feel that it could be devastating to the shooting and gun trade in the United Kingdom. Let me cite the following at this point: “It would be one thing for a person to require good reason to hold a certificate for a shotgun—a reversal of the current burden of proof whereby the Chief Officer shall not grant a shot gun certificate if he is satisfied that there is no good reason—but quite another to require good reason to possess each and every shotgun, as is currently the case with rifles.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) picked up on that, and put it rather more succinctly than I have managed. With this change in circumstances would come all sorts of requirements at variation stage, some of which are practically deliverable but some of which would impose an extraordinary burden, both financial and otherwise, on the already hard-pressed police force. If we consider the sheer number of shotguns in legitimate hands—they outnumber section 1 firearms by about 5:1, I think—we see that the burden that we would be putting on firearms officers and the police force in general is huge. The Select Committee is not as clear as it might be about precisely what the implications are, but perhaps that could be clarified.

All reasonable people will have looked on with horror as the various disasters we are discussing unfolded, most recently those in June and July, and they would accept that some consolidation of the existing legislation is an acceptable and sensible way forward. However, it does not necessarily follow that that consolidation should result in wholesale changes, as there is no evidence to suggest that such changes, had they been made earlier, would have altered the tragic events that took place.

I agree with many other Members that evidence and principle must be the two foundations of any changes made by this or any other Government. Of course the efforts of the enforcement agencies and the Government should principally be directed at the eradication of gun crime, rather than unnecessarily penalising legitimate firearms owners. Sadly, so far as I can see, none of the proposals in the Select Committee report would have altered the outcome of the events that we have discussed this evening.

Apart, perhaps—although I doubt it—from the unlikely and absolutist solution suggested by the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), no system is going to be 100% watertight. I suggest that the consolidation approach is the best way of establishing a proper balance between the legitimate interests of users—whether recreational users or those who use weapons as part of the nuts and bolts of their daily job—and the legitimate safety concerns. A consolidation would achieve that without compromising the coalition’s unequivocal commitment not to introduce legislation that unnecessarily impacts on people’s daily existence so that they are unable to conduct their businesses or live their lives free from state interference. If the coalition can get us to that stage, and not be too distracted by some of the eye-catching but—I venture to say—dangerous suggestions we have heard this evening, that would be a not unreasonable place to reach.

20:53

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

It has been a pleasure to sit through the entire debate, and I look forward to hearing the closing speeches from the respective Front Benches. I come to this debate as a holder of a shotgun licence and the owner of a shotgun. I am also very proud that we in South Derbyshire have one of the finest rifle clubs, at Swadlincote, and excellent cadet forces and shooting clubs at Newton Solney, a parish for which I am still a councillor.

We have fantastic shoots in South Derbyshire that are very important to the local economy, and it is interesting to note the juxtaposition between people who handle guns and those such as my good friend the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson). There could not be a more obvious distinction between a city dweller and somebody who is proud to live in the countryside.

[Chris Williamson]

Just for the record, I grew up in the countryside and am very familiar with it, and I regularly walk in the beautiful Derbyshire countryside, so it is not legitimate, worthy or in any way relevant to suggest that I do not understand the firearms issue because I happen to live in the city at the moment.

[Heather Wheeler]

The hon. Gentleman has put that on the record. Interestingly, I recall that we went through great angst last time around with a report produced when Sir Ivan Lawrence was Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. That report created huge ructions in the shooting community because of the resulting legislation, which is why tonight’s debate is important. I commend the current Chairman of the Select Committee, because the 22 recommendations are very fair. They contain nuances, which I am sure the Government will examine for the next two months, and the consultation will go on from there. My abiding feeling is that I do not believe that there will be a knee-jerk reaction to anything.

One of the dreadful phrases I use is, “We mustn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.”, but shooting is an extremely important part of our economy and our sporting heritage, and I believe that we will do extremely well in the Olympics: all that must not be sucked into the great concern we have when a few people involve themselves in tragic incidents. It is absolutely frightening that the pressure and power groups almost seem to be trying to put down great history, important parts of the economy and the sporting tradition of this country. None of that must change because of tragic incidents that take place in this country.

I, too, agree that it would be very worrying if the different types of licences were put together—even if there were to be a part A licence and a part B licence—because confusion would arise, even for the police, who deal with this on a day-to-day basis. May I put on the record how excellently the Derbyshire police force handles licensing arrangements? I can tell the Minister that the force gets it; Derbyshire’s police absolutely understand the difference between the types of certificates. We ought to leave it with the professionals, and we ought not to dabble any further.

20:54

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

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler), who talks from her own experience of holding a shotgun licence, and the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart). Given that more than 700 people have died as a result of gunshot injuries and gun crime over the past 13 years, it is a great tragedy that we are having this debate only because it takes something such as the terrible events in Cumbria to bring this issue to the attention of the House. The work that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) has done with the Committee on this matter is greatly to his credit and is very valuable.

However, we need to highlight a few key issues and strands. First, the distinction has not always been made clearly in this debate between gun crimes perpetrated by people who were holding illegal weapons and those who hold legal weapons. Many of those 742 gun crime deaths were caused by people holding illegal weapons and not by people who have legal gun licences. I made the point in an intervention that Suffolk has the lowest rate of gun crime in the UK—we are very proud of that, notwithstanding those incidents involving air rifles in Lowestoft mentioned by the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson)—yet 97,000 gun licences are held by those in the east of England, which is a very high level. That shows that there is not necessarily a causal effect between owning a gun licence and committing a gun crime. We know that gun crimes tend to happen in deprived urban areas, where those who commit crime do not hold gun licences. The key thing is to draw that distinction, because if we are to legislate on this issue, we must ensure that it is effective and addresses the key areas.

One thing we must do is to broaden out this debate. It is about firearms control, not just the terrible events in Cumbria, Hungerford or Dunblane. We need to ensure that the legislation and recommendations passed in this House will make things better. It is very difficult, because we have not heard any conclusive evidence this evening that changing the legislation to deal with licensed firearms will make any significant difference.

We know that there are issues with tackling the gun culture in our inner cities. In dealing with that culture, we need to stop the illegal trafficking of guns in this country and the police need to deal with that trade effectively, including on our borders. In some inner cities, however, dealing with education in schools, particularly in deprived areas, and the police working with communities to highlight the problems of gun crime would be a far more effective way of dealing with illegally committed acts and with communities where there are problems with gun crime. In many rural communities, however, people hold gun licences and are very law abiding. Earlier in the debate I talked about Suffolk, where people use guns for pest control. I do not shoot—I have no interest in shooting—but we must accept that the number of law-abiding citizens who do not commit crime and who do not have any interest in misusing their guns use their guns for sport and for pest control. We must accept that legislation must be effective and targeted on the causes of illegal gun crime in this country. It should not be focused on a knee-jerk reaction to one or two terrible events that results in banning guns for those who use them for legitimate, law-abiding sport or pest control reasons.

Based on my experience as a doctor, I want to pick up on the issue of medical practitioners. Would it necessarily be useful for medical practitioners to have to tick a box every year for the 97,000 people in the east of England who have gun licences? Is it important that those medical practitioners should be consulted annually? Far too often in my professional life, I saw the pointless forms we had to fill in. We ticked the boxes but it did not improve patient care or make things any safer. It is important that we do not stigmatise people with mental health conditions. People are perfectly competent and able to make informed choices. They are not necessarily going to be more likely to run off and commit a gun crime than someone who does not have a mental health condition. We need to be careful not to draw that stigma into the debate. To be perfectly frank, a piece of paper signed on one day of the year does not necessarily mean that in three, six or nine months that person will not have seen their mental state deteriorate considerably. Ticking a box does not mean that we will make things any safer, and the case has not been proven.

We know that when medical practitioners have a serious concern about the conduct of a patient—for example, a fear that a patient is a paedophile or the knowledge that a patient might be a danger to themselves or to the public—they take it into their own hands to breach medical confidentiality. There are many such cases. They breach medical confidentiality because the duty to society is greater than the duty of confidentiality. We have to trust them—we should not put an onerous burden on medical practitioners that will not necessarily be effective.

[Simon Hart]

If there was a situation in which my hon. Friend was required to make such observations and somehow failed to pick up on a patient’s mental health, which led to a dreadful tragedy, what would be the legal and professional implications for his trade?

[Dr Poulter]

There is always a blame culture, and we would have to be careful that a simple form that a doctor had to sign on one day of the year could not be used as a sledgehammer to hit that doctor or medical practitioner over the head later on because somebody perpetrated a bad act. As I have said, and as I think my hon. Friend accepted in making his point, someone’s mental state can deteriorate quickly—a switch can be flicked in someone’s mind and it is impossible to legislate for that. Simply involving a doctor in this process will not make that any less possible.

It is not only with gun crime that a switch can be flicked in that way, as we saw in north Wales with the Peter Moore case. In 1995, he killed four men with a knife in a random rampage. It is not just with gun crime that people temporarily lose control and go on a rampage—it happens with other weapons. In America there have been cases with samurai swords. We have to be careful not to legislate on the basis of one or two terrible tragedies, such as that in Cumbria. That is an important point for the House to consider.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I am interested in this argument and I agree that a box-ticking exercise is no use, but GPs in rural communities will often be aware if patients are gun licence holders and might well pass on information if they are seriously concerned. The question is what to do in urban communities in which GPs might be unaware who is a gun licence holder. As my hon. Friend says, the problem is often the illicit gun holder who does not have a licence anyway.

[Dr Poulter]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. Let us consider how effective that piece of paper—that box-ticking exercise—would be in an urban community. The turnover of patients in most GP practices in areas such as Camberwell, where I was a medical student, is a third of patients every year. Therefore, such a measure might not work because, with such a high turnover, it is not easy to keep track of patients who move and migrate around London and fall in and out of registers. As my right hon. Friend said, the people we are dealing with in urban areas are not those with licences but those who possess handguns illegally. Community engagement and education in schools is so important in addressing those issues.

We have had a very good debate and I will not talk for much longer. Members need to ask whether further legislation that would give doctors more onerous responsibilities to fill out forms, and that would make it more difficult for people to have gun licences, would make anybody safer. I think the answer is conclusively no. We cannot legislate for terrible tragedies such as that in Cumbria. Unfortunately, they will happen no matter what we do. It is easy, as the right hon. Member for Leicester East said, for us and the media to get the retrospectoscope out and judge things retrospectively in the hysteria of political debate. We need to legislate for the reality, which is that law-abiding gun owners who have a licence do not tend to misuse them. For the reasons I have given, I do not think that there is a conclusive case for strengthening the legislation.

21:08

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Like everyone who has taken part in the debate, I want to express my sympathies for those who were involved in the incidents in Cumbria and Northumberland, particularly David Rathband, the police officer who was blinded by Raoul Moat. I join others in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham). In making their interventions, they showed how these events have affected their constituents and made a significant contribution to the debate.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Select Committee, told us that the Committee had made every effort to publish the report in time for today’s debate, so we are extremely grateful for the hard work that members of the Committee have done on behalf of the House in order to inform the debate. It is a shame that it is taking place on a day when there is a one-line Whip and the weather is so inclement that undoubtedly some Members who would have wanted to be present cannot be here. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland was unavoidably taken away. I know he was extremely disappointed not to be able to participate in the debate.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East emphasised the need to avoid regulation that would put our sports people who take part in firearms events at a disadvantage. He highlighted the issues surrounding the various age limits relating to guns. In order to save time, I shall not read them out from the table on page 42, as he did. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, these have been batted over to the Government to consider and we look forward to their response to the anomalies identified by the Select Committee.

We look forward, too, to the codification of the 34 pieces of legislation that have been introduced over the past century to regulate guns in the UK. My right hon. Friend referred to the need for GPs to recognise their crucial role in alerting police to the potential dangers posed by some of their patients who have gun licences.

The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) compared the attitudes of people in the USA with those of people in the UK, highlighting the fact that there was little appetite among people in the UK for owning guns. They do not have the same attitude as people in the USA to the right to own a gun. She said that changes to gun control would not have stopped the incidents in Cumbria or Northumberland, and questioned the need to regulate further, but she called for action on criminal behaviour, an issue highlighted in the Select Committee report.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) called for an evidence-based approach to making changes and stressed the need for any changes to be proportionate. He wanted the issue of imports to be addressed and spoke of the potential role of elected police commissioners in future in tackling gun crime. He, too, cautioned against regulating in a way that would impact on sport, which was a regular feature of the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) was a major dissenting voice in the debate. He gave figures for November which showed a large number of incidents involving firearms to support his case for stricter regulation. His preference was for a complete ban on gun ownership, but he recognised that that view might not command a majority in the House. He urged the Government to look at the recommendations of the Select Committee and to regulate more stringently in future. He also called for a mandatory annual medical test and a complete ban on guns being stored in homes.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) reminded us that gun crime takes place all too frequently in our society and that our job as legislators is to protect the public. He called for more data to be collected by the police on whether guns used in crimes were legal or illegal. Again, that is an issue referred to in the Select Committee report. He mentioned the important role of sports people in wildlife conservation, a theme picked up by the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), who referred to the vital role and the money invested by people involved in gun sports in wildlife conservation and husbandry. He also expressed concerns for the future of firearms sport, as did many hon. Members, and he was concerned to ensure that GPs do not become agents of the state who are required to breach patient confidentiality in passing information to the police.

The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) paid tribute to the Swadlincote gun club and cited the importance of shoots to her local economy. I have never held a gun, let alone fired one, apart from an air rifle that somebody else owned when I was young, but I had a friend who managed a shoot, and we had interesting conversations about the investment and contribution that shoots make to local economies, so I have nothing but respect for people in that industry. The hon. Lady opposed the recommendation of a single licence, but she commended Derbyshire police on their handling of the licensing process.

The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) laid claim to the lowest rate of gun crime in the country and questioned whether evidence showed that changes to gun regulations would make a difference. He, too, said that we need to focus on and target illegal gun crime, and he referred, from his professional experience, to the danger of stigmatising people with mental health conditions and breaching patient confidentiality.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who opened the debate for the Opposition, made a number of points. She mentioned the considerable possible savings from staggering the renewal of existing licences and dealing with the bulge in renewals that the introduction of previous legislation caused. We will be interested to see the Government’s response to that. She also wanted the Government to respond to the Committee’s 22 recommendations, and they say that they will do so within two months. Given the importance of the issue, we would also like confirmation that they will do so on the Floor of the House in the form of an oral statement.

[Keith Vaz]

First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on his long-overdue elevation to the Front Bench?

Some of us have already received e-mails following the publication of various reports, and this is a debate that should include the public. We as parliamentarians need to have the final say, but it would be worthy of us to allow a more general debate on some of the issues.

[Clive Efford]

I could not agree more. The wider public—in particular, those communities directly affected by such incidents—will want to respond to the recommendations of my right hon. Friend’s Committee, and to have some input into the Government’s response.

[Mr Ellwood]

It has been made clear that we cannot legislate against another attack. Sadly, there is likely to be another attack such as Dunblane or Cumbria, and indeed another terrorist attack. Our purpose in this place is to ensure that we have the correct legislation, and interestingly the Committee Chairman admitted that his knowledge of firearms extended only to carrying a water pistol. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, therefore, that, unless we have a cognitive, sober and detailed debate to ensure that we understand the full issue, our decisions in this place will not be made on solid grounds?

[Clive Efford]

I agree. The Committee Chairman made that point himself, noting that he and members of the Committee had gone to great lengths to understand a great deal, had been educated and had even had their views changed on certain aspects of what I would call the legitimate firearms industry and legitimate firearms sport. It is important that people are well informed when they legislate, whether on guns or anything else. That is the logical thing to expect of people involved in passing legislation.

The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice made a number of commitments on the recommendations. He said that the Government would consider reviewing convictions in terms of the renewal or revocation of licences. On additional regulation, we would not want the police to spend more time enforcing regulations on the legal ownership of arms at the expense of dealing with the illegal use of arms. In addition, the police should be identifying and following up cases where we might want to call into question someone’s ownership of a licence, rather than investing a great deal of time in renewals. That is why the Select Committee recommends that, rather than having a renewal period of every two years, the existing five-year period should be retained.

The Minister also indicated that he would consider the issues surrounding ages and the recording of what types of weapons have been used and whether they are legal or illegal. During the debate, several hon. Members referred to the need for there to be a crime reduction strategy to tackle wider illegal activities—for example, the issues surrounding the illegal drug trafficking industry, organised violent crime and the use of weapons in domestic violence incidents. All those matters were referred to by the Select Committee and we would like to see them mentioned in the Government’s response.

Many hon. Members have said that we must not have a knee-jerk reaction, and I think we would all agree that if one legislates in haste, one repents at leisure. However, we should remember that individuals such as Derrick Bird had legal access to firearms and therefore it is absolutely right for the Select Committee and the House to review the laws on the licensing of guns.

The report makes it clear that we have the tightest regulations on the licensing of firearms anywhere in the world and that we have a relatively low level of gun crime, despite all the serious incidents there have been. The report concludes that legal firearms do not appear to be used in the majority of cases where weapons are discharged or used in crimes. In legislating, we should prioritise public safety. If we introduce regulations, they should not harm the future of the legal use of weapons in the pursuit of sport but, where necessary, we should legislate to protect the public.

21:23

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) on his promotion to the Front Bench and wish him well in his new role. This has been an interesting and well-informed debate, which has highlighted some of the themes that emerge when considering the difficult and, at times, emotive issue of the control of firearms.

People who possess firearms legally usually conduct themselves safely and conscientiously and are among the first to condemn the criminal misuse of firearms. However, following the tragic events in Cumbria and Northumbria, there has been a ready recognition of the need for a debate about firearms laws and licensing. At the outset, I pay tribute to all those who have been touched by those desperately sad events—the families of those who have lost loved ones; the victims who have survived such traumatic incidents; and the police, the emergency services and other organisations, such as Church groups, that have been involved in all those incidents. Our thoughts and prayers are particularly with the families and those who have been touched by this in some way.

During the debate, there have been calls for consideration of the issues to be thorough, proportionate and having due regard to informed opinion on what, as we have heard, is undoubtedly a complex and emotive subject. We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate that has met all those considerations. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice said in his opening remarks, the Government are very much in listening mode, and today’s debate has been invaluable in setting out the main issues and the arguments for and against particular changes to the law. We will reflect carefully on everything that has been said and wish to take into account any other views from interested parties before deciding what further measures might be needed to improve public safety.

We have already taken delivery of Assistant Chief Constable Whiting’s useful and informative peer review of the tragic shootings in Cumbria, and we have also seen the report by Assistant Chief Constable Sue Fish on behalf of ACPO’s criminal use of firearms group. I have met them both since the publication of their reports and discussed with them in detail their recommendations.

In the course of the next two months, we will respond to the recommendations made by the Home Affairs Committee, which has just reported on its own investigation into whether there is a need for changes to the way in which firearm and shotgun certificates are issued, monitored or reviewed as a means of preventing gun violence. We will consider that carefully. As part of that, we will also consider the need for a broader debate and consideration. The Government will seek to strike a balance in ensuring that our controls are targeted fairly and proportionately.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), who has been unable to be here today for reasons that I fully recognise. I am sure that he will want to be part of the continuing considerations and discussions on this important and sensitive issue. We will seek to continue bilateral discussions with him as matters progress.

I will seek to reply to a number of the points made during this wide-ranging and interesting debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) made a well-informed, thoughtful contribution that highlighted many of the themes that come through in Assistant Chief Constable Whiting’s review, as well as the need to grapple equally with the criminal issues and those of the law, which I will reflect on in later comments. As the Chair of the Select Committee has said, those of us with a non-classical education have also been educated in the use of Latin.

I thank the Chair and his Committee for their very helpful and informative report and pay tribute to the detailed and careful examination that they have conducted. I will respond in slightly further detail on the issues relating to age and to the role of doctors, but let me deal now with changes to the law and consolidation. As I said to the Select Committee when I appeared before it to give evidence on this specific point, I recognise that there are two potential themes. The law itself is complex, but so is the way in which it is interspersed in several different pieces of legislation. I therefore hear the calls for consolidation as well as simplification.

We will have to consider the matter carefully, because, as I said to the Select Committee, when one starts to change the law, new avenues for legal challenge can be opened, and there is a lack of certainty attached to new legislation. We will carefully consider the points that have been raised by the Select Committee, and in the interim we will consider the need for revised Home Office guidance to present the existing legislation as clearly and simply as possible. This matter has been raised by other hon. Members, ACPO and other interested parties, and we will consider their points in detail.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) highlighted the important contribution of firearms in sport, and thereby raised the broader context in which we must consider this issue. He raised a specific issue about arm’s length management organisations in social housing. I have not received any representations on that point, but perhaps there are specific issues with regard to landlords and tenants that fall outside the issues that we have been debating. I am willing to consider any specific points that he subsequently wants to raise.

[Tom Brake]

Does the Minister have a ministerial view, or a personal view, on whether it is appropriate for an ALMO or a council to introduce a ban on the possession at home of legally held firearms?

[James Brokenshire]

There may be matters relating to landlords and tenants. We must consider carefully the issue of storage, as the Home Affairs Committee has done. I am happy to reflect on that matter further, but we must be careful and cautious so that we do not impose restrictions without properly considering their implications. Such restrictions might create more risk, rather than reducing the risk. However, he has fairly highlighted the issue.

The hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) described the shocking impact of gun crime by highlighting specific examples and issues. This will always be an emotive issue, on which there are strongly held views, and I thank him for bringing that context to this evening’s proceedings. He wanted further clarification on GPs, and I will come to that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) discussed the Olympics, which is a matter that we have corresponded on and discussed. I have inquired of the Minister for Sport and the Olympics whether the existing restrictions are hampering preparations for the 2012 games, and I am advised that they are not. We will review the arrangements post-2012 to consider whether further changes are required.

[Mr Ellwood]

Only those who have been selected for the squad have been given licences to participate in training in the UK. Will the Minister consider the long term and the legacy of the Olympics? Looking forward to the next games, we will still need to be able to train in the UK.

[James Brokenshire]

I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about sporting development. As I have said, we have considered the matter with Ministers at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and they are satisfied with the current arrangements. We will continue to keep the matter under review after the Olympics.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) highlighted the issue of shotguns and the different regime of section 1 licences. That point was taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler). The issue is complex, and we are examining the overlap and the common test of fitness for purpose. A Home Office working group, which includes representatives of the police and shooting interest groups, is working to devise a single application form. That group will look into the feasibility of a single certificate, too, but we recognise the complexity of the arguments involved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire has said, the devil is in the detail.

It was instructive to hear the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) on the need for a broader debate on firearms control, and I agree with him. It was equally interesting to hear about his experiences as a doctor.

A number of matters will require further examination and consideration, as the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee indicated. Some may require legislation, but we might be able to deal with some in other ways. On that point, doctors have an important role to play and we welcome the agreement between the British Medical Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers that the police will notify a GP of the grant or renewal of a firearms or shotgun certificate. They are seeking to implement the arrangement within six months, and in essence it will involve a system of notification by way of a standard letter. That will mean that GPs are in a position to alert the police if they have concerns, and the police will then be able to request a medical report under the procedures that normally apply to licensing.

ACPO will now draw up a more detailed paper on the matter, and the BMA will produce guidance for doctors. The system is a welcome step forward, and there will be further discussions about the possibility of placing a marker on computerised medical records to create a more enduring record of which patients own a firearm. A number of privacy and other issues mean that that requires detailed consideration, but I welcome the steps that have been taken thus far.

On the matter of age, it is important to remember that the police grant a certificate only if they are satisfied that a gun can be held safely and without risk to the public. That means that a young person is subject to the same checks regarding suitability, storage and so on as an adult. In such cases, it is usual that the young person’s parents or another responsible adult will supervise them and take responsibility for the weapon when it is not in use. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice said earlier, the Government believe that it is important to focus on whether shooting activities are conducted safely and responsibly. We have received no evidence to date that there has been any misuse as a result of the existing provisions, but we will reflect on the concerns that have been raised both in the Home Affairs Committee’s report and in the debate today.

There is much for the Government to take away from today’s debate. We will genuinely reflect on what has been said, along with the other sources of evidence and opinions. The focus of this evening’s debate has largely been on the legal holding of weapons, but we recognise the important contribution of the National Ballistics Intelligence Service, which has done extraordinarily good work in setting out the intelligence picture on the illegal use of weapons. We are also looking to strengthen the approach to serious organised crime through the creation of the national crime agency, which will be an important step forward in bearing down on such crime. We will also deal with the criminal gangs that often sit behind the use of illegal weapons and the sad tragedies that affect many of our communities.

We will form a view on what more might be done not only to help prevent further tragedies, such as those in Cumbria and Northumbria, but to ensure that we have effective and proportionate firearms controls. Although we have stringent firearms controls—Assistant Chief Constable Whiting has said that they are “robust”—we keep them under review and are prepared to tighten them further if necessary. The Home Affairs Committee’s report, the input of ACPO and others and the points made in today’s debate are important contributions in that regard, and all options are open for discussion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of firearms control.

Business without Debate

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Ordered,

That Mr David Anderson be discharged from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and Barry Gardiner be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Feed-in Tariffs

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

21:40

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

I present this petition on behalf of my constituent, Mr Savile Burdett, of Axminster in Devon. He is petitioning the House to ask the Secretary of State to amend existing legislation in December 2010 so that photovoltaic solar collection systems may be installed by any householder who believes himself competent either alone or with the assistance of others whom he chooses, provided that the system is inspected for electrical safety by his local authority or by a local electricity supply authority.

The Petition states:

The Petition of Savile Burdett, of Axminster, Devon,

Declares that the Petitioner believes that the present regulations concerning Feed-in Tariffs for photo voltaic generated energy in homes are unfair, reward richer rather than poorer people and deter new ideas and technical development; that Feed-in Tariffs (FITs) were introduced by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) to start on 1st April 2010; that these are payments for various energy saving systems including photo voltaic solar generated electricity (pv solar); that payments are made to the householder, to encourage energy saving and consequential reduction of carbon emissions and additionally to encourage the growth of the industry; that, provided the system is installed to certain preset standards by MCS certified companies, specified payments are made for each unit of electricity generated; that additionally, when more is generated than is needed by the householder at the time, an export tariff is paid for electricity exported to the Grid; notes that if, however, the system is not installed by MCS certificated companies it will not be eligible to receive the FIT generation tariff or the guaranteed FIT export tariff; notes that the Petitioner believes that there are a number of disadvantages to this system; that the current regulations give some degree of monopoly power to certain companies, by in effect charging a householder who chooses to forgo the MCS certificate guarantees and either have the system installed by a contractor whom he trusts, but who is not MCS certified, or to do the work himself, which may be cheaper; notes that householders who install their own equipment or use a contractor who is not MCS certified receive no payment for surplus electricity generated and supplied to the Grid; and further notes that the current regulations may deter development, by discouraging developers from installing and testing new technologies. The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons asks the Secretary of State to amend existing legislation during November 2010 so that photo voltaic solar collector systems may be installed by any householder who believes himself competent, alone or with the assistance of others whom he chooses, provided the system is inspected for electrical safety by his Local Authority or by the local electricity Supply Authority.

And the Petitioner remains, etc.

[P000871]

Mobile Phones (Health Effects)

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

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

21:41

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

It is a great testament to science and maths writers such as Ben Goldacre and Matt Parker that no self-respecting politician can make speeches in the House of Commons without taking heed of the science behind their contribution, so at the outset let me tell the Minister that I am sure we both agree that public health decisions must be grounded in scientific facts and that our public policy must be evidence-based. As we have both read around this subject, we will probably agree that there is no conclusive evidence to prove the link between mobile phone use and brain cancer.

Let me contradict myself at the beginning of this speech by making an allegation for which I have little factual evidence. From my experience of nearly a decade in the House, it is my view that the more an industry or organisation wishes to hide something unpleasant or do something unpopular, the more lobbyists it employs to talk to MPs. The $1 trillion telecoms industry hires a lot of lobbyists.

I do not seek to persuade the Minister that there is a link between brain cancer and the radiation emitted by mobile phones, but I want to convince her to take a sceptic’s eye to the recommendations before her in future public policy. A number of scientists and epidemiologists believe that although there is no certainty that mobile phone use causes tumours, there are ample causes for concern. At the very least, I ask her to look at the work of Siegal Sadetzki or the earlier work of Allan Frey, and to read “Disconnect”, a recently published book by Devra Davis, and the work of Henry Lai.

Some of those scientists and writers challenge the conventional thinking in the telecoms industry. I make no apology for giving their case a hearing in the Chamber tonight, although I accept that they are not the only voices in the debate. I should like to tell the Minister first why the industry needs to put a greater emphasis in its communications to consumers on the potential risks that mobile handsets cause, and secondly, why I am concerned about independent research. I shall also outline what I think needs to be done to remedy those two problems.

The Minister is new to her post, but she could make a big difference to public policy before she gets that promotion that I am sure she deserves in the imminent reshuffle that we read about in the papers. The mobile industry is big business and an important player in the UK economy. Ofcom’s most recent figures from its communications market report show that operator-reported retail revenue currently totals £30.4 billion. Mobile retail revenues are £14.9 billion; mobile voice call minutes amount to 118 billion; data volumes over mobile networks increased by 240% in 2009; and more than 96 billion text messages and 600 million picture messages were sent in 2009. The Office for National Statistics estimates that mobile phone ownership has increased from 65% in 2001 to 81% in 2009 and, worldwide, 5 billion people are using mobile phones. In the UK, that means that there are now more mobile phone connections than there are people—an estimated 80 million.

One of the key concerns of scientists such as Devra Davis is labelling. She says that the labelling of phone products in store, online and in the literature a person receives with their phone is woefully inadequate. I also accept the case from statisticians such as Matt Parker who disagree with me. Matt told me today:

“The only basis for precautionary labelling mobile phones would be on a hunch. There is no evidence for it. Of course we should continue research, and make sure it is independent and unbiased, but there is no need to give people the impression that they should alter their use of mobiles when there is absolutely no basis for it”.

Yet the mobile phone companies themselves provide precautionary advice—it is just difficult to find it. If someone wanted to make a judgment on whether to purchase a phone based on its specific absorption rate, which indicates how much electromagnetic radiation is absorbed by body tissue while using a mobile phone—the higher the SAR, the more the radiation is absorbed—or on how close to their head they can hold the phone, they could not do so at the point of sale, because the information is simply not there. It is not available on the shop floor or at the click of a button online.

I suspect that most sales staff would not be able to recommend which phone a consumer should buy based on its radio frequency exposure either. Yet we know that the legal departments of mobile phone manufacturers are all now slipping into the fine print a warning about holding a phone against the head or body. That, in itself, is not enough, and they are not giving this information enough prominence in their literature. Why are the manufacturers printing these warnings, after years of denying that there was any risk of radiation, if they are of the view that there is no cause for concern? Apple, for example, suggests that users of the iPhone should keep about five eighths of an inch between the handset and the head. Research in Motion—the manufacturer of the BlackBerry—is even more cautious, saying that people should keep a distance of about an inch.

For the average user, those warnings require a magnifying glass to read. They are usually in point 8 font size or below and make up part of the little slip tossed aside when a phone is unpacked. If someone managed to struggle through any of these booklets and reached the advice, they would be one of only a handful of people ever to have managed it. How many people even know that radio frequency exposure comes from the phone’s antenna? Not many, I suspect. How many people know that this exposure is stronger when a phone is kept in clothing, which weakens the signal, causing the power to increase? How many people know that it is recommended, if mobiles are carried on belts or in pockets—[Interruption.] I am sorry, would the Whip, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), like to get in? Is he seeking to intervene? No?

How many people know that it is recommended that if mobiles are carried on belts or in pockets, the liquid crystal display and keypad should face towards the body? The fact is they do not. Hardly anyone knows what advice is given on the use of handsets. Although all phones sold in the UK fall within the SAR guidance of 2 W per kilogram in 10 grams of tissue for electromagnetic radiation absorbed, most users would probably be shocked to learn that each handset differs and that the manufacturers give different guidance on using phones.

Improved labelling has support among many academics and organisations, such as the EM Radiation Research Trust, which was brought to my attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), and Powerwatch.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Like me, Mr Speaker, you have young children. Also like me, you will be concerned if there is compelling evidence of the dangers of mobile phone handsets or masts. My constituent Eileen O’Connor, of EM Radiation Research Trust, has drawn to both my attention and that of my hon. Friend the strong evidence of the dangers of electromagnetic radiation, particularly to children. Does he support calls for the Government to investigate the safety of mobile phone handsets and masts, and either to issue stronger guidance or to legislate on the basis of that evidence?

[Mr Watson]

Yes, and I am going to make the case that the science should leave no stone unturned. If my hon. Friend lets me develop my argument, I am sure that he might want to comment on it later.

Improved labelling has support among many academics and organisations. For example, Alasdair Philips from Powerwatch has stressed to me that safety advice should be included in an obvious position, such as the “Getting started” section of a new phone booklet, not buried in the back pages of the manual. I cannot vouch for those organisations, but they are entitled to have their voices heard in this House. It is often hard for independent organisations to be heard above the cacophony of voices from telecoms lobbyists.

We might even need to go one step further. The Government should consider the merits of obliging manufacturers to place health advice and SAR ratings on the outside of handset boxes. Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich is pressing Congress to look at passing a similar law. He summed up his thoughts perfectly when he recently said:

“Until we know for sure, a labelling law will ensure that cellphone users can decide for themselves the level of risk that they will accept…mobile phone companies should not be the ones making that decision for us.”

San Francisco aims to become the first city in the USA to require large wireless retailers to display a device’s SAR rating prominently. The regulation will come into force at the start of February next year. Lawmakers in Oregon and in Californian cities are considering similar steps. Around the world, other nations are extending the cautionary approach.

The German Government, for example, has introduced the Blue Angel phone label. In order for mobile phone manufacturers to be able to display the BA sign on their products, their SAR ratings must not exceed 0.6 W per kilogram. Although the German Government’s current safe limit is in line with the EU level of 2 W per kilogram, it is perhaps the first recognition that the EU’s rating is already much more lenient than that of the US, Canada or New Zealand. In Germany, the Federal Office for Radiation Protection publishes the SAR ratings of all mobile phones on sale in Germany. Why not put the ratings on our direct.gov website, so that British consumers who are interested in the issue can get the facts? The bottom line is that consumers should be given enough information about SAR levels to allow them to make an informed purchasing choice. At the moment, they cannot do that. This Government believe in transparency, and I applaud them for that. I believe in the power of information. The Minister can ensure that consumers are far better informed about the science around their mobile phones, should they be interested.

On the risks of mobile phones, thousands of studies have been published in scientific journals, forming the basis for systematic reviews by health agencies. The balance of evidence to date would suggest that there are no short-term established adverse health effects on the brain from mobile phones. To pretend that the long-term effect of exposure to such devices over more than a decade is known, however, is false. It is not known, and the matter will not be settled until the science leaves no stone unturned. Despite the mobile phone lobby’s claim otherwise, many key and respected studies have suggested that there may well be a link between mobile phones and brain cancers. Although such studies do not identify a causal link, they insist that further research is warranted and emphasise the need for caution in public policy making. As far back as 2000, for example, the Stewart report said that the use of mobile phones is not totally

“without potential adverse health effects”.

Although Sir William’s report said that there was no evidence of a health risk to either adults or children at the time, it said that children should be discouraged from making “non-essential” calls until further research had been completed.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend seems to be saying that there is strong evidence that is worthy of further investigation. He mentioned the fact that manufacturers give warnings, but that they are sometimes difficult to find. Does he think the manufacturers issue those warnings to cover themselves legally, just in case there is a problem, or perhaps because they have strong evidence? Does he agree that, either way, it is imperative that the Government take action now?

[Mr Watson]

An optimist would say that they are adopting the precautionary principle in regard to health. A pessimist might say that they are adopting such a principle because of possible legal cases. Either way, they are not doing enough to provide clear packaging.

The doubts about the long-term health impacts of mobile phones continue to be highlighted by the Department of Health’s own guidance, to which I am sure the Minister will refer. Many parents are probably not even aware of the guidance, however. It states that children should

“use mobile phones for essential purposes only”

and

“keep calls short—talking for long periods should be discouraged.”

This advice was influenced by the Stewart report.

We also had the National Radiological Protection Board’s report, “Mobile phones and health”, in 2004. That review updated Stewart, and its main conclusion was that there was no hard evidence at present that the health of the public had been adversely affected by the use of mobile phone technologies. The report does, however, state that some uncertainties remain and that a continued precautionary approach to the use of mobile phones is recommended until the situation is clarified. Following the publication of that report, Sir William Stewart himself said:

“The fact is that the widespread use of mobile phones is a relatively recent phenomenon and it is possible that adverse health effects could emerge after years of prolonged use. The evidence base necessary to allow us to make firm judgements has not yet been accumulated”.

The report’s findings make it clear once again that this is not a settled issue.

Further research, such as the 2004 Karolinska Institute study, published worrying findings on a link between mobile phones and ear tumours. The institute’s research suggested that using a mobile phone increased the risk of acoustic neuroma by 3.9 times on the side of the head on which the phone was used. There was no increase on the other side of the head, giving an overall rise in risk of 1.9 times. The report went on to conclude that regular mobile phone use over a decade or more might increase the risk of benign tumours. Like the Stewart report and the NRPB report, the Karolinska Institute’s study makes it clear in its findings that this is not a settled issue. Further research is needed. Well-respected epidemiologists such as Dr Lennart Hardell of Orebro university in Sweden have also found that links between mobile phones and cancer might exist.

[Bill Esterson]

Since my constituents drew this matter to my attention, I have looked into the details, as my hon. Friend has done. I have reached the conclusion that it is important, as a parent, to take precautions and to restrict the use of mobile phones by children in anything other than an emergency. I urge the Government to take that point seriously, even at this stage, as well as taking on board all the other points that my hon. Friend has made about carrying out further investigations.

[Mr Watson]

Even with my own beloved children—my five-year-old and my two-and-a-half-year-old—I sometimes have to persuade them not to grab my mobile phone. The precautionary principle should apply, but it is very hard for parents. This is why public information is very important.

As I was saying, Dr Hardell, in his study “Long-term use of cellular phones and brain tumours: increased risk associated with use for 10 years”, has reviewed epidemiological studies that found that phone users had an increased risk of malignant gliomas. In carrying out his review, he found a link—although not a causal link—between phone use and a higher rate of acoustic neuromas. He also found that tumours were more likely to occur on the side of the head that the handset was used. His study indicated that one hour of cell phone use per day significantly increased tumour risk after 10 years or more. He also makes the case that this is far from a settled issue.

In May, the hotly anticipated Interphone report for the World Health Organisation suggested that those who engage in heavy phone use could be at risk, but stopped short of establishing any firm links from the data. The Interphone study is the largest study to date into phone use and head and neck tumours.

Although there were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, the report went on to state that

“The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation.”

The research team was divided on its findings—

22:00

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

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

[Mr Watson]

That is a quaint tradition in the House, Mr. Speaker. I had forgotten that I had to engage in it when I was a Whip.

The fact that the research team was divided on its findings did not prevent the UK-based GSM Association, which represents the global mobile phone industry, from deciding that the report supported a consensus that there was “no established health risk”, while deriding what it considered to be errors in the report.

Despite what the mobile phone lobby continues to tell us, all those studies have one thing in common. The issue of whether mobile phone use increases the risk of brain cancers remains open. The link between phones and cancer may turn out to be like Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, in the case of which our original fears did not come to fruition, or it may turn out to be like the link between tobacco and lung cancer. The truth is that we simply do not know. Further independent research over a longer period is needed. At this point I must issue a statistics health warning. Matt Parker has implored me to make it clear that we will never reach the point of saying, “Mobile phones do not cause cancer”; there will merely be more and more studies showing that there is no reason to believe that they do not.

I suspect that one academic who would challenge Matt’s view that we should act only if the numbers tell us to do so is Dr Devra Davis, author of the brand-new book “Disconnect”. If the Minister has not yet had a chance to read Davis’s book, I urge him to do so. Former United States Assistant Health Secretary Philip Lee has described it as

“A critically important book that is a must-read for parents and policy makers. A surprising, well-documented, and compelling call for action.”

Dr Davis specialises in the way in which the environment affects our health. She has previously written books stating that the tobacco industry was not initially honest about the links between cigarettes and cancer, and that the debate in Britain about the dangers of asbestos lasted for a century. She insists that the mobile phone industry has behaved in the same way, working—often with Government help—to discredit independent scientists, while ensuring that others toe the line for fear of losing their funding. She says in her book:

“Those studies that have been paid for by the industry tend to find that there’s not a problem. Studies that are independent—while there are fewer—tend to show there is a problem. I don’t think that’s an accident. This has had a chilling effect on the ability of policy-makers to form policy.”

Dr Davis’s worry about just how independent some of those studies are is backed up by others, including such noted people as the well-respected Henry Lai, a research professor at the University of Washington. Lai began laboratory radiation studies in 1980, and found that rats exposed to radio frequency radiation had damaged brain DNA. He maintains a database of a further 400 scientific papers, from different academics, on possible biological effects of radiation from wireless communication.

Significantly, Lai has found that 67% of studies without industry funding show some biological effect of radiation from wireless communication, compared with only 28% of studies that receive some form of industry funding. “That’s not trivial,” he recently told The New York Times. Like Dr Davis, Lai has been pressing for the commissioning of more non-industry research, not only on brain cancer but on other possible biological and health effects. The voices of Davis and Lai should be heard in the debate in the UK. Davis in particular has highlighted the distortion of research during the last decade by a “show me the bodies” approach to the evidence. I believe that there may well be merit in their arguments. As they say, it may simply be too early to expect mobile phone users to develop brain tumours.

Davis also highlights in her latest book, “Disconnect”, how when the Hiroshima bomb survivors were tested after 10 years, researchers found no evidence of brain cancer, yet some 30 years later an abundance of cases were found. While the mobile phone industry may point out that the official statistics show that the incidence of brain cancer has changed relatively little, the absence of any epidemic right now is not an argument for complacency.

At present, we are awaiting the outcome of the cohort study on mobile communications and health—COSMOS. It differs from previous attempts to examine links between mobile phone use and diseases such as cancer and neurological disorders in that it will follow users’ behaviour in real time. Most other large-scale studies have focused on asking people already suffering with cancer or other diseases about their previous mobile use. They have also been conducted over a shorter time frame. While the COSMOS study will look at long-term use over 10, 20 and 30 years, I think we need to be reassured that it will be properly independent. At present, COSMOS is being funded by the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme, a UK body that receives hefty funding from the industry as well as Government.

In addressing some of the shortcomings, I have highlighted a lack of independent research. I believe the Government must pressurise mobile phone companies to set up an independent fund for research that has the full confidence of all interested parties. This fund should support academics and allow them to examine the risks without interference. Academics and researchers should not be fearful of having funding withdrawn based on what the outcome of their work might be.

Setting up a truly independent fund for research is the least these companies can do given their huge profits. Vodafone already stands accused of £6 billion in tax avoidance, just as the NHS and the rest of the public sector is facing massive budget cuts. The phone giant may have denied the claims, but it has now become a symbolic target for protests against the coalition’s cuts. The UK Uncut campaign, organised through Twitter against Vodafone, continues to attract demonstrations at stores across the country. While no Members would support breaking the law, we can all understand why Vodafone’s consumers feel very angry at its current tax arrangements.

The Government should not let themselves be pushed around by telecoms lobbyists. It is time the Government took back the 900 mHz—the low frequency—spectrum that they gave to Vodafone and O2 for nothing in the 1980s. When a similar section of spectrum was sold in Germany it raised £2.9 billion, roughly the equivalent of the cuts made to higher education this year. We can get a lot of independent university research with that kind of money.

To conclude, I hope I have shown the Minister the following things. Labelling and packaging is inadequate and guidance is buried too deeply in the small print of packaging booklets. Also, the widely held view among manufacturers that mobiles are safe is not yet beyond doubt, as I hope I have shown with reference to the major studies; virtually every piece of major research is inconclusive or recommends further study. An independent fund would also give academics and researchers the confidence that future funding would not be withdrawn based on the outcome of their findings. The mobile industry should use its huge profits to make a sizeable contribution towards putting this into practice.

When I applied for this debate, I thought that the House’s main business might finish early today. Notwithstanding the eagerness of the Whip to get home, that perhaps allows me to add one additional point as this debate is entitled on the Order Paper, “Effect of mobile phones on human health”. This week, I talked to a man who nearly broke down in tears when he explained to me that his privacy had been violated by a rogue private investigator listening to his mobile phone messages for a News International newspaper. Phone hacking had affected his mental health.

Illegal hacking has caused great distress to those in the privileged position to know whether they were one of the potential 3,000 targets of the News of the World—for that is what one of the investigating officers in the Mulcaire/Goodman case admitted last week. Like me, the victims express amazement that nearly every tabloid newspaper in the United Kingdom failed to report that A-list Hollywood actor, Sienna Miller, was the victim of a phone hack. The distress caused to her by mobile phones speaks for itself. The victims were amazed not to read in every national newspaper that Take That front man Robbie Williams no longer uses a mobile phone because he was sick of being hacked. They are asking questions and they will find peace of mind only when they know that their mobile phone is secure and that everything has been done to investigate their case.

With more News of the World executives implicated in the scandal only last week, with the admission that News International is paying the legal fees of the Prime Minister’s director of communications and with the Information Commissioner saying only last week that he will investigate the loss of potentially significant personal data, is it not time that the Government asked another police force—one other than the Met—to take up the case? The former Metropolitan police investigating officer now works for News International. Justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. It is now absolutely clear for all to see that leads have not been followed up and that whistleblowers have been intimidated into retracting their public statements. The only way that these mobile phone victims will get peace of mind is for another police force to take over the inquiry and undertake a thorough review of the old and brand-new evidence.

22:11

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) on securing this debate. I know that he takes a particular interest in this and all other matters of technology, both nationally and in his constituency. He is absolutely right to say that we must heed scientific fact, but his insight into reshuffles is perhaps lacking in a certain degree of fact—or perhaps he knows something that I do not, from sources unknown. However, I wish to thank him for his flattering comments.

At the last count there were a staggering 80 million mobile phones in the UK, and the number is still rising steadily. More than 12 million people own a smartphone in order to access the internet and other web-based technologies. The benefits of mobile phones are clear in terms of social networking and rapid communication, and they help people to feel safer and in touch. They are also a way of including people. I feel more comfortable knowing that my children have mobile phones and that I can contact them, as they can me, wherever they are. I am sure that my parliamentary office would say the same about contacting me, particularly during the recess.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that mobile technology has also raised significant health worries. Many people are extremely concerned about the effect of electromagnetic radiation from phones, and we should understand and acknowledge those worries. We should answer them on the basis of the evidence and we should ensure that appropriate protections are in place, so that not only is everyone safe, but everyone feels safe—and the hon. Gentleman has demonstrated that that is not necessarily the case.

[Bill Esterson]

The planning Green Paper that the Conservatives published before the election stated that the party would

“review potential health issues related to mobile phone masts in the light of ongoing scientific research.”

Can the Minister tell us how that review is going, and if a similar one is being carried out on handsets?

[Anne Milton]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but may I suggest that he may be jumping the gun a little? I have been speaking for only about two minutes, and I will come to all those issues if he gives me a bit more time.

The independent expert group on mobile phones and health was set up in 1999, partly as a response to public concern. It was tasked with reviewing the health effects of mobile phone technology. As a newly elected councillor, I was acutely aware of the considerable concerns among people in my ward at that time. As has been mentioned, the group was chaired by Sir William Stewart, the former chief scientific adviser to the Government. Its report was published in May 2000.

The report was based on a thorough review of scientific evidence on the health effects of mobile telephones and it took account of work in progress, alternative views on the science and public opinion, which at that time was considerably concerned about those effects. In 2004, the then National Radiological Protection Board reviewed the evidence again—the hon. Member for West Bromwich East mentioned this—and reiterated Stewart’s recommendations, in particular the recommendation that a precautionary approach should be adopted. Current Government policy on mobile phones is based on the Stewart report and its recommendations. The headline conclusion in the Stewart report was that

“the balance of evidence to date suggests that exposures to”

mobile phone “radiation below” national

“guidelines do not cause adverse health effects.”

The report was referring to the National Radiological Protection Board national guidelines, which were in place at the time. It is none the less important to note that Stewart recommended that as a precautionary measure the guidelines should be replaced by more restrictive international guidelines.

In recognition of the incomplete scientific knowledge and significant public concern, Stewart made other precautionary recommendations. For example, he recommended that the widespread use of mobile phones by children for non-essential calls should be discouraged. As the hon. Gentleman said, however, warnings are difficult to find, and the small print is very small. I suspect that many people these days are unaware of that guidance. I shall return to the question of scientific evidence in a minute.

The Government accepted the advice of the Stewart report and followed a precautionary approach, and most of the recommendations were implemented in full. On Stewart’s recommendation, we moved to stricter international guidelines for exposure. Along with other member states, the UK supports the European Council recommendation to limit exposures to electromagnetic fields, which incorporates international guidelines. By 2001, industry, Government Departments and their advisers were working to the new exposure guidelines for mobile phone technology, so now all mobile phones and base stations comply with the guidelines.

An important development following the Stewart report was the setting up of a new research programme in this country—the mobile telecommunications and health research programme, or MTHR. Research has been carried out at centres throughout the country under the management of an independent programme management committee. It is important to mention that it is independent. In 2007 MTHR published a report from 23 completed projects. Since then, further work has been published from the programme.

MTHR is a very high-quality research programme and none of the research so far has shown that radio frequency emissions from mobile phones affected people’s health—at least in the short term, although that is obviously not the end of the story. The lack of long-term data, however, has been noticed by MTHR, the World Health Organisation and other regional and international advisory committees. It is also being addressed by an international cohort study on mobile phone use and health known as COSMOS, to which the hon. Member for West Bromwich East referred.

The UK forms a key part of the study, and our participation is funded under the MTHR programme. I understand that the COSMOS study aims to follow the health of approximately 250,000 European mobile phone users for up to 30 years. It is a very thorough process. COSMOS will consider any changes in the frequency of specific symptoms, such as headaches and sleep disorders, over time as well as the important risks of cancers, benign tumours and neurological and cerebrovascular diseases.

The Department also supports the World Health Organisation’s international electromagnetic fields project, which encourages research focused on specific gaps in our knowledge. There is no doubt that there are considerable gaps in our knowledge at this stage. Apart from the accident risk from using mobile phones when driving, present knowledge indicates no proven risk to health from mobiles, except of course in the easy access that one has to home delivery pizzas and the possible impact on our daily calorific intake, which cannot be ignored.

Let me address for a moment mobile phone base stations, which are often called masts. When I first entered politics as a local councillor, that was one of the subjects that caused most concern. Masts provide the communication links by radio waves to handsets, allowing connection to the rest of the telephone system and the wider world. Mobile phones need this infrastructure to function, and it is this infrastructure that has caused so much concern in the past. On masts in particular, Stewart concluded that on the balance of evidence there is no general risk to the health of people living nearby, on the basis that exposures are expected to be very small. However, it is of note that in that connection, too, he recommended a precautionary approach. It was interesting to learn from the Stewart report that the levels of radio frequency exposure from masts, which people thought were likely to be high, were much lower than those from mobile phone handsets held near the head. Indeed, yearly independent audits have shown that mast exposures are well below the international guidelines—in many cases tens of thousands or more times below.

The MTHR also reaffirmed that exposures from base stations were very much lower than international guidelines. An MTHR study specifically looked to see whether short-term exposure to radio frequencies from masts could affect people’s health. Although some people attribute their ill-health symptoms to mobile phone base stations—the hon. Gentleman raised this issue—the MTHR peer-reviewed study found no convincing evidence so far that their symptoms were caused by exposure to signals from mobile phones or masts. But, of course, we should not and shall not be complacent: we must continue to keep the science under review. The Health Protection Agency keeps us informed of the science in this area, and its independent advisory group on non-ionising radiation is currently reviewing worldwide scientific studies on radio frequency emissions as part of its regular review cycle, and will report in one to two years’ time.

[Mr Watson]

I am grateful to the Minister for her very gracious answer to my rather long presentation. Does she think there are merits in opening up discussion with the industry on how they can improve their packaging advice and how we can improve public education, particularly for young mobile phone users?

[Anne Milton]

Yes, the hon. Gentleman’s point is well made. As I have said, most people are unaware of the guidance available, and the small print is often extremely small.

I am aware of the ability of large and powerful vested interests to lobby, often very successfully. There are, without doubt, eye-wateringly large amounts of money at stake in the mobile communications industry. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am old enough and cynical enough to apply at all times an appropriate level of scrutiny and cynicism to all information that comes my way—always seeking to find out whence it came and who paid for it. He is right to say that no stone must be left unturned, but the problem is to establish causality. That is why, with ongoing and international studies, following a cohort is essential. We must base any Government action on robust scientific evidence. He is also right to say that it matters who funds research, and I assure him that I will not be pushed around, and I will keep my level of cynicism. However, I cannot comment on phone hacking; he must address those comments to another Minister on another occasion. Within my own portfolio, I will keep my eye on what is going on. As I say, I look forward to the report of the HPA’s independent advisory committee in one or two years’ time.

Let me conclude by saying that the Government take extremely seriously public concern over possible health risks from mobile phone technology, as they do all threats. There is a particular issue in that we are aware that health effects might not become apparent for 10, 20 or even 30 years. It is important to remain vigilant and to keep this matter at the top of our list of priorities. We will continue to respond to people’s concerns and to support those high-quality scientific studies, both nationally and internationally, in an honest, open and transparent way, being clear at all times where the vested interests lie. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, which is of concern to so many people.

Question put and agreed to.

22:25

House adjourned.