House of Commons

Thursday 17th March 2011 Commons Chamber

Thursday 17 March 2011

The House met at half-past Ten o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 17th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 17th March 2011 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

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

1. What representations she has received on the report of the uplands policy review.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

I begin by informing the House that I have written to the Japanese Environment Minister, Mr Matsumoto, with whom I spent a great deal of time negotiating in Nagoya, to express our sincerest condolences. As the House would expect, I have also offered the services of my Department in respect of technical expertise on flood recovery, air and water quality and radiological decontamination.

I thank my hon. Friend and the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which she chairs, for highlighting the importance of the uplands. I have received numerous positive reactions from a wide range of stakeholders to the conclusions of the uplands policy review, which I announced last week.

[Miss McIntosh]

May I share in the Secretary of State’s expression of condolences and thank her for writing to offer the services of her Department? I also thank her for her answer.

The uplands are the jewel in our farming crown, but the continuation of active farming needs to be encouraged, particularly the keeping of livestock. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the difficulties that tenant farmers are currently suffering. Will she come up with some positive measures in the policy review to encourage them to maintain livestock in the uplands?

[Mrs Spelman]

We feel very strongly about the value and potential of our uplands, which have been overlooked for too long. That is why, as a new Government, we have prioritised our review of uplands policy. Our intention is to support and encourage all hill farmers to become more competitive, and we have made available up to £6 million a year more for environmental stewardship schemes. When I launched the review, I impressed on landowners that they should be constructive when they receive requests from tenants to participate in such schemes.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The uplands review obviously came out of the excellent report produced by the Commission for Rural Communities last summer. Will the Secretary of State explain why she has attempted to frustrate the clearly expressed will of the other place by cutting the CRC’s budget by some 90%?

[Mrs Spelman]

It is not a question of frustrating the will of the other place. There has been a change of Government, and the two parties that together form the Government have Members of Parliament who mostly have rural constituencies. It is thus easier for us to champion rural causes, as in our uplands policy review. The hon. Lady’s Government had 13 years in which to do something about the uplands, but it has taken a change of Government to achieve that.

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

2. What recent representations she has received on the profitability of the pig farming sector.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

The Secretary of State and I discussed the difficulties faced by the pig industry with representatives of the National Pig Association and the British Pig Executive two weeks ago. I am very much aware of the high cost of feedstuffs and the problems that it is creating, causing serious losses for pig producers.

[Dr Poulter]

I am sure the Minister is aware that, according to the National Farmers Union, over the past three years pig producers have been losing £20 per pig, whereas at the same time retailers have still been making £100 profit per pig. May I call on him and the Department to take some action and put pressure on retailers to give our pig producers a fair price for their pigs?

[Mr Paice]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point entirely. It is incumbent on any retailer that is concerned about ensuring that it can supply British pigmeat not just this year but in years to come to do what it can to ensure that our industry can continue through this difficult period. I am sure that prices will recover at some stage, but it is down to the retailers to ensure that their long-term supply chain interests come through into the practices they follow today.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman outline what particular help he is giving pig farmers at a time when not only are feed prices very high but oil costs are rising? That is increasing the price of pig farming to breaking point.

[Mr Paice]

As I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, pig farming has largely been outside any Government involvement for many years now. Pig farmers have not received any form of payment or subsidy for many decades, and that is the right way to go. I trust that she is not suggesting that we reverse that approach. She is quite right that energy prices are a major problem across all of agriculture. All that I can offer is the rural development programme, through which we can provide assistance for businesses that wish to invest.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend think that customers of Tesco and other supermarkets would be surprised if they understood the disgusting animal welfare practices that those supermarkets support by importing meat produced under such poor animal welfare conditions? Is not the answer for British consumers to go to supermarkets such as Morrisons, which has a 100% British meat policy?

[Mr Paice]

I am sure that consumers have heard what my hon. Friend says without me getting into an internecine war between retailers. What really matters is that the consumer is properly informed of the benefits of buying British pigmeat. That is why the Government are keen, as he is, on country of origin labelling.

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

3. What representations she has received on the effects of the use of sky lanterns on livestock and livestock feed.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

I have received a number of representations regarding the risks to livestock from releasing sky lanterns. I share those concerns and urge consumers to think twice before releasing lanterns. DEFRA officials are working with other Departments and the farming unions to see what action can be taken to reduce risks. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has written to local authority trading standards officials to encourage them to work with importers and manufacturers, and we are taking other actions.

[Simon Hart]

The Minister will be aware of that other great hazard facing farmers and livestock—namely fly-tipping, which currently costs taxpayers something like £1 million per week. Will he assure us that that will be addressed in the Government’s waste strategy, and to coin a phrase, will he be tough on grime, and tough on the causes of grime?

[Mr Paice]

I do not wish to open that can of worms, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we very much recognise the problem of fly-tipping and that it will be addressed in the waste review.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

4. What assessment she has made of the outcome of the recent coastal states discussions in Oslo on mackerel fishing quota; and if she will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)]

The meeting of coastal states in Oslo from 9 to 11 March ended without agreement on the management of the north Atlantic mackerel stock for 2011. This is very disappointing as it puts the future sustainability of this extremely important stock at risk. The positions of the parties involved remain wide apart but we will continue to work with industry, other EU member states and the Commission to find the best possible outcome to this difficult situation.

[Dr Whiteford]

I hope the Minister shares my outrage at the 150,000 tonnes of mackerel that the Faroese have subsequently unilaterally awarded themselves as a quota for mackerel for next year, and I know he shares my concerns about the jobs that will be affected by that, both in my constituency and in other pelagic areas. As a matter of urgency, will he meet the Scottish Pelagic Fishermen’s Association and other key UK stakeholders to discuss this matter further?

[Richard Benyon]

I recently met stakeholders and raised the matter this week—yesterday, in fact—with Commissioner Damanaki, when I gave support to her strong call for measures to be taken against the Faroese and neighbouring states that cause so much damage to a sustainable stock. The problems that the hon. Lady’s constituents and others around our coast face are very much our priorities, and we will continue to support strong measures to deal with them.

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

5. What recent discussions she has had on reductions in fishing discards; and if she will make a statement.

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

13. What recent discussions she has had on reductions in fishing discards; and if she will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)]

I was delighted to participate in a recent high-level meeting on discards with the EU Commission and other members states, which agreed with the UK that tackling discards must be a priority for common fisheries policy reform and that action must be taken now. There was a constructive and positive debate about measures needed as part of that reform. The UK is clear that these must be practical, effective and developed in co-operation with industry.

[Neil Parish]

I know that the Minister, like me, welcomes the fact that Devon fishermen have cut their discards by 50%. Can he work on the total eradication of discards by promoting the greater use of other types of fish? Fish that do not meet human consumption standards could be ground down for use as fishmeal for fish farming, because we must keep that resource.

[Richard Benyon]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point—he eloquently made it yesterday at the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. DEFRA’s “Fishing for the Market” project looks at the fact that more than 50% of discards are created because there is no market for those fish. By taking up my hon. Friend’s suggestions and by working with fishermen to support the industry to find better markets for such fish, we will further reduce discards.

[Sarah Newton]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in this important quest to find new markets for what were formerly discarded fish we should work alongside organisations such as my local fish and chip shop in Penryn, the Mariners, which offers people delicious, locally caught and unusual choices, but not cod and haddock?

[Richard Benyon]

I applaud my hon. Friend for bigging up her local fish and chip shop. I also applaud the Fish Fight campaign, one benefit of which is that thousands of people have been going to their fishmongers and supermarkets and asking for precisely the species that we have been discarding on a large scale, such as dab and pouting, which are perfectly delicious, and which we should be using more of, because they can be fished sustainably.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister commission research into the scientific levels of non-quota stock, and will he consider making it mandatory for scientists to go onboard vessels or at least to ensure that discards are quantified, so that scientists can have that information?

[Richard Benyon]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The fisheries science partnerships have been doing precisely that, and have been doing good work. In prioritising this matter we are going with the grain of public opinion and the opinion of fishermen, who want to see an end to this practice, and yes, we have to do it on the basis of sound evidence. There is good practice going on, with scientists going onboard fishing boats for a variety of reasons, including to get a better understanding of what discards are and how we can tackle them. That work is highly valued.

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

As well as an end to discards, we need firm action on by-catch. Does the Minister welcome the announcement by Princes and Asda to follow other major retailers in ceasing to sell tuna caught using fishing practices that Greenpeace estimated in 2007 resulted in levels of by-catch of 182,000 tonnes per year? Will he also give a guarantee to persuade the remaining retailers selling unsustainably fished tuna to reflect the views of the 661,000 people who signed the Fish Fight petition and end fishing practices that damage the biodiversity of our oceans?

[Richard Benyon]

Yes to all that. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are at the forefront of measures to protect blue fin tuna. I thoroughly welcome the move by Princes and other processors to ensure that they use tuna from sustainable stocks, and we will continue to work with Members on both sides of the House to ensure that this continues.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I am pleased with what I hope is significant progress in this policy area after many years of campaigning, but how can fish stocks be protected effectively if discards are taken into account, and how can we distinguish between intended and unintended by-catch in the management of stocks?

[Richard Benyon]

No doubt when a lot of those who signed the Fish Fight petition see the words “Discard ban imposed”, they will think, “Job done”, but unfortunately, as the hon. Gentleman and his fishermen know, life is not that simple. Working with the fishing industry is the way to find solutions. For too long there has been too much stick and not enough carrot. We are proposing—we have benefited from this through policies such as the 50% project and catch quotas—that when we work with the industry we get much better results.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

6. What recent discussions she has had on the introduction of a prohibition on battery cages for laying hens.

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

7. What recent discussions she has had on the introduction of a prohibition on battery cages for laying hens.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

At the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 21 February, some member states sought more time to implement the ban on conventional cages, which is coming into force on 1 January 2012. I was the first Minister to emphasise that any delay would be grossly unfair to egg producers in the UK and other member states that have made significant investments to adapt and enrich cages. The Government will continue to play a full part in EU discussions to find a practical solution.

[Henry Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer and for her excellent efforts. Did those discussions also include the importation of derived products into this country?

[Mrs Spelman]

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is important that we are clear about the provenance of liquid-egg and dried-egg products. Many farmers in the European Union have made the investment to improve the welfare of laying hens, and therefore the deadline has to be respected.

[David T. C. Davies]

The Minister will be aware that many farmers in my constituency of Monmouth have worked extremely hard to comply with that legislation. I am grateful to her for saying that it would be unfair if other EU countries do not, but can she say what would happen if other countries, including new entrants, were exempt from that legislation?

[Mrs Spelman]

I am not talking about exemption. Obviously the Commission can threaten infraction proceedings against member states whose egg producers are non-compliant, but in my view that will not be enough. One of the options that we have suggested to the Commission is an intra-Community trade ban, which would restrict the sale of eggs that continued to be produced from conventional cages after the deadline had expired.

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

Will the right hon. Lady show some caution on this? Those of us who are passionate about animal welfare remember when this country moved ahead on protecting young calves reared for veal from disgraceful conditions. Veal in this country is now well produced. The young animals have a decent life, but most of them are killed at birth, which means that we import badly produced veal from France.

[Mrs Spelman]

Veal is not the same thing as eggs. None the less, the sentiment expressed in the hon. Gentleman’s question is important. The point is that member states and producers have known for 10 years that the change would come, and the accession countries seeking to join the Union knew full well before they entered that those were the welfare standards that would apply.

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

Given the Secretary of State’s remarks, can she clarify whether she will be proposing a ban on shell, liquid and powdered egg from countries such as Poland that will not meet the deadline, and if so, will she also be banning products such as quiche and cakes from those countries?

[Mrs Spelman]

I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that the Commission is looking at this. He might be interested to know that the Minister of State and the Commission will both appear before the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 22 March, when there will be ample opportunity to debate in detail the application of measures to ensure that the deadline is respected.

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

According to the European Commission’s social and economic report, a free-range egg costs just 2p more to produce than a battery egg. Does the Minister agree that this is a price worth paying for animal welfare?

[Mrs Spelman]

It is absolutely clear that the welfare of laying hens is improved by investment in enriched cages. However, it is also true that many consumers enjoy the choice of free-range eggs, and those choices should continue to exist.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

8. What measures her Department is taking to ensure its preparedness to respond to major flooding incidents.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)]

Last week, Exercise Watermark took place, which was the largest civil emergency exercise ever held in the United Kingdom. It successfully demonstrated the ability of Departments, emergency services, local authorities, communities and voluntary organisations to work together to deal with a range of devastating flooding scenarios. We will learn lessons from the exercise and publicise them to the House.

[Laura Sandys]

I welcome the Minister’s exercise in flood prevention and working through all the different systems. However, in my constituency, Sandwich—one of the most beautiful medieval towns in the country— faces huge flood problems. Will the Minister update us on what the defence scheme is and when it might be implemented?

[Richard Benyon]

Sandwich was included in the original draft list of schemes going ahead next year, so I specifically asked why it was not in the programme. I understand that the reason was that we could not guarantee that the scheme would start in the coming financial year. However, I am happy to meet my hon. Friend—and perhaps also Paul Carter, the leader of the taskforce looking at regeneration in her constituency—to discuss how hopeful we can be about the scheme progressing in the very near future.

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

This is a key issue in my constituency, which was badly flooded in 2007. Why have the Government decided to ignore the Pitt recommendation that flood investment should enjoy an above-inflation settlement each year?

[Richard Benyon]

We are taking forward all 92 of the Pitt recommendations—well, certainly 91 of them. The question of flood funding has been raised frequently in the House. We have protected capital funding works over and above all other areas of activity because we recognise that that is an absolute priority for the future.

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

This Department has taken the biggest hit across government, and flood defence spending has been cut by 27%. The Pitt review did indeed recommend Exercise Watermark. It also recommended that flood defence spending should be increased above inflation year on year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) said. Will the Minister tell us what lessons have been learned from Exercise Watermark? What does he say to those communities who thought that their flood defences were going ahead but now find that they are not? Can he guarantee that they will be able to access universal flood insurance after the statement of principle ends soon?

[Richard Benyon]

We have had many discussions on this matter. The 8% difference between the last four years’ spending on capital and the next four years’ spending shows that this is a massive priority—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) knows that continuing with this tired old riff is 180^o away from the facts. We are working closely with the insurance industry to ensure that we can move beyond the statement of principles after 2013. The lessons from Exercise Watermark are being learned and will be learned in the future.

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

9. If she will discuss with ministerial colleagues measures to exterminate urban foxes.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

While the extermination of urban foxes, or indeed rural ones, is neither desirable nor possible, problem foxes do need to be controlled. In urban areas, that is the responsibility of the owner or occupier of the property, who can use legal methods to cull or remove foxes.

[Greg Hands]

Last summer, a number of my constituents were attacked in their own homes by urban foxes, including Annie Bradwell, who lost part of her ear, and Natasha David, who was bitten twice as she slept in her bed. Will the Minister liaise with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to see whether we can change the law so that urban foxes can be treated as vermin in the same way that rats and mice are?

[Mr Paice]

I am very happy to talk to the Communities Secretary about that, but I do not think that a change in the law is necessary to enable local authorities to take action. They are not required to do so, but it is perfectly within their remit to take action if they have the kind of problem with the fox population to which my hon. Friend refers.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that it would be an error to make laws on the basis of isolated and rare cases. Having some wildlife in urban areas gives great delight to many people, and foxes can make a contribution to urban life by scavenging for waste food. We certainly do not need the usual Tory solution to such problems, which is to kill wild animals.

[Mr Paice]

I made it clear that we do not think that foxes should be exterminated in any part of the country. However, to pretend that they do not cause problems in some areas would be blinkered thinking. The fact is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) said, foxes can be a serious pest in urban areas and elsewhere. Also, the scavenging that the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) describes can cause serious problems with refuse and waste left out overnight. But, yes, foxes have a role to play in our urban areas.

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

The Minister might be aware that there is a belief in the countryside that urban foxes are trapped alive, put in lorries, taken out into the countryside and released, at great detriment to their welfare and great inconvenience to their country cousins. Will the Minister deprecate that activity and make every effort to resist it?

[Mr Paice]

My hon. Friend makes a relevant point. There is a lot of evidence—albeit anecdotal evidence—that people trap urban foxes and release them in the countryside. I suggest that that is very cruel, because those foxes are not accustomed to living on their own or to hunting for their prey, because it is all there for them in the refuse bags in urban areas. Farmers and others will bear witness to the fact that many of them wander round the countryside in a somewhat dazed state.

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

10. What proposals she has to reduce the incidence of fish discards.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

[Karl Turner]

Will the Minister outline exactly what he is doing to give incentives to the UK fishing industry to reduce discards?

[Richard Benyon]

We have promoted the catch quota scheme, and this year we will see no discards in the North sea from the boats in that scheme. We are extending the scheme to the south-west and I am delighted to announce that four vessels from that region are entering the scheme for the channel sole stock. We are also promoting the “Fishing for the Market” scheme, which I mentioned earlier. Of course, there is the success—applauded abroad and by the Commission—of the 50% project in the south-west. All those examples show how if we work with the fishing industry, we can have a serious impact on the scourge of discards.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree not only that it is wrong to throw dead fish back into sea, because it damages the viability of our fishermen, but that there is an environmental and marine eco-system effect of which we must also be aware?

[Richard Benyon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have heard evidence of crab potters, for example, saying that the problem is affecting the bait they put in their pots in certain areas. The real point, however, is that in a hungry world, throwing away perfectly edible fish is an affront to the vast majority of the British public, as well as to the fishermen who have to carry it out.

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

11. When she plans to announce her policy on wild animals in circuses.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

Following further discussions with welfare groups, the circus industry and other parties involved with performing animals, I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government’s policy is now close to completion.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am pleased to hear that the policy is close to completion, but I am sure that the Minister will realise that his answer is somewhat disappointing—not just to me, but to Members of all parties, to organisations such as the Born Free Foundation, Animal Defenders and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and, not least, to the 94.5% of the 13,000 respondents who said last March that they wanted this practice stopped. We have now reached the anniversary, so how much longer is it going to take?

[Mr Paice]

No one will be more pleased than I will be when the issue is closed and the hon. Gentleman stops asking me the question. I can assure him that, although I cannot give a precise time, the policy is very close to completion. However, as he knows, because he used to be the responsible Minister, other issues are relevant, such as the impact on the film and theatre industry and other areas where animals are involved in performances, and we have to clarify them and get them right before we announce anything.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

12. What recent progress her Department has made on labelling meat products by method of slaughter; and if she will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

As part of our implementation of the new welfare at slaughter regulations, which will come into force in January 2013, I shall be meeting all interested parties during the course of this year, and this will of course include discussion of possible labelling aspects of the issue.

[Angie Bray]

Many of my constituents who are concerned about animal welfare are worried that they are unknowingly eating meat from animals that might not have been pre-stunned during slaughter, and supermarkets simply will not provide the information. Does the Minister agree that labelling is the simplest solution to the problem? Will he reassure my constituents that he will push for implementation as soon as possible?

[Mr Paice]

The Government strongly believe that consumers should be properly informed about what they are buying. It is also true that the Government believe, overall, that animals should be stunned before slaughter, but we recognise that the Jewish and Muslim communities like some of their meat to be produced differently. The challenge for labelling is traceability. As my hon. Friend is probably aware, the vast majority of meat slaughtered under halal conditions is pre-stunned, so the issue is not quite as straightforward as some people believe.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

14. What responsibilities she has for the Government’s policies on climate change.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

DEFRA leads on climate change adaptation in England and on engagement with the EU on adaptation. DEFRA works to reduce emissions domestically in the areas for which we have responsibility and also works across Whitehall to ensure that progress on mitigation is achieved in a sustainable way.

[Mr Bone]

The Prime Minister is keen on smaller and more efficient government. If the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills were to take back responsibility for energy, would the Secretary of State think it appropriate for her Department to take back the rest of the climate change responsibilities, because then we could get rid of a whole Department?

[Mrs Spelman]

If we are talking about efficiency, I can tell my hon. Friend that in my experience, reorganisation—including the attempted reorganisation of local government by the last Administration—is not always the most efficient thing to do.

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

The Secretary of State will know of the growing fear that, in the European Union and elsewhere, the understandable increasing use of biofuels is having a distorting effect on the food market, and particularly on food prices for some of the world’s poor. I do not want to make any assumptions about the implications of the tragic events in Japan, but it is clear that they might have implications for the energy market and biofuel prices. What is the Government’s current policy on biofuels at European level?

[Mrs Spelman]

If we are to increase the amount of renewable energy that we secure and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, it is important for renewable energy from biomass to be in the mix. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, faced with the challenge of food security, we must be careful to ensure that prime, productive agricultural land is there to provide the food that we are so obviously going to need.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

DEFRA has said that it is tackling climate change through its new strategy, contained in the document “Mainstreaming sustainable development”. The seven-page document, which was snuck out the night before the Government abolished the Sustainable Development Commission, has been attacked by the president of the National Farmers Union and slated by Jonathon Porritt, who said that it was

“without a doubt the most disgraceful government document relating to Sustainable Development”

that he had ever seen. How is the mainstreaming going?

[Mrs Spelman]

First, let me welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position. I hope that he will convey our thanks to his predecessor for the role that he played.

Perhaps we could start off on a slightly better footing. We made a decision, as a Government, to mainstream sustainable development, and there is clear evidence from the business plans of the Government Departments that it has been mainstreamed. In addition, I have asked the hon. Gentleman’s colleague the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), to hold Departments to account for the sustainable development that is mainstreamed into their business plans. DEFRA will continue to perform its role of scrutinising new policy on sustainable development. However, mainstreaming is an obvious step forward from the position when the hon. Gentleman’s party was in power, when sustainable development was outside the remit of Government and in the hands of an arm’s length body.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

15. What recent discussions she has had on reform of the common agricultural policy; and if she will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

At this precise moment Lord Henley is attending the Agriculture Council, representing the United Kingdom. I hope Members will appreciate the presence of a full team of House of Commons Ministers here to answer oral questions. However, I have spent two full days this week in Brussels, where the Environment Council discussed CAP reform. I met Members of the European Parliament—including the officers and rapporteur of the Agriculture Committee —to discuss CAP reform, as the European Parliament has the power of co-decision.

[Julian Sturdy]

Let me begin by drawing Members’ attention to my declaration of interest.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the negotiating position that she intends to take on CAP reform is different from that of the last Government, and that food security is at the heart of all decision-making processes?

[Mrs Spelman]

Yes, I can confirm a change from the traditional stance taken by the last Government. Calling for direct payments to end forthwith was unrealistic. Our farmers need those direct payments at the moment, although I can envisage a time when, given rising food prices, they may not be necessary. The new, more realistic position means that we are a player at the negotiating table, part of an important alliance of member states that want CAP reform so that we can confront the serious challenges presented by the need for food security and by climate change.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

According to farmsubsidy.org, the number of CAP millionaires rose by 20% in 2009 to 1,212, and they pocketed a total of €4.9 billion. Does the Secretary of State agree with those who say that there should be a cap—if Members will excuse the pun—on maximum payments to individual recipients, and that there should be far more transparency across Europe in relation to who is receiving such payments?

[Mrs Spelman]

We are calling for a substantial reduction in single farm payments, but we do not share the Commission’s view that a cap should be introduced. The capping of farms whose size made them eligible would result in the fragmentation of farm structures, which would prevent agriculture from becoming more competitive and market-oriented.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

The CAP has two key roles: ensuring security of food supply and environmental management. On 17 December, The Daily Telegraph reported a secret stitch-up between the Prime Minister and President Sarkozy of France: no reform of the CAP in return for French support for the British rebate. Yet the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State told the Oxford farming conference in January:

“Now is the time to make very significant progress towards reducing our reliance on direct payments”,

but her colleague the Farming Minister, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice), contradicted her in the Farmers Guardian saying:

“Farming could not survive without direct payments…we will be suggesting a long, long transition from the current CAP system.”

We know the Prime Minister has full confidence in all his Cabinet Ministers, but who is in charge of CAP negotiations?

[Mrs Spelman]

I think the hon. Lady should rely a little less on speculation reported in newspapers. She has been a politician for long enough to know that we should take what we read in the papers with a pinch of salt. She obviously was not listening when I very clearly set out our position. Her Government’s position on the CAP over their 13-year period in office was, frankly, not credible: they suggested that direct payments should end immediately. If the hon. Lady does not know enough about farming in this country to know that farmers cannot manage at this point in time without their direct payments, she has a lot of learning to do. Our new position is much more realistic: it is to look forward to the time when subvention will not be required, while in the intervening period helping the industry to adapt so that it is more competitive and market-oriented.

[Mary Creagh]

OECD reports show that UK food prices have risen by more than 6% in the last year, and families across the country are feeling the pain. The Foresight report says we need to increase production not just to feed the UK, but to meet growing demand for food across the world. The Environment Secretary told her officials she wanted to be briefed on the price of a loaf of bread. Can she tell the House by how much the price of a loaf has gone up in the last six months, and why does her newly published sustainable development strategy make no mention at all of the CAP, food or farming?

[Mrs Spelman]

I am sure the hon. Lady does the household shopping in the same way that I do, and it is interesting that the hike in world food prices has not yet fully translated through into the cost of the grocery bill. This issue is a concern not only in the UK, but in other countries. It was also a concern to her Government during the last price hike in 2008. She should also be concerned about the farm-gate price of food: farming input costs are rising, making it extremely difficult for farmers to provide us with food at a reasonable price. That is one of the reasons why we made it a priority in our business plan to support British food and farming in a way that her Government did not.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. I call Simon Kirby. He is not here. I therefore call Yvonne Fovargue.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

19. What funding she has allocated over the period of the comprehensive spending review to reduce the level of illegal trade in animals and animal products.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)]

DEFRA provides funding for the convention on international trade in endangered species. Total funding levels for the next four years have yet to be agreed. The National Wildlife Crime Unit will be funded for the next two years. DEFRA provides no funding to delivery agents, but continues to provide policy and risk advice to the UK Border Agency, which has enforcement responsibility for illegal imports of animal products.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

What discussions has the Minister had with the Home Department about the impact of UK Border Agency cuts on intercepting products of animal origin at UK airports?

[Richard Benyon]

I met a representative of the UK Border Agency this week to discuss these matters. I also attended a meeting of the Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime, which has built up an enormous breadth of expertise. When I visited the animal reception centre at Heathrow, I understood very clearly how partnership working and working on a risk basis is effective in making sure Britain plays its part in cutting out this terrible trade.

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

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

My Department takes responsibility for safeguarding the environment, supporting farmers and strengthening the green economy. In that regard, I draw attention to the written statement I have laid today, confirming the details of the independent panel to advise on the future direction of forestry and woodland policy. The panel will be chaired by the Right Reverend James Jones, the Bishop of Liverpool, and will be made up of leading experts in the field of conservation and woodland management, along with other representatives of the broad range of issues associated with forestry in England, such as access and timber supply.

[Neil Parish]

I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s statement on setting up this panel on forests. She talked about food prices rising, but one of the great problems is that the money is not going back to the farmers—too much is being taken out by the supermarkets and others. I know that the Business Secretary has to deliver this, but when is he going to put the grocery adjudicator in place?

[Mrs Spelman]

On 17 February, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey) indicated during his Department’s questions that he would publish the relevant Bill in April. Obviously, Parliament is in recess for a significant amount of that month, but the Bill will be published some time around Easter.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I welcome the production of the forestry panel, but the trees are not yet out of the woods. This Sunday, thousands of people will gather in forests across the country to keep up the pressure on the Government to abandon their sale of 100,000 acres of England’s forests. People will be asking me in Dalby forest why their local organisations have been excluded from this panel. What should I tell them?

[Mrs Spelman]

I am delighted to tell the hon. Lady that the independent panel will hold its meetings in different parts of England, as was the original intention with the consultation, to come to people who have concerns about forests. A huge number of organisations—more than 70—applied to go on the panel, which will engage them all by seeking information, views and evidence from them all so that everyone feels involved.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

T2. May I return to the topic of the difficulties faced by pig farmers, which are particularly acute in my constituency? Is the Minister aware of the answer given by the Minister for the Armed Forces to my recent written question showing that under the previous Government less than 1% of the bacon served to our armed forces was British? Does he agree that if we are to do what we say as a Government and help British farmers, we should put our money where our mouth is and encourage the public sector to buy British?

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, which is why the Government will publish Government buying standards very shortly. They will require all of central Government to purchase food produced to British standards wherever that can be done without extra cost, which should not really come into it. I must tell her that we are working very hard on the specific issue of bacon and the armed forces with the British Pig Executive and the Ministry of Defence. We face some specific challenges relating not only to the specification but to the quantity that the MOD needs and that fact that everything needs to be frozen. Trials have been done using sow bacon and other things, but we are still working on the challenge.

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

T5. According to the Commission for Rural Communities, one in 20 women in rural areas is an entrepreneur, which is a higher proportion than in cities. However, in a recent article in The Independent, many complained that slow broadband was slowing down their business. Labour guaranteed universal broadband by 2012. What is the Secretary of State doing about it?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)]

I am very happy to tell the hon. Lady that our plans to roll out superfast broadband to rural communities will assist all entrepreneurs, including women, and rural areas will be able to see the benefits of superfast broadband in the creative industries and every other kind of industry. We have put £530 million over the next four years into that, so it will be happening very soon.

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

T3. I wish to raise the whole sorry saga of the single farm payment, as administered by the Rural Payments Agency. One farmer in my area has not received payment since 2009. I understand that the target for March will not be met, that the accuracy of the figures remains woefully short of what might be expected and that we risk incurring EU fines. Can the Minister assure the House that that will not be the case this year?

[Mr Paice]

As my hon. Friend said, the new Government inherited a catastrophic situation with the RPA, which had incurred for the country massive fines from the EU as a result of late payments and inaccuracies—I am determined not to repeat that. I am extremely sorry that we are not going to be able to meet the target for end of March payments, but we are determined that this year’s payments should be accurate, rather than have a continuation of the problems of errors and the fines that then ensue. I am determined to get money flowing as quickly as possible to the many farmers whom I recognise need it.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T7. The Government’s policy on badger culling once again seems to be a complete shambles. Will the Minister confirm that they have now decided to take into account the vast majority of scientific evidence, which says that badger culling is not an adequate way to deal with bovine TB, and rule out a return to the culling that we have seen in the past?

[Mr Paice]

The Government consulted on our proposals in the autumn and we are still working through the consequences and results of that consultation, including all the scientific advice and practical issues that were raised. We shall make our announcements in due course. I can promise that at this stage we have made no final decisions.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

T4. The Arpley landfill site in my constituency is in the process of applying for a multi-year extension to its licence and yet we know that best practice countries, such as Germany and Denmark, have virtually no landfill because they incinerate for power that which cannot be recycled. Can we not move faster in that direction?

[Richard Benyon]

We are shortly to publish our waste review, which is examining the balance and trying to move waste up the waste hierarchy. It will demonstrate this Government’s serious ambition to work towards getting as close as we can to a waste-free society and to ensure that communities are protected wherever they can be.

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

This morning, the Secretary of State repeated her suggestion that the Environmental Audit Committee might take over the functions of the Sustainable Development Commission, which she has abolished, as a watchdog on sustainable development. Does she recognise that that will be a complete fantasy unless resources and organisation are fundamentally addressed? What efforts has she made to get resources for the EAC so that it can perform that role?

[Mrs Spelman]

The hon. Gentleman might have misunderstood what I said. There is a four-pronged approach to mainstreaming sustainable development, in which the Environmental Audit Committee might, I suggested, play the role of holding Secretaries of State to account in the way that Select Committees regularly do. Although the Select Committees are bodies of Parliament rather than Government, I have written to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee to ask whether some of the 700 auditors in the National Audit Office, which comes under her jurisdiction, might be released to help the Environmental Audit Committee in that role.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State.

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

T6. Returning to my earlier question, will the Minister consider ensuring that the public sector buys only eggs that have been produced to EU standards when the new legislation banning battery cages has been implemented?

[Mr Paice]

Yes, I will. As I said a few moments ago, the Government will be publishing Government buying standards in the very near future and that will include a requirement to purchase only produce produced to British standards—that does not mean that it has to be British, but it has to be produced to our standards. From 1 January next year, no British eggs will be from traditional cages. They will all be from enriched or better systems.

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

Does the Secretary of State believe that reducing funding by nearly a third to the national parks, such as the North York Moors national park in my constituency, is good for promoting tourism and helps small and medium-sized businesses in Guisborough and east Cleveland?

[Mrs Spelman]

I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance. I visited the Lake District national park last week as part of launching the uplands policy and the park authority expressed itself quite capable of making savings, which are pro rata across the Department because we have to repair the finances after what was left behind by his Government. I am therefore confident that it can protect the front line while making savings in the back office. That park, in conjunction with many national parks, is setting about doing that constructively.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Douglas Carswell. He is not here.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I met a number of Warwickshire dairy farmers last week and they told me that they are still receiving less for their milk from the supermarkets than it costs to produce. When the high cost of feed is added to that, it will either drive farmers away from producing milk or out of business altogether. What can the Secretary of State do to support our dairy farmers and protect UK food security?

[Mr Paice]

My hon. Friend has identified a real difficulty in the dairy sector that, as he rightly says, affects most dairy farmers throughout the country. The biggest challenge is the range of prices, which go from the relatively acceptable prices paid to producers who are designated into the liquid supply chain down to the very low prices paid by processors. I am working through the dairy supply chain to try to improve the overall market structure so that we can raise prices at the bottom, which will create an upward pressure right through the chain.

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

At first sight, the independent panel on forestry includes three people who represent landowning or industry forestry interests but does not include anyone who represents the trade unions or the people who work in that area. The Institute of Chartered Foresters is represented, but that is very much a specialist interest. Is it not an omission not to have a trade union represented on the panel?

[Mrs Spelman]

When I made my statement on this matter in the House, I heeded very carefully the point that was made by Opposition Members that those who work in the forests ought to be represented on the panel. That is why Shireen Chambers of the Institute of Chartered Foresters will be on it. The panellists are there not as delegates but as representatives to look at the broad range of issues concerning forestry and woodland in England.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

T9. Epping forest has 20% of all Travellers pitches in the east of England, over 80% of which are in Nazeing or Roydon in my constituency. Can the Minister reassure my constituents that local communities will now be free to choose how many Travellers pitches they accept rather than having them imposed from Whitehall?

[Mrs Spelman]

This is a matter principally for the Department for Communities and Local Government, which I know is striving to find a balanced solution for both the settled and the travelling communities. I have sympathy with my hon. Friend, as I also have to deal with this issue in my constituency. The abolition of regional spatial strategies puts an end to the top-down provision of sites in favour of local solutions to provide the authorised sites that the travelling community needs.

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

Yesterday, there was a march on City hall by residents of Poplar and Limehouse who are very concerned about the possible loss of King Edward Memorial park due to the necessary building of the Thames tideway tunnel. Can the Secretary of State or one of her Ministers reassure me and my constituents that just as DEFRA will keep an eye on costs, as outlined on its website, it will also keep a conscious eye on the need to protect that precious open space, which is much loved by thousands of my constituents?

[Richard Benyon]

I understand the concerns of a number of communities in London about the construction phase of this project, if it goes ahead. I am delighted that one particularly popular area of green space south of the river has been protected and I applaud Thames Water for having found an alternative site. I am happy to work with the hon. Gentleman and others to make sure that the impact of the construction of the project is as minimal as possible.

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

Will Ministers look again at the funding of Northumberland national park, because pro rata cuts hit very hard the least well-funded national park, which suffers from what is known to be an unsatisfactory distribution of funding between national parks?

[Richard Benyon]

I am well aware of the national park’s concerns. I have to be cautious because I believe that there might be legal proceedings under way, but I am a firm fan of what it does. It is important to note that the national parks will go back, as a collective group, to the funding of about five years ago. Life did not stop in the national parks back then—they did a lot of good stuff then and they will continue to do a lot of good work in future.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s attempts to reduce inaccuracies in single farm payments and the fines incurred as a consequence, but he will know that fines are also incurred for late payment after the June deadline. Has he conducted any research in his Department about the flexing between inaccuracy fines and late payment fines to ensure that the best and optimal amount is achieved for the taxpayer?

[Mr Paice]

The objective is to have no fines at all rather than to choose between fines. I am determined to make the payments as accurate as possible so that we can draw a line under the sorry past under the previous Government. Equally, however, I want to keep to the payment deadline of June, and we plan to do so.

[Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

If the Under-Secretary were to find himself seeking to preserve ferry operations in the Lymington river by use of a declaration of overriding public interest, would he be empowered to impose conditions such as the use of more suitable vessels in the medium term?

[Richard Benyon]

I am well aware of the importance of this issue to my hon. Friend and his constituents. We have to bear in mind the economic value of that route to the Isle of Wight as well as other elements in his community. I assure him that I will exhaust every effort to make sure that we can get a solution with which every side is happy.

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

Are we ever going to get a fair deal for farmers or consumers when ruthless monopolies such as Tesco dominate our retail trade? Tesco now has 30% of the trade—by my economic training, that is a monopoly that any Government have to recognise and take on.

[Mrs Spelman]

The Department’s business plan sets out clearly its priority of supporting British food and farming. Obviously, we are trying in the CAP negotiations to get a fair deal for British farmers, consumers and the environment alike. There was an investigation into abuse of competition through the Competition Commission, but the new element that we bring into play is the grocery adjudicator. As I said, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills intends to introduce legislation on that around Easter.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

On taking sustainable development mainstream, the Secretary of State gave me her clear assurance during DEFRA questions on 4 November that she would continue to meet the designated green Ministers from each Department. Will she tell the House who the designated green Ministers in each Department are, and when they last met?

[Mrs Spelman]

I am delighted to be able to tell the House that DEFRA has instituted the green Ministers breakfast. Ministers from across the Government come to DEFRA once a month for this popular event. As you would expect, Mr Speaker, the Department of food and drink makes absolutely sure that they do not go hungry. The events have brought about the huge benefits of breaking down silos between Departments and putting in place a really joined-up approach to green issues and sustainable development right across the Government.

[Mr Speaker]

We are now much better informed and thank the Secretary of State.

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

We saw this week that the Department has been slapped down a second time by the Prime Minister—this time over CAP payments. Does that explain why we still do not have a water White Paper?

[Richard Benyon]

We expect to have a water White Paper in the summer.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Further to questions about the grocery adjudicator, I should declare an interest as chair of the Grocery Market Action Group, as well as because last week I met the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), who confirmed that the draft Bill would be published after the purdah period in May. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that she will use every endeavour to work with the business managers of this place and the Business Department to ensure that the measure is introduced this year and that we have effective regulation of the sector as soon as possible?

[Mrs Spelman]

I am happy to give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that I will use all my best endeavours to ensure that we proceed swiftly. I pay tribute to his work on producing a Bill in this Parliament, which I hope will help to inform his colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. I know that the Deputy Leader of the House is anxious that we make good progress on the important Bill that my hon. Friend mentioned.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank colleagues for their co-operation which, not for the first time, has ensured that every question on the Order Paper has been reached and substantially more besides.

Business of the House

Thursday 17th March 2011 Commons Chamber

11:32

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

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

The business for the week commencing 21 March will be:

Monday 21 March—Remaining stages of the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [Lords], followed by a motion relating to Members’ salaries.

Tuesday 22 March—Remaining stages of the Scotland Bill.

Wednesday 23 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.

Thursday 24 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.

The provisional business for the week commencing 28 March will include:

Monday 28 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Tuesday 29 March—Conclusion of the Budget debate.

Wednesday 30 March—Remaining stages of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill (Day 1).

Thursday 31 March—Remaining stages of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill (Day 2).

Friday 1 April—Private Members’ Bills.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his reply.

Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in expressing our deep sorrow at the continuing suffering of the Japanese people as they seek to deal with the many disasters that have befallen them? Did he hear this morning’s report of protestors being fired on and killed in Bahrain, and will he join me in condemning that?

On Monday’s motion on the Senior Salaries Review Body report, will the Leader of the House indicate when he proposes to give effect to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority taking responsibility for MPs’ pay?

The humanitarian emergency response review is due to report shortly. May we have an oral statement from the International Development Secretary?

Two months ago I raised with the right hon. Gentleman the suggestion of extending topical questions to all Departments that do not currently have them. He said that he had a lot of sympathy with my proposal. Can he tell us when he plans to implement it?

It has been a very bad week for the Government’s NHS reforms, with revolting Lib Dems, 21 of whom failed to vote with the Government yesterday, angry doctors and Ministers reduced to pleading that their Bill has been misunderstood, a sure sign that they have lost the argument. Mind you, it takes a special kind of political genius to turn those whom they say they want to help—general practitioners—against them, so I have to hand it to the Secretary of State for Health. The more he talks about his Bill, the more he destroys public confidence in it.

Will the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government come to the House to explain why he decided to attend the recent meeting of the Young Britons’ Foundation, an organisation whose president has described the NHS as a 60-year mistake and whose chief executive has called for it to be scrapped? Was the Secretary of State there to pick up tips on how to destroy local government from people who want to destroy the NHS?

May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on figures from his own Department that show that the housing benefit changes will leave 450,000 disabled people an average of £13 a week worse off? People are worried about having to leave their homes, which might have been specially adapted to their needs. What a waste of money. Can the Leader of the House reassure them that that will not happen?

Last week I raised Westminster city council’s odious new byelaw banning the distribution of free food to the homeless. Now we discover that the council has an accomplice: the Home Secretary. Will she make a statement during the report stage of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill to explain why clause 149 will give local councils the power to seize and retain property in connection with any contravention of that byelaw? It means that, as well as fining people up to £500 for giving out free food, Westminster city council will be given the power to seize, if it so wishes, the soup, the urns, the vans, the ladles, the bread, the tea bags and anything else that is distributed.

The byelaw will apply to an exclusion zone that includes Westminster cathedral. Will the Leader of the House clarify for us and for the Archbishop of Westminster whether, if there is a service of holy communion in the open air outside the cathedral, under the byelaw and the Bill, priests would face a fine and communion wine cups and wafers could be seized by zealous officials of Westminster city council? What on earth would St Patrick, whom we celebrate today, make of all that? It is quite clear that Westminster city council’s Tory members have completely taken leave of their senses, but why on earth are the Government helping them in this madness by a shabby piece of legislative complicity?

Finally, while we are on the subject of nasty Conservatives, I am afraid that I must tell the House that yet another private Member’s Bill trying to cut the minimum wage has made an appearance. This time it is the Training Wage Bill, which is due to be debated tomorrow. I was delighted that after my criticism of the previous Bill it mysteriously vanished from the Order Paper. Will the Leader of the House join me in condemning this Bill so that we can perhaps make it disappear as well?

[Sir George Young]

I endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said about Japan and Bahrain. In the debate that is to follow shortly, he might find that the Foreign Secretary will say much more about Bahrain and touch on the humanitarian issues in Japan and what is happening to UK citizens there. I certainly endorse what he said about the need for Bahrain to move towards democracy and not deal violently with those who are protesting peacefully.

On IPSA and the debate on Monday, the Government support the independent determination of MPs’ pay, as I said in my written statement of 20 January. I fully intend that that debate should not lead to Members routinely voting on their salaries, so I can confirm that I will commence the relevant parts of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 shortly to allow for fully independent determination of MPs’ salaries in future.

On DFID, the right hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development made a full statement to the House on 1 March about the humanitarian work and the Department’s aid reviews, and since then the House has been kept informed about what we are doing in Christchurch, Japan and Libya. The humanitarian emergency response review, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, is an independent review and, therefore, slightly different from the reviews that were the subject of the statement at the beginning of the month, but of course I will pass his views to my right hon. Friend about that very important report, which is being undertaken by Lord Ashdown.

On health, we had an extensive debate yesterday, but I was slightly disappointed at the relatively few Opposition Members in attendance, indicating a slight lack of interest in this very important subject. During the debate, we made clear our commitment to the NHS: we are spending more on it than the outgoing Labour Government planned to spend; we want to address the decline in NHS productivity that the Public Accounts Committee referred to earlier this year; and we want to drive up outcomes.

On housing benefit, the right hon. Gentleman will know that local authorities will have at their disposal substantial discretionary funds to avoid exactly the sort of situation to which he refers—people being displaced from their homes because of any shortfall in housing benefit as we introduce the changes. I very much hope that those discretionary funds, which have been increased, will be adequate to avoid the problems that he outlines.

On Westminster city council, I do think the right hon. Gentleman’s imagination slightly ran away with him, given what he said about the byelaws. I understand that the council has invited him to see what it is doing and how it is approaching the rough sleeping initiative, and I hope that he will accept that invitation. I hope also that that will give the council an opportunity to allay some of the concerns that he has raised. I pay tribute to the work of the nuns at Westminster cathedral, who run The Passage, a very sympathetic approach to helping those who are homeless, and I very much hope that Westminster city council can work with the volunteers and work as a team to address the problems of homelessness, which I think he and I would both like to see resolved.

Now—

[Hilary Benn]

Topical questions.

[Sir George Young]

Topical questions, yes.

On topical questions, it is indeed my intention to make progress. A number of Departments answer questions for only 30 minutes, and at the moment there are no opportunities to answer or, indeed, to ask topical questions. I am having discussions with ministerial colleagues to see whether we can change that. The most urgent one relates to DFID, where there has been a direct approach from the shadow Secretary of State, and I hope to make an announcement relatively soon, once I have completed the necessary consultations with my ministerial colleagues.

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

My constituents were delighted to hear in the autumn comprehensive spending review that the final stretch of the A11 was to be dualled. This will have a magnificent impact on economic growth in the county and on local businesses, yet we are still to hear exactly when that major work will take place. Will the Leader of the House ask the Transport Minister to make a statement to the House about when that will happen?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am afraid that when I was Secretary of State for Transport for two years I omitted to do as much as I should have about the A11, but it is now among the 14 schemes that the Highways Agency expects to be able to start before 2015, subject to the completion of statutory processes. I understand that the agency is now working on the detailed delivery of that particular scheme, and I will ask the Transport Minister to write to my hon. Friend.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Before the general election, there was cross-party support for a consultation on improving voting opportunities for service personnel serving overseas. That was also recommended by the Electoral Commission in its report on the administration of the 2010 general election. With only 500 of the 10,000 troops in Afghanistan exercising their right to vote last May, should not the Government have progressed the matter with much greater urgency? Can we have a statement on the postal voting arrangements for the forthcoming alternative vote referendum in respect of service personnel serving overseas?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Lady is quite right. There was considerable concern in the previous Parliament at the problems that confronted a number of those in the armed services who wished to exercise their right to vote, and there was disappointment expressed, certainly by Opposition Members in that Parliament, at the failure to make progress. I will raise with the Electoral Commission the issue that she has mentioned. I am anxious, as I am sure is every hon. Member, that everyone should take part in the AV referendum on 5 May.

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

In the past, we have had themed days for the Budget debate. Can the Leader of the House tell us on what day we will be able to debate the claim by the Opposition that a cut in VAT on fuel could be paid for by the bank levy, given that Labour has pledged that money 10 times over?

[Sir George Young]

There will be discussions through the usual channels on which Ministers will be answering on which day, but I am confident that during the four-day debate that I have just announced there will be an opportunity for Opposition Members to shed some light on the rather plaintive comment made over the weekend by the Leader of the Opposition that, when it comes to the economy,

“I can make no commitment to do anything differently”.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Two of my constituents are ex-soldiers in receipt of very small pensions of £60 and £124 a week. They have been told that they do not qualify for jobseeker’s allowance. Can we have an urgent debate to see whether the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions could use a discretion to exclude such small pensions so that these ex-soldiers who have served their country can qualify for benefits?

[Sir George Young]

As the hon. Lady knows, there are two accesses to JSA, one contribution-based and the other means-tested, and it sounds as though her constituents have fallen short on the one that is means-tested. I will certainly raise the issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to see whether there is any possibility of a disregard in the circumstances she has outlined.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

It is British tourism week, and the Tourism Alliance has produced an encouraging report showing good progress for Government tourist initiatives. That said, tourist chiefs in Cleethorpes and northern Lincolnshire tell me that additional support is needed to assist specific tourism business start-ups. Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the wider aspects of the benefits to the country of the tourism industry?

[Sir George Young]

As someone who produced a thesis on the future of the British tourism industry in 1972, this is a subject in which I still have some interest. My hon. Friend may find that there is an opportunity during the Budget debate to raise the issue of support for the tourism industry. I will certainly bring his comments to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

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

Would it be possible to have an oral statement from the relevant Health Minister about Government support to improve the health and lives of people with learning disabilities and, in particular, whether the Department will continue to support for a further two years a study on the health care needs of people with learning disabilities? The study is currently hosted by the North East of England Public Health Observatory.

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman may know that last week we announced a review of those who have special educational needs, and there may be an opportunity for him to take part in that. It is an important subject, and I hope that he might apply for an Adjournment debate so that we can explore the issues at greater length and see what more can be done to help the people to whom he refers.

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

Could the Leader of the House please confirm that the Committee stage of the Bill that will be required to ratify the proposed change to the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, which the House debated last night, will be taken on the Floor of the House? If he is not able to do that today, could we have a statement on the matter in the future?

[Sir George Young]

I will consider how we handle such a Bill when the opportunity presents itself.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

Can we have a debate on the treatment of Bradley Manning, the young US soldier who is held in solitary confinement in the United States accused of passing on information to WikiLeaks? His mother is Welsh, and she attended a school in Wales for a time. There is considerable interest in his case. I would say his treatment is similar to that meted out to people at Guantanamo Bay.

[Sir George Young]

I understand the right hon. Lady’s concern, which I think is widely shared. I cannot promise a debate in Government time, but it sounds like an appropriate subject for a debate in Westminster Hall in the next few weeks.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

With localism in mind, could we have a debate about the future of local government finance, particularly the future of the business rate, in which my own council is very interested?

[Sir George Young]

There may be legislation in a future Session that addresses the issue of the business rate. As my hon. Friend knows, there are no such provisions in the Localism Bill that is before the House. The coalition Government propose to reform the arrangements for business rates, so there may be legislation in a future Session.

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

On 9 February, the Prime Minister told this House that Liverpool passport office, which has 400 employees, was being considered for closure. He said that the Minister for Immigration was choosing between Newport and Liverpool. I do not believe that a proper consultation has been carried out. Yesterday, I received a letter from the Minister for Immigration which said that the Prime Minister’s information was wrong. I have yet to receive a reply to my letter to the Prime Minister. Can we have a statement so that we know what is going on?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Lady is certainly entitled to know what is going on. I would like to make some inquiries about the exchange of correspondence to which she referred, and will ensure that an accurate representation of what has taken place is communicated to her very soon.

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

The decision by officials at the Ministry of Defence to purchase and destroy the complete first print run of Toby Harnden’s book, “Dead Men Risen”, cost the UK taxpayer more than £150,000. The second edition that was printed today contains just 50 word changes. Given that the Ministry of Defence is seeking to address a budget deficit of £38 billion and in light of the book’s contents, will the Leader of the House allow for a debate on MOD procurement and spending decisions?

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. The Ministry of Defence rather reluctantly bought the entire first print run of the book because at a late stage the text was found to contain information that would damage national security and put at risk the lives of members of the armed forces. Faced with the stark choice between compromising that security and making the payment to the publisher for amendments, regrettably the MOD had little option but to pay the money. I will share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend with Ministers at the MOD.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Yesterday, the Minister for Immigration chose to go to the stock exchange, rather than the House, to announce changes to the immigration rules. At midnight last night, the Select Committee on Home Affairs published its report on student visas. I appreciate that the Leader of the House will not have had a chance to read it since its publication. However, is it not important to debate immigration changes in the House in Government time, rather than announcements being made in places such as the stock exchange or in written statements?

[Sir George Young]

It is certainly the case that all important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance to the House when it is sitting. That does not mean that Ministers are not free to make speeches outside the House, as appropriate. I have not read the report to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but I have heard details of it in the media. The Government will respond in due course to the report, which has just been published. We believe that the system is in need of reform and we want to reduce net inward migration from outside the EU from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands. The Select Committee will receive a considered response in due course.

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

It has been a bad week for the shadow Chancellor. First, he was wrong about being able to obtain an EU derogation for VAT on fuel. Then he did not seem to know whether we were planning to cut—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. Business questions are an occasion for requests for statements and debates in the following week, and not for prefacing questions with lengthy descriptions of things that have happened to another party. That is not an orderly way to proceed. I hope I do not have to say that again. We will move on to someone else.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Recently in business questions, the Leader of the House was unhappy with the idea of confirmation hearings for Ministers. On reflection, I was clearly not being radical enough. Can we have a statement next week on whether we can reintroduce the procedure whereby if someone is appointed to be a Minister, they must resign their parliamentary seat and fight a by-election?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend is correct that that was the procedure until some time around 1920. I detect no particular appetite from those on either Front Bench to revert to that procedure. On reflection, I am not convinced that it would serve any useful purpose.

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

Notwithstanding the public sensitivities surrounding Members’ salaries, may I ask the Leader of the House in his dealings with IPSA to remind it gently that public opinion should not be the only criterion when deciding Members’ salaries, but that external comparators should also be used?

[Sir George Young]

I hope that when it comes to IPSA taking over responsibility for Members’ salaries, the hon. Gentleman will make representations. It is important that IPSA remembers that its task is to ensure that MPs have the resources that they need to do their job and to discharge their responsibilities. I am sure that we all await with interest the outcome of the review, which I think is due next week.

[Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)]

Following the Cabinet’s recent visit to Rolls-Royce in Derby, which is near my constituency of Erewash, and the Prime Minister’s announcement on enterprise zones, will my right hon. Friend consider making time available in this House for a debate on the important issues of wealth creation and support for businesses in the regions, perhaps with particular emphasis on the east midlands?

[Sir George Young]

My Cabinet colleagues and I enjoyed our visit to Derby last week, including the presentations from Rolls-Royce and from other entrepreneurs in the area. Enterprise zones are currently being considered. Having been a Minister in the 1980s, I think that enterprise zones were a particular success, for example in transforming the London docklands development area. I hope that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity in the four-day debate on the Budget to develop her views on how we might help the east midlands and the enterprises to which she referred.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

During yesterday’s debate on the NHS, the Secretary of State for Health implied that the Health and Social Care Bill will not extend competition law into the NHS to a greater extent. That contradicts the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), who told the Public Bill Committee that competition law will affect the NHS to a much greater extent. Can we have an urgent statement on how competition law will bite on the NHS under the Bill?

[Sir George Young]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made it crystal clear in yesterday’s debate that under the Bill before the House, there is no change in EU competition law.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

The Leader of the House has referred to how thinly occupied the Opposition Benches were during yesterday’s debate on the NHS. Will he tell the House what pressure he can put on the Opposition to hold another debate on this important topic, so that we can discuss thoroughly the idea—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Again, that is not an appropriate matter for business questions. I appreciate that new Members are getting to grips with these things, and generally extremely well, but I am afraid that that question is not orderly and we will have to leave it there.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate on the sale of murderous knives on numerous internet sites? According to a presentation at Harlow college by my local police community support officers, Phyllis Chipchase and Karen Rogers, 100 people suffered from knife crime in Harlow last year. Will he take urgent action to ensure that the big society becomes the safe society?

[Sir George Young]

We want the big society to be the safe society. On 2 February, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced £18 million of funding over two years to tackle knife, gun and gang crime, and to prevent youth crime. The Government’s position is clear on what should happen when someone carries a knife. Any adult who commits a crime using a knife can expect to be sent to prison, and serious offenders can expect a long sentence.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

I, like others, was delighted for Prince William and Kate Middleton when the news of their engagement was announced. I look forward to celebrating their wedding with many of my constituents at street parties on the big day. However, this day of national celebration should not be exploited by fly-by-night companies looking to make a fast buck from the wedding, such as Eleven Events, which is planning to transform Clapham common in my constituency into a mass campsite for thousands of people to mark the occasion. The company is of questionable origin, having been in existence for only a year, and has no track record on such events. Can we have a statement from the appropriate Minister to tell us what the Government are doing to ensure that communities such as mine are protected from unscrupulous outfits trying to cash in on the royal wedding?

[Sir George Young]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. As a former councillor in Lambeth who represented a bit of Clapham common, I have a residual and nostalgic interest in that part of south London. It sounds to me as if responsibility has been devolved to the local authority—either Lambeth council or the neighbouring Wandsworth council. I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether there is any locus for him to resolve the dilemma.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Many churches in west Worcestershire have fundraising thermometers to monitor how much progress they are making on their fundraising. In light of next week’s Budget debate, could we discuss installing similar thermometers on either side of the House so that we can keep track of the spending commitments, and in particular of how many times the one-off bankers’ bonus levy can be spent?

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s interest. I do not know whether Westminster city council would allow the installation of a giant thermometer outside New Palace Yard on which was calibrated the growing number of commitments made by the Opposition, but in principle I agree entirely.

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

Given that the Government have already damaged the economy in the north-west by doing away with the regional development agency and cutting regeneration funding by two thirds, may we have a debate on their latest proposals to sell off the assets of the RDA and return them to the Treasury?

[Sir George Young]

I dispute the premise on which the hon. Gentleman bases his question. The OECD report published yesterday states:

“The government is pursuing a necessary and wide ranging programme of fiscal consolidation and structural reforms aimed at achieving stronger growth and a rebalancing of the economy over time.”

That is a somewhat different position from the one that he suggested. If there are surplus assets that can be returned to the Treasury, I am sure they would be gratefully received.

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

In my constituency, antisocial behaviour is an ongoing problem. I welcome the Government’s consultation, but will the Leader of the House consider holding a debate so that we can discuss that serious issue and demonstrate that we, unlike the previous Government, are serious about tackling antisocial behaviour?

[Sir George Young]

I announced in the forthcoming business two days of Report stage on the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, and my hon. Friend may have an opportunity either to table amendments or to take part in the debates so that he can ventilate his concern and urge the Government to do even better.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I have a letter from the Comptroller and Auditor General, in which he states:

“It is not acceptable practice for those commissioning a service subsequently to be remunerated as contractors for that service…and it is not appropriate for one group of providers to have exclusive power to determine the value of that portion of the contract for which they will become the contracted party.”

In the light of that advice, will the Leader of the House ensure that there is a statement from the Health Secretary about probity and procurement in a health service with GP contractors?

[Sir George Young]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is not casting any aspersions on the integrity of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, but I will share with my right hon. Friend the concern that he has just mentioned and seek to reassure him that there are no irregularities at all in the arrangements for GP commissioning.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

Members of Sandymoor parish council recently presented me with a petition signed by hundreds of parents in my constituency about a lack of secondary school choice in that new-build area. The root cause of the problem is the Labour council giving planning permission for many thousands of new homes without thinking to provide essential amenities such as schools. May we have a debate about planning policy and the importance of avoiding such problems in future developments?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend will know that it is not unusual for local authorities to use their section 106 planning powers to require a developer to make provision for a new primary or secondary school to cope with rising population. He will also know that we have passed legislation introducing free schools and reducing the planning barriers that confront them, to respond to parents’ wishes when they want a new school to be established in their area to provide high-quality education.

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

The Leader of the House will have seen the dire unemployment figures this morning, particularly to do with the young unemployed. That is a mounting problem in our society and bodes very ill for the future. May we have an early statement and/or debate on that important matter? Members of all parties are deeply worried about the growing problem of youth unemployment.

[Sir George Young]

Of course, Members on both sides of the House share the concern about youth unemployment, which went up by some 40% during the period of the last Labour Government. There will be opportunities to debate unemployment during the four-day debate on the Budget. I hope the hon. Gentleman will take some comfort from the fact that 430,000 new private sector jobs have been created in the past year, and that more than 70,000 were created in the last three months of 2010, more than counterbalancing the 45,000 jobs lost in the public sector.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

The Leader of the House has just announced the days for debate on the Budget. Has he had any indication of the day on which the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), has put in to speak?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I must say that there is a growing discourtesy about some of these inquiries, against which I counsel very strongly. There are certain conventions in this place, and a basic courtesy from one Member to another is expected and must apply. I have no idea whether the hon. Gentleman mentioned to the right hon. Member in question his intention to refer to him—if he did not he certainly should have done—but in any case, it is not a proper matter for a business question.

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

Last week, our national elite female swimming squad were asked to do a naked underwater photo-shoot, which was apparently linked to funding for the team’s Olympic dream as sponsored by the national lottery and British Gas. I understand that the national lottery requires our elite athletes to do such public relations and photo-shoots as a condition of their funding. Will the Leader of the House provide time for a debate on how we are funding the Olympic ambitions of our elite athletes? Does he agree that it would be inappropriate if conditions and requirements for that sort of PR, which seems exploitative, started to be attached to funding?

[Sir George Young]

I will certainly raise the hon. Lady’s concerns with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. There is total investment of £264 million in Olympic sports for the London four-year cycle, and funding for swimming has increased significantly in the past two Olympic cycles. It now receives the third-highest amount of public investment of the Olympic sports. I understand the concern that she has expressed, and I will share it with my right hon. Friend.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

May we have a statement next week on Southern Cross Healthcare? It is a company in financial crisis that has more than 750 care homes, about 31,000 residents and many worried employees. In a reply to me on 2 December, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), stated:

“Any discussions regarding continuing provision for residents of care homes should take place between care providers and CASSRs.”—[Official Report, 2 December 2010; Vol. 519, c. 1014W.]

CASSRs are councils with adult social services responsibilities. Will the Leader of the House get some urgency into the Department of Health and get it to take a grip of what is clearly a major national problem, and may we have a statement next week on the outcome?

[Sir George Young]

I understand the concern on behalf of Southern Cross residents in the light of the financial problems that confront that company. Southern Cross is having discussions with Government officials about the plans that it has in place to address its financial difficulties and, crucially, to ensure that services are maintained. Ministers will continue to keep in close touch with the situation and will work with local authorities, the Care Quality Commission and others to ensure that there is an effective response that delivers protection to everyone affected. I will ask the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), to write to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

My 77-year-old constituent Mr Muir received a letter from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs stating that it was

“sending HMRC agents to your house to seize your possessions for sale at auction in order to pay your debt.”

That was for a £549 rebate that Mr Muir had received in HMRC’s error, which had already been repaid some months before. Such complaints about HMRC by my constituents are becoming regular. May we have an urgent debate or statement on the resources available to it to do its job effectively?

[Sir George Young]

I very much regret the sequence of events that the hon. Gentleman refers to, and I understand the distress that it has caused. There will be questions to Treasury Ministers on Tuesday, and he may like to raise the matter again then.

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

Unemployment is at a 17-year high and running at 14% in Middlesbrough. Growth is sluggish according to the OECD, and public sector cuts are yet to come. May I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) in asking for a debate on the Floor of the House about unemployment and its consequences for communities such as mine in the north-east?

[Sir George Young]

As I have said before, there will be four days of debate on the Budget, and a Budget for growth has at its heart dealing with the unemployment problems to which the hon. Gentleman refers. There will be ample opportunities to discuss unemployment next week and the week after, but to put it in context, employment has also risen.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

As has been mentioned, young people’s unemployment is at a 30-year high, and the number not in education, employment or training continues to rise exponentially. We still do not know what the discretionary learner support to replace the education maintenance allowance will look like. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the appropriate Minister to come and make a statement to the House about what the Government’s policy for young people is?

[Sir George Young]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. Those who are continuing with their education in September will want to know what regime is replacing EMA, which we believe had a lot of deadweight attached to it. We will shortly announce a replacement scheme for EMA that will enable low-income families to continue accessing further education. It will be aimed at eligible individuals aged between 16 and 19.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

If a thermometer is to be erected outside the House, could it measure rising youth unemployment in this country? May we have a debate on that, shortly before a debate on the nationalist proposal for Scotland to have a separate time zone, which was recently before the House? I understand that Scotland’s time would be roughly an hour and a quarter different from London’s, so at noon in London it would be 13.14—Bannockburn time—in Scotland, thereby allowing the result of the Barnsley by-election to be announced in Scotland before the polls closed.

[Sir George Young]

I gather that that proposition received extensive attention during the debate on the Scotland Bill a few days ago. It was a very good joke the first time round, but it has diminishing returns. There are limits to the extent to which one can take devolution.

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

If there is to be no statement on the publication this week of the Hutton report—the Will Hutton report—which rejected a pay cut in the public sector alone and called for much greater transparency on pay in both the public and private sectors, may we have a debate on top pay in both, so that we can see what can be done about the arms race that has been going on in recent years?

[Sir George Young]

The Government are grateful to Will Hutton for his recently published report, and we will respond in due course. There will be an opportunity in the Budget debate to discuss differentials between low, medium and top pay, and approaches to reducing them.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The decision to build new nuclear power stations was greatly influenced by the belief that there would be a shortfall in generating capacity within a decade. That shortfall will now not take place because of the extended life of many of our power stations. Would it not be right to extend debate on the Government’s very welcome decision to look at the safety of nuclear power stations to their very high cost and their impractical, unrealistic timetables?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman raises a crucial point. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has asked Dr Weightman to conduct a review in the light of the problems in Japan. The details of his report will be established shortly, but the review will be conducted in close co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency and other international regulators to establish carefully what lessons can be learned. The reports will be put in the public domain and may well form the basis for a debate in due course.

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

I am sure the Leader of the House has seen the newspaper reports this week that the leader and deputy leader of Edinburgh city council were caught lying to the Scottish Parliament’s Public Audit Committee on the issue of the Gathering. Will the Government make a statement next week on probity in local government, so that such disgraceful behaviour does not happen again?

[Sir George Young]

I am not sure whether this would be in order, but the remaining stages of the Scotland Bill are before the House next Tuesday; with some ingenuity, the hon. Gentleman may be able to work the issue to which he refers into that debate.

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

BBC Radio Sheffield provides a much-valued service for the people of South Yorkshire, especially in times of crises, such as when the area flooded in 2007. May we have a debate on the future of BBC local radio in the context of the threat to the future of the service from the BBC Trust?

[Sir George Young]

There will be an opportunity on 28 March to raise that matter with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee is in the Chamber and will have heard the hon. Lady’s question. A bid for a debate on local radio might be well supported by all Members, and the Committee might provide an opportunity for such a debate in future either here or in Westminster Hall.

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

As you know, Mr Speaker, the Backbench Business Committee is given comparatively little time to allocate debates in the Chamber, and all Chamber time is liable to be withdrawn or eaten into by the Government at very short notice. Westminster Hall, on the other hand, has a regular, protected three-hour Thursday slot for Back Benchers, and it is just as effective at holding the Government to account as the Chamber. However, the more we look down our noses at Westminster Hall, the more difficult it will be to use the second Chamber as a way of holding the Government to account. Will the Leader of the House encourage Members to respond to the Procedure Committee’s sitting hours inquiry, including on the role of Westminster Hall, so that we can make full use of our second Chamber and not just see it as second best?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Lady said at the beginning of her question that her Backbench Business Committee did not get enough days in the Chamber, but it gets 35 more days than it got in the previous Parliament, so at least we are moving in the right direction.

I agree entirely with the hon. Lady on the importance of Westminster Hall. My hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will be there this afternoon for an important debate on privilege—I hope to look in on that. As she says, debates in Westminster Hall are not interrupted by statements or proceedings in the Chamber, and they take place at predictable times and for three hours. It is important that Westminster Hall is not seen as the poor relation of the Chamber. It is a partner and has a crucial role to play in our proceedings, and I would encourage all hon. Members, where appropriate, to take part.

Bill Presented

Tax and Financial Transparency Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Caroline Lucas, Kate Green and Jeremy Corbyn presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to take steps to require banks, corporations and trusts to provide information on their status, income arising and tax payments made in each jurisdiction in which they operate; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 June, and to be printed (Bill 166).

North Africa and the Middle East

Thursday 17th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the Foreign Secretary to open the debate, I remind Members of the House that in view of the level of interest in speaking in it, I have imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

12:16

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of North Africa and the Middle East.

Before turning to the entirety of that subject, Mr Speaker, you have indicated to me that it would be in order to say a few words about the situation in Japan, and that that would be an appropriate way of keeping the House up to date.

Clearly, the situation in Japan is of great concern. The devastation suffered in this crisis is truly appalling, and we are doing all we can to support the Japanese people during this traumatic time. We have severe concerns over a number of British nationals whom we have so far been unable to locate. Our consular teams in London and Japan are working round the clock to locate and assist British nationals. We are following up all the leads from the helpline that we have set up.

We advise against all non-essential travel to Tokyo and north-eastern Japan, given the damage caused by the earthquake and resulting aftershocks and tsunami. We are providing high levels of support for British nationals who are directly affected and their families, and have sent more than 50 additional staff to the affected region. They have been visiting reception centres, hospitals and locations affected by the earthquake and tsunami. Our assistance includes help with transport out of the immediate danger zone and from Sendai to Tokyo, and financial support for people who need essentials such as food, accommodation, clothing and telephone calls home. We are bussing British nationals from the Sendai region to reach Tokyo later today.

We know, too, that British residents in Tokyo and other parts of the country that were not directly affected by the tsunami are concerned, particularly by the situation at the Fukushima nuclear facility. We advise British nationals to follow all relevant advice from the Japanese authorities, and as an additional precautionary measure, not to go within 80 km of the site, and to stay indoors if they are within and unable to leave that area.

Owing to the evolving situation at that nuclear facility and potential disruptions to the supply of goods, transport, communications, power and other infrastructure, we are advising that British nationals currently in Tokyo and to the north of Tokyo should consider leaving the area. To help British nationals who wish to leave, we are chartering flights from Tokyo to Hong Kong to supplement the commercially available options. Full details of those flights will of course be made available through our website, and we are keeping that travel advice under constant review.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

As someone who has visited Japan regularly for 30 years—most recently last November—I want to place on the record my personal tribute to David Green, the ambassador, and his staff. The Foreign Office and its staff have done everything that could be done, and I was rather dismayed by the unpleasant criticisms in some of the papers today. Frankly, at this moment of tragedy, we should unite with the Japanese people and our staff in Japan, who are doing tremendous work.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I agree wholeheartedly with his comments, although David Warren is our ambassador in Tokyo, as I am sure he knows. Our staff are doing a tremendous job. There have been some criticisms of them, but I believe them to be baseless, and I hope the newspapers that have printed them will correct their accounts.

For good reason, the middle east has long been a central preoccupation in foreign affairs for successive British Governments and Members on both sides of the House. It is vital to our security and our economy, and many of the greatest challenges in foreign affairs, including nuclear proliferation, terrorism, religious extremism and piracy, are all present in the region. The search for peaceful co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians alone has demanded more international attention and effort than any other single international issue for most of the past 60 years, and the House will need no reminding of the loss of British lives during the war in Iraq.

On top of all those considerations, however, an unprecedented wave of change is now sweeping across the Arab world, triggering a series of simultaneous crises. Almost every middle eastern country has been affected at the same time by demands for greater political openness and democratic freedom. In Egypt and Tunisia, it has led to new interim Governments and the hope of a more democratic future. In Libya, legitimate protest has been followed by bloody civil strife at the hands of a Government willing to countenance any loss of life in order to cling to power. In each instance of instability, there have been implications for thousands of British expatriates who live and work in these countries, and I pay tribute, following the words of the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), to British and locally engaged Foreign Office staff who are serving British citizens valiantly in extremely difficult situations. I put on the record my gratitude to them for their continued and often unsung efforts.

Each nation involved has a distinct culture, political system and level of economic development, so whatever their futures hold, there will be no single model. However, there is clearly a common hunger for justice, accountability, political rights and economic opportunity, given that the overwhelming majority of the demonstrations that we have seen have been peaceful and staged spontaneously by ordinary citizens. Our message to all Governments of the region is that without change popular grievances will not go away. The right to peaceful protest must be respected and responded to with dialogue.

[Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

Did the Foreign Secretary notice, as I did, the impressive women-only demonstration in Benghazi yesterday? Does he agree that there can be no real democracy in any country unless there is the participation of women? It is regrettable that the military regime now in place in Egypt has appointed a constitutional committee in which no female lawyer is present.

[Mr Hague]

I very much agree with the right hon. Lady. If democracy is able to develop in these countries, it will be much stronger for the widespread participation of women. In the view of this House and the country, it would not be true democracy without that participation, but we cannot impose our culture on other countries. However, I will come on to ways in which we can act as a positive magnet for change and a demonstration of such democratic values.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I agree with the Foreign Secretary that there is a thirst for peaceful, constitutional and democratic change across the region. However, that raises questions about at what point Britain has seriously contested human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Bahrain and several other places, and at what point our thirst for selling arms outweighed our serious concerns about human rights throughout the region. We need a complete rethink of western strategy towards the whole region. Does he agree?

[Mr Hague]

I agree with part of the last bit of what the hon. Gentleman said. The pace and scale of events are such that many things will have to be rethought in the future. There is no doubt about that. However, to be fair to previous Governments and our record in office over the past 10 months, Britain has always been prepared to raise human rights. In Bahrain, for instance, which is a country with which we have strong and friendly relations, we have never hesitated, within the context of that strong relationship, to raise human rights concerns. Our ambassador there has always done so, sometimes to the annoyance of the Bahraini authorities. When I was there last month, of course I met the leaders of Bahrain, but I also met human rights organisations and raised their specific cases. It is possible, therefore, to have working relationships while pushing hard on human rights and arguing that future economic development and political stability are not in contradiction to human rights, but actually depend on the better observance of human rights and other such values. This country should take that position strongly.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Hague]

I must be able to get into my speech, but let me give way to a few more hon. Members.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Is the Foreign Secretary particularly concerned about this morning’s news from Bahrain and some of the footage on the internet that clearly shows unarmed protesters being shot in the streets there? The authorities are clearly beginning to follow the path of brutality and repression that I am afraid other states have tried as well.

[Mr Hague]

I will come on to Bahrain. I want to make a few general points and then go quickly through each of the countries concerned. Perhaps I can respond to those points then.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that for decades British ambassadors throughout the Gulf, pressed by their political masters, having been urging political reform on those countries? It is nothing new; it is just that they have not been heeded.

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend, who knows the region and our diplomats there well, is absolutely right; it has been done by British ambassadors under, as I said, successive Governments. This is not a partisan point. However, its importance has been enhanced by recent events, and the connection between political stability, the proper observance of human rights and the development of democracy has been underlined by them.

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

I draw the House’s attention to my registered interest in this matter. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us on how many occasions since Monday the Prime Minister has spoken to President Obama about these human rights issues?

[Mr Hague]

The Prime Minister speaks to President Obama extremely regularly. The same goes at all levels of the US and UK Governments. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman the number of times they have spoken about human rights, but we have continual discussions with the US Government on all these issues—I spoke to Secretary Clinton last night, for instance. I can update the hon. Gentleman on that point another time, but I do not have the details to hand.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend speaks of human rights, but human rights include the right to live as well as the right to protest. As we speak, it appears that Benghazi airport is being attacked and people there are being massacred. Why have the arrangements for lifting the arms embargo in relation to those in the resistance not been followed up, despite calls by me and others over the past two weeks—when there was time to do that—for such action? I understand the problems, but it appears that no real attempt has been made. I think that we will pay a great price for not having done so.

[Mr Hague]

Again, I will come on to the situation in Libya. My hon. Friend knows that UN resolution 1970 was passed nearly three weeks ago, which placed an arms embargo on the whole of Libya, as well as many restrictions and sanctions on the Libyan regime. He also knows that we are arguing urgently—these discussions are starting again as we speak in New York—for a new UN resolution that would improve our ability and that of our international partners, including in the Arab world, to protect and support the civilian population in Libya. I will say more about that in a moment.

My argument fits with the issues that hon. Members have been raising. The right to peaceful protest must be respected and responded to with dialogue, and no country can safely or legitimately ignore these demands. Indeed, in both Tunisia and Egypt, Governments paid the price for not responding quickly enough to the aspirations of their people. The example of Tunisia, where preparations for elections are being made, media censorship has been removed, political prisoners have been freed and formerly banned political parties have been allowed to operate for the first time, has inspired others in the region and raised their expectations. To some extent and in some ways, the same is true in Egypt, although there are deficiencies, as the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) has pointed out. However, Egypt’s internal security agency, which for decades has been blamed for human rights abuses and was regarded as a powerful symbol of state oppression, has been abolished.

These extraordinary times call for an unprecedented response by the international community. We have not brought about these events, and neither we nor our allies can determine the future of middle eastern countries or dictate who leads them, but we cannot be bystanders. Our values and interests require us to be actively involved in encouraging economic and political development, to stand up for universal human rights and to give practical assistance where we can. If change can be achieved peacefully in the middle east, it will be the biggest advance of democratic freedoms since the countries of the old Warsaw pact threw off the oppressive yoke of communism. However, if change cannot be achieved peacefully, we are likely to see turmoil and unrest that sets back the cause of democracy and human rights, erodes gains that have been made, betrays the hopes of many who look to us for support, and damages our interests, including our security. As the Prime Minister said in his speech to the Kuwaiti Parliament:

“political and economic reform in the Arab world is essential as a long term guarantor of stability,”

prosperity and security. We will not be silent in our belief that freedom and the rule of law are what best guarantee human progress and economic success, and that each country should find its own path to achieving peaceful change.

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

I look forward to an update on the current situation in the middle east. On the points that the right hon. Gentleman has already raised, is it not critical that, while recognising the great differences among those countries, the UK and the west should be consistent in upholding democratic and human rights principles?

[Mr Hague]

It is indeed important to be consistent, but it is also important to couple that—as the hon. Gentleman did—with a recognition that there are many differences in countries and cultures. The imposition on other countries of everything that we believe in our country is not always the best way of getting people to do what we think is the right thing.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

rose—

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

rose—

[Mr Hague]

I will take two more interventions and then I really must crack on a bit.

[Keith Vaz]

I am most grateful to the Foreign Secretary for allowing this intervention. May I take him to Yemen? He might not have mentioned Yemen yet, but he might be mentioning it later in his speech, so may I ask that the process that has been started will continue and that a Minister will attend the Friends of Yemen meeting in Riyadh that starts next week? I acknowledge the need for reform, but let me say that the enormous amount of face time that the Foreign Secretary and the Department for International Development have invested in keeping Yemen as stable as possible is also important.

[Mr Hague]

I will come to Yemen in a moment, to which several of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and I give great priority. The Friends of Yemen meeting may have been overtaken by events, but the Gulf Co-operation Council is attempting to convene a meeting to bring about agreement between Government and opposition forces in Yemen on the way forward. That is the essential next step.

[Mr Ellwood]

My right hon. Friend has explained the gargantuan changes taking place across the region. There can be a tendency on our part to celebrate the removal of one dictator but then encourage the same thing to continue somewhere else. Will my right hon. Friend focus on what is happening in Egypt, where the revolution—if we can call it that—is only 40% of the way there? There are worrying developments involving the Muslim Brotherhood and the army excluding other opposition voices. Where Egypt goes other Arab countries often follow. We may have got rid of one dictatorship, but we need to be careful about what is put in its place.

[Mr Hague]

That is a very helpful intervention because it brings me neatly on to the next paragraph of my intended speech, which is about exactly that point.

The Prime Minister and I both met young people in Egypt and Tunisia respectively whose passionate desire to live in democratic societies bounded by the rule of law was inspiring and a great source of optimism for the future of those countries. We are ready to play our part and help to ensure that the scenario that my hon. Friend pointed to does not come about. In Tunisia, I announced our new Arab partnership initiative, which will support the development of the core building blocks of democracy, including free media, civil society, political participation and private sector development—work that we hope will be continued for many years with cross-party support in this House. We are already funding experts to assist Tunisia’s political reform commission as it drafts the new electoral law. We are also offering advice on financial governance and the key economic challenges that the country faces. In Egypt, our embassy is working closely with the Government, opposition political activists and think-tanks, calling for a clear timetable for democratic elections that meet the aspirations of the Egyptian people.

We will continue that active role in British foreign policy. The Prime Minister and I have between us visited 11 countries in the region since January, and we will be visiting many more, but this is clearly a challenge to the international community as a whole. Together we must encourage further change across the region, support those countries that have already made a democratic transition and welcome positive steps towards reform by others, which is an important part of the policy. Such steps include the Government of Algeria ending their state of emergency, the important statements made by the King of Morocco last week on constitutional reform, and the programmes of political and economic reform put forward by the leaders of Jordan and Oman. These are all important steps that have been brought about directly by recent events.

Iran, of course, is an exception to that. Iran has shown breathtaking hypocrisy in claiming to support freedom in the Arab world, while violently suppressing demonstrations and detaining opposition leaders back home—acts that we deplore. We want Iranian citizens to enjoy full civil, political and human rights, and all the benefits of an open relationship with the rest of the world, but that will require the settlement of the nuclear issue, where the ball is firmly in Iran’s court. Until Iran negotiates seriously on that issue, the international pressure on it will only increase.[Official Report, 22 March 2011, Vol. 525, c. 24MC.]

[Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary is right that there is a passion for democracy, although I find that this passion is often shared more by would-be politicians and political leaders. The public in Egypt and many other countries want not just free elections but, much more importantly, the institutions that are the foundation of democracy—the rule of law, a free and independent judiciary, and a free press. Obviously they take rather longer to develop, but what efforts will we make to ensure that they develop?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is quite right that democracy is not just the holding of elections. We are all familiar with countries where elections of a kind are held, but we would not call them democracies. Indeed, some of the countries concerned used to hold elections. Democracy does indeed require all those things—an independent judiciary, strong civil institutions, free media, and so on. I have already outlined what we are doing in Tunisia to support their development, and I want to put the argument about what the European Union as a whole can do to encourage them.

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

The Foreign Secretary mentioned the position of the Iranian Government. Does he share my absolute disgust at the nauseating, hypocritical remarks of President Ahmadinejad, who has protested about what is happening in Bahrain, but at the same time is suppressing people in his own country? Can the Foreign Secretary say something about the role that Iran might be playing in fomenting difficulties between Shi’a and Sunni communities in the Arab world?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman does not overstate his case. The words that he uses are wholly appropriate to the words and behaviour of the President of Iran. I do not have direct evidence of Iranian interference in, for instance, the affairs of Bahrain—although many would suspect such interference and influence—but with Iran’s links to Hezbollah and Hamas, I do not think that it is currently playing a positive role in bringing about peace in the middle east.

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

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that economic progress in such countries will be an important buttress to democratic progress? Does he also agree that a unity of purpose both among European Union and NATO members and across the Atlantic will give us the best chance of achieving the objectives that he has set out?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, very much so. Again, that brings me to my next point.

There are many international organisations, such as the United Nations and the World Bank, that will have an important role to play in supporting democratic development in the region. However, there is a particular onus on European countries to be bold and ambitious. In a sense we have been here before, when we helped the young democracies of central and eastern Europe. The nations of north Africa are not European and will not join the European Union. Nevertheless, this is the most significant watershed in the external relations of the EU since that time, and we must be ready with a positive vision for the region that can act as a magnet for change.

Over the past two months, the Prime Minister and I have made the case in EU meetings for a transformed EU neighbourhood policy that supports the building blocks of democracy in the Arab world, offers incentives for positive change and targets its funding effectively. The German Foreign Minister, Guido Westerwelle, and I wrote to our colleagues last week calling for a comprehensive partnership of equals between the peoples of Europe and the European neighbourhood, underpinned by deeper and wider economic integration and using the many instruments at the disposal of the EU to promote freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights. We believe that this transformation partnership should bring all the EU levers and incentives into one policy, and give the greatest support and benefits to those countries reforming fastest, with clear conditions attached.

We have proposed a path towards deeper economic integration with the European market, in clear stages leading up to a free trade area and, eventually, a customs union, progressively covering goods, agriculture and services. We are calling for an increase in the number of scholarships and grants, access to the resources of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the re-apportionment of EU funds in favour of democratic reforms, the removal of existing quotas for countries that disregard the fundamental values of the EU, and consideration of an EU regional protection programme for north Africa to support the protection of displaced persons and to improve local infrastructure.

[Mr Cash]

Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

[Mr Hague]

I did not want to upset my hon. Friend by talking about the European Union, which in this case has a hugely positive role to play, with the nations of Europe acting together. I will give way to him one more time.

[Mr Cash]

In the light of the Prime Minister’s attempts to get a no-fly zone—which are greatly appreciated by many people on this side, and across the House—and the problem of not being able to supply arms to the resistance, surely the Foreign Secretary understands that these problems have arisen because the European Union, among others, has been resistant to those ideas. We do not have the necessary unity, and talking about quotas, assets and all the rest of it has no bearing on the real problem, which is that we need to help the people who are in such peril in Libya at the moment.

[Mr Hague]

I am going to talk about Libya in a moment. What I am talking about now is the long-term approach of the United Kingdom and, we hope, the whole of the European Union to the region. I am talking about the offer that should be made, and the magnet that should be held out to encourage positive change in the region. If all the levers and policies of the European Union relating to its neighbourhood were brought into one coherent policy, even my hon. Friend might be driven to agree that that could play a positive role in the developments in the region.

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

The Foreign Secretary will be aware that the European neighbourhood policy has spent several billion euros over the years on trying to evolve a policy on that region. At the same time, Turkey has been much more successful, in economic and political terms. Will he tell us whether Turkey will be included in this new initiative, rather than excluded, as it has been in the past?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, that is a very important point. I certainly want this to be coherently organised with Turkey as well. Turkey is of course a positive model of democracy in a Muslim nation, and it has a vital role to play in the entire future development of the middle east. That is one of the reasons that we have placed such importance on bilateral relations with Turkey, and on the EU’s relations with the country.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

First, may I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his excellent leadership of his Department, given the multiple challenges that it faces? I also congratulate his ministerial colleagues.

Turkey wants to become a key member of the European Union. It is today a key member of NATO. This is a moment of truth for Turkey. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Prime Minister Erdogan’s statement that the no-fly zone proposed by the United Kingdom Prime Minister would be an unacceptable intervention in Libya will perhaps not help Turkey to attract the support of the Turkey-sceptics in this House or in other European Parliaments, especially that of France, that it needs?

[Mr Hague]

We must not expect the countries that we work with to agree with us or with each other on every single issue all the time. Yes, the Prime Minister of Turkey has made remarks to that effect, but that does not mean that Turkey will not have a powerful role to play in the wider relationship between the European nations and the countries of the middle east over the next decade.

The European Union must now follow through on the European Council’s declaration of last Friday and make a real and credible offer to those countries, involving genuinely broader market access and the prospect of closer association with Europe. I hope that there will be considerable support across the House for such an approach. It is a long-standing strength of British foreign policy towards the middle east that it receives a wide degree of bipartisan support—tripartisan support, indeed—in Parliament and beyond, and that is something that this Government hope to foster and continue.

I also believe that there is support in the House for our view that the peace process must not become a casualty of uncertainty in the region. It is too important to be allowed to fail. There are dangerous undercurrents in the region, including the existence of armed groups wedded to violence and young people vulnerable to radicalisation, and a vacuum in the peace process risks conflict and even greater instability. Furthermore, the changing situation on the ground—in particular the illegal encroachment of settlements on the west bank and East Jerusalem, the isolation of Gaza and the entrenchment of Palestinian divisions—has made a two-state solution harder to achieve. Such a solution is the only lasting hope for sustainable peace and security in the region, but it is possible to foresee that the option of a two-state solution will have an expiry date if it is not taken up now.

In our view, the Quartet could help to achieve a breakthrough in the current stalemate by setting out in a statement the parameters for a future settlement. These should include: 1967 borders with equivalent land swaps; arrangements that protect Israel’s security and respect Palestinian sovereignty; just, fair and agreed solutions for refugees; and Jerusalem as the capital of both states. The statement should call on both sides to commit to negotiations based on those clear principles. Britain, France and Germany made such a statement at the UN on 18 February.

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

I certainly recognise all the difficulties that the Foreign Secretary has identified, but does he also recognise the problems created by Iran in relation to the peace process? For example, it sent more than 50 tonnes of illegal weapons bound for Gaza on a ship that was intercepted by the Israelis only a few days ago.

[Mr Hague]

I fully recognise the often deeply unhelpful role of Iran; I have already referred to that in a different context. I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady about that, but I also say, as a long-standing friend of Israel, that putting real energy into bringing about a two-state solution is the best way to secure the future that the friends of Israel want to see for it—namely, as a peaceful, secure democracy and a homeland for the Jewish people. We will make that case energetically over the coming weeks. For Britain, that also includes continuing our firm and frank dialogue with Syria on Lebanon, including the special tribunal for Lebanon, and on the importance of progress on a peace agreement between Syria and Israel.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Settlements are often cited as a barrier to peace, but does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that Israel initiated a 10-month freeze on the building of settlements and that the Palestinians came to the negotiations nine months later, leaving only one month for talks?

[Mr Hague]

I am not arguing that all the fault is on one side. There have been failures by Israeli and Palestinian leaders over the past few years to take the opportunity to make real progress in the peace process. However, I strongly wish that the Israeli Government had decided to continue the moratorium on settlement building, in order to give the direct talks that began last September a better chance. We urge all concerned, on both sides, to make the necessary compromises to bring about peace.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Hague]

I am conscious that many other hon. Members wish to speak, so perhaps I should continue. I want to talk about the instability in Bahrain, Yemen and, of course, Libya. I shall then conclude my speech so that others can speak.

As we speak, there is continued unrest in Bahrain and deep instability in Yemen. In both cases, our immediate priority is the welfare of British nationals as well as the need to support dialogue and political reform. In Bahrain, the situation is serious and deteriorating, and the whole House will deplore the loss of life and the escalation of violence. The Prime Minister spoke to the King of Bahrain two evenings ago to emphasise that violence is unacceptable and counter-productive—whether it be from protesters, vigilante groups or the security forces. I spoke to the Foreign Minister of Bahrain along the same lines yesterday.

We call on all security forces in the country not to use violence against the demonstrators, and on the demonstrators not to engage in provocative or intimidating actions. It is essential for all sides to take steps to calm the situation in Bahrain. We are extremely concerned by reports that opposition figures have been arrested. We do not want to see a reversion to the days when Bahrain routinely held political prisoners. The Government and the security forces must respect the civil rights of peaceful protesters, the right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, and must uphold their obligations to ensure that wounded protesters get immediate access to medical treatment. We also call on opposition groups to enter the dialogue offered by the Bahraini Government and to desist from violence themselves.

We advise against all travel to Bahrain until further notice and we recommend that British nationals who do not have a pressing reason to remain should leave. The first option for British nationals should remain commercial routes, which continue to fly to and from Bahrain international airport, which is operating normally. In addition, the UK Government are chartering planes to supplement those commercial flights. That will assist the departure of British nationals from Bahrain to Dubai today and further flights will be provided as needed.

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

I have absolutely no illusions about the thuggery of Gaddafi, which has been evident since 1969. If we had already intervened in Libya—I mean western intervention or British intervention on its own—would not the response inevitably be, including from myself, why not intervene in Bahrain?

[Mr Hague]

It is important not to think about the issue—I am coming on to Libya in a few moments—in terms of western intervention; it is about the responsibilities of the wider world, including the Arab world. That is why we have said that whatever we do in Libya—it applies to other nations as well—it must be legal; there must be a demonstrable need for it; and there should be broad support for it within the region. Any action that appeared to be “the west” trying to impose itself on these countries would be counter-productive, as has been suggested.

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

rose—

[Mr Hague]

I will give way one more time, to my hon. Friend, before I move on to deal with Libya.

[Rehman Chishti]

I thank the Foreign Secretary, but does he agree that the monarchy in Bahrain has made considerable reforms, including a referendum on a constitution in 2001 and an elected Parliament? Has my right hon. Friend made an assessment of Iran’s current involvement in the Bahrain situation?

[Mr Hague]

I mentioned Iran’s involvement earlier, but I agree with my hon. Friend that there have been many positive attempts at reform in Bahrain. It is important not to view Bahrain and Libya as analogous. In the case of Bahrain, the Government have genuinely offered dialogue with opposition groups and offered a referendum on a new constitution. Colonel Gaddafi is not in the position of offering a referendum to his people on a constitution—he is at the other extreme. All these circumstances should not be considered to be analogous.

We are also advising against all travel to the whole of Yemen, where the situation is very fragile. On 4 March, we advised all British nationals in Yemen to leave by commercial means if they had no pressing reason to remain. On 12 March, we updated our advice to nationals saying they should leave immediately by commercial means while they are still available. We welcome the President’s initiative a week ago, in which he set out plans to amend the Yemeni constitution, to move from a presidential to a parliamentary system and to respect the right of peaceful protest and address the protesters’ demands. The Yemeni authorities must now urgently demonstrate their commitment to dialogue with all opposition groups committed to a peaceful and orderly political transition. Violence and other heavy-handed techniques against peaceful protesters undermine attempts to create dialogue and diplomatic activity in support of it. All Yemenis have the right to protest peacefully and participate in the political process. We urge all parties to come together in a constructive and credible fashion to achieve an orderly transition so that all Yemenis, with the support of the UK and Friends of Yemen, can address the urgent economic needs of their country. We continue to follow developments closely.

The most immediate challenge—several hon. Members have already raised the issue and it is the last subject that I shall address—continues to be the appalling situation in Libya. As we speak, regime forces continue to bombard rebel-held areas and are making threats to retake Benghazi. We remind all concerned in Libya that the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has begun his investigation, and that for those committing or considering crimes, the reach of international justice will be long.

The UK has been at the forefront, with France, of international efforts to isolate the Gaddafi regime. As we have been reminded in the debate, time has been of the essence throughout this crisis, as the regime has sought to use every day to regain ground. We have already achieved the fastest EU sanctions, the fastest UN Security Council sanctions regime, the fastest referral to the International Criminal Court and the first suspension of a member state by the UN Human Rights Council. We are working at this moment to agree a new UN Security Council resolution, following up urgently the lead given by the Arab League, which has called for the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya and the creation of safe areas in places exposed to shelling.

The grounds for a new resolution are clear: there are multiple breaches of resolution 1970. Gaddafi is ignoring the Security Council’s unanimous call for

“an immediate end to violence”,

and we also have concerns about the policing of the arms embargo and the use of mercenaries. Following extensive consultations with Lebanon, France, the US and others, the text of a further UN Security Council resolution on Libya will be under discussion today.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

I completely agree that, as far as Libya is concerned, we cannot be bystanders. The Prime Minister has acknowledged in the past 24 hours the wide range of views on the Security Council about the no-fly zone, and I was encouraged by the Foreign Secretary’s comments. I was surprised, however, to read that the Prime Minister has spoken to President Obama about Libya and the imposition of a no-fly zone only once in the last week. I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary could expand on what he sees as the principal obstacle for the American Administration in moving towards the no-fly zone. In the Foreign Secretary’s view, what is holding them back?

[Mr Hague]

There is nothing holding them back. Yesterday, the US proposed a strengthening of the resolution, which the UK, France and Lebanon put forward together at the Security Council, so the US position came out very clearly there. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as I said earlier, there is massive, sometimes hourly contact between the United States and the United Kingdom—at the Security Council, with the Secretary of State, with the National Security Adviser, with the State Department, with the Pentagon and between 10 Downing street and the White House. That contact is going on all the time, so trying to make out that we are not in touch with the US Government, when we should all be working together on these huge issues, has something ridiculous about it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Hague]

I shall give way only to Members to whom I have not already given way. I really must conclude my speech in a few minutes’ time.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend. Will he confirm whether assessments show that a no-fly zone is likely to be effective against the ground attacks against the Libyan rebels? Will he confirm that in order to mount such a no-fly operation quickly, carrier-borne aircraft—sadly, not ours—will be essential at the beginning? Will he further confirm that if we are involved in such operations, they will be paid for by funds additional to the existing defence budget and not subtracted from it?

[Mr Hague]

Financial arrangements will depend on the circumstances and discussions in government, and are secondary to the urgency of taking these decisions. No, carrier-borne aircraft are not necessary, as none of the contingency planning of any of the nations involves the use of aircraft carriers. I agree with my hon. Friend on one point—that a no-fly zone is not the complete answer, although it might be one element that helps. Having a no-fly zone does not mean that everything would be sorted out and everybody would be fully protected. We should not pretend otherwise. As I say, it is one element and the Arab League has called for it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Hague]

I cannot give way to Members to whom I have given way already. In order to be fair to the House, I must end my speech in a few minutes. However, I will give way to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan), because I have not given way to him before.

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

Notwithstanding the bravery of the diplomatic corps and, indeed, the military in Libya, may I share with the Foreign Secretary the experiences of my constituent James Coyle, who was eventually brought back to Britain from Libya? He and his family, and indeed his employer, experienced great difficulty in communicating with the Foreign Office and obtaining information. Has the Foreign Secretary had time to reflect on what lessons have been learned, and on how we can best deal with such circumstances in the future?

[Mr Hague]

It is important for the hon. Gentleman to remember that, thanks to the commendable organisation, immense bravery and skill of the Royal Air Force and the special forces, people such as his constituent were lifted out of the desert in Libya and brought safely home. That is something of which we in the House should be proud, rather than trying to find fault with the way in which the exercise was carried out. I am sure that people who are rescued in those circumstances will be grateful for what the United Kingdom did for them. Certainly the people of 43 other nationalities in whose evacuation from Libya we assisted are very grateful for our assistance.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hague]

I will give way, for the last time, to my right hon. and learned Friend the former Foreign Secretary.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind]

My right hon. Friend told us that a new Security Council resolution might be in the process of being tabled. If I understood him correctly, he said that part of the thinking behind it related to evidence that Colonel Gaddafi might be seeking to breach the arms embargo restrictions. Does he agree that it would be intolerable for the Gaddafi regime—which is already very heavily armed—to be able to continue to obtain additional armaments while the insurgents who are fighting it are being denied access to any military equipment because of legal advice that the arms embargo has been drafted so tightly that it extends beyond the Gaddafi regime to other elements in Libya? If there is to be a new Security Council resolution, will my right hon. Friend do all in his power to ensure that it clarifies the fact that the embargo is directed against the Gaddafi regime, and does not prevent the provision of help for those who are fighting it?

[Mr Hague]

The situation described by my right hon. and learned Friend would indeed be intolerable. That is why the proper enforcement and policing of the arms embargo is an important and legitimate subject for the resolution. However, I do not want to leave my right hon. and learned Friend in any doubt about what the Security Council intended by the arms embargo in resolution 1970. It was clearly intended to apply to the whole of Libya. Any change would have to be embodied in a further resolution: that is the legal position, as understood by the Security Council and all its permanent members. The solution, or attempt at a solution, that is most likely to be agreed by the Security Council is a thorough and full enforcement and policing of the arms embargo, rather than amendments to an embargo that was agreed nearly three weeks ago.

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

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hague]

No, I will not give way any more. I must be fair to the rest of the House.

The draft resolution that is being discussed today includes demands for an immediate ceasefire, a complete end to violence, and a ban on all flights in Libyan airspace with the exception of humanitarian flights. It authorises all necessary measures to enforce compliance with that ban. It calls for all necessary measures short of an occupation force to protect civilians under threat of attack, including those in Benghazi. It also includes a variety of measures to enforce the arms embargo in Libya, to tighten the assets freeze and travel ban imposed on regime members, and to deny Libyan planes permission to take off from, land in or overfly the territory of UN member states.

There is a range of views in the Security Council on the measures that have been proposed, and the draft resolution already reflects that range of views. We must not pretend that agreement on the proposal, or even on large elements of it, will be easy. However, we are clear about the fact that it is right to seek authority for a combination of measures for the people of Libya, for all those in the region who are campaigning for change, and for Britain’s national security. Negotiations on the proposals are beginning now in New York, and the Government will keep the House and the country informed of developments as they arise. We will do our utmost to ensure the passing of a resolution that places the maximum pressure on the Libyan regime and extends protection to the beleaguered and oppressed civilian population of Libya.

This, then, is our approach to the middle east. It is to be on the side of the legitimate hopes and aspirations of millions of people who seek change and reform; to encourage Europe to act as a magnet for the long-term future for economic openness and political stability and democracy; to champion the cause of the middle east peace process, and to advocate renewed strong international engagement on it; to confront the dangers posed by the nuclear intentions of Iran; to seek, however we can and at all times, to protect British nationals and bring them to safety; to encourage dialogue in very troubled countries such as Bahrain and Yemen; and now—today—to seek international agreement on protection and support for the people of Libya.

13:06

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Let me begin by associating myself with the Foreign Secretary’s expression of support for the people of Japan. I have noted all that he has told the House today about the position of United Kingdom nationals. I urge him to continue to monitor this very worrying situation closely, and, of course, to keep the public and the House up to date in the days ahead.

I welcome the debate. It is always important for the House to dedicate time to discussing complex issues such as this, but it is especially significant today. As Members in all parts of the House will be aware, we meet at a time when north Africa and the middle east face a moment of great possibility but also great peril. In the 20th century, our own continent of Europe twice generated conflicts that in turn engulfed the world. Today, the middle east generates many of the most threatening challenges faced by the international community.

The courageous youthful protests and their advocacy of human rights, freedom and democracy, in what has come to be termed the Arab spring, have swept aside old assumptions, and still present an opportunity for the catalysing of fundamental change in the region. Although these popular revolts have been generated within and not beyond the region, I believe that the international community must develop a coherent and strategic response which encompasses countries that have experienced popular revolts in recent weeks and now aspire to be democratic Governments, and other countries in the region with which we have long-standing relations; which maps our response to the security challenges that still confront the region; and which, even at this late hour, responds with urgency to the distinctive circumstances in Libya.

[Mr Jenkin]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Alexander]

I am keen to make a little progress, but I shall be happy to take an intervention later.

Peace and security in the middle east remains one of the most important foreign policy objectives of our country. Let me begin by addressing the conflict that has generated grievance across the region for so many decades: the Israel-Palestine conflict. There is today, I believe, fairly broad agreement across the House about the steps that are required for movement from a peace process to a peace agreement. We are broadly united in the view that the entire international community, including our friends and allies in the United States, should now support the 1967 borders with land swaps as the basis for resumed negotiations. The outcome of those negotiations should be two states, with Jerusalem as a future capital of both, and a fair settlement for refugees. My party will stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government if they take the necessary steps to bring others in the region, and beyond, to that point of view. Let me incidentally affirm that the Government’s decision this month to back a United Nations Security Council resolution making clear Britain’s opposition to illicit settlement building by Israel was the right decision, despite the veto exercised by the United States.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Does my right hon. Friend not accept that settlement building is illegal, end of? Why are we still talking about moratoriums and suspensions, when the issue should be no settlement building whatsoever, and withdrawal of those settlements from the west bank? This should not be a matter for negotiation; it should be a matter for the assertion of international law.

[Mr Alexander]

I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me if I say that there may be a rather Jesuitical distinction between a moratorium and an end to settlements. However, we are on common ground in believing that settlements are illegal. As I have said, this is an urgent issue, which needs to be addressed through a reinvigorated process in the months ahead.

Historians will spend decades analysing the causes of the sweeping changes across the broader region in recent months, but we can, perhaps, all agree on one overriding factor. In a speech in Cairo in 2009, President Obama affirmed his

“unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose.”

The events of the last few months have given the lie to the idea of Arab exceptionalism: the notion that somehow the middle east is immune to the appeal of more democratic governance and that the aspiration for a better life is somehow not universal. We can, and must, use British influence to support political transitions in north Africa, a region that is just 8 miles from Europe at its nearest point. Europe’s security and stability would be better served by having more stable, prosperous and democratic neighbours on its southern border.

I have said previously that I believe the European Union to have been “slow off the mark” in its response to the events in Egypt and Tunisia, but the EU has an honourable record in assisting its eastern neighbours in their transition to democracy. For those countries to the east, there was a clear link between democratisation and the rule of law and the goal of accession. Given that accession is not on offer to the north African countries, we must think about what Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski has rather colourfully called “multiple small carrots” in respect of European support for countries in transition to democracy in north Africa. In years to come, that should mean multiple elements of conditionality too, if regimes backslide into the ways of the past.

How would such a programme need to develop? First, as was the case when the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development swung into action almost 20 years ago, these societies are in need of capital investment. The European Union’s High Representative has spoken about the European Investment Bank increasing its work in north Africa, and I take from the brief reference to that that the Government are supportive of the suggestion.

[Mr MacShane]

Yesterday a number of Members from all parties met Tunisian Ministers and the Tunisian ambassador, and found out that, rather dismayingly, Tunisia has not been, and is not, what is called a priority country in respect of the overseas trade activities of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. That highlights the real problem: we have taken our eye off the north African ball for far too long—that applies to both recent Governments.

[Mr Alexander]

Let me continue the recently established tradition of the Foreign Secretary in thanking my right hon. Friend for that intervention, especially given that the next paragraph of my speech addresses the issue of trade.

I welcome the fact that the Government now advocate that the Commission should be developing a package of trade measures that addresses in particular the tariffs and quotas that currently lock out north African agricultural goods, not least those from Tunisia. Further, each European country, with their different democratic traditions, should stand ready to assist those countries working to strengthen and support civil society. I hope I speak for all in this House in paying tribute to the work of our own Westminster Foundation for Democracy, and I hope it will be able to play an active role in supporting that transition.

However, just because the media’s focus has moved on from Egypt, that does not mean the process of change in Egypt is now complete. When the Minister winds up, will he update the House on what discussions the Government have had with the military authorities in Egypt about the timetable and preparations for the free and fair elections?

[Mr Cash]

On the right hon. Gentleman’s recitation of the advantages of the EU in the context of trade and investment, it should be pointed out that we have been supplying moneys to the Maghreb countries for generations, so there is nothing new in that. The real question about the crisis in Libya, and the massacre that may yet come, is this: does he believe it was right that there was resistance within the EU to the no-fly zone, and what does he think about the failure to lift the embargo for those in the part of Libya around Benghazi who need arms and are fighting valiantly, but who are increasingly in peril?

[Mr Alexander]

Let me try to address each of the three questions that the hon. Gentleman cunningly asked within that single intervention. First, I was seeking to make a different point about the EU position. I was saying that trade barriers are a crucial issue if we are to enable these countries to trade their way out of the stagnation that has contributed to many of the problems in the region. I accept that there are issues in relation to resource transfer, and I am on the record as saying about the EU’s external budget that we should look at whether, for example, resources should be transferred from Latin America to north Africa in the light of what we have witnessed. There is a pressing challenge in relation to trade, therefore.

Secondly, on the European Council’s deliberations on Friday, it was disappointing that there were such discordant voices around the table. It is not yet fully clear to me whether a specific proposal was tabled at the EC, or whether a general conversation ensued. From my experience of working in the Foreign Office as Europe Minister in a different period, I was surprised that the judgment was made that a joint letter issued by the British Prime Minister and the French President was likely to secure European unity. Given the need to try to secure not least the support of Chancellor Merkel, I would have thought a more judicious approach might have been to try to ensure the co-operation and engagement of Berlin at an earlier stage in the process.

The hon. Gentleman’s third point was about the arming of the rebels. I have consistently made it clear during this crisis that all options should remain on the table and all contingencies should be considered by the international community. I am not convinced that the EU would be the appropriate body in that regard, but I have said that all contingencies should remain on the table.

Let me now make a little more progress with my speech. First, I ask the Minister who winds up this evening to answer the following questions on Egypt: have the British Government taken steps to ensure that the Egyptian authorities release the political prisoners who were detained at the time of the protests, and what specific recommendations have been made on the recognition of trade unions and other institutions in Egyptian civil society?

On 14 February, the Secretary of State told this House:

“We have also received a request from the Egyptian Government to freeze the assets of several former Egyptian officials. We will of course co-operate with this request, working with EU and international partners as we have done in the case of Tunisia. If there is any evidence of illegality or misuse of state assets, we will take firm and prompt action.”—[Official Report, 14 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 715.]

We discovered only at Foreign Office questions on Tuesday of this week that the Government did not have the necessary information from the Egyptian authorities and that our European partners were not moving quickly enough. Will the Minister therefore tell the House what steps the Government have taken to get the necessary information from the Egyptian authorities, and what the Government are doing to move the process along in the European Union?

Bahrain has, rightly, already been the subject of a number of interventions. The situation in Bahrain is deeply worrying, and it is deteriorating. The real risk today is not simply that the legitimate aspirations for reform and change in that country are denied—important thought that is—but that this tiny island could become the violent fulcrum of a wider battle for regional influence. That is why I stand with the Government in their urging of restraint in these dangerous days. Indiscriminate violence used against peaceful protests is unacceptable anywhere and should be condemned comprehensively.

The security response taking place in Bahrain cannot be a substitute for a political resolution. A political solution is necessary and all sides must exercise restraint and work to produce a dialogue that addresses the needs of all the Bahraini citizens. I listened with care to the Foreign Secretary’s remarks indicating that our Prime Minister had talked to the King of Bahrain and that the Foreign Secretary himself had spoken to the Bahraini Foreign Minister, and I welcome those interventions, but may I ask the Minister to tell the House what representations the Government of the United Kingdom have made to the Government of Saudi Arabia to urge restraint, and have our Government obtained a clear picture of Saudi Arabia’s intentions in Bahrain?

Reform towards a constitutional monarchy is being countenanced not only in Bahrain: in Morocco on 9 March King Mohammed tasked a group of esteemed Moroccans, including dissidents, to draft a new constitution. In particular, he called for a separation of powers, including an independent judiciary, a more equitable system of governance across the country’s provinces, and a series of amendments that would enshrine individual liberties, human rights and gender equality. What some have called “the King’s revolution” must translate words into deeds and the promise of reform into the reality of change.

Elsewhere across north Africa and the middle east we need to be consistent in urging the embrace of more democratic reform, which is why, on Yemen, the Government are right to urge progress on national dialogue with opposition parties and democratic reforms. Clearly, there also needs to be a clear plan for economic development and poverty reduction in Yemen, as well as an intensification of action against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

[Keith Vaz]

I wholeheartedly agree with what my right hon. Friend has said, which is much in accordance with what the Foreign Secretary has said on Yemen. As my right hon. Friend started the Friends of Yemen process last year, in January 2010, does he not believe it is important that it continues? I was disappointed to learn that the meeting will not be taking place in Riyadh next week, but even if a formal meeting does not take place it is important that we ensure that what has been started should be completed; otherwise, we will see al-Qaeda running Yemen.

[Mr Alexander]

As so often, my right hon. Friend speaks with great authority on Yemen. Of course, it was under the previous Government that the Friends of Yemen process started, when we welcomed Secretary of State Clinton here to London. At that time, clear and solemn undertakings were given that the international community would not forget Yemen; and that there would be a continuing focus not simply on the real security issues that are of direct concern in the United Kingdom and other countries, but on a commitment to the long-term development that is necessary. If my recollection serves me rightly, Yemen is the only low-income country in the middle east. It has a truly horrendous number of weapons per head of population and is afflicted by many simultaneous challenges. Although I fully respect the fact that difficult judgments have to be made on the formal timing of meetings, I agree with my right hon. Friend that we must not lose sight of or the focus on the continuing urgency and importance of the situation in Yemen.

May I also take this opportunity to condemn outright the utterly unacceptable behaviour of Iran that resulted, on 5 February, in British special forces seizing a shipment of suspected Iranian arms intended for the Taliban in Afghanistan? That is but further proof, if any were needed, of the real danger that Iran poses, not only through its nuclear programme but through its continuing policy of attempting to destabilise its neighbours in the region. We are fully with the Government in their efforts to deal with Iran, and I agree with the Foreign Secretary when he says:

“Iran should not think that recent events in the middle east”—

and north Africa—

“have distracted the world’s attention away from its nuclear programme.”

Given the continuing risks represented by Iran’s nuclear programme and Iran’s failure to engage in any serious way in the recent talks in Istanbul, could the Minister perhaps update the House on the Government’s discussions with international partners on the next steps to increase the legitimate peaceful pressure on Iran to comply with UN Security Council resolutions and the requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency?

In the time remaining to me, I wish to deal with the most urgent and pressing issue of Libya. I agreed with the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), a former Foreign Secretary, when he wrote in an article in The Times on Monday:

“The reaction of the international community to events in Libya has, so far, been uncertain, disunited and at best tactical rather than strategic.”

In recent days, the international community’s disagreements on the important issue of the no-fly zone has been a dispiriting reminder of the importance of the international community speaking with one voice in circumstances of crisis.

[Robert Halfon]

Given what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, does he accept that his Government got it wrong in having such close relations with Gaddafi, and in facilitating business and academic links? When he was responsible for the Export Credits Guarantee Department, he allowed defence equipment to go to Libya. Does he agree that that was a big mistake?

[Mr Alexander]

A trend seems to be developing whereby those on the Government Benches ask three questions under the guise of a single intervention. On the issue of arms exports, it is a matter of record and the records were rightly published transparently by the previous Government. I have also made it clear that if changes need to be made in relation to the consolidated agreement between the European Union and ourselves on arms sales, I will support the efforts of the Governments in that endeavour.

On the second issue, may I make a general point and then a specific one? The general point is that in trying to understand the stimulus to the changes that we are seeing across north Africa and the middle east, it is indisputable that engagement with the outside world has contributed, in part, to the extraordinary courage, passion and bravery that we saw from demonstrators in, for example, Tunisia and Egypt. In that sense, it is important that the default setting of the international community should be engagement with countries, even where there are profound and long-standing disagreements.

On the specific issue as to whether it was appropriate in the early years after 2001 to engage directly with Gaddafi, I find myself in agreement not with the hon. Gentleman, who is a Back Bencher, but with his Front-Bench team, who generously but wisely have recognised that foreign affairs at times involves dealing with those with whom one has profound disagreement in the service of a greater good, which in this case is the security of the United Kingdom and the broader international community. We were trying to address a situation in which Gaddafi had, by any reckoning, armed the IRA—he was responsible for the largest arms shipment to the IRA—and so had actively sponsored terrorism against United Kingdom citizens. He was also in the course of developing a capability for ballistic missiles, for nuclear missiles and for other weaponry. There is and will be the opportunity to look more broadly at what other lessons can be drawn from our engagement with Libya, but I do not resile from the difficult judgment that was exercised at the time to engage with Gaddafi, notwithstanding his record, in the service of what I think was the right judgment to make British citizens more secure.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

May I take the shadow Foreign Secretary back to his expression of disappointment at the tentative nature of the international community’s response? Does he understand that those of us who were in the House during the Bosnian crisis feel some familiar echoes from that period, when the response of the international community was equally uncertain? Should we not have learned lessons from that unhappy period?

[Mr Alexander]

As so often, not only in recent days, but over many years in this House, the right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks with great authority and wisdom. I was coming on to a passage in my speech where I was keen to suggest to the House that it is illuminating at times to take, momentarily, that longer view and to appreciate the full extent of the failure that we have seen over recent weeks.

In different times and, admittedly, in different circumstances, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen said of the Kosovo conflict:

“We ran a military campaign and in parallel we ran an information campaign. Both were professional and focused but it was, to my mind, the information campaign which won it.”

He went on to say:

“Publics across the world got the message that we meant business and that we were absolutely committed to achieving our objectives summed up succinctly as ‘NATO in, Serbs out, refugees home’. The Kosovars watched and were reassured by our resolution and in Belgrade the generals and the Serbs generally began to understand that once NATO had taken on a mission, it was simply not going to fail. And as they got that message their resolution crumbled and even though their immediate military advantage remained, they gave up.”

Sadly, the clarity, coherence and effectiveness of that communication have not been matched in recent weeks by the international messaging to the Gaddafi regime.

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Alexander]

I am keen to make just a little progress.

The Foreign Secretary said on 27 February that

“it is time for Colonel Gaddafi to go, that is the best hope for Libya.”

A few days later, on 3 March, President Obama stated that “he must leave”. But since those categorical statements the urgency of the diplomatic efforts have, alas, not matched the urgency of the situation.

The Foreign Secretary has already told the House that the Prime Minister and the US President speak “extremely regularly”, so may I ask the Foreign Secretary to take this opportunity genuinely to confirm to the House what is more than of passing interest: whether or not the Prime Minister has spoken to President Obama regularly in the wake of this crisis, over the past seven days? I ask that question because Downing street briefings suggest that there has been only one telephone call, and I would be happy to afford the Foreign Secretary the opportunity to intervene on me today to clarify the facts. Calling for action is not the same as acting to ensure that the action takes place. Public statements at a time of crisis need to be matched by the important work of private diplomacy. I suggest that if ever there was a time when such dialogue, leader to leader, was needed, it is a time like now. Indeed, not only has uncertainty about the international community’s position delayed action, but it will have been closely observed in Libya itself.

As United States Senator John Kerry commented yesterday, the time lost by the international community has

“compacted the choices, diminished the options. And it’s changed the state of play somewhat.

The calculation that many people in Libya might have made a week…10 days ago, if we’d started to announce and move certain things, might have been considerably different than the calculation that they might make today. And those calculations are critical in these kinds of events.”

Senator Kerry’s analysis is as accurate as it is devastating, for as we debate today the opportunity for meaningful action is simply slipping away.

[Mr Offord]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about a lack of action, but it is the Prime Minister who has provided that action, calling for a no-fly zone. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about the lack of a voice across the international community, I believe that he is referring to the Obama Administration. When the call of “Democracy!” was shouted, where was the leader of the free world?

[Mr Alexander]

My point is that public declarations of support for a policy need to be matched by private diplomacy. It appears that there is a fashion in the Government to take a different view and a different approach from the previous Government on many aspects of policy. There might be a view in the present Government that the action the previous Prime Minister took ahead of the G20 meeting—getting on a plane, travelling to Brazil and travelling around the world making the case for concerted international action in circumstances of economic crisis—was somewhat overplayed. I personally think that there is a genuine need for action to be taken at this stage but that public words need to be matched by private conduct. In that sense, there must be concerted efforts to try to bring the international community together. That challenge is not unique to the United Kingdom—it is a responsibility that falls on all those in positions of leadership—and I would be the first to concede that this is a challenging and difficult set of circumstances in which, to date, the international community has not been united. That is why, however, I think it demands effort, skill, application and judgment to ensure that we do what we can to cohere the international community rather than further to divide it at a point at which judgments are being made not only in Tripoli but in Benghazi about the commitment of the international community to supporting these changes.

[Martin Horwood]

rose—

[Mr Jenkin]

rose—

[Mr Alexander]

I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood).

[Martin Horwood]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is a danger of Governments giving mixed messages. In that vein, will he accept that his Government did that too? Does he now regret granting arms licences and promoting arms sales—including of ammunition, crowd-control equipment and tear gas—to the Gaddafi regime in the closing years of the Labour Government? That does not sound like the sort of positive engagement that he seemed to be talking about earlier.

[Mr Alexander]

Let me repeat my point: if there is evidence that British exports have been used in the appalling repression that we are witnessing, that should be cause for change. I stand ready to work with the Government effectively and in a constructive manner to try to secure the tightening of the arms regime if that proves necessary. On the substantive question of whether it was correct for the UK Government, many years ago, to engage directly with the Gaddafi regime, I think that there might be an honourable disagreement between the pair of us. I have made it clear that—

[Martin Horwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Alexander]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will finish the point and then I will be happy to take a further intervention—perhaps from somebody who has not yet had the opportunity to intervene. I think that there can be an honest disagreement between us about whether it was right for the UK Government to engage with Gaddafi at the time. There has been much criticism of former Prime Minister Tony Blair for shaking hands with Colonel Gaddafi. I would simply point out that President Obama and Nelson Mandela have both shaken hands with Colonel Gaddafi. Any serious consideration of the issues recognises that it is important for there to be engagement with regimes in order to try to secure change.

[Mr MacShane]

I am afraid that my right hon. Friend is right. The former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), who has just left the Chamber, was eloquent on this subject on the “Today” programme and in this House: the diplomatic gain of weaning Gaddafi off WMDs and terrorism was worth the connection. The previous Conservative Administration gave a knighthood to Robert Mugabe as Sir John Major tried to make friends with him and, up until 19 February of this year, those on the Government Front Bench were selling arms to Bahrain. I am not criticising them for that—I am sorry, but we are an arms-manufacturing and exporting nation. This is really the most piffling and irrelevant hypocrisy. The Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary are concentrating on important issues and the way we should go forward. Having this sort of row about who shook hands with who and which guns were sold—

[Martin Horwood]

And tear gas.

[Mr MacShane]

And tear gas. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) is part of the coalition Government who were selling tear gas and small arms weapons to Bahrain. He has no right to get pompous about what was happening before May 2010.

[Mr Alexander]

Let me try to turn to the events that are under way at the moment. I am also conscious that I have not given way to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), so let me do so now.

[Mr Jenkin]

Is not the most important issue in this debate the fact that events in Libya appear to be at a turning point? I am sure that the Government are grateful for the support that Her Majesty’s Opposition have given to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on the no-fly zone initiative and the toppling of Gaddafi. Is this not, if it fails, a crucial test of the credibility of British foreign policy, which has perhaps not adapted to the shortage of defence capability we now suffer as a result of the strategic defence and security review or to the fact that we have a completely different kind of United States, which is prepared to be passive in an international crisis?

[Mr Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman is continuing the newly established tradition of making a number of points. Let me try to address them. On the substantive point of whether the hugely significant events we are witnessing in north Africa make the case for reopening the strategic defence review, I find myself in sympathy with him. Serious questions are prompted by the fact that we have aircraft carriers without planes, given the context of the discussions we are now having in this House.

The hon. Gentleman’s second point is important and I shall reflect on it in my remaining remarks. This is an issue not simply for the people of Libya or for the west, but for the broader interests of the international community. It appears from what we have heard that the decision was taken by the Saudi Arabian Government and the Gulf Co-operation Council to provide troops and tanks to the people of Bahrain without consultation with the United States. To me, that would have been inconceivable only a few weeks ago. It is one of the further assumptions that have been directly challenged by the huge events that we are witnessing across the region. I think, therefore, as I sought to reflect at the beginning of my speech, that this is a time of great possibility and also of great peril. If, however inadvertently, the message is heard by dictators and despots not just in the region but in the wider world that the words spoken by prominent international leaders are not matched by actions, that will be a worrying development with consequences far beyond the borders of Libya.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Is it not important that one message that is heard by dictators is that once they are indicted by the International Criminal Court, they will remain indicted and there will be a determination sooner or later to bring them to justice? There is no statute of limitation for war crimes or crimes against humanity, as Charles Taylor well knows as he stands trial in The Hague.

[Mr Alexander]

That is an important point. Of course, we have seen the trial of Charles Taylor but we have also seen the example of Milosevic, who died while on trial at The Hague. That is an issue on which we stand together, both in our advocacy at an early stage of the International Criminal Court and as regards its applicability in the face of the terrible scenes we are witnessing.

I am conscious that a number of Members are keen to speak, so I want to make progress. The Security Council meets as reports say Libyan rebels have deployed tanks, artillery and a helicopter to try to repel an attack by pro-Gaddafi forces on the key town of Ajdabiya. It is said by those on the ground to be the first time defecting army units have faced Government forces. If that town falls to Gaddafi, the next step will be Benghazi and the 1 million people who live there. It is often forgotten in the coverage that Benghazi is comfortably the second largest city in Libya.

As I have argued over recent weeks, there are concrete steps that the international community can and should be considering to support the Libyan people who stand between invasion and acquiescence. A no-fly zone would be a strong step forward but it would not be a panacea. The importance of a no-fly zone, however, should not blind us to other measures that can be taken.

The Government should be considering a range of contingencies, such as taking measures to disrupt Gaddafi’s military communication and IT infrastructure and using British naval assets in concert with other nations to deliver further humanitarian support to areas such as Benghazi, so that Gaddafi cannot literally starve people into submission. Other possible actions include further efforts to set up an escrow account, as has been suggested by a Government Member, to hold revenues in trust for the benefit of the Libyan people rather than allowing those resources to be used for hiring foreign mercenaries, and, of course, taking immediate and strong diplomatic action against those countries whose nationals are fighting as mercenaries for Gaddafi in Libya.

I have been arguing for weeks now that the Arab League, which has been shown in recent weeks to be taking a leadership role in this crisis, should come together as a matter of urgency with the European Union in an emergency summit to communicate the breadth of international revulsion at the regime’s actions and the breadth of support for the Libyan people. I have also been arguing for the establishment of a friends of Libya group, bringing together the Arab League, the European Union and the United States to overcome the very institutional inertia that has so blighted the international response to date and to allow for rapid decision making in the face of rapidly changing events.

The Libyan people could be facing defeat in a matter of days. Time is not our friend. We should be under no illusion that if Gaddafi were to triumph, this would not only represent a defeat for the Libyan people, for whom the Arab spring would be replaced by a brutal and bleak winter, but would have long-term and damaging consequences for the United Kingdom, the European Union and the broader interests of reform and stability in the region. Now, at this late hour, debate must give way to decision and argument must give way to action. The international community’s response in the coming hours and days will not only impact upon events in Libya but will echo through history and will affect our strategic position and the future of democratic, social and economic reform across the broader region for years to come.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. This is a well-subscribed debate. There is a 10-minute limit on speeches with the usual injury time for two interventions.

13:42

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

I do not propose to follow the formidable speech of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who dealt very easily with the situation in many of the countries that we are discussing, nor the Opposition’s preoccupation with the telephone habits of President Obama, but rather to concentrate on what has animated the extraordinary events that we have seen across the middle east in the past few weeks.

In north Africa and the wider middle east, we are now at the centre of the most momentous events. History is sweeping through the region. The events that we are debating today were inevitable but largely—indeed, almost wholly—unforeseen. A Tunisian man who set himself on fire because no official of a deeply corrupt state would listen to him after months of his asking has caused the lid to be blown off an entire region with frail institutions, scant civil society and virtually no democratic traditions or culture of innovation. We are, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, witnessing something akin to the importance of the fall of the Berlin wall, and we will need to be clear in the days ahead about what these developments mean and how Britain and the west in general should respond to them.

The democratic transition will be a very hard road to follow, for the truth is that the much-vaunted stability that we all went along with for generations was a stability frozen in time and that the hopes and aspirations now stirring in many parts of the Arab world have been smothered for generations. People are now seeking their rights, sometimes at great personal danger to themselves. Nothing will ever be the same again, and a complete policy rethink will be demanded and required in the days ahead as we all struggle to keep up with unfolding events. I urge the House not to underestimate the profound sense of change sweeping across the whole middle east that the Arab humiliation is now over and that there is a long overdue dawn of pride and dignity and a great expectation that freedom and opportunity have arrived—a tide that is unstoppable and that brings with it great uncertainty and very great difficulties.

Contrary to much received opinion and caricature, quite apart from its vast, unmatched contribution to civilisation in the past, the Arab world is proving that it rejects injustice, that it wants freedom and that it is willing to die for democracy. There is thus no overstating the importance of the fact that this Arab revolution is the work of the Arabs themselves. The answer is broadly that reform, and not repression, is the way to lasting stability, and Arab Governments need to understand very quickly that denying people their basic rights does nothing to preserve even a veneer of stability. As W. B. Yeats said after the difficulties in Dublin:

“A terrible beauty is born.”

I fear that the wealthy western nations have regarded with complacency for far too long the hopeless stagnation of many Arab countries. Protesters in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Bahrain, Gaza, Algeria and Tunisia are denouncing the malignancy of joblessness, the lack of opportunity and the dreadful corruptness of oppressive rule. It is thus far bad news, in my judgment, that no single leader in the Arab world has yet put forward a creative political strategy to address this discontent, opting instead for half-measures designed principally to safeguard the very systems that public opinion is rejecting. We do not know where this will end, but Britain must play a big role and I am confident that she will do so, particularly through the judicious use of our soft power with all that that involves.

Further, as the Prime Minister has said, now is not the time to park the middle east peace process. I pay great tribute to the energetic work of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), in the middle east and I commend the excellent way in which he goes about his very difficult job. I hope that he will consider whether it would be right to resurrect the Arab peace initiative of 2002—the Saudi peace initiative—which still lies on the table and is the only remaining architecture extant for the continuation of the peace talks. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and I take a slightly different view on these matters but we both want to see peace in the middle east. He is a doughty champion of these causes and he knows that peace cannot come about unless the Arabs and the Palestinians are made to go back to the table and proceed. There is no better time than now; an Arab peace initiative at this time would give the Arabs face and confidence, and the Israelis should seize this moment. They should see that a tide and spirit of change is sweeping though the middle east and should catch this great surf of history.

Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) might think, the European Union can give substantial practical help to the consolidation of democracy and the rule of law within the Arab League countries, particularly via the Barcelona process and through many other means. We should, of course, provide every assistance that we can to those countries that clearly intend to do the right thing. Britain should press in the Council of Ministers and the Foreign Affairs Council for properly supervised arrangements to support the training of police and civil servants and the setting up of electoral commissions and independent legal and prosecution services. We should also seek to assist in the building of political and other institutions—a piece of work that has been most admirably done by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, to which an hon. Member has already paid tribute. We should, at all costs, provide large-scale assistance for those countries that are truly prepared to change.

The peoples of the middle east now demand a better life. After years of betrayal, bad government and oppression, they deserve the opportunity to enjoy the rights and freedoms that we take for granted. I am confident that the British Government, with our American allies and European partners, will play a bold and energetic role in securing that endeavour.

13:50

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

As we look at these events around the world, we must reflect on whether there are historical parallels and past occasions when similar things have happened. At the moment, everyone is talking about the events in central and eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union, in the late 1980s, but there are other parallels, such as what happened in the revolutions of 1848. We could also draw parallels with the student protests of 1968.

The important thing about this revolutionary process is that it has been widely broadcast through new technologies that did not exist in those eras. As a result, as we have clearly seen, the regimes have tried to stop such technology, close down the internet and prevent people inside and outside from accessing messages on Facebook, on Twitter and online. That is another argument for retaining BBC World Service shortwave radio broadcasts at key times, and the Foreign Affairs Committee is engaged in that debate with Ministers.

The other difference from 1989 is that while these events are happening in a multitude of Arab Muslim countries, there is no Gorbachev figure. There is no restraining hand on Erich Honecker. There is no one to persuade and to deal with the situation faced by Jaruzelski in Poland. Of course, we had Ceausescu in 1989, and perhaps the closest parallel with Saif Gaddafi is Nicu Ceausescu. I do not know whether the Ceausescu family’s fate will befall the Gaddafi family, but there is nevertheless a clear parallel: a family regime that uses the state as its own private bank. Unfortunately, the Libyan regime is not the only one for which that is the case. We have heard reports from Tunisia, and there have been accusations about the Mubarak family in Egypt. I read on the web just a few hours ago that there is a “kleptocracy” in Bahrain.

The public can now access information in ways that they could not in the past. The United Nations Arab human development report that was published about a decade ago highlighted the lack of publications and limited number of books per head of population in the Arab world compared with other parts of the world. However, such availability is not as necessary when a generation of young people can access new technologies. There has therefore been an acceleration of change, especially among the young populations of north Africa and Arabia who, in huge numbers, are unemployed. This social and global phenomenon will continue for decades.

The hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) said that not everything that happens in such revolutionary situations is pleasant. Some very unpleasant things came out from underneath the stones in 1989 and 1990: growing anti-Semitism, racism and nationalism. We may well find that one of the consequences of the removal of military authoritarian regimes will be that people lose not only their fear, but their inhibition about saying things that are difficult and unpleasant.

We have already heard comments about what the Iranian Government might be up to. I worry that those people who want to gain political power by attacking other minorities will do so in ways that lead to tensions and conflicts between Sunni and Shi’a. We have seen the terrible carnage caused by that conflict in Iraq. We were right—I stand by my opinion—about the removal of the Saddam regime, but none of us estimated quite what terrible crimes would be carried out as a consequence of lifting that repression. That problem is still not resolved in Iraq.

Egypt is at the beginning of the process, so what will happen there? There will be a presidential election and a new constitution, and then, as in central and eastern Europe, we will probably see a multitude of small political parties—or individuals and groups calling themselves political parties.

Some 22 years ago, I was working in the Labour party’s international department. My job was to go to central and eastern Europe, where I met people who said, “We are the true new social democratic party.” I met groups in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Czechoslovakia as was, Russia and elsewhere who all said that they were the true inheritors of the social democratic tradition. People from the Conservative party were also involved in a similar way, because the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) was in Prague just a few weeks after me in late 1989. We all discovered that most of the people who claimed to represent the new political forces did not do so at all.

The process will take time, and we will need dedicated and well-funded democracy-building exercises throughout the Arab world. The Westminster Foundation for Democracy has been mentioned. I chaired its board until 2005. At that time, its total budget from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was £4.1 million, which was peanuts, but since then it has been cut. I understand that it will receive an additional £500,000, which is welcome, but that will still leave its budget below what it was a few years ago.

International democracy foundations need to work together. Our Government, our European partners, the National Democratic Institute in the US, and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation and Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung in Germany, for example, need to work in a co-ordinated way because governance, democracy and institution building will take time. It would be useful if people from central and eastern Europe could make a contribution because many of them went through such a process 10, 15 or 20 years ago.

Finally, if, potentially, Gaddafi regains control of Libya, we will face the most immediate, appalling crisis. It will be perceived as a major setback. It will send a clear signal, which may already have been picked up in Bahrain, that regimes can keep power if they are repressive and brutal because the international community will either make grandiose statements, as many Europeans have done—I am not critical of our Government on these matters, as we are doing the right thing and are on the right side—or prevaricate, as unfortunately the Americans have done. Let us hope that the Security Council adopts a robust resolution today and then does the right thing.

14:00

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my predecessor as Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Leaving aside his international adventures on behalf of the Labour party, I agree with everything that he said. I also pay tribute to the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames). No one has a better knowledge of the Arab world than he has. There was much power in what he said. I particularly agree with the important point that the EU has a role to play in this.

It was Comrade Lenin who said that revolution is unpredictable but when it comes it comes very quickly. I think that the speed with which everything has happened has caught us all very much on the wrong foot. With hindsight, we should have seen it coming after last year’s food riots in Egypt, brought about by unsustainable levels of population growth and the fact that 50% of its population is under 25. The other factor that combined with others to form the prefect storm is the role of the internet as the method of communication of those young people, which the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) referred to. The situation is fast-moving but has a long way to go. I watch with concern how things are developing in Bahrain and possibly in Saudi Arabia. I believe that things will get worse before they get better.

I support what the Prime Minister said in his statement on Monday: that we must encourage freedom, democracy and an open society in the Arab world. He said that against the background of the EU resolution calling for broader market access and political co-operation. These are desperately important factors, but there is a whiff of inconsistency here. We have lived with this situation since the second world war, and the reason we have turned a blind eye to much of this is that we want the energy resources of the region. I think that we should give those countries time to make the transition. In Britain, 300 years passed between the civil war and women getting the vote, so we should not be driven by the drumbeat of the 24/7 media. We should give those countries time to develop their reforms as they come naturally.

The major issue of the day, and the one I have been most concerned about for some weeks, is the no-fly zone. The Prime Minister set out three conditions that would have to be met before he would support a no-fly zone: regional support, a demonstrable need and a clear legal basis. With the resolution of the Arab League, there is clearly regional support. Demonstrable need is subjective. We have moved on from the slaughter of innocent women and children and now have a civil war in Libya. In truth, we will be taking sides, and the rebels are armed. I think that we have to look at the clear legal basis very carefully indeed, because we can see the mess that we got into in Iraq because of the uncertainty over whether there was a clear legal basis. What we need is clarification.

The need for a UN chapter VII resolution is crystal clear, but I would be surprised, and relieved, if we got it. Whether or not Russia or China will veto it remains to be seen. If we do get it, we can all row in behind the Government because we will have a clear legal basis. I wish them well in their efforts in the coming hours to achieve that.

[Mr Ellwood]

I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend’s very powerful speech. He mentioned the Prime Minister’s three conditions. I humbly urge caution, in the words used by the Arab League. It is an important symbolic gesture, bringing together a collective voice, but it has no power. The organisation is made up of Foreign Ministers who have no organisational power over many of the dictators to whom they report back. In making a statement and linking it to their respective Governments, they have as much power as the Foreign Affairs Committee has when it produces a report.

[Richard Ottaway]

In that case it has great force. Joking aside, my hon. Friend makes an important point, but we cannot ignore a resolution of the Arab League. It is indicative of the way things are shifting.

My concern is that we might get a legal basis that is not clear. If we do not get a chapter VII resolution, the fallback situation would be what is known in the UN as a responsibility to protect. It is not clear whether that is a part of international law. It suggests

“collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII”.

It sets as high a hurdle as a chapter VII resolution. We are yet to see how things will develop, but I would be rather surprised if we were to get that through. We would then be left with a legal basis that was not clear. If there is another doctrine, I would very much like to hear it.

Yesterday, the Government added a fourth condition: the national interest. In the Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday I asked the Foreign Secretary how he would reply to a request from a country such as Ivory Coast, where genocide was going on, or Burma or Somalia—there are plenty of places with internal conflict. He replied that that has to be judged on a case-by-case basis, and that is under the national interest. If we intervene in Libya, will that set a precedent that will be relied on by those countries?

That means, in effect, that we are picking our countries. Let us be clear exactly what that means. It is a reincarnation of the Chicago doctrine introduced by Tony Blair 12 years ago. It is worth reading the speech that he made in April 2009 in Chicago, 10 years after his original speech in Chicago. He said that it

“argued strongly for an active and engaged foreign policy, not a reactive or isolationist one: better to intervene than to leave well alone. Be bold, adventurous even in what we can achieve.”

That is a pretty gung-ho approach. I am not saying that the current Government are being gung-ho, but it is a warning about how we could get carried away unless we sit back, are rational and address the need for a clear legal basis.

We then have the problem of what will happen if another Arab state behaves in the same way as Libya does. We have seen what is going on in Bahrain, with the state of emergency. We all heard reports on the radio this morning of protesters being killed. We cannot intervene in every case. We could end up with a very awkward situation where one Arab country provides aircraft to help police the no-fly zone and then ends up attacking its own people. Then what is our national interest?

I would add a fifth condition. If this does not succeed, we must have a strategy. There has to be a plan B. Where exactly is this leading? My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) has great experience of the no-fly zone in Bosnia, and there was a no-fly zone in Iraq. In both cases, we had to put in ground troops to seal the deal and finish the job. A no-fly zone in Libya is most likely to end up with a stalemate in which the rebels cannot lose and Gaddafi cannot win.

[Mike Gapes]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that the ground troops did not go into Iraq in 1991 and 1992 and that for 11 or 12 years the no-fly zones, which protected the Shi’a marsh Arabs in the south and the Kurds in the north, were very effective in stopping Saddam using his air force to bomb them?

[Richard Ottaway]

I have heard the hon. Gentleman make that point before, and the answer to it is that Saddam Hussein remained in Baghdad. My point is that the policy under discussion would end in stalemate, too, with Colonel Gaddafi still in Tripoli, the rebels in Benghazi, a no-fly zone and a completely static situation.

If we want to get rid of Colonel Gaddafi, we will have to use ground troops, so I would like the Minister to answer the question, what is our commitment on ground troops? Would we be prepared to use them to finish the job? What is the Government’s attitude to the use of warships? The war is being conducted along a coastal strip. At the end of the day, if we commit to a no-fly zone, we have to be prepared to finish the job and to put troops in on the ground, otherwise we should not start. That is why I am concerned about where this is all leading. I do not think that we have the troops to put in on the ground, and that is why I come to the difficult conclusion that, without a UN resolution, we should not consider a no-fly zone.

The Prime Minister posed a question to people such as myself, who have their reservations about a no-fly zone, when he said on Monday:

“‘Do we want a situation where a failed pariah state festers on Europe’s southern border, potentially threatening our security, pushing people across the Mediterranean and creating a more dangerous and uncertain world for Britain and for all our allies as well as for the people of Libya?’”—[Official Report, 14 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 27.]

That is a very good question, and it deserves an answer. My answer is, we have had this pariah state for 42 years, and we have lived with it: we have put up with it; we had to bomb it once; we had Lockerbie; and we are still here and it is still there.

I do not want to see us get sucked into a war—a dispute—in the middle east. We need to tighten the noose as hard as we can, with the toughest sanctions possible, and if necessary we need to give all support, short of intervention, to the rebels. But we should not go down the road of arguing, campaigning or pushing for a no-fly zone without a UN resolution on either chapter VII or the responsibility to protect. There are huge risks politically and militarily without one, and I urge the Government to proceed with caution.

14:10

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), with my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), adverted to what took place with regard to the liberation of Kuwait. Kuwait was liberated because Margaret Thatcher, together with the President of the United States, decided that the situation could not be allowed to continue.

[Mike Gapes]

John Major.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

John Major, but Margaret Thatcher was also involved.

In the same way, action not words dealt with the situation in the former Yugoslavia. My hon. Friend is right in his conclusion that, if the situation in north Africa is to be solved in any way acceptably, it will be by action, not by continued talk. The world community should hang its head in shame at the prolonged delay to take practical action on behalf of the people of Libya.

Time is very short, indeed, before it becomes too late, but complacent indifference has long dominated the west’s approach towards Gaddafi’s brutality. Even in recent months, the Home Office has insisted deplorably on sending a Libyan asylum seeker back into Gaddafi’s clutches, just as it insists on sending asylum seekers back to Iran. As usual, the United States, under its present Administration, has been vocal about Libya, but words are easy; action is what counts.

In the case of Israel’s transgressions and brutalities, the Americans have been even more shameful. As is his wont, Obama has been long on self-indulgent, vacuous rhetoric, but absent when it comes to meaningful action. Let us witness the illegal Guantanamo Bay torture camp, remaining open two years after he promised that it would close. “Absent”, though, understates Obama’s pernicious policies. When he sought to wheedle the Israelis into a moratorium on settlement building, he promised that if they paused such building he would veto any Security Council resolutions regarded as critical of Israel. The Israelis ignored him, and still he vetoed the recent, otherwise unanimous, Security Council resolution on settlements.

Yet that United States Administration, if they wished, could bring the Israelis to heel, simply by cutting off the supply of arms and economic aid to that rogue country. Economic sanctions on Israel work, as was demonstrated when President Bush senior forced Yitzhak Shamir to talks in Madrid by suspending loan guarantees.

Certainly, when it comes to rogue regimes, the world is long on denunciations but short on action, and it is important to place on the record those transgressions against international law by a country that has one of the most aggressively right-wing regimes in the world. The Israelis have built an illegal wall through occupied Palestinian territory, in many, many cases cutting Palestinians off from their livelihoods, as I have seen for myself recently. The Israelis’ settlements are, again, a violation of international law, yet they expand them. Again, I recently saw for myself how, in Jerusalem and elsewhere, settlers, with the connivance of the Israeli police, throw Palestinians out of their homes and force them to live in tents. Israel’s hundreds of checkpoints on the west bank make it difficult, and sometimes impossible, for Palestinians to get to workplaces, schools, universities and hospitals. The Jordanian Foreign Minister told me recently how, when he was travelling with the Palestinian President on the west bank in separate cars, he felt obliged to invite the President to travel in his car, because the President’s own car was continually being stopped at checkpoints.

[Mrs Ellman]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

I will proceed for a moment. I think I can anticipate the kind of thing my hon. Friend would say if I were to give way to her. The Israelis kill Palestinians whenever they feel inclined. They have killed two this very week, and the blockade of Gaza—of 1.5 million people—is totally illegal. Rebuilding after the havoc caused by the Israeli invasion has been minimal because of the Israeli embargo on the entrance of many supplies. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency reported to me on the appalling effect on nutrition of the Israeli blockade. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinian children are growing up malnourished, and that affects both their physical and mental growth. The estimable head of UNRWA, whom I have met several times, says that the alleged easing of the blockade, following the Israeli attack on the flotilla on 31 May, has made the situation worse. He himself has given up and is taking on another assignment outside Palestine. Of course, the Israeli navy does not hesitate to commit piracy in international waters, either.

The Israelis have the most extremist Government in their history, with a Foreign Minister who is actively racist and overtly advocates ethnic cleansing. The Israeli Parliament, elected by proportional representation, which should be a warning to us all about changing electoral systems, now persecutes non-governmental organisations that work for progress and racial harmony.

The Israelis do not believe in a two-state solution and are completely uninterested in any kind of genuine peace process, yet what is being done to curb this regime? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. They get away with it by exploiting guilt over the holocaust. They get away with it by whimpering about their need for security, when they have the strongest armed forces in the region, nuclear weapons and the fourth-strongest armed forces in the world. They get away with it, because Obama, apprehensive about the United States presidential election next year, is scared of Jewish pressure groups in the United States.

The world’s tolerance of the Israeli persecution of 5 million Palestinians is a blot on whatever international morality exists. When Palestinians commit atrocities, as with the murderous attack on the Fogel family of settlers last weekend, there is justifiable anger. Israeli soldiers shot two Palestinian parents dead in front of their children in Gaza, as those children told me: the girl stood there, an Israeli soldier shot her father in the head, and then shot her mother in the head. When things like that happen, nobody bats an eyelid.

We are right to be profoundly concerned about Libya and about the lethal tension in certain Gulf states. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South is absolutely right when he says that if the people of Libya go under, other countries will take that as a lesson that suppressing their populations by force works. This is a very big test for the entire world community. We are right to be vigilant about Tunisia, and right to keep an anxious eye on Egypt to ensure that the revolution there is not baulked or frustrated. But until the world takes action to force Israel to deal justly with the Palestinians, the middle east will remain a turbulent and dangerous region and a blot on all our consciences.

14:20

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

I should like to touch briefly on matters relating to Libya, and then, as chairman of the all-party group on Tunisia, to refer to that country.

I wish to revert to the comments that I made to the Prime Minister following his statement to this House on Monday. In 1956, the Hungarians were led to believe by the United States that were there to be a revolution, the Americans would give them support. There was a revolution. I remember sitting in our kitchen as a 13-year-old, listening to a crackling valve radio, with a voice from Budapest screaming at us, “Help me, help me!” No help came. The US cavalry did not arrive, the Russian tanks rolled into Budapest, and the revolution was crushed. A decade later, almost the same thing happened in Czechoslovakia. Alexander Dubcek was removed, the west did not help, the Russian tanks moved in, and the revolution was crushed. I believe that unless the free world stops talking and starts acting within the next 48 hours, then as far as Libya is concerned, the Arab spring will be over, and that revolution, too, will be crushed.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took a brave lead in calling for a no-fly zone, and he was derided by the British media for sabre-rattling. That, of course, is precisely the same courageous British media who are now complaining that the Americans are not backing a no-fly zone forcefully enough.

[Richard Ottaway]

Quite right.

[Mr Gale]

My hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, says “Quite right”, but his view is that we should not act because we should not walk to the drumbeat of the 24/7 media. I fear that we shall shortly be walking to the drumbeat of death if no action is taken.

The supply lines from Tripoli to Benghazi are long. It is a moot point as to whether Colonel Gaddafi’s regime can service troops entering Benghazi, so the logical progression is that he will use his war planes. I do not believe that Colonel Gaddafi will be remotely concerned about bombing and rocketing the women and children of Libya. Unless the free world moves to take out the planes on the runways, innocent women and children will die, and the revolution will end. This morning, I received a telephone call from rebels currently in London. They told me that they have three aircraft that they have used so far—sparingly, because they do not have the resources to back them up.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) has referred to the lunacy of UN Security Council resolution 1970, which imposes an arms embargo on an already very uneven playing field. Gaddafi’s regime has the weapons, the resources and the back-up; the rebels do not. At the very least, therefore, the free world has to allow the rebels the opportunity to obtain the equipment that they need to defend themselves. I do not believe that anybody can be held to account for allowing people to fight for what they believe to be right in their way and to defend their women and children. I can only repeat: failure to act will lead, within a very short time, to the end. What has been described as the defining moment will be a defining moment in the failure of democracy, and those who have failed to act will have the blood of the innocent on their hands. It may yet prove to be the defining moment of Mr Obama’s legacy.

Turning to Tunisia, the entire process began as a result not particularly of oppression, although of course that was a very relevant factor, but of unemployment. Very many bright, well-educated and well-qualified people in Tunisia found themselves unable to earn a living. We need to look carefully at what is happening in Tunisia and what will happen unless we give the Tunisians wholehearted support. There were some 400,000 jobs related to tourism in Tunisia prior to the revolution. That translates into a dependency on tourism of some 2 million people—two in 10 of the population. Hatem Atallah, the Tunisian ambassador, came to the House of Commons yesterday and told us that in the first three months of this year Tunisia’s tourism has effectively been halved. Of the 7 million visitors a year, 3 million came from Libya and related states, leaving 4 million from France, Germany and the United Kingdom. They need us to give them the support that will enable their businesses and commerce to survive. Without that, that revolution could also fail. The message is very clear: it is a 3,000-year-old civilisation, and it is open for business. We must have faith in that.

On 25 July, the elections will be held. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, the campaign papers that trigger the entire process will be deposited at the end of this month or very early in April. That will lead to the opportunity for the creation of the election commission, the rules of the election, the electoral process, the electoral register, and the approval of that register. Tunisia has already extended an invitation to international election observers from the European Union to go to see fair play. I hope and believe that this country will particularly wish to send observers and to give the Tunisian interim Government every possible help to ensure that the election is successful.

I repeat: in Tunisia, democracy is absolutely dependent on economic success. Economic failure was the reason for the revolution, and it could cause the country to fail again. I urge the Minister in responding to the debate to state clearly that we are four-square behind that regime and what it is trying to achieve, and that it has our good will.

To conclude, the Tunisian Foreign Minister yesterday passed Members a letter in which he said:

“I strongly believe that our two countries have the opportunity to further strengthen their friendship and partnership, on the basis of common interests and common values.”

If the Arab spring is to survive and if those words are to mean anything, Tunisia deserves and must have our support.

14:29

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

In 1993, the current President of Israel, Shimon Peres, wrote a visionary book called “The New Middle East”, in which, elated after the signing of the Oslo accords, he wrote about his concept of a community of nations across the middle east. He said that four conditions were required before that could become a reality: political stability, higher living standards, national security and democratisation. I hope that in recent weeks we have seen the beginning of that democratisation spreading across the middle east.

At this stage, none of us can be certain whether that will be successful. However, even now we can see that what has happened over recent weeks and what has come from the hearts of the people of the middle east have given the lie to the commonly accepted view that the only major conflict in the middle east is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that Israel is responsible for all the problems of the middle east. That has never been true and now it evidently is not true.

What is needed to solve the tragic conflict of the clash of nationalisms between the Jewish people in the state of Israel and the Palestinians, two peoples who deserve national determination in a land of their own? First, it is essential that there is a resumption of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians to create two states. Much has been said about the impact of the WikiLeaks revelations. Those revelations showed how close Palestinians and Israelis came to achieving a durable peace at the Annapolis conference in 2007. It is sad that when those leaks emerged, the Palestinian people realised that they simply did not know what their negotiators were doing. The Israelis were very well aware of what the Israeli negotiators were doing. What happened during the discussions at that conference shows that both sides were, and I hope are, willing to make the compromises necessary for a durable peace.

It is important that it is recognised that Israel has genuine security issues. Two checkpoints were removed last month near Nablus. It is right that checkpoints are removed to support the development of the Palestinian economy, but it also has to be recognised that in the month following the removal of the those checkpoints, there have been two major incidents in or near Nablus. Only last week, the Fogel family were murdered, among them three children. Their throats, including that of a three-month old baby, were slit in cold blood in their home. That was a harsh price to pay. Such atrocities must be recognised, and it must be realised that Israel has genuine security issues. Much has been said of Israel’s action in Gaza in relation to its security. Just in the last few days, the Israeli navy seized a boat that had 50 tonnes of weapons hidden in bags of Syrian lentils. The boat was bound for Gaza and is thought to have come from Iran. That was a genuine security issue.

It is vital that proper recognition is given to the nature of Hamas, which is running Gaza. Hamas’s charter shows clearly what it is about. Its religious convictions mean that it cannot accept the concept of a Jewish state. It displays blatant anti-Semitism, such as in article 22 of its charter, which states that Jews

“amass great and substantive material wealth… With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we…hear about.”

That is just one example of the blatant anti-Semitism of Hamas. That should be recognised by those who talk loosely about “Jewish influence” impeding a solution of the Palestinian-Israeli issue.

Hamas recently attacked a United Nations Relief and Works Agency school because it did not like girls and boys being educated together. It has also said that it will prevent the teaching of the holocaust in Gaza, because it believes that doing so would poison the minds of Palestinians. In recent days the Foreign Press Association has bemoaned the clampdown on the press in Gaza, while Hamas continues to attack those who do not belong to or support its organisation.

In seeking a durable peace, it is also important that we recognise the malevolent influence of Iran in both Lebanon and Gaza. In just the past week the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has stated again that Israel is a “cancerous tumour”. The problem is not just about words, because by arming and training Hamas and Hezbollah, Iran is actively involved in preventing a negotiated peace between Palestinians and Israelis. The involvement of Iran adds to the complexity of the situation and must be recognised when people rush all too quickly, and without much thought, to condemn Israel as the reason why peace has not been reached. That is not the case.

Finally, it is vital that more is done on the domestic scene, and that there is a proper challenge to the hate talk against Jews and Israelis in this country and to the vicious boycott campaigns that are gathering force. The problem shows itself in many ways. It is leading to the attempt to create an atmosphere of intimidation on student campuses, where Jewish students feel increasingly uneasy, and disquiet is being caused among Jewish communities in this country. It is leading to anti-Semitic discourse, as shown so graphically by the invaluable work of the Community Security Trust.

I shall give just one recent example of what has happened. On 2 February, on the campus of Edinburgh university, a meeting was held at which Israeli diplomat Ishmael Khaldi, a Muslim Bedouin, attempted to hold a discussion. There was organised opposition to that meeting, and the microphone was snatched from him. He was forced to abandon the meeting, against cries of “Nazi”. That is both absurd and deplorable. That demonstration, like many others, was organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, an organisation that does not wish to see peace but wishes to sow the seeds of dissension. One of the consequences is that we are being taken further and further away from peace, and the seeds of anti-Semitism are being sown.

It is vital that efforts are maintained to find a solution to this complex problem. The two peoples have a right to a homeland, and the Jews in Israel and the Palestinians have a right to their land. All efforts must be made to bring both sides back to the negotiating table on the basis of creating two states. All the key issues—borders, refugees and the need to share Jerusalem—must be resolved around the negotiating table. I applaud all efforts that bring that situation about.

14:38

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Many of us are inspired by what we have been seeing in the middle east and north Africa in recent weeks and by the courage and heroism of the protesters, particularly the young people who have lived their entire lives under repression. Equally, many of us feel sick at the prospect of repression triumphing in many parts of the region.

In that vein, I welcome many of the things that the Foreign Secretary announced today. The new Arab partnership and the promise of practical support for what we hope are the emerging democracies of Egypt and Tunisia are excellent. I think he said that there would even be promotion of think-tanks. I am not entirely sure whether that is a good thing, but they are certainly better than the other kind of tank.

The Foreign Secretary also reported positive developments in both countries, including the abolition of their secret police organisations. That is welcome, but there are also worrying reports, including the recent one in Egypt about the forcible clearance of Tahrir square. The experience of Europe, Latin America and the new African democracies is that old habits sometimes die hard among security forces. Perhaps we should take up that theme with the Egyptian Government in particular and with all the emerging democratic movements.

It is also welcome that the Foreign Secretary described a bold and ambitious vision at the European level. A positive vision of transforming the European neighbourhood and actively promoting freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights is very good indeed, as is the role of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in that. I hope that the Department for International Development will also play an active role in considering how that programme should be carried out. It is very important that the people of the middle east and north Africa see a democratic dividend from their transition to democracy, and DFID can play an important role in that.

Sadly, however, freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights are not all that British Governments have promoted in the region. In 2009, EU arms exports to Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia, none of which enjoyed good human rights records at the time, totalled €2.3 billion. Export licences granted by the previous Government—the most recent details I have are from 2009—make disturbing reading. We sold tear gas to Bahrain, imaging cameras to Iran, bombs and missiles to Egypt, anti-riot shields to Kuwait, crowd control equipment and tear gas to Libya, crowd control ammunition to Qatar, small arms ammunition to Syria, armoured personnel carriers to Saudi Arabia and so on. For that reason, I welcome the Minister’s announcement on 17 February that we were revoking many licences to export to Bahrain, and his unambiguous statement on that day:

“We will not authorise any exports…we assess…might be used to facilitate internal repression.”

That is an incredibly important announcement.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I agree with the burden of what the hon. Gentleman says about arms sales and I welcome the suspension of arms sales to Bahrain, but we still pursue massive arms sales to Saudi Arabia, and the people dying on the streets of Bahrain are being killed with equipment that has been sent there from this country. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is time to stop the whole arms sales policy to that region?

[Martin Horwood]

Bluntly, yes—the use of Saudi arms and armour in Bahrain, particularly in the context of today’s disturbing pictures of unarmed protesters being shot in the streets by security forces, means that we must question any continuing arms sales to countries that have records of repression.

I regret that in the midst of the democratic revolutions, the Prime Minister, on his tour of the middle east, which had many positive aspects, was nevertheless accompanied by representatives of BAE Systems, QinetiQ, the Cobham group, Thales UK, Babcock International and Atkins.

In the spirit of coalition, I remind Ministers of the Liberal Democrats’ pre-election criticism of arms sales to the region, and specifically to Libya, and of our support for an international arms trade treaty and the prevention of arms sales to any regime that could use them for internal repression. That last objective has now been strongly expressed by the Minister, but I hope he confirms today that the sale of tear gas and crowd control ammunition to anyone is completely incompatible with those objectives.

There is a clear danger that Libya will not be seen in future in the same light as Egypt and Tunisia; sadly, we might see it alongside Czechoslovakia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Hungary as one of the great failures of the international community to intervene on behalf of the people. I do not envy the Foreign Secretary the decisions he must make, but I can assure him of Liberal Democrat support for any belated action by the international community, although he was right to be wary of any intervention that could be described as “western”. That would be a dangerous path to go down, and any intervention must be undertaken with wide international support.

I support the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), the shadow Foreign Secretary, who said that we should look at other imaginative ways of intervening, particularly in respect of IT infrastructure, to make life impossible for the Libyan regime.

The hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) made an eloquent speech in which he called for a complete policy rethink. There is a lot of truth in that. At UK, European and international level, we need to review how we can rapidly respond to situations such as the one in Libya. We need to do that quickly, because similar situations could soon emerge elsewhere.

[Mr MacShane]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on 17 February I called on the Foreign Secretary to

“agree to a wide review of UK foreign policy in the region before it is too late”?—[Official Report, 17 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 1136.]

I made that call, and I am glad that one month later more Government Members are supporting it.

[Martin Horwood]

I am not sure what I am supposed to say to that, except that I have already said that I support a review of international policy. That has to happen quickly. We also need to review—unfortunately—how we treat brutal dictators who survive using violence and repression. That needs to be addressed urgently. At an international level, we need a strategy for persuading Russia and China in particular—both quick enough to intervene in their neighbourhoods—that the international community’s responsibility to protect needs to become a practical reality. Perhaps we also need some fresh faces in the international community’s peace efforts, not least in the context of the middle east, and Israel and Palestine. In that vein, will Ministers tell us exactly what contribution and progress the former Prime Minister Tony Blair is making in his role as the Quartet’s special envoy? He was always a rather bizarre choice as a middle east peace envoy, and I would like to know whether Ministers think the time has come for him to go and to make way for fresh faces and those slightly more actively engaged in the massive changes taking place in the region.

The clear policy of Arab partnership also needs to extend to states and people currently overlooked. I will end with one example that I hope Ministers will take up: the case of Dr Kamal al-Labwani. He is a Syrian doctor, writer and artist who took part in the brief but unsuccessful Damascus spring in 2001 and the founder of the excellently named Liberal Democratic Union. In 2005, he was charged with weakening national morale and imprisoned. He was behaving only as a free citizen in a free country would have done—an extraordinarily courageous approach once described in Europe by Vaclav Havel as living in truth—but it resulted in his imprisonment. The charge was changed to scheming with a foreign country with the aim of causing it to attack Syria, and he was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. He is now on hunger strike, along with other prisoners in the Adra prison. His detention has been condemned by a UN working group on arbitrary detention as arbitrary and contrary to the UN declaration of human rights, and there is now disturbing news of fresh detentions and disappearances, including of members of Dr al-Labwani’s family, who bear no responsibility for any of his political actions. If we are to have a real Arab partnership for peace, democracy and reform in the region, it must reach out to people such as Dr al-Labwani and other courageous members of democratic movements who might not be in government, and not just to the emerging democratic Governments.

14:48

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

I want to comment on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, but first on north Africa I want to say that I, like everyone who has spoken, welcome the popular uprisings that started in Tunisia. The hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) gave us the background to it: the suicide of the person involved and what followed in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and now Bahrain. However, I disagreed with him when he gave the impression that all along Britain has been on the side of those in Arab countries seeking freedom, dignity and respect. That has not been the position—I only wish it had been.

One of the few advantages of age is that one can remember what has happened in the past in one’s own lifetime. Sixty years ago, there was a reforming Iranian Government with Mossadegh as Prime Minister. In no way was he ever accused—it would have been farcical had he been—of being an Islamist or connected with terrorism. The truth was far from it. However, that reforming Government was overthrown by Britain and the United States, and of course a few years later came the sad and tragic Suez episode. We do not have an honourable record, and I only wish that we did.

It came as no surprise to anyone—certainly not to me—that Gaddafi’s murderous regime refused to give way, as happened in Egypt and Tunisia. Gaddafi was determined to stay on with his cronies. What is happening in Libya now is deplorable to say the least, and the International Criminal Court should certainly keep a careful record and prepare the necessary indictment of Gaddafi and those responsible. However, as I have argued in the past fortnight, I am not persuaded that western military intervention in that country would be the right course to pursue, let alone any unilateral action by Britain. It would be interpreted in most parts of the Arab world—if not by the Governments, then by the population—as an attempt once again to control a country because of its oil resources, and would be looked on as a colonial or imperialist intervention. As I said in an intervention on the Foreign Secretary, if we were to intervene in Libya, why not in Bahrain? What would be the argument for intervening militarily in one country, but refusing to do so in Bahrain? There would be absolutely no logic to it.

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

May I politely suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the answer depends on the difference between Bahrain and Libya? We cannot adopt a world view that assumes that all those countries are the same; it is the specificities of those countries that are relevant.

[Mr Winnick]

Yes, of course there are differences, and no matter how non-democratic Bahrain is, I am not suggesting that it is on the same level as Gaddafi’s regime, but there has already been a foreign intervention in Bahrain. What I am saying—and I do not see how it could be contradicted—is that if we were to intervene in Libya, there would be no less of an argument for doing so in the case of Bahrain. However, if the United Nations Security Council agreed to a no-fly zone, it should be supported by the international community at large. That would give legitimacy if any intervention was to take place, but without such a resolution, there would be no legitimacy whatever.

One or two hon. Members who have spoken—including the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who spoke a few moments ago—have rightly deplored arms sales to Libya, but there was an arms fair in Libya last November. I am not making a party point now—if my side had been in government, that arms fair would obviously have taken place and we would have participated as a country—but is it not deplorable? We read of France and other countries deploring what is happening, but information published by the Library shows that

“Bombs, torpedoes, rockets, missiles…other explosives”

were all sold to Libya by France and Germany, including some no doubt sold by us. They are being used now against the Libyan people, so I ask the question: when we sold that ammunition, who did we believe it was going to be used against? I think the answer is pretty obvious.

Let me say a few words in the time I have left about the Israel-Palestine dispute. My remarks will be somewhat different in tone from those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman). It goes without saying that I deplore the murder of the Fogel family which occurred last week. There could be absolutely no justification, no matter what policies Israel had pursued, for that murder, which was absolutely deplorable. I totally agree with every single word that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside said about anti-Semitism, whether from Hamas or sources in this country. I recently had a letter in a newspaper where I again made it clear that there should be total condemnation of every aspect of anti-Semitism, and I doubt whether anyone here would disagree.

Similarly, what I am about to say should in no way be interpreted as any kind of justification for the murders, but some 1,355 Palestinian children have been killed as a result of Israeli military action in the occupied territories since 2000. There is obviously a difference. However much we deplore the military action, there is a difference between what I have just described and the deliberate murders that took place last weekend, but can anyone imagine what the parents of those Palestinian children must have gone through as they watched their children being killed? A book has been published recently about a Palestinian surgeon whose three daughters were killed. He has no desire for revenge; he wants reconciliation and a settlement. This is all part of the ongoing tragedy of a dispute that continues year after year. At the end of October last year, 256 Palestinian children were in Israeli detention, including 34 between the ages of 12 and 15.

I respect my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside, and I respect the way in which she defends Israel at every opportunity, but I did not hear one single word of criticism of Israel in her speech. I have already said that I endorse her condemnation of anti-Semitism. As far as the occupied territories are concerned, however, there seems to be no recognition by Israel that the settlements are completely illegal under international law. Such settlements now occupy 42% of the land area of the west bank. Indeed, that was the figure last June; a large amount of construction has taken place since then. What justification exists for that? It is being done in defiance of international law.

I am very pleased indeed that the British Government supported the resolution deploring such settlements, although the resolution was unfortunately vetoed by the United States. I am not in the habit of congratulating this Government, but I am also very pleased that the Palestinian delegation here has now been upgraded to a mission. That is the right course of action, and I am sure that it is fully supported by those on my Front Bench.

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

indicated assent.

[Mr Winnick]

Israel, and those who support it, often refer to their wish for two states, but I do not see how that can be taken to be genuine if, at the same time, they use every opportunity to build further settlements in such a way that makes it almost impossible for a viable Palestinian state to come into existence.

If, as we all now recognise, there is a wish in the Arab world for a new life, for dignity, for the rule of law and for being able to work and to hold a similar position to those in the western world, why cannot the Palestinians have those things too? Do they deserve any less? How long must they remain under almost military colonial occupation? The Palestinian people have a right to a land and a state of their own, and I only hope that that will come about in my lifetime.

14:58

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

We have certainly heard some interesting contributions in the debate today. Unfortunately, the previous speaker was not one of them.

Following the collapse of the Berlin wall, many political commentators were left considering what the implications would be, beyond that of a reunified Germany. Since then, we have seen changes in immigration across Europe, as well as different forms of terrorism being promoted and the economic markets being subjected to different problems from those that they had experienced before the fall of the wall.

I urge Members to consider what the implications of the recent unrest and demonstrations in the middle east will be. The collapse of authoritarian regimes in Tunisia and Egypt as a result of the region-wide uprising provides a unique opportunity for the development of genuine democracy in the middle east. The Government must not, however, make the same mistake as occurred in Iraq, by introducing a political vacuum that extremism will fill.

In Egypt, the cultural and political heart of the Arab world and a strategic pillar of EU policy in the region, the stakes are immense. The emergence of a democratic Egypt could serve as a moderating element throughout the region and promote a more stable, peaceful and progressive middle east.

Democracy is, however, more than mere elections. To avoid having a repressive Government freely elected, it is first necessary to introduce and firmly establish institutions of democracy such as a free press, free speech, a constitution, freedom for religion and freedom from religion, equal justice under the law, laws based on individual rights and women’s rights and an independent judiciary. The UK should not press for immediate free elections without the fundamental pillars of democracy being in place. If democracy is not nurtured and built steadily, radicals will emerge. This will not only drive a wedge between Israel and the Arab world, but deepen the divide between the west and the Islamic world.

Recent history has shown that having free elections in a country, without the entrenched safeguards of a genuine democracy, can result in the election of oppressive and undemocratic organisations. These dangers were witnessed in 2006, following the election of the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, which subsequently launched a violent civil war to oust the moderate opposition group, Fatah. We also saw it in1979 in Iran after the Shah was toppled. Within nine months, radical Islamists cemented their control of the country with the election of the ayatollahs.

It will take time for legitimate political movements to establish themselves in Egypt, after several decades in which the extreme Islamist organisation, the Muslim Brotherhood, stood as the only alternative, albeit outlawed, to President Hosni Mubarak’s monolithic national democratic party. The Muslim Brotherhood, as the only large organised opposition group, could use elections to get into power before completely abandoning democratic structures. It is one of the world’s most influential Islamist movements, guided by an expansionist and anti-Israel agenda, and its goal is to implement strict sharia law, which is the antithesis of democracy. The Muslim Brotherhood leader, Kamal al-Halbawi, issued a series of provocative statements on a trip to Iran in this month, and expressed his hope that Egypt would become a “true Islamic state”.

The political future of Egypt has implications that go far beyond that country’s borders. The UK Government must provide support for Egypt during this important transition period while making it clear to the current military leadership that it must continue to meet its regional responsibilities. Egypt has a critical role to play in promoting Israel-Arab dialogue: indeed, its peace treaty with Israel remains the cornerstone of wider peace and stability throughout the region. It is in the interest of the international community, Egypt and the wider middle east that this agreement remains firmly in place. The UK Government should also strongly urge Egypt’s military authorities to continue to confront radicalism, particularly by taking an active role in preventing the flow of weapons to Hamas in Gaza. Last week’s terror attack in Itamar, which claimed the lives of five Israeli civilians, along with the recent seizure of Iranian-supplied weapons designated for terrorists is a reminder that extremist elements pose an ever-present danger to regional peace efforts.

A truly democratic Egypt that promotes regional peace is of paramount interest for the UK. The UK Government can contribute to this by helping to foster the traditions and institutions of a democratic society and by actively encouraging the country to continue to play a positive and stabilising role in the region.

In mentioning the middle east, commentators often focus on Israel itself. Her detractors, as we have already heard this afternoon, claim human rights abuses, while her supporters speak of a beacon of democracy. I believe now is the moment when we can all unite to seek a better middle east. Now that the opportunity has arisen, the Government must ensure that the Quartet, with Tony Blair as its representative, takes a leading role in making it happen. For too long, there has been a political myopia as to what is happening in the middle east beyond the borders of Israel. Our debate today provides an opportunity to address that and reveal to the world the truth about what we can achieve in the middle east.

15:04

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

This is a very important and valuable debate, in which a wide range of opinions have been expressed. I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr Offord) should make such an unpleasant remark about my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), who had expressed a perfectly legitimate and well thought-out point of view. Remarks of that kind do no credit to the debate.

[Mr Winnick]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend—what he has said is very kind—but in view of what the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr Offord) said, I must say that any insult from him is a compliment indeed.

[Mr Offord]

Likewise.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am glad that I have helped to perpetuate the sense of equality that we are observing this afternoon.

Obviously, this is a vital debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North rightly drew attention to its historical connotations, and to Britain’s historical involvement in the region. We tend to delude ourselves in the House that Britain is seen as a benign liberal democracy that never operates out of self-interest but is concerned only with the greater good of mankind as a whole, and that we seek to promote the rule of law, democracy and independence throughout the world. Sadly, the history of Britain’s involvement in north Africa and the middle east hardly adds up to that. We have seen, for instance, the 1952 coup in Iran and all its subsequent ramifications, the Suez operation in 1956, the United States bombing of Libya in 1986 when the planes took off from this country, the obsessive dealing in arms in exchange for oil, and the turning of a blind eye to volumes and volumes of human rights abuses in countries that we claim are close friends of ours.

Last week I tabled what I thought was a perfectly innocuous and reasonable question to the Secretary of State, asking him to tell me on which occasions since June last year

“human rights issues have been raised with… (a) Morocco, (b) Tunisia, (c) Algeria, (d) Libya, (e) Egypt, (f) Yemen, (g) Saudi Arabia and (h) Bahrain”.

I was very disappointed to be told that the Minister would answer “shortly”. I hope that he will answer shortly—

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

rose—

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I will give way to the Minister immediately so that he can give me the answer to my question.

[Alistair Burt]

I will not give the answer quite yet, but I signed off the question this morning, and it is therefore in my mind. I will ensure that the text is available to me in time for my winding-up speech so that I can make one or two references to it. The hon. Gentleman can be sure that a very good and complete answer is well on its way to him.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I would expect nothing less, but I should have loved to have it before the debate so that I could have referred to it. That is why I tabled the question. However, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for securing the debate in the first place.

We need to embark on a complete reappraisal of our policy on the whole region. We cannot go on supporting potentates and dictators, absolute monarchs and abuses of human rights. We cannot continue to sell arms, tear gas, riot shields and all kinds of weapons of destruction, and then not be surprised when they are used. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North said in relation to the sale of arms to Libya, who on earth was supposed to be attacking Libya? Why should it require such a vast array of armoury, along with Saudi Arabia among other countries? We need to think carefully about that.

According to an article in the online edition of The Guardian,

“NMS took up to 50 British companies to arms fairs in Libya in 2008 and last November. The last exhibition reportedly showcased military wares such as artillery systems, anti-tank weapons, and infantry weapons.”

All those are being used as we speak. As for the question of arms sales, the Campaign Against Arms Trade refers to

“UK weapons used against pro-democracy protesters in the Middle East”,

and goes on to report:

“The UK sold tear gas, crowd control armament and sniper rifles to Libya and Bahrain in 2010.”

As we speak, they are being used against protesters there. The Prime Minister, rather bizarrely, took a number of arms salespersons with him on his recent trip. Only a year before that, we were selling equipment to Saudi Arabia that is currently being used in Bahrain. And so the list goes on and on.

We cannot continue to assume that none of that has anything to do with us. It is time that we changed our policy on arms sales completely, and ceased to have an economy that is apparently so dependent on the sale of arms to so many people around the world. You cannot sell arms and then complain about human rights abuses when those arms are used against people who suffer as a result.

[Mr MacShane]

On 17 February, the Foreign Secretary said that the UK

“would strongly oppose any interference in the affairs of Bahrain by other nations”.—[Official Report, 17 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 1135.]

Is my hon. Friend aware of any statement from the Foreign Office calling on the Saudis immediately to withdraw their invasion force?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am not aware of any such statement, and I wish there was such a statement, because the Gulf Co-operation Council sending forces into Bahrain is an invasion and an occupation, and is resulting in a great deal of oppression of people in Bahrain at present.

I want to mention three further specific matters. Palestine has been raised on a number of occasions, and there are a lot of issues to do with Palestine; indeed, last weekend I was at a conference dealing with Palestinian prisoner issues. I shall refer to just one astonishing fact, however: since 1967, Israeli occupation forces have arrested more than 800,000 Palestinians, and at present there are thought to be 6,600 Palestinians in Israeli prisons, including children, elected members of the Palestinian Authority, a number of prisoners who are in isolation and at least 1,000 who are deprived of any kind of family visit. Those are abuses of the human rights of those individuals. Add that to the construction of the wall, add that to the settlement policy, add that to the checkpoints, add that to the imprisonment of the people of Gaza, add that to the huge levels of unemployment resulting in Gaza, add that to the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians living in the Negev desert, add that to the removal of Israeli-Palestinian homes in Haifa and Jaffa—add all that up and what we clearly get is a constant harassment of all the Palestinian people.

I hope that we are serious about human rights, but Israel has been building the wall and continuing the settlements in defiance of all international law and all pressures to the contrary. Where are the condemnations and the sanctions? Where is the public discussion in the west of Israel’s behaviour and policy? I do not want any bombing or assassinations—I do not want any murders or killings—but we see a whole process of hate developing because there is no condemnation of what is being done, which is so damaging to the Palestinian people.

One issue that has not so far been raised is the situation in Morocco, and the Moroccan occupation of the Western Sahara and the several hundred thousand Sahrawi people who have been in refugee camps in Algeria since 1975. I hope that one day the UN through MINURSO—the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara—will take on a human rights role, which I think it should have, and that it will succeed in carrying out the decolonisation statutes, which would give the people of the Western Sahara a right of self-determination.

There is now a third generation of residents in those refugee camps in Algeria, hoping one day to be able to go home. Can we imagine what that must be like? It is not good enough for Morocco to say, “Well, there can be a degree of autonomy in the Western Sahara.” Under international law, it is absolutely clear that, as a former Spanish colony, Western Sahara should, on removal of the colonial power, have the right of self-determination. That right has been denied to the Sahrawi people. It is a sore that runs through their feelings and that runs through the whole region. Again, that can be the start of a problem for the future. I am well aware that the Minister has some sympathy with the views that I am expressing. The all-party group on Western Sahara had a useful meeting with him, and I hope he will be able to give us some further news on this issue in his speech.

Three weeks ago I went on a short visit to Tunisia, where I spent a lot of time talking to people of all political persuasions: those of the left, the centre, a number of Islamic groups and others. It was clear that they were delighted with the removal of President Ben Ali, but they were frightened about the possible return of the Ben Ali regime in a different guise through the power of the security services and patronage in the state. They were therefore frightened of what may well happen in the future.

I was talking to some students in the central square who were very effectively kettling a group of army officers and soldiers, as well as their equipment and tanks. It was slightly bizarre to see a lot of students keeping the army in a square, because in most demonstrations I have been on if the army turns up, people generally think it is bad news. These students thought it was good news to keep the army there because, as they explained to me, a vast array of European-supplied anti-riot equipment was around the corner in the hands of the riot police and they thought that keeping the army in the square would keep the police out because they probably would not fire on the army. It was therefore a perfectly logical choice to make.

I discussed with the students what their hopes for the future were, and the answers were diverse; there was no coherent central theme to what they wanted, except freedom to demonstrate, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and so on. When I asked them whether they wanted western help they said, “No, because when the west comes in it never leaves. We want to do this ourselves and we want to achieve something different ourselves.”

Amnesty International has sent out a very interesting briefing, pointing out the abuses of human rights and the shootings of people that have gone on in so many countries: Tunisia, Algeria, Sudan, Egypt, Bahrain, Oman and Saudi Arabia. The list goes on and on, and it includes Yemen, describing what is happening there at the moment. There is a common theme, which relates not only to the thirst for peace and democracy, but to an economic issue. So many of those countries have adopted economic policies that resulted in mass youth unemployment. This is about the anger of young people who see no future and no security for themselves in an oppressive state that has been largely supported by the west.

We need to think very carefully. We need to express a great deal of hope about what is going on throughout the region, but military intervention has brought problems in every place that we have been in in the past. I understand all the arguments for a no-fly zone over Libya, but I do not see how it will do anything other than exacerbate an already tense situation.

15:17

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

This debate is, of course, an extraordinary phenomenon. We have been stuck in intervention for the past 20 years. We have spent $3 trillion, we have had 100,000 lives lost and we have had more than 1 million soldiers pass through Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan, yet we do not seem to have a clear answer on what we do in Libya. The lessons that we are taking from history are very dubious. People are referring to Bosnia, but they are forgetting that Bosnia was a sovereign, independent state when it asked for assistance—the entire debate in the Security Council was completely different. We fail also to understand ourselves. As hon. Members from all parts of the House have mentioned, we fail to understand our own tendency to be unable to do something with passionate moderation. We shift quickly from dipping our toe in the water to being submerged up to our neck—we go from a no-fly zone into a troop deployment.

The final thing that we misunderstand—this is the reason why we need to lift our eyes from Libya—is the way in which we are increasingly perceived in the middle east after our interactions with Iraq and Afghanistan. If we were discussing this immediately after the events in Kosovo, the whole debate would be completely different. If those events had just happened, we would be able to stand up and say, “We don’t care that the Russians are blocking us in the Security Council. We have done a good job in Kosovo and we are going to do the same thing in Libya.” But the intervening 10 years have made that option impossible, which is why the Government’s position is the correct one.

If I understand it correctly, the Government’s position is to push strongly for a no-fly zone, but a no-fly zone only with strong international backing. Many people on both sides of the House have suggested that that is a paradox and that it is somehow impossible. They say, “Either you push for a no-fly zone or you don’t. Your rhetoric has to be matched with your action. If you think you have a humanitarian right and an obligation, you should do it regardless of the international politics.” That no longer makes sense. It is perfectly consistent to say that we have a moral right and a moral duty to impose a no-fly zone but will not do so without the support of the United Nations. One of the most important things to remember in that context is not Russia but Brazil, India and South Africa—the emerging powers who are not, at the moment, on our side. If we try to lurch into this thing without bringing with us what will probably be the majority of the countries in the world, it will be extremely unwise and very dangerous. Does that mean that we should do nothing? No. It means that we need to lift our eyes above Libya. We need to see the incredible potential in this region, if we are patient, over the next 20 to 30 years.

We tend, I think, to get caught up in exactly what happens when a helicopter lands near Benghazi, rather than keeping our eyes on Egypt and Tunisia and on what the middle east and north Africa mean to us. They mean so much to us. It is not just that they are on the other side of the Mediterranean. It is not just that they have this incredible young, unemployed population who are both a potential source of prosperity for their own nations and for us and a potential threat to us. We also have much greater leverage on those countries than on the nations that are much further away, such as Afghanistan.

The relationships between France and Morocco and between Italy and Libya—indeed, around the whole Mediterranean littoral—are so close that that region is definitely within Europe’s sphere of influence. If we can move from panicking about exactly what is happening in Libya to considering how to invest over the next 10 to 30 years and how to put ourselves in a position where all the talk about what we do to make this our 1989 and to make the middle east and north Africa another example, along with central and eastern Europe, of how we can move countries to a more prosperous, democratic future, it will obviously be good for us and for them.

We need to be cautious. A lot of nonsense is talked about democratisation and it is very easy for us to imagine that we can somehow go into someone else’s society and create civil society and good governance and eliminate corruption when those are not things that we have proved very able to do in Kenya, Nepal or Afghanistan. That does not mean, however, that we can do nothing.

The lesson from the experience of central and eastern Europe is that progress is possible, but the kind of progress we should make is exactly the kind of progress that we have been speaking about. I applaud what the Government have said about access—to markets and to people—but the lesson from eastern Europe is that that needs to be adjusted. What was very smart about what we did in eastern Europe was that our policy, for example, towards Slovakia was different from our policy towards the Czech Republic—we were more open towards the Czech Republic, and people in Slovakia saw that and moved. Too often, our policy towards north Africa has been a one-size-fits-all policy. We now need a policy that not only no longer says that Tunisia is simply within France’s sphere of influence—that we will not do anything about Tunisia because that is a French affair—but says that Tunisia might deserve different treatment from countries such as Libya, and that Egypt might deserve different treatment from countries such as Morocco.

[Mr MacShane]

The hon. Gentleman is making a fascinating speech. Frankly, the comparisons with 1989 are wrong, because this is more like the crushing of what happened in Hungary or Prague than a gentle transition to democracy. We should never forget that Mrs Thatcher did not support German unification at that time. In 1980, when Solidarnosc was suppressed, many countries were quite happy to see stability restored and caution was the watchword of the day.

On the hon. Gentleman’s narrow point about how we treat Tunisia, when I was Europe Minister I tried to get Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria switched to the European department of the Foreign Office, but the Africanists put their little feet down and said, “No, they belong permanently to Africa.” Will he talk to his colleagues at the Foreign Office and get those countries treated as part of the broader south Mediterranean and European hinterland rather than African ex-colonies?

[Rory Stewart]

I disagree very strongly and I think that in 10 to 20 years’ time, the right hon. Gentleman will have been proved wrong. I think the situation is equivalent to 1989 and that is the direction in which those countries are heading. It is patronising and mistaken of him to believe that this is simply a repeat of the 1950s and 1960s.

Let us look at Libya specifically. Gaddafi is going to be a very peculiar, eccentric and isolated figure even within his own country. Everything is shifting against that man. When he came to power, the population was rural and there was an anti-colonial movement. He now faces a situation in which 80% of Libyans live in cities in which he is perceived as a colonial oppressor. He has gone from the bloodless revolution that brought him to power four decades ago to a bloody attack on his own people. What we are hearing in Egypt and Tunisia is not some accidental, sporadic pop-up that will be constrained by inevitable forces of tyranny or Arabic culture. It is probably something closer to what we have seen in central and eastern Europe and in Latin America in the past 20 to 30 years. Furthermore, it is in our political and moral interests to support it. Even if I am wrong and it is not an inevitability but only a probability that things are going in that direction, it is the direction in which we should be pushing. This is Britain’s opportunity and Europe’s moment, and that is the direction we need to go in.

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

I take absolutely no issue with the hon. Gentleman’s comment that it is our political and moral duty to do that. However, at the risk of rehearsing European history, the 10 countries that joined the European Union in 2004 were democracies before the iron curtain fell, so we were restoring democracy and we did it within the framework of membership of the European Union. It is different.

[Rory Stewart]

I thank the hon. Lady for those comments. The last thing that I, or any of us, want is to be starry-eyed about this. The differences that she has raised are incredibly important and have to be considered in relation to how we speak to the middle east. The whole movement in central and eastern Europe and the ability to speak about democracy, liberty and joining NATO and the European Union was driven by the history of the 1930s and by the cold war. The language on the streets in the middle east today is very different. I am afraid that George Bush has done a great disservice to words such as liberty, equality and democracy—words that were on the lips of Vaclav Havel—which do not sit so easily today when we talk to those countries. We need new words and I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) talk instead about dignity and justice. We need a whole new language and it needs to be driven by them, not us. Freedom is not something that is given but something that is taken.

All those words of caution need to be considered, but we can, nevertheless, have a constructive role over the next 20 to 30 years in helping the middle east and north Africa be more stable, more prosperous and more humane than today. That is our mission. That is what we have to put our weight behind and is where we need to invest, which means a number of things for our foreign policy. Rhetorically and financially we have been stuck in Asia. Financially, if we include debts and veterans’ costs, we are spending more than £7 billion a year in Afghanistan. Rhetorically, we have been in China and Brazil for good reasons—they are big emerging countries—but this is a wake-up call about what is going on at the other end of the Mediterranean, which, in demographic, energy, religious and security terms will prove to be more important to our institutions and future than we have acknowledged in the past five to 10 years. We therefore need to invest in institutions.

I absolutely celebrate what the Foreign Office is doing in recruiting more Arabists. We need people who can focus on Azeri and people who speak different languages. There are not enough British ambassadors in the middle east who speak fluent Arabic. We need to make sure that Tunisia is no longer seen as some French extension and we also need to take into account the lessons from European enlargement. We need to look at the way in which the Commission approached Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia and we need to give the prestige and investment to our energies in north Africa and the middle east that was given to those countries.

If we get those things right and we keep to the principles on Libya that the Government have put in play—first, clarity; secondly, a coalition; thirdly, a recognition that we can set strategic direction without having to rush in with our troops; and finally, institutional investment over the next 10 to 20 years in our relationships with these countries—I think we will find that although we can do much less than we pretend, we can do much more than we fear.

15:30

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

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and to follow the interesting and thought-provoking speech made by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart).

We are living through extraordinary times when a single incident in Tunisia has sparked a movement against dictatorship and repression, and a movement for democracy, human rights and freedom, throughout the regions of north Africa and the middle east. It is still too early to say whether these times possess the precise significance of the events that led to the fall of the communist regimes in eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but the international community must ensure through its collective action over the coming days and weeks that the Arab spring does not become simply another Prague spring. While democracy should never be imposed by external forces, we should endeavour to assist those who are campaigning for human rights and freedoms in their hour of need.

Let me turn first to the most pressing area of concern: Libya. The unrest there began on 16 February following the arrest of Fathi Terbil, the human rights lawyer, and peaceful demonstrations in the east of the country, which for many years has been left in a state of under-development by the Gaddafi regime. Those protests led to a widespread rebellion against the regime and then the bloody fight back that the regime has launched against its own people. It is clear that the Gaddafi regime has lost its authority to remain in power, and the Libyan people should be supported in their efforts to remove it.

There is a need for immediate action by the international community to prevent further attacks by the Gaddafi regime on the protesters and the interim national council. While we have been engaged in this debate, the BBC and Reuters have said that air strikes have been reported on the outskirts of Benghazi and at Benghazi airport, so the situation is clearly fast-moving. If the regime launches a brutal counter-attack, there is a strong possibility of a severe loss of life in Benghazi, so the international community must be ready to consider measures such as a ceasefire and a no-fly zone over Libya. Latest reports, and indeed the Foreign Secretary’s opening speech, indicate that the UN Security Council might consider and vote on the draft resolution on Libya in the next few days.

Views differ about the nature of any no-fly zone. General McPeak, the former US air force chief of staff who helped to oversee no-fly zones in Iraq and the Adriatic, has advocated a no-fly zone over rebel-held areas, which would not require the incapacitation of air defence systems. Other no-fly zones have been extremely demanding to police, as they have required AWACS, aircraft refuelling support and round-the-clock monitoring. We should be mindful of what we might ask of the pilots involved in policing a no-fly zone, as well as the risk of incidents of friendly fire. A no-fly zone did not stop the Srebrenica massacre in 1995, but if such a measure proves vital for humanitarian reasons in the coming days and weeks, the Security Council should follow the lead of the Arab League.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

A no-fly zone did not stop what happened in Srebrenica—I was there earlier than that—but the no-fly zone over Bosnia was ineffective because it was not properly set up. If we are going to do something, let us do it properly and make sure that it works—otherwise forget it.

[Mr Bain]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and one I will refer to later in my remarks.

We ought to follow the lead of the opposition national council and the EU and take the steps required to protect against future and further atrocities by the regime. There are important contrasts with the more complex no-fly zone that operated in Iraq between 1991 and 2003, which required on average 34,000 sorties a year, at an annual cost of nearly $1.5 billion. Shashank Joshi said recently:

“In Libya, by contrast, NATO might only need to cover Tripoli, its transport corridors, and… urban areas threatened by Qadhafi loyalists.”

As he also pointed out this week, arming the opposition would cause a serious risk. Portable anti-aircraft missiles could slip out of responsible hands and be used against western targets, and small arms proliferation is already a blight in that part of the world.

[Mr Cash]

Does the hon. Gentleman realise what he has just said? I think that he said that we should not arm the resistance movement. Does he realise that Richard Dannatt and many others who have great experience are calling for these people to be properly armed? Otherwise, there will be a massacre. Does he really appreciate what he is saying?

[Mr Bain]

There is a range of views on this, and we should proceed very carefully and in full recognisance of all the arguments before taking steps over the next few days, particularly on arms.

It is clear that any no-fly zone would require a sound legal mandate invoking chapter VII of the UN charter where possible. There are also practical difficulties in enforcing a no-fly zone against helicopters, as a breach of it might require attacks against ground targets.

The humanitarian situation in Libya and its neighbouring states has worsened over the past few weeks, with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees reporting that more than 280,000 people have fled Libya and crossed the borders into Tunisia and Egypt. This week, the UNHCR reported that people seeking to flee combat areas in search of refuge are unable to do so or are being prevented from doing so, with a particularly critical situation affecting trapped refugees and asylum seekers who have been detained. We should support UNICEF in its efforts to make an immediate response to alleviate the humanitarian crisis as soon as it can safely enter the country.

The key point is that the international community cannot abandon the Libyan people in this time of need. This must not be another situation like 1992 where, having supported the Shi’a community in Iraq, we then abandoned them when Saddam began to attack them and gave little other than moral support thereafter.

In the few moments remaining I will turn to some of the other states in the neighbouring areas. In Bahrain, movement towards a genuine constitutional monarchy seems to me to be the most likely step to bring about reconciliation and progress. Other middle east Governments must respond to the movements for political and economic reform, such as those in Saudi Arabia and Yemen. As many Members have said, we need to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and secure a viable Palestinian state, cohabiting alongside an Israeli state, in order to begin the process of providing a better future for people in the region.

I saw some very interesting data from the Pew global attitudes project last year, which found a decline in support in the Muslim world for radicalism and terrorist attacks. I think that that shows the genuine beliefs of the people in the middle east. They want peace and security and, above all, economic development and reform. As Secretary of State Clinton set out in her speech in Doha on 13 January, there are many signs of the potential for a new and innovative middle east, but there are also huge problems, such as mass youth unemployment, which is approaching 20%, a stagnant political order and depleted resources. We in the west can play our part by securing a completion of the WTO Doha round to liberalise trade and to encourage growth in poorer states, and by building links between the EU and the middle east and north Africa.

Developing civil society, helping to reform the economy and helping the peoples of the middle east and north Africa to increase their human rights and freedoms will be vital to their future and to the security of the region, and in an interconnected world it will be increasingly important for our security here at home in Britain, too.

15:40

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

My mind has been expanded by many people’s contributions today. We have looked at the situation in the middle east from many different perspectives, and I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) talk about trade issues. I will begin by looking at what has been going in the middle east and its wider diplomatic impact on us, and then I will come back to the pressing issue of what we must do for the 1 million people in Benghazi.

The world has changed fundamentally. It has changed financially in the past four years, and now our diplomatic policy, which has held for decades in the middle east, has been shaken. Stability, over legitimacy, has been the watchword, but now we have reversed that and need to ensure that not only we as a country but Europe and the west are at the forefront of this new, emerging and neighbouring area in the middle east.

We face a new world order, with not only instability in the middle east, but changing priorities for some of our closest allies, and that requires a revised response from this country—a reshaping of our approach to diplomacy. Dealing with volatility diplomatically is always difficult, and certainty is most certainly elusive in the middle east and north Africa, but the desire for certainty must not tempt us to back winners throughout the region.

Many, including myself, think that it might be more than 10 years before we can see an exact pattern—an exact level of stability—in countries that are going through such fundamental change, but it would be extremely dangerous if we at this stage chose who we believed were going to be the Governments or the winners in those countries, so we need to be cautious of supporting one iteration of these dynamic events over another.

We need to be seen to be the supporters of the citizens of those countries, rather than of their Governments. If their future Governments reflect the wishes of those citizens, our stated support for their aspiration will coincide with support for their Government. If those Governments are not in step with their people, they will not represent stability, so we need to be more subtle, nuanced and sensitive to the citizens, not just to their Governments. Volatility in diplomacy is going to be the new certainty.

Fundamental changes in power structures are also taking place. Regional power is playing a stronger role, over the global structures that we have had in the past, and it is really positive to see the Arab League making some decisions. For too long it has been merely a talking shop, but Europe needs to be more united, too, and to have a stronger voice throughout north Africa and the middle east.

These developments, particularly in the middle east, have revealed a changing world and, explicitly, changing expressions of interest. Direct national interest appears to be determining countries’ appetite for engagement, and the US has shown quite a reluctance to commit one way or another, but ironically that has offered greater space for, and demanded increased responsibility from, regional actors, such as the Arab League, Europe and the African Union.

Our Government and European countries are taking the lead in the UN. I know that there are some questions about certain members of the European Union, but it is a European initiative that is coming forward. We now need to allow for regional solutions to come forward too, with people neither expecting nor depending on intervention by global powers. However, although regional responses may be positive in sharing responsibility and expanding the horizons of different parts of the European and African space, they might create increasing instability and less international control over conflicts and crises.

I should like to return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) has ensured we have not forgotten. One million people are trapped in a town that has been surrounded and is being bombed at this moment. We are facing a very horrid dilemma. Do we enter Libya? Do we arm the rebels in Benghazi? Are we to ensure that we deliver a no-fly zone? Should we be looking at the supply lines as being the crucial bloodstream that is allowing Gaddafi to intervene?

These are some of the approaches that we have used in the past. I believe that we now need to look carefully at a new international peacekeeping and humanitarian toolkit. Are we being creative enough? Will our UN resolution allow for arms to enter Benghazi as part of the UN right to protect? Are we able to adopt new mechanisms that reflect our support for people over their Governments? I ask one question of the Government: are they offering support for the Libyan rebels in support of their desire and need to establish a small enclave very quickly? I am looking to see whether it would be possible to establish a humanitarian state over a short period and create a humanitarian protectorate immediately. We need game-changers, because the game has changed. I hope that the new, more creative and immediate responses that we need will be put in place quickly enough to save the 1 million people in Benghazi.

15:47

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys), who put her finger on the main issue that I want to address—no-fly zones. There has been a confusion between military and humanitarian aims and outcomes, and if we are not clear when we are taking military action and do it under the guise of humanitarian action, we might end up doing neither properly.

The hon. Lady also mentioned the move towards a duty to protect—a concept that the United Nations has started to develop. The question of the stage at which the United Kingdom feels that it should step into the breach in a duty to protect is a very live one. The Foreign Secretary said in his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee that it depended on circumstances. Of course, that is right, but this place, at some stage—probably not now—needs to think through what the duty to protect would mean in practice. If there was one mistake that the Blair Administration made in the run-up to the Iraq invasion it was that the debate should have been about “Why now?” rather than weapons of mass destruction. That should have been the logic of his Chicago speech and the subsequent actions.

However, today’s debate is about north Africa and the middle east. I should like to make a technical and narrow contribution about no-fly zones, which many people have talked about. Even when the Prime Minister raised the issue, I was not entirely convinced that he really knew what he was asking for. I thought it might be useful to look back at the experiences of previous no-fly zones and the lessons that we should have learned from them regarding where they worked and where they did not.

The no-fly zone in northern Iraq from 1991 to 2003 is, by and large, seen as a successful one. The reason is that the northern no-fly zone linked western air operations with Kurdish political parties and militias. In combination, they deterred Iraqi military action against the Kurds, which enabled a stable and sophisticated political and economically prosperous autonomous Kurdish cell. That success endured, even after the 2003 chaos. The northern Iraqi no-fly zone is arguably the most successful single engagement of the entire UK military engagement in Iraq since 1991. We ought to hold on to that point, because I do not think that the subsequent two no-fly zones were successful and we must consider why.

The southern Iraqi no-fly zone lasted from 1992 to 2003, and was imposed after the brutal repression of the Shi’as was effectively complete. In other words, we stepped in after the disaster had happened. No coherent Shi’ite political structure was accessible to the west and there was no appetite for direct action to prevent Iraq draining the southern marshes, on which the Shi’as depended for survival. From a humanitarian standpoint, the no-fly zone achieved little. As a coercive policy instrument, it achieved more. In 1994, it was extended from latitude 32° north to 33° north. To prevent a re-attack on Kuwait, its terms were widened to make it a no-drive zone for Iraqi armoured and mechanised divisions. In 1998, Operation Desert Fox was launched through the southern no-fly zone against sites associated with the development of weapons of mass destruction in central Iraq. The capture of Iraq’s senior commanders in 2003 revealed that Operation Desert Fox persuaded Iraq to abandon its manufacture of WMD.

The third no-fly zone I will discuss was in Bosnia from 1993 to 1995, and I am glad that there is somebody in the Chamber who knows much more about it than I. The assessment is that it was neither a practical nor a political success. Its effectiveness was limited by restricted rules of engagement that prevented action against helicopters, and by poor co-ordination between NATO and the UN. Its coercive impact was seriously undermined by a bitter political dispute between European capitals and the Clinton Administration over America’s preference to lift the arms embargo on the Bosnian Muslims and to strike the Bosnian Serbs directly.

I come now to the practicalities and what we should do in Libya. The conflicts in Iraq, Syria and Yugoslavia indicate that air forces equipped with 1970s and 1980s Soviet and French aircraft are comprehensively outmatched by air forces equipped with modern western aircraft and training. Technically and tactically, the US and NATO have consistently proved their ability sufficiently to suppress 1980s vintage integrated air defence systems, and thus enable air operations at an acceptable level of risk. That does not necessitate the complete destruction of the IADS. Indeed, that was never achieved in Iraq or the Balkans. In Iraq, between 1998 and 2000, there were 470 separate engagements of American and RAF aircraft by Iraqi surface-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft artillery. They were defeated by a combination of tactics, self-protection counter-measures carried by all participating aircraft, aircraft equipped with anti-radiation missiles designed to attack air defence radars, and airborne stand-off jammers. Importantly, the US remains the only nation with the electronic warfare and ARM capabilities needed to support sustained operations against a functioning IADS.

Clear command and control to prevent the destruction of friendly military or civil aircraft is a prerequisite for any air operations, as are legal and unambiguous rules of engagement. Ambiguities that might allow transport aircraft and helicopters to fly or for civilian aircraft to be used for combat operations provide obvious points of challenge. The southern Iraqi no-fly zone was undermined by Iraqi Airways flights between Baghdad and Basra, and Baghdad and Mecca. The Bosnian no-fly zone was rendered ineffective by the consistent use of helicopters, particularly by the Bosnian Serbs. The success of the US special forces and air power and the Northern Alliance’s forces in Afghanistan 2001 reinforces the experience of the northern Iraqi no-fly zone. To be effective, air operations must be designed to affect the surface of the earth and influence protagonists.

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful case about something that we are only starting to understand—the strength of the armed forces involved. She is absolutely right to say that second-generation bits of kit are involved in the current situation, some of which have fallen into the rebels’ hands and are being used. However, it is dangerous to compare Libya with Bosnia, Iraq and other places, because the terrain is very different. A 750-mile stretch of land, 5 miles wide, is the area that needs to be controlled, so we are comparing apples and pears. I urge caution in suggesting that because something did not work in Iraq or Bosnia, it could not work in Libya, which is a very different ball game.

[Ms Stuart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he allows me to correct the impression I might be giving that I am against no-fly zones. I believe that we need to consider this carefully and positively and work out how to make it happen. In a sense the Libyan terrain is much easier, not least because, to state the obvious, it is much flatter than Bosnia in particular.

However, I do not believe that we yet have the local engagement with the political parties and groups on the ground that made the northern Iraq no-fly zone successful. We have not yet achieved that in Libya, and we need to establish it. I suggest that the Libyan air force capabilities are probably pretty much comparable with what Yugoslavia and the Iraqis had in the 1990s.

I think it was the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) who cautioned us to try to learn from history. As A. J. P. Taylor said, it is perfectly possible not to learn lessons from history and to make entirely new mistakes. There are some things that we can learn from no-fly zones. We need absolutely clear and unambiguous rules of engagement and absolute clarity about when the purpose is humanitarian and when it is military, and unless the no-fly zone supports something that is happening on the ground, it will not help. We had better be aware of that.

15:57

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

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I have listened carefully to all the contributions so far, and I have been struck by the efforts of various speakers to understand better what is going on by finding some frame of historical reference to link it to. Is it more like 1989, 1956, 1918, 1848, 1789 or 1453? It is a tempting game to play. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) made clear, historians often debate whether we can learn adequately from the past, or whether we repeat mistakes from the past. I would argue, however, that we can learn some lessons from the themes of the past.

Members have spoken about the revolutions that we have seen in the Arab world. It is worth remembering the etymology of the word “revolution” and the circumstances in which it was first used. It was in the Italian city states of the renaissance, where rich families ruled cities and feuded with each other. One family would take over amidst much bloodshed, and there would be a change of ruling family. That was called a “revolution”, because there had been a full cycle and things came back to exactly where they had started.

The big fear about the situation in north Africa is that we will see the blooming of potential but then a return to the status quo. That would be the greatest tragedy of all. History has shown that at the moment when autocracy is weakened and a dictator takes his foot off the neck of the people whom he is oppressing, not only is there the greatest opportunity for more freedom and democracy but there is the greatest risk that extremists will be able to use the opportunity to flourish and to gain legitimacy through the ballot box.

I was pleased to hear hon. Members speak earlier about the importance of civil society. One contributor said that civil society could not be created from outside, but I strongly believe that the greatest contribution the Government can make to what is sadly occurring in north Africa and middle east is to do all they can to use their soft power to strengthen civil society.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) was quite right to point to the need for evolution over time, but equally we have been urged to raise our sights over and above Libya. That is difficult to do on the day we hear of Benghazi being bombed, and of a million inhabitants being threatened. Who knows what Muammar Gaddafi will unleash?

When an autocrat takes his foot off the gas, the international community seems to get the message that now is the time for him to go, as we saw in Egypt and Tunisia. However, when a dictator appears to be more implacable, as in Libya and—dare I say it?—Côte d’Ivoire, they appear to manage to gain greater legitimacy, and indeed more staying power, and the developed world ceases to take notice. Suddenly, those dictators are not on the front page but on page 2, or on page 22 of Le Monde, as someone noted earlier. It is important that when the international community sends a message, it remains resolute, so that the message does not diminish over time.

As someone who came to political maturity—if I can call it that—during 1989, I found it deeply inspirational to see people reclaiming democracy in Egypt. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston pointed out, the Egyptians had a history of democracy and civil society, and were claiming it back. However, true democracy and true freedom is not a matter of forming an orderly queue outside a polling station to cast a vote; it is far greater than that. I want to ensure that we do not replicate in Egypt what we saw happen in Gaza, where the mechanisms of freedom and an electoral process gave an opportunity to Hamas to take power, and to exploit and misuse those opportunities. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) spoke eloquently and more than adequately about the true nature of Hamas—I have no wish to repeat what she said, because it was all entirely true.

I would rather we looked to the example of Turkey, where an Islamist party has managed to demonstrate its democratic credentials and minimise the role of the army. My great concern in the case of Egypt is the immense strength that the army retains, in terms not merely of military power but of economic power. The Egyptian army has fingers in so very many pies—it even owns tourist hotels and transport companies. The great danger is that we will see a true renaissance revolution in Egypt, whereby in a few months’ time we will have gone through the cosmetic process of creating an electoral register and holding notionally free elections, but the power behind the throne remains. That is not a democratic revolution, but merely a changing of the guard.

I am also greatly concerned about the impact that events in Egypt will have on Israel. No matter what some in the House say, Israel remains in a very fragile strategic position. Compromise becomes ever harder to find in Israeli politics. We have spent a lot of time in this debate discussing the impact of demographics on the unleashing of the Arab spring. As one hon. Member said, the combination of a young population and the lack of economic growth conjured up a perfect storm. We see a similar perfect storm in Israel. The higher birth rate among the orthodox community and the Arab population in Israel is changing Israeli electoral dynamics. As the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) rightly pointed out, Israel has a very pure form of proportional representation that allows very small parties to get in on very small shares of the vote. It then becomes extremely hard to build broad-based, stable and endurable Governments that are committed to the cause of peace.

I am greatly concerned that as these demographic trends continue the pro-peace centre of Israeli politics will shrink and shrink, and it will become ever harder for the great number of people in Israel who want peace to prevail within their own political system. I know that we do not like to interfere in other people’s electoral systems, but I strongly believe that until Israel addresses the stability of its Governments, the chances of achieving a lasting and endurable peace will be that much harder.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an admirable speech, and I support a lot of what he says. He made an interesting point about the nature of Israeli politics and its influence on the peace process. However, does he agree that if Israeli citizens felt more secure they might choose candidates and Governments more conducive to the peace process?

[Paul Maynard]

That is an interesting point. There is a wider one though, which is that the nature of the electoral system gives a disproportionate amount of power to those more radical. It is their influence rather than the amount of support they have that causes the problem in Israel.

Finally, I want to make the point I feel most passionate about. We have spoken about the importance in north Africa and the middle east of inculcating democracy, freedom and the ability to live a free, harmonious, economically meaningful life. That is at risk, however, for a key and important group of people in the region—the Christian community. I have been deeply disturbed to learn of disquiet—bordering on violence—in Cairo, with the Coptic Christian community, and deeply concerned to learn of the murder of a Polish monk in Tunisia. The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) rightly pointed out that a lot of nasty things will creep out from under the stones of revolution, and I deeply hope that one of those is not more violence against Christian communities of whatever denomination. We have seen it happen in Algeria, and I do not want it happening across the whole of the middle east, because if that region is to succeed in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) pointed out, it needs a deeper level of harmony. That means the ability of people of all faiths, be they Jewish, Muslim or Christian, to get on. Until those divides are healed, I fear that the middle east will not take up its rightful role in the world.

It is worth bearing in mind that many in Europe regard the Mediterranean as a border. However, some of the finest Roman ruins are in Leptis Magna on the Libyan coast. In Roman times, the Mediterranean was called Mare Nostrum—“our sea”. As someone who usually does not have much time for the European Union, I think it is important that in the Euro-Med process and in what President Sarkozy has sought to do we reach out to north Africa and see it as part of Europe, not just another continent that we do not wish to know about.

16:08

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). Of course, if he goes to Tunis, he will see the ruins of Carthage, where our dear Roman friends sought to ensure that the Carthaginians were destroyed and not permitted a future. We do not want to revert to that kind of parallel.

There are a couple of interesting anniversaries for us to consider today. One is dear to me: it is 30 years since the suppression of the Polish union Solidarnosc at the end of 1981. That great hopeful moment of liberation for the Polish people was then crushed by a cruel dictatorship, and we did not know how to respond. I hope that we can think constructively about what is happening in north Africa, which indeed is a revolutionary moment and a hopeful moment for the world. We have heard good speeches from both sides of the House in what is a most enjoyable debate to listen to.

Today is also an anniversary of a different sort, because exactly one month ago, on 17 February, the Foreign Secretary came to the House to make a statement on Bahrain, in response to an urgent question granted by Mr Speaker. The Foreign Secretary had just been there, and immediately following his visit there were the first demonstrations, repressions and killings; however, he did not seem to know that this was about erupt. It is that lack of what I would call intuitive imagination about world affairs that is the problem in our handling of foreign policy. I am not making a strictly party political point, because the same applies just as much to the previous Administration. I asked the Foreign Secretary to come to the House and, as the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) pointed out in his excellent speech, I asked him:

“Does he agree that a wind of change is blowing through the Arab world”?

I also put it to him that he should

“agree to a wide review of UK foreign policy in the region before it is too late”.—[Official Report, 17 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 1136.]

I wish that such a review had taken place earlier, but as so often in our country, it is now taking place under the force of events. There have been some unhappy reactions, but there is no point going over who made a mistake, who went on an arms sales trip, which planes could not leave the tarmac and the rest of it. Rather, we should work out how we need to go forward.

I will not talk about making any sort of military intervention in Libya, because there are others who are experts. However, if, as the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) pointed out, the intervention in Iraq helped to increase al-Qaeda’s standing and status, then perhaps non-intervention in Libya will have exactly the same impact. In the non-intervention philosophy of the 1930s—if I could take my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) a little before her birth date—the line was “Do not intervene”, and as a result the most horrible dictatorships and repressions were given the green light.

What do we have as a foreign policy? There are perhaps three components to our foreign policy: hard power, soft power and political influence. Sadly, because of cuts in the military our hard power is, frankly, decreasing. We have two aircraft carriers that are now Britain’s no-fly zones because we do not have planes that can fly off them. We are also heavily engaged in Afghanistan. However, just as America’s international influence was drained by its presence in Vietnam year after year—the Americans stayed for many years after they could serve any useful purpose, allowing Brezhnev and other horrible dictators to roam freely round the world—we need to look at reducing our profile in Afghanistan faster.

We need to look at the fact that we are cutting back our diplomatic service, including our diplomatic foreign language training schools. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border appealed for more Arab-speakers. “Ditto,” say I, but we are not just cutting Arab-speaking diplomats; we are cutting our entire diplomatic presence.

Moving to soft power, the last time the Foreign Secretary came to the House to answer an urgent question, it was to defend the cuts to the BBC World Service. Two weeks ago the Secretary of State for International Development announced that he was cutting support for the International Labour Organisation’s core funding. However, there are trade unions in Egypt and Tunis; indeed, I have been meeting them on and off for 20 years, including the Union Générale Tunisienne du Travail, the one Tunisian trade union that has some independence. That union wants help from the ILO and the TUC, but we are cutting such aid at the very moment that it could be most useful in building civil society.

We are also reducing the number of students from those areas coming to study in Britain. We have fewer Chevening scholarships, but more importantly, we are saying to those students around the world, “You’re no longer welcome to come and study in mainstream British universities,” because of the anti-immigration nostrums of the Conservatives, in thrall to an unpleasant press. That is the decline in our soft power. I put it to the House that every Tunisian, Libyan or Egyptian who comes and gets a degree in Britain leaves a friend of Britain.

[Ms Gisela Stuart]

Does my right hon. Friend also recognise the work of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy? Its funding has been increased, but it has also been working in Lebanon and Egypt on strengthening parliamentary democracy.

[Mr MacShane]

I am a fan of the WFD, but its total income is less than half the going rate for a banker’s bonus—[Interruption.] For once, that was not my phone. Madam Deputy Speaker and I have a relationship over my mobile phone—over it sounding in the Chamber, I hasten to add.

We are saying to the students of the region, “You are not welcome in Britain any more.” We are losing it on the soft power front. We are even withdrawing the pitiful amount of funding that we give to the Quilliam Foundation, whose director was imprisoned in Cairo and who knows the leaders of the Cairene opposition. It is preposterous that the Home Office should be shutting down that outfit at a time when it needs more help, not less.

I understand from replies to my parliamentary questions that the Department for International Development will spend more than £1 billion in the next four years on aid to India, a country with more billionaires and millionaires than we have, with a space programme—almost a man-on-the-moon programme—and with its own aid programme. We are giving £1 billion to India, yet we are not finding any money at all for Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco because they were not on any United Kingdom aid programme. Tunisia was not even a target country for our trade promotion activities.

That is what I mean about the Government’s utter lack of intuitive, emotional understanding of the changes that are about to take place. I know that there has been a crisis at the Foreign Office and that that has been uncomfortable for Ministers, and I do not blame officials, although perhaps I am not so sure about all the strategic top grip. I wrote an article in May last year saying that the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) should become the Foreign Secretary and that the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague) should become the Deputy Prime Minister. I still think that that is a job swap that the Prime Minister should consider. The foreign policy announced after the change of Government was very simple. It consisted of trade, trade and more trade—hence the embarrassment of the arms sales to which hon. Members have referred, which continued for two more days after 17 February when the Foreign Secretary came to the House to make his statement.

We also need to find ways of making our Parliament more involved and engaged in these extraordinary events, not only in the region that we are discussing but elsewhere around the world. Since November last year, I have made 11 requests at business questions for a debate in Government time on international and foreign affairs. We are now having such a debate, but only thanks to the Backbench Business Committee. Yes, we have debates on specific issues relating to the middle east or to a particular country or cause of concern, but we do not discuss synoptically what we want from our foreign policy. Of course we can all do the party political knockabout, but there should be much more that unites us than divides us. For that to be achieved, however, we need more parliamentary involvement. When hon. Members go abroad, the event should not be pilloried in the press as a “junket”, and the Whips have to understand that travel not only broadens the mind but makes for a better House of Commons.

Finally, I repeat the appeal that I made to the Prime Minister, to which I have received a sympathetic response, that we need to create a British foundation for democracy development. This would in part incorporate the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and transform it from a £4 million or £5 million a year outfit to an £80 million or £100 million a year organisation. Even that amount would still not be remotely close to the annual allocation that we will give to India and other countries that benefit from DFID aid. Let that be what we will learn from this whole crisis, which will continue, albeit unevenly. I learn from Le Monde today that there is a lot of repression in Morocco, for example, and I am worried about Prince Charles going there later this week. Tunisia is also far from stable, and Egypt still effectively has military power. Britain needs to think differently, and this House should be at the heart of making that happen.

16:19

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

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), who always brings an interesting angle to these debates.

I begin by congratulating the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and my Front-Bench team on recognising the scale of the unprecedented change that is taking place in the middle east and the role that the international community must play in promoting democratic reform. That is in stark contrast to some of our allies, who have been either slow or deliberately hesitant to speak out and join us in calling for change. It poses the question: how good are the international alliances and organisations of which we are part if they fracture at the first contact with an international crisis? For the UN, the EU and the G8, these are questions worth addressing so that we can act more propitiously when these events take place in future. I pose a question to Germany. It is a staunch ally and close colleague in Europe but why does it remain silent and fail to support a no-fly zone over Libya?

I called some friends in America, two Senators in particular, to ask why we had not heard more from the other side of the Atlantic. A lot of noise came back: concerns about spreading forces and interests too widely across the world, still undecided issues about Afghanistan, but also questions about who we are dealing with and the consequences of removing this particular dictator. After all, he is a much-improved dictator than he was 10 years ago.

[Mr MacShane]

If it is any consolation to the hon. Gentleman, he gets an extra minute by giving way to me. In some respects, the hon. Gentleman and other speakers are slightly behind the curve, as the United States is now working at the UN with Britain and France on a composite motion with good things in it. On Germany, I agree with him, but is the response surprising when some Members make speech after speech in this House attacking Germany and the EU and then, when they need Germany’s help, turn round and say, “Will you be our friends after all?”?

[Mr Ellwood]

First, I am aware of where the US now stands and, secondly, I am not attacking anyone, but simply asking for some form of clarification of why Germany has taken the stance it has. I have inquired about it, but got no reply.

On the issue of why countries might be reticent, the particular dictator we are dealing with is a relevant issue. Gaddafi had, after all, turned his back on terrorism; he had stopped funding the IRA; he had paid compensation to victims of the Lockerbie bombers; he had suspended his nuclear programme; and he was no longer seeking weapons of mass destruction. He was co-operating with the EU on the movement of refugees. Yes, he might well be bad, but what will his successor be like? If we want to avoid another Somalia, perhaps we should keep this guy.

We also need to bear in mind the reputation we gain for wandering into countries, particularly in Arab countries such as Iraq. I happened to disagree with our invasion in 2003, but the long-term consequences of it on Britain’s reputation in the Arab world as a whole are huge—and stay with us to this day. This reticence to go into Libya is strengthened by reports circulating in America that suggest that twice as many foreign fighters against the US in the Iraq invasion came from Libya than from any other part of the Arab world. I can understand those arguments, but I do not agree with them.

The first problem is that such arguments fail to recognise the changing mood across the Arab nations. The mother of all Parliaments here should, after all, encourage democracy. The world is a much smaller interrelated global community. Oil prices, stock exchanges, trade movements and deals, business interests and so forth: for all these, we are so much more interrelated in comparison with the independence we used to have—perhaps enjoyed—in the decades and centuries before. Politicians move; ideas are set; and there are consequences when an event happens in one part of the world—whether it be a natural disaster as in Japan, or a human catastrophe such as we are seeing in Libya, with the movement of refugees and so forth. We cannot dissociate ourselves from what is going on in north Africa.

There are also more moral questions. One issue not much talked about is the level of genocide. How many people need to die before we wake up and say, “We must step in”? I am reminded of the spokeswoman who, in May 1994, said of Rwanda—Members might recall it from the films about the country—that the word “genocide” should not be used, and that “acts of genocide” should be used instead. She could not bring herself to use that term.

Apparently, 5,000 people have already died in Libya. We must ask ourselves at what point we should make a judgment from a moral perspective, let alone a legal one.

The Prime Minister has made clear three requirements for the establishment of a no-fly zone: a need for it, legal grounds for it, and of course regional support. Unfortunately, the dithering that has taken place over the last couple of weeks has allowed Gaddafi to regroup his forces. It has allowed to him to recruit mercenaries—because he cannot trust many of his own troops—and to steal the initiatives.

We should also ask ourselves why the “good” dictators, if I may call them that, have stepped down in this Arab spring, while the bad dictators—the ones who stay in there and fight—are being rewarded by being allowed to keep their jobs. Our failure to support the people in that regard sends a message to the other dictators, who say, “Let us hold our ground. Let us stick it out.” That is what will happen if the international community is not organised enough, and has not the necessary gravitas and determination, to mount a challenge.

The Arab League has been mentioned, and I referred to it in an intervention. The Arab League has no power. It is a group of Foreign Ministers who have no influence over the dictators to whom they report back. Moreover, Arab forces have never been organised. If we look back at the 1948, 1967 and 1973 wars, we see that they have never been united. If a no-fly zone is imposed or intervention takes place, it will not be through those Arab nations. Their armed forces are nowhere near as strong as they seem to be on paper.

It is also necessary for us to understand the terrain. As I said when I intervened on the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), a no-fly zone in Libya would be very different from a no-fly zone in Bosnia or Iraq. We need to understand the structure of communities in Libya. There is one long road leading from east to west which contains two main cities, two main groups of communities in Tripoli and Benghazi. We should control Libya with not just a no-fly zone but a no-drive zone. Such a measure would be far easier to implement than any that we have seen before.

Allowing Gaddafi to stay will have a number of consequences. There will be repercussions for his own people, and questionable alliances will develop. Gazprom will eye the region with envy, and will resolve to take over all the operations in north Africa and Libya in particular if Gaddafi stays. That may be one reason why it is not willing to support a no-fly zone.

We have also touched on military tactics. What is the purpose of a no-fly zone? Is it humanitarian or military? Those of us who have served in the military know that it is a force multiplier—a way of creating an advantage for one side or another. It would probably be necessary only to create a no-fly zone over Benghazi initially, and then to move forward from that. A no-fly zone is intended to prevent aircraft from moving, but that can be done in another way. A Storm Shadow missile could be fired right now, landing on the runways and preventing the aircraft from taking off in the first place. The aircraft that are available are not good, and many of them are already in rebel hands. There are other questions we should ask about tactics. We tend to grab at labels and to say, as armchair generals do, “That is what we have done in the past, so that is what we should do now.”

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

My hon. Friend asks, “What is a no-fly zone?” That is exactly the question that should be asked. Does he agree that it should not be merely a humanitarian air umbrella protecting people from being attacked in Benghazi, but should extend to Tripoli, so that Gaddafi cannot import more mercenaries—his merchants of death?

[Mr Ellwood]

We are getting into the weeds here. We need to step back and consider the creation of a no-fly zone from a strategic perspective. What is our mission in supporting the rebels, rather than trying to create something about which the military tacticians need to decide? We must determine what our strategy is. A no-fly zone may be part of it, and the extent of the no-fly zone might be considered as well.

We are becoming very focused on Libya, but I mentioned the importance of Egypt in another intervention. The revolution there is not complete. There are worrying signs, such as the agreements that we have seen between the Muslim Brotherhood and the armed forces. People are being told, “You can only be a full citizen of Egypt if you can prove that your grandfather and your father were born in the country.” That completely removes a group of middle-class citizens who could possibly help to establish a new political society. We must not lose sight of where Egypt is going. Because it is so influential in north Africa and the Arab world in general, where Egypt goes other nations will follow.

Many comparisons have also been drawn with the changes following the fall of the iron curtain, and they are useful to some extent. However, communism was a one-party system, and it is far simpler to make the transition from that to a democracy—especially as many of the countries concerned were democracies prior to being entrapped behind the iron curtain—than it is to make the transition to democracy from a dictatorship, where the power is focused on an individual and the society is based on fear. Huge dangers arise when oppressive rule is released from its shackles, when they have been broken because of the creation of a power vacuum. We should consider our experiences in Afghanistan: 10 years after we wandered in there and tried to install some form of democracy, we are still struggling.

The world has been following the latest headlines very carefully. As we speak, Gaddafi is doing exactly what I said he would: he is deliberately bombing the runways in Benghazi to stop the rebels using their planes. The world is asking why the international community is not doing more, and the people of Libya are asking the same question. The turbulent chapter in world history that we are now experiencing, and which opened with the fall of President Mubarak, is far from over, and future generations will judge the current generation of leaders on its outcome.

At the heart of the matter is freedom, and the desire to grasp a rare opportunity to sow the seeds of democracy as people-power tries to usurp dictatorships across north Africa and the middle east. Events in the middle east are testing the international community, and they are moving too swiftly for us to be able to be a positive influence or force. To do nothing is to leave things to fate, and I fear that Iran is not going to do that, and nor is al-Qaeda. It is a sad irony that the global community is more than willing to help on one side of the world in saving and rebuilding lives after a natural disaster, but fails to act to prevent, or intervene in, a man-made disaster.

For Libya, the window of opportunity is closing. Gaddafi has taken advantage of our collective dithering to regroup and unleash hell on those who dared to stand up to him in the name of democracy. Across north Africa and the middle east I believe that, unfortunately, the worst is still to come, and the west must be better prepared to respond.

I shall end as I began, by praising the work of our Government and the lead they have taken. I only hope our allies will now play catch-up.

16:32

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

I, like all other Members of the House, am pleased at events in Tunisia and Egypt, and I welcome the desire of the people of the Arab world to bring about change in their countries. That certainly puts paid to the myth peddled by some in this House and the media that democracy is somehow incompatible with Islam. We should now provide humanitarian assistance, and help the people of the Arab world to set up a good system of civic governance and capacity-building. I know that the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office are supportive of that.

Today and in the past, we in this House have talked about the hypocrisy of various countries around the world, and Iran has been mentioned many times, but is it fair to single out one country as hypocritical? Have we not at many—or, indeed, all—times applied double standards in our dealings with different countries? As the senior American politician, Senator Lindsey Graham, observed last month:

“There are regimes we want to change, and those we don’t.”

Let me give some examples of our double standards. We talk of democracy, yet there was a democratic movement in Egypt in the ’50s, and we quelled it. We did the same in Iran in the ’50s: we opposed democracy there, and supported the Shah on the throne. As we see on our television screens, there are many parts of the world where there has been systematic genocide, ethnic cleansing and humanitarian disasters, with hundreds of thousands of deaths, yet we did nothing. Countries we could mention include Bosnia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. To those who say, “Well, those are past conflicts,” I refer to current conflicts in countries including Zimbabwe, Sudan, Palestine and Sri Lanka, with the Tamil Tigers’ rebellion. Thousands and thousands of people died in that war, so why did we not intervene there? Why do we choose where we want to intervene?

[Bob Stewart]

The answer to the hon. Lady’s rhetorical question is that we can do only what we can do. We would like to go into some of these countries, but we cannot possibly do so because we just do not have the means or the local support—we have got to have that.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

But that is not right, because if the test is whether a humanitarian disaster is taking place or whether human rights are being violated, we should not be cherry-picking which fights we want to have; we should be prepared to go for all of them or stay out of all of them.

[Martin Horwood]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I just want to deal with my next point.

I was not planning to talk about Palestine, but I shall do so because so many hon. Members have referred to it and it is an interesting case. The undisputed facts of the history of Palestine are that before the creation of the state of Israel 9% of the land belonged to the Jewish people and 91% belonged to the Palestinians; the Nakba resulted in 75% of Palestinians being forced out of their homeland; 4 million people have since been left displaced—they are living in Lebanon, Jordan and elsewhere—and many thousands have died; and the massacres at Shatila and Sabra refugee camps killed more than 20,000 people.

The UN has passed a number of resolutions regarding the illegal settlements, but they have not been dismantled and continue to be built. As the Prime Minister said on Monday, if Israel carries on in this way there will be no land for a two-state solution. The people of Gaza have been collectively punished, with some 1.5 million people living on 3 km of land. That situation has been declared illegal by the UN, and when visiting Turkey our Prime Minister described Gaza as a “prison camp.” I went to Gaza last year and I was appalled by the conditions in which people are living there. If that is not an abuse of human rights, what is? The segregation wall has also been declared illegal. Again, land and livelihoods have been taken but nothing happens. We do not do military intervention there. I am not asking for military intervention there, but I am saying that we need to be careful when we start invading other countries.

We have heard about the concept of so-called “liberal interventions.” If we really want to undertake those, the United Nations should set up a special international army representing all the different nations. All the nations would make a contribution and it could then go to all the various hot spots of the world to sort the problems out. However, I know that that is unrealistic and it is not going to happen. We cherry-pick the disputes we want to have and decide that we do not want to bother with others, perhaps because the regime has been sympathetic to us in the past or perhaps because we have economic trade with the regime and we conveniently forget about whatever else it might have done. That has been the problem for our international policy, because perhaps we have not been an honest broker in a lot of these world disputes—perhaps it is about time we became one. This is not a party political point, because successive Governments have been carrying on with these policies. However, in some respects there has been no genuine honest brokering of the peace.

I recall hearing the speech that Robin Cook made in this Chamber setting out in a very analytical way the reasons not to go into Iraq. He mentioned a number of things, including the lack of information, the fact that the need for the war might have been pumped up and the fact that drumbeating for the war had risen sharply. He urged caution and said that we should not go into the war. Many people did not accept or heed what he said and now, with the benefit of hindsight, most people say, “Oh yes, what Robin Cook said was right.” We now hear that we had the wrong information.

On Libya, the situation is bad and I do not condone the death of anyone. I was sad to hear about the Fogel family in Israel. I do not believe in killing people and do not think that it can be justified. On those grounds, I am one of those people who do not believe that we should go into a sovereign nation and invade it. If we want to do that, we should invade all other nations where there have been even bigger problems. For example, in Sudan, 100,000 people have died—Libya is nothing in comparison.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that wars are awful, invasion is awful and occupation is awful and that at the end every war has to be settled politically in some way? Does she join me in regretting that far greater efforts were not made at the beginning of the Libyan crisis to emote some sort of political settlement despite all the obvious obstacles?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I agree entirely. We do not have to look far afield—we need merely to look to Ireland, with all its history and violence. In the end, a political settlement was reached. That has been the way forward. We need to try that with all the countries in the world.

Hon. Members can call me cynical, but the difference is that Sudan, Zimbabwe, Kashmir, Palestine, Sri Lanka and all those other countries do not have oil. Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo do not have oil. Libya does. Is that our motivation? Do we want to ensure that we control that country?

[Mr MacShane]

My hon. Friend mentioned Robin Cook and I served with him as a Parliamentary Private Secretary for a number of years. I remember how bitterly he was criticised by some hon. Members who are now present in the Chamber for authorising and supporting the intervention in Kosovo without UN sanction and, indeed, the bombing raids on Iraq, some of which were without UN sanction. Kosovo had no oil—the intervention was illegal and did not have UN authority. My hon. Friend was not in the House at that time, but where did she stand on that particular armed intervention?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I happened to spend two years working in Kosovo after the armed conflict and after the Serbian bombing. Having seen the situation, I can say that that was an immediate international humanitarian disaster that followed the massacre of 100,000 Muslim Bosnians. It was very much an effort by the United Nations to do with that particular war.

As has been mentioned, one cannot compare two things as though they are the same. Libya is a very different ball game to Kosovo and Serbia. Everybody knows what happened in the former Yugoslavia—hundreds of thousands of people were massacred and something had to be done. That is not the situation that we are talking about here.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

I think the point being made by the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) was that there was not a British commercial interest in going into Kosovo—we did it to save lives and because it was the right thing to do. That is the comparison that we are seeking to draw here.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

A number of people in this country, even at that time, did not want to go into Kosovo. One might say that there was no economic rationale for going into Kosovo, but there was certainly an American strategic reason. The listening post in Cyprus was soon coming to an end and they wanted an additional listening post in the area of Kosovo. I spent two years in Kosovo and I saw the Americans’ Camp Bastion, which was a solid construction while most other countries had NATO flat-pack constructions, so there was certainly a strategic reason for the Americans to go in there. I agree that Robin Cook was able to persuade the then Government regarding Kosovo, but that has been the only honourable exception in all the disputes of the past 30 to 40 years.

16:45

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for her speech. I have to say that I am struck by the idea of there being a listening post in Kosovo and I am particularly struck by the idea that the second world war and the Falklands war were negotiated settlements. We actually had to fight to win those wars.

I am afraid that I, too, want to talk about Libya, particularly about the timing of decisions and what we should do. I feel very lucky, as we all do, to live in the United Kingdom. I have been to a few rotten places in my life and I feel very strongly as an internationalist that we should help countries and peoples who are less fortunate than ourselves. Where we can help, we should—I made that point earlier in an intervention—but we have to be pragmatic about our foreign policy. There should also be a moral dimension and we should be constructive. I am no warmonger. I have seen for myself what conflict brings. As the first British United Nations commander in Bosnia, I witnessed man’s inhumanity to man and I found it loathsome. For me, the political lesson of Bosnia was this: if you are going to do something, do it—make your decision and act. Be decisive, and be clear about your objectives. I do not think we can pussyfoot around when it comes to international crises. We should either do something effective or do nothing. Indecision is next to useless.

In such situations, the mission has to be clear from the start, but that did not happen to me in Bosnia. I had no formal mission for three months, but I said to my soldiers that we would have a mission. I told them that our mission was to save lives and I do not reckon that would be a bad mission for us in Libya—I think that all hon. Members present would agree with that. The tactics being used by Gaddafi’s thuggish forces seem remarkably similar to the tactics that I saw being used by General Mladic in Sarajevo in 1992 and 1993. He had no thought whatever for civilian casualties. I watched that happening and I felt impotent with rage because we could have done something about it but we did nothing. We all abhor what is happening in Libya on the road to Benghazi. Some hon. Members have suggested that we should not take too much from the past, but I am afraid that I am a bit of a dinosaur and I think that the lessons of Bosnia hold true.

The military situation for the rebels in Libya, which we have not touched on, is pretty dire at the moment but is not terminal yet. In the west, Gaddafi’s forces have not yet taken Misurata. In the east, approximately 5,000 of Gaddafi’s troops are besieging Ajdabiya, which is close to the strategic crossroads leading to either Tobruk or Benghazi. We know that Gaddafi’s forces rely heavily on mercenaries. Those guys carry out their business for gold, not love, and we somehow have to get to them.

[Mr Ellwood]

I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend, who is making a powerful speech, but does he agree that Gaddafi’s trust in his armed forces is questionable? He cannot predict that a pilot getting into an aircraft who is told to go and bomb the rebels will actually go and do that and not fly somewhere else. That is why he is having to resort to using mercenaries.

[Bob Stewart]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Gaddafi has unreliable forces, so he needs to use mercenaries, whom he pays in gold.

Gaddafi’s forces are on extended lines of communication and supply, which is a good thing because he is not going as fast as he would want to. The key point is his rate of progress. Assuming the current rate of progress of his forces, it seems that they might take another month to get to Benghazi. There might therefore be a window of opportunity for action—perhaps up to 28 days or even more, but hopefully not a shorter period. However, as more time goes by, our chances of helping drop dramatically, so we must act as soon as we can. We are in a race against time and we must move fast.

Despite speed, however, we still must act morally and within a legal framework. What do we need in place? Many hon. Members have touched on the requirement for a Security Council resolution. The trouble with the Security Council is that it often takes decisions at the speed of a striking slug. Of course, there might also be a problem with one or two of the permanent members. However, as many hon. Members have stressed, it is essential that we have such a resolution because it gives us top cover.

Secondly, we must have Libyan support. By hook or by crook, we must ensure that whatever we do has the support of those people who oppose Gaddafi. At the moment they want a no-fly zone. As Gaddafi’s forces advance—I hope they do not; I hope they are defeated—I bet those people’s wish for more extensive military action in their support will become greater. I would like to see the no-fly zone for which they are calling, but let us be clear that there cannot be a no-fly zone without the United States.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

What happens at the point when the opposition forces in Libya ask for something beyond a no-fly zone—ordnance, troops or whatever?

[Bob Stewart]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but the answer is that I do not know. I would like to think that we would have some form of answer. I would also like the Arabs to come forward with assistance for their brothers in arms, which brings me on to my next point. We have good Arab League support although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) stressed, it might not be speaking for its members’ Governments, even though it should be.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

rose—

[Bob Stewart]

I shall give way to the hon. Lady because she gave way to me.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

And everyone else as well.

I was interested that the hon. Gentleman said, “I don’t know,” when my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) asked what would happen if the rebels asked for more help. The hon. Gentleman talked about the hope that other Arab countries would intervene, but surely we cannot plan a war without knowing what we are ultimately prepared to do.

[Bob Stewart]

We are not planning a war; we are trying to stop Libyans dying. My mission in Bosnia was to stop people dying.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

rose—

[Bob Stewart]

I shall not take another intervention from the hon. Lady. I was generous because she gave way to me.

Europe must participate, too. France is doing its best, but I would like to know where Italy would stand, given that Libya was one of its colonies—until, of course, the Eighth Army kicked them out in 1943. Finally, we must consider our own British public, who need to be fully on side. I suspect that they would be on side if the conditions that the Prime Minister and other hon. Members have laid down came into play. I do not think that we could do it unilaterally, and certainly not without a Security Council resolution.

I agree with the no-fly zone, but it must be effective. It cannot just be words. We must be able to strike on the ground if necessary. I am sorry about that, but that is what a no-fly zone means. I was underneath Bosnian Serb jets in 1993; there was supposed to be a no-fly zone, but they were 200 feet above me. A no-fly zone requires a lot of organisation and, of course, it requires the Americans to help. I happen to agree with the idea of arming the rebels, but when we arm people we must also train them.

There is an embargo in place on Gaddafi. My long-standing right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) has made a plea that we should somehow get around that embargo for the rebels, and I support that idea. Military ground intervention, which is another option, is extremely unlikely on the part of the west. Some have suggested that Egypt might do something, but I think that that, too, is unlikely. If we have time we can establish a no-fly zone. We could even start to arm the rebels in Benghazi.

In conclusion, I am prepared to support a no-fly zone and the arming of rebels, particularly if the substantial conditions I have outlined are in place. The Libyans are crying out for our help. They are pleading for help.

[Martin Horwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bob Stewart]

I have so little time that I will not.

If we want to help the Libyan people, we must do something very quickly. Time is of the essence. It may already be too late.

16:57

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

One of the reasons we need to have this debate today is that recent events have shown that Government policy toward the middle east has failed lamentably in recent years. It has been inconsistent, because on one hand we played realpolitik, appeasing certain regimes, and on the other hand we have said that dictators are evil and that we must take action against them. It has been ineffective, because we are friendly with a number of repressive states, particularly those in the Gulf, hoping for low oil prices. However, as current events have shown, this appeasement has not led to the stability we hoped for. More significantly, the policy has been intolerable, because it has had a very limited effect on stopping human rights abuse or promoting democracy, with exceptions that I will come on to later.

It is often said that the measure of a man can be found by looking at his friends. In the same way, the measure of a country can be found by looking at its allies. Honour killing is still legal in Iran, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority. Homosexuality is still punishable by death in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and by three years’ imprisonment in Syria. The events of recent years in particular have shown us that our middle eastern policy has been wrong.

I am not ashamed to admit that I tend towards the neo-conservative view of the world, as someone who believes that freedom, human rights, property rights, the rule of law, equality towards women, religious tolerance and rejection of terrorism are all inalienable human rights and should be spread all over the world. They say that a neo-conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality. While I am not talking about my colleagues on the coalition Benches, I prefer to use the term “muscular enlightenment”.

It seems to me that realpolitik involves appeasing or collaborating with unsavoury regimes in order to achieve certain foreign policy objectives. It is as far removed from an ethical foreign policy as it is possible to be. Let us examine how realpolitik has failed. With the Saudis, the deal seems to be that we work with them financially, and in exchange they are allowed to promote their strain of Wahabi Islam throughout the world, a branch of Islam which many orthodox Sunni and Shi’a groups consider extremist and heretical. On top of that, the Saudis are allowed to pour millions into our universities. What has been the result? There has been terrorism at home and abroad; Islamist extremism in our universities has increased; and we are no closer to a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine.

Nowhere is the failure more true than in our relations with Libya. My family knows something about that country, as my grandfather lost his home and business to Gaddafi, and my father was born there and even remembers shaking Gaddafi’s hand sometime in the 1950s, before he took power. With the release of al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, the previous Government hid behind the fig leaf of devolution to help facilitate the release of a mass murderer. In return for stability and curtailing Gaddafi’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, Tony Blair and the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) went far beyond what was necessary to build relations with Libya. Appeasement became collaboration, and we saw that Government boost business links with Libya and facilitate university contracts with the Libyan authorities.

As reported on the website of Liverpool John Moores university, dated 3 May 2007, the British ambassador to Libya, Sir Vincent Fean even said:

“My vision for Libya…is”—

for—

“a closer and more productive relationship with the UK than with any other country.”

Let me repeat that phrase:

“a closer and more productive relationship with the UK than with any other country.”

If hon. Members think of Libya, they will find that that statement is quite astonishing. It is a totalitarian state which murdered our own citizens in the Lockerbie massacre, yet our own ambassador says that he wants deeper relations with Libya than with any other country. Truly, the fish rots from the head down.

It was wrong for universities in Britain to do deals with Libya, but we cannot blame them completely. Yes, the London School of Economics and other universities signed contracts worth millions of pounds, but the Government urged them on, and, as written answers have revealed, the previous Labour Government met at the most senior levels to push those issues forward with the Gaddafi regime. We have to ask: why was this happening, what were we selling and what were the Libyans buying in terms of influence and acceptability?

John Kennedy said that foreign policy should be idealism without illusions. The realist school says, “You can’t just drop democracy from a B52 bomber,” but that was always a misrepresentation of muscular enlightenment. It was never just about military invasion; it was about winning hearts and minds and supporting throughout the globe those democratic movements that share the ideals of freedom. I reiterate the point that has been made this afternoon: democracy is not just about elections. If it is only about elections, we have the situation of 2006 in Gaza, where Hamas sent its militia on to the streets, attacking members of the more moderate Fatah party and throwing them off the rooftops.

Those who oppose freedom in the middle east, however, are exactly like those who opposed the end of slavery in the southern states of America in the 19th century. They always said, “Yes, we want to end slavery, but not yet,” and the realpolitik of the middle east says, “Yes, they should have democracy and human rights for women, but not yet.” So, what can we do to help freedom spread throughout the middle east?

[Mr Winnick]

Does the hon. Gentleman condemn the settlements in the occupied territories and agree with the UN resolution, which was voted for by Britain but vetoed by the United States?

[Robert Halfon]

No, I do not agree, actually. I believe in a two-state solution, and I believe that some of the west bank will obviously be given over as part of a Palestinian state, but I did not agree with my Government when they voted for that motion.

I accept that popular uprisings, such as the waves of protest throughout north Africa and Arab countries, might lead to Islamist fundamentalist rule, and we are not sure yet whether this is eastern Europe 1989 or Iran 1979. Arguably, indeed, Iran is living through its own version of the terror that followed the French revolution in 1789, with a despotic and brutal regime. That is why we have to divert aid into building democratic institutions and nurturing them where they exist.

I want to turn to Iran as the elephant in the room. Through Hezbollah, Iran has huge influence in Lebanon. In Gaza, Iran supports Hamas. Iran also has close relations with the President of Syria. We know that Iran supports activities against British troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. It may soon have more influence in Bahrain. And, of course, it is about to have nuclear weapons. Iran is what Reagan once described the Soviet Union as—the new evil empire. Using the example of Iran, we must not let the middle east fall out of the frying pan of dictatorship into the fire of Islamism.

[Nicholas Soames]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very important not to confuse the Iranian people with the Iranian Government?

[Robert Halfon]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I agreed with much of his speech. The Iranian people have a totally opposite view from that of the regime which, sadly, has suppressed them for so long.

What is to be done? We need a radical reappraisal of our foreign policy. We need a strategy that supports democracy over dictatorships. The thrust has to be to support reformist movements in the region. Let me briefly talk about two of them. First, there is Kurdistan. To those who argue that democracy takes hundreds of years to evolve, and who say that we should not interfere, Kurdistan, in northern Iraq, proves the opposite. Established only in 2003, the regional government makes its own laws, controls its own army, and decides its own pace of economic development. It is a relatively terrorist-free and progressive Muslim country, despite facing continuous threats from al-Qaeda. I declare an interest, because I am an active member of the all-party group on Kurdistan and recently visited the country. Only today, the Bishop of Arbil was in Parliament—because I was here in the debate I was not able to go—explaining that Kurdistan has welcomed thousands of Christians who have suffered very badly from terrorist attacks in Iraq. I urge the Government to do more to support Kurdistan in its welcoming of Christians to the region.

In the same way, our current policy towards Israel should be much more supportive. Criticism of Israel is out of all proportion to that of other countries. It is always incredible how everyone wants to be a candid friend of Israel but no one is a candid friend of France, Germany or America. Yes, of course Israel is imperfect, and yes, there are problems with settlements, but the fact is that in a region of dictators, Israel is a bulwark of freedom. The excuse is often given that Israel-Palestine is the driving force behind all conflict in the middle east, but recent events have disproved that. I believe that peace would happen incredibly quickly in Israel with two states—a Palestinian state and an Israeli state—if Arabist dictators stopped funding terrorism. The more democratic these countries become, the less likely there is to be a war. I do not think there is an example in history of two democracies that have fought each other. I have often met Palestinian moderates who have the will to make peace, but not the authority, whereas Hamas, sadly, has the authority but not the will.

Let us have a foreign policy in the middle east that actively supports democracy over dictatorships. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) said, let us do all we can to have a no-fly zone in Libya. Let us do all we can to supply arms to those bravely fighting against Gaddafi—today or tomorrow, if possible, and unilaterally, if we have to. In doing so, we will reverse the many mistakes of recent years and make a stand for the people in the middle east who have the right to freedom.

17:09

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

It is an enormous pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), and to have learned for the first time that his father shook the hand of Colonel Gaddafi. I suspect that there are many in the House this afternoon, and indeed across the world, who rather wish that he had shaken him by some other part of his anatomy.

There have been contributions of great substance during the debate. For the most part, they have rightly focused—for perfectly understandable reasons, given where we are today—on the situation that currently prevails in Libya. I will concentrate my remarks a few hundred miles to the east, on the nation of Egypt. In Egypt, a largely bloodless transition occurred and elections have been promised by the interim military Government within the next six months. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) indicated, those elections are extremely important and our Government will have to hold the interim Egyptian Government to that promise.

Like many people, I think that Libya would not be in the state that it is today if it had followed the template of what happened in Egypt. It has an uncertain immediate future and has the potential to return to its pariah status, should the Gaddafi regime prevail in the current struggle. Most, if not all, Members hope that that does not occur.

The lesson from Egypt, as from other areas of the world, is clearly one of hope. We must not lose sight of that in the course of this debate. Authoritarian regimes across the region may from time to time win battles against those in whose name they purport to govern. However, in the end, like Ozymandias, their fate is always the same: it is to fall at the hands of those to whom they have done such disservice.

This country has a historical responsibility for Egypt. We played a part in its governance, although not always a glorious one, for a not inconsiderable period. Given current events, it is not without irony that I read what Valentine Chirol wrote as long ago as 1920 at the end of chapter 16 of his book entitled “The Egyptian Problem”:

“Not till we have left behind us the No Man’s Land of government by martial law can we hope to regain the confidence of a new generation of Egyptians by applying to the altered conditions which any measure of self-government must imply the same broad constructive statesmanship which won for us the confidence of an older generation.”

With the exception of an 18-month period between 1980 and 1981, martial law has effectively held sway in Egypt since 1967 when the emergency law of 1958 was first used. The transition to democracy in Egypt will not be easy. However, we all hope—and I have no doubt this will prove to be the case if the Government hold to their position, as they should—that this marks the end of the application of that emergency law, with all that it has entailed for ordinary Egyptians and for peace in the middle east.

The removal of that law and other emergency laws across the region is necessary for the democratic aspirations that led to the recent uprisings to find expression in Governments who have broad support. In Egypt, there must be a Government who have support across a nation that straddles the east and the west, and which has so often been the hinge on which world events have turned. It is now a nation of more than 80 million people. It has a unique history, of which all Egyptians are justifiably proud.

This situation is not something of which we should be afraid. Democracy is not easy. It has mostly been easy for people in this country, but that is not the experience across the world. Democracy is not something to which we should pay lip service only. Our interference in the middle east, often ostensibly in the name of stability—Egypt is as good an example as anywhere else—has done our nation little good. It has caused resentment and on occasion bloodshed, as well as setting back the cause of democracy for others across the world.

The demonstrations of the 1920s in Egypt and the subsequent rise of nationalism were ample indication of a people ready to govern their own destiny. Had we left the Egyptians to get on with their own lives rather earlier than 1954, the generations that have come since might well have had a better quality of life, and the Egyptian state a growing democratic maturity, which would have assisted in the cause of peace throughout the region. It is for that reason, if for no other, that the Prime Minister was entirely right to hold talks with the interim Government last month in Cairo immediately after President Mubarak announced that he would step down.

There is little in Egypt or in the region by way of a model for an open and democratic society upon which those who seek to promote such a society can draw. There is only so much that can be borrowed from nations such as ours, given the different cultural histories and the lack of entrenched democratic traditions in the region. Demonstrations of support for the transition to democracy are important, since Egypt and the other countries in which revolution—if that is the right word—has been seen this year need to know that the interference of the west is a thing of the past. They need to know that, like them, we have grown up and that the rights that we take for granted but value are not just for us but for the southern and eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf states. In short, they need to know that we now trust the nations of the middle east in a way that the generations that immediately preceded us showed no sign of doing. Those demonstrations of support are important also for reasons alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). We do not want to see in countries across the middle east the sort of revolution that merely involves one dictator stepping down to be replaced by another.

I have alluded to the fact that we have not always done well by those in the middle east, but one exception, and one person who supported Arab independence, was of course T. E. Lawrence. In preparing my remarks today, I came across his review in The Observer of 19 September 1920 of Chirol’s work, to which I have already referred. It shows again that, whatever the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) says, history teaches us much. As Lawrence wrote, more than nine decades ago now, to read Chirol’s book

“is to learn that the diseases of the Government of Egypt are mostly mental, and the statement of the causes nearly cures them”.

As he also noted, this country provided a sorry sequel to Lord Cromer’s magnificent beginning. It has taken 90 years for the prospect of good government in Egypt to re-emerge.

The current picture is one of hope. If the Egyptians succeed in creating a successful model of what a free Arab democracy can look like in this century, their neighbours, including in Libya, will be hard-pressed not to follow suit. It is the task of Members of this House to assist the Egyptian people and those across the middle east as best we can. Given the prize before us, I look forward to hearing from the Minister at the end of the debate, and again as often as may be convenient in future, precisely how the Government propose that that task should be accomplished.

17:17

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

This has been a timely and excellent debate, and Members on both sides of the House have made valuable contributions. I wish to follow on from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who made some very good points. One was about the amount of time that we should allow for significant changes to take place in north Africa and the middle east. He talked about it taking two decades or more, and I think he was absolutely right. Although things are happening very fast in the immediate situation, we have to take a long-term view.

My hon. Friend was also right to say that we have to be more engaged and flexible with the various nation states that we are dealing with and make use of collective European values as well as the experiences of individual states. The relationship between France and Morocco is a good example, but not the only one, and we need to be intelligent about how we respond to developments.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) made an interesting point. He wondered why we were not in Hungary in 1956. The answer is that we were in Suez. He wondered why the west was not dealing with Czechoslovakia in 1968, and the answer is that we were in Vietnam. Well, we were not, but certainly the United States was. That is a signal that we have to think about our interests much more carefully than we have in the past.

There are some parallels between the current situation and 1989 to 1991, but one of the most important parallels is with 1975, when the Helsinki accords were agreed. They gave comfort to the people of the Warsaw pact countries, because President Gerald Ford and others insisted on including human rights as a key plank of the accords. We should remember that and think about what it did later. We need to give that type of comfort to the middle east and north Africa now.

The points that other hon. Members have made are worth embellishing. Democracy is a great thing, but the Foreign Secretary is absolutely right to say that we cannot rely on elections only—we also need democratic institutions, the rule of law and so forth. The Westminster Foundation is valuable in providing such help, but the EU needs to be willing to promote our values. Many hon. Members asked why the EU should show interest in the middle east and north Africa. The answer is that they are nearby, and we should have interests and links in nearby places.

[Damian Collins]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Neil Carmichael]

I cannot, because we have only five minutes left, and I know my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) wants to say a few words.

Developing economic links and ensuring that countries benefit from the opportunities of trade links and entrepreneurial activity is important. I have been to many countries in the middle east, including Morocco and Israel, and noted an interest in getting on with entrepreneurial activities, which we need to stimulate.

Interestingly, the shadow Foreign Secretary asked how Saudi involvement in Bahrain came about. I, too, wonder about that. Who invited the troops? Did the Saudis make the suggestion or was a request made? He was quite right to ask whether the Americans were involved. There is a danger in unilateral action; we need more collective and multilateral action, which is why I emphasised the role of the EU. We also need to work hard with other key nation states, notably America, but also those that neighbour north Africa and the middle east. In that respect, should Turkey, whose geopolitical role we need to think about carefully in this context, be involved?

I firmly believe that we need a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine problem. Nothing less will do, and we must ensure that we encourage the US to think in the same terms. It was refreshing to hear other hon. Members say that the 1967 boundaries should, broadly speaking, give or take, be respected. The truth is that the Israelis, who must be fed up with wondering who will attack them next, will also benefit from a solution. We must make it abundantly clear that they need the security that will come from a two-state solution.

Obviously, things are moving fast in Libya and, worryingly, Colonel Gaddafi’s forces are moving towards Benghazi. I am not convinced that a no-fly zone will happen, and nor am I convinced that it would necessarily work, because there is an awful lot of ground activity rather than air activity. However, we must learn lessons. Our attitude to such crises must be based on a willingness to construct coalitions. We must also learn how to deal with such situations in future, because in some respects we have failed to act quickly enough.

However, we should never think that interventions should happen just because we feel like it. We must ensure that people in the countries involved want us to be there. This country, other EU members and other active nation states, but above all states in north Africa and the middle east, should encourage that.

17:24

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The situation in the middle east and north Africa is the most challenging and tumultuous for more than 30 years. Our Foreign Office team faces a great challenge in dealing with countries emerging from dictatorships that, for whatever reasons, Governments of both political persuasions have had to make deals and arrangements with. As a result, the people who have rebelled against those dictators have a natural distrust of Britain, the United States and other western powers. The challenge for our foreign policy, as we develop it over the next few weeks and months, is to ensure that it embraces the people who will be forming the next Governments in these countries.

I believe that Iran’s Government have had a long-standing aim to be the central, dominating power in the region. Western policy used to be that Iraq and Iran balanced each other out. As colleagues know, more people were killed in the wars between Iraq and Iran than in the first world war; both sides sacrificed their personnel by throwing them against each other. When our country joined the US in invading Iraq, we unbalanced the position, and now we have an Iranian state that wishes to pursue the nuclear option and to dominate the region. I was shocked when I heard that Iranian battleships had been allowed to use the Suez canal for the first time. It will start to make all countries in the region nervous about Iran’s intentions, so we should make representations to the new Egyptian Government to ensure that they do not allow Iran that free and unfettered access. The fear is that it will unbalance the countries in the region that we count on as allies.

Much of the debate on north Africa has been about Libya, yet we forget Tunisia, which depends on visitors. People there are suffering because the economy is shot to pieces, and it needs to rebuild and encourage visitors, yet people remain deterred from visiting. As a result, unemployment is high and the economy is in a state of shock. That needs to change.

My next remarks will concentrate on the situation in Israel and Palestine. Israel faces a challenge to develop a two-state solution with Palestine—a solution I wholeheartedly support—but on the northern border Hezbollah, armed by Iran, is preparing once again for a potential attack on Israel. The Israelis say it is only a matter of time before there is another war between them and Hezbollah, which could trigger other events. We have to put pressure on Iran to stop it arming Hezbollah in order to prevent those attacks.

On the west bank, the economy is growing well—it is developing far better than the British economy. Fatah and the Palestinian Authority are ready and willing to become a proper democratic state, yet in Gaza Hamas refuses to take part in elections. In this fledgling democracy, the party ruling Gaza refuses to participate in elections, so does not have a renewed mandate. We need to put pressure on the PA and Hamas to agree on elections, so that we can have a democracy under the PA that can negotiate with Israel.

Finally, on the situation in Israel, those who go to see Jerusalem will know that the security barrier has stopped suicide bombings and other attacks on Israelis and Arabs in Jerusalem, and that has to be good news. Although the security barrier looks unacceptable to the outside world, it has clearly solved the security problem. I look forward to the day when that security barrier is dismantled and all the people of Israel and Palestine can coalesce together. That is the challenge.

I will end with the issue that I raised in Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions earlier this week. The murder of the Fogel family in Itamar has made it much harder for Prime Minister Netanyahu to drive forward the peaceful settlement that we all seek. What we need to get across to the terrorists in Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad is that their activities will never, ever succeed. They need to participate in a peaceful process leading to the two-state solution so that everyone can thrive.

17:30

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

Last month I visited Israel and the west bank, and I refer hon. Members to my relevant entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

We have had an excellent and wide-ranging debate, with a number of powerful speeches, in particular from the hon. Members for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) and for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). I found myself in pretty much complete agreement with what both had to say. We have also had a number of interesting speeches from Opposition Members, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), the previous Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. However, I should apologise to the hon. Members for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) for not being in the Chamber for their speeches.

Members in all parts of the House have addressed the practical challenges that we as British politicians face in providing the support to build democracy in the middle east and north Africa. I want to echo what a number of hon. Members have said about the importance of the work of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. There has been some discussion about the appropriateness or otherwise of drawing parallels with previous periods of our history. The Westminster Foundation for Democracy was born out of the collapse of the iron curtain and the Berlin wall, and it has done some important work in central and eastern Europe, Africa, Lebanon and other parts of the world. We in the Opposition applaud that work and see an opportunity for the foundation, working with similar European, American and other foundations in north Africa and the middle east, to provide practical support in building democracy, not just for elections, but for all the other aspects of democracy that hon. Members have described.

Quite understandably, hon. Members have referred to the history of the region and the mistakes that we and others have made. Let me say that because we have got things wrong in the past—and we have—that does not mean that we should not try to get things right in the future. It is not about the external imposition of democracy; it is about how we respond most appropriately to the demands of the people. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) made an important point about Parliament’s role as an institution in supporting democracy, both in discussions such as today’s debate and in all the practical ways that we can support the development of democracy in other parts of the world.

Crucial to that is the point that the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) made about the failure of multilateral institutions in the past few weeks, and in particular the slow response of the United Nations and the European Union. There are significant lessons that we need to learn from these crises, both now, as a matter of urgency, and moving forward. The hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, spoke about the responsibility to protect. The crisis in Libya demonstrates that a great deal more work needs to be done to make policy on the responsibility to protect fully operational, otherwise it is, frankly, meaningless.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) challenged us to consider the grounds on which intervention should be made. She was absolutely right to remind us of the need for rigour in deciding when we should and should not intervene. We all have perspectives shaped by our own experience. For me personally, the failures of the international community in Bosnia and Rwanda in the 1990s shaped my outlook on many of the challenging issues that we now face. As I think the hon. Member for Beckenham said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East: where we can, we should. That is absolutely right. What we actually do is a whole other matter, and it will not necessarily involve military intervention. The discussions on intervention on both sides of the House have tended to focus purely on the military, which has relevance, but it also involves broader diplomatic, economic and other forms of engagement.

Another important point made by a number of speakers was that there is no one-size-fits-all response to what is happening. The countries involved are very different from each other, with different histories, different political systems and different levels of development in their civil society. No two countries will require the same response.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The one thing that most of those countries do have in common is that they have been the recipient of large amounts of arms sales. Most of them have trade agreements with the European Union, all of which contain human rights clauses. Those clauses have all been universally ignored. Does my hon. Friend not think that we need to be a bit more proactive on the legal front, particularly on human rights and arms sales?

[Stephen Twigg]

My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. Members on both sides of the House have referred to this matter today, and my simple answer to him is yes, we do need to have that debate. We need to look at how we can strengthen the existing codes, which, as he rightly says, refer on paper to human rights and other considerations. Those terms do not always seem to be kept to when arms sales are taking place.

Let me focus now on the middle east peace process. Several Members have referred to the appalling murders last weekend of the Fogel family in Itamar. I join them in deploring those wicked acts. As the Foreign Secretary said in questions earlier this week, we must respond to that appalling act by stepping up our efforts to reach out to the moderate majority of Israelis and Palestinians who really do want to see the two-state solution to which speakers on both sides of the House have referred today. This week, in Gaza and on the west bank, we have seen thousands of young people protesting for peace and national unity in Palestine.

I welcome the Government’s decision to upgrade the status of the Palestinian delegation here in London to that of a mission. I echo the view expressed by a number of hon. Members that it is vital that Israel place an immediate moratorium on the building and expansion of settlements. It is equally vital that Gilad Shalit be released. These are the conditions that can create reconciliation and peace. I echo the views expressed by the hon. Member for Mid Sussex on the Arab peace initiative in his powerful speech, and I want to say to the Government that we see that initiative as central to the prospects of moving forward in this crucial period for the middle east peace process.

It is difficult in 15 minutes to do justice to all the elements of today’s debate, but let me say something about Iran. In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) reminded us of the threat of Iran’s nuclear programme, and invited the Minister to update the House on what work the Government were doing, with international partners, to increase the legitimate pressure on Iran to comply with UN Security Council resolutions. A number of hon. Members referred to Iran’s negative role in exploiting Sunni-Shi’a divisions in the region and in supporting terrorism. Its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and for the Taliban in Afghanistan were mentioned, and we must not forget the appalling domestic human rights position in Iran itself. That must remain high on our agenda.

On Libya, everyone who has spoken today has shared the feeling of revulsion at what Gaddafi has done and what we have seen on our television screens over the past few weeks. My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South asked a number of questions, to which I hope the Minister will respond, about the possible military, diplomatic and economic measures that could be put in place to make a difference to the situation on the ground in Libya.

These events since January—in Tunisia, through events in Egypt, Libya and parts of the Gulf—remind us, as a number of hon. Members have said, that democracy, human rights and freedoms are universal aspirations. We have witnessed the enormous courage of people across the middle east and north Africa in standing up against dictatorships. Ordinary people in the Arab world value democracy just as much as we do.

When I was in Israel and Palestine last month, I met young people in Nablus and Tel Aviv, whose passion for justice and freedom matched that of the young people we have seen on the streets of Cairo, Tunis and now Benghazi. For the Palestinian people, justice must mean a viable state based on 1967 borders with equivalent land swaps, appropriate security arrangements, Jerusalem as the capital of both Israel and Palestine and a just solution for Palestinian refugees. For the people of Israel, justice must mean true security, an acceptance that security is a real challenge for them and recognition by the Arab countries of the middle east of Israel’s right to exist. I hope and trust that a democratic Egypt will reaffirm the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.

What today’s debate has demonstrated is the profound sense of solidarity felt by us in Parliament but, more importantly, by the people we are sent here to represent. Yet it is a solidarity, I would argue, that is tempered by a frustration at the weakness and inertia of international institutions. Almost 20 years on from the genocide in Rwanda, the United Nations has again been too slow to act. Two decades on from Bosnia, Europe has again been hesitant and divided. I would say to the Minister and to the Foreign Secretary as a matter of some urgency, that the British Government have an opportunity to lead a debate on making the responsibility to protect a practical, operational reality. Otherwise, it will simply be fine words on paper. We must also press our European partners to give practical support to help achieve democracy and self-determination across the region.

As a number of Members have said, stability has been the cornerstone of our policy in the middle east for decades; stability based on the suppression of freedom, however, is no genuine stability. It is in our national interest, as well as being morally right, for us to support democracy, strong civil societies and the protection of minorities across the middle east and north Africa. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham made the point that this House has an important part to play in promoting these shared values. Today’s debate has demonstrated that we are rising to that challenge.

17:43

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

I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) for his contribution, which has been absolutely up to the high standards we have seen this afternoon; I agree with much of what he said. I also commend the House for the excellent standard of contributions in these genuinely extraordinary times.

We began with an outstanding contribution by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, in which he analysed the broad sweep of events into the turn of the year. He then looked at the more immediate issues on which we urge or will an end to the violence, which prevents the establishment of the conditions necessary for the peaceful pursuit of legitimate aspirations and the chance of a response from existing Governments.

It has become a commonplace to recognise the events we are living through in north Africa and the middle east as a generational shift—a massive historical change in the Arab psyche. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) noted, in what I thought was a succinct, deep and well-informed speech that set the tone for the debate, the stability we went along with for so long was frozen in time and nothing will ever be the same again. He is right; it will not.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) said that history would ask whether we should have anticipated these events and what we could have done. I suspect that that will be a matter of debate for a long time to come as we examine all the ramifications. It should not go unsaid, however, that this countryhas persistently maintained in relation to many other countries—both publicly and privately, and often quietly—that although there may be different roads to stability, there are certain building blocks for democracy. It may not necessarily be a Westminster style of democracy, but key factors are freedom of expression and assembly, human rights, some form of representative system to express opinion, free trade, and peaceful relations with neighbours.

Equally, as has been recognised in several speeches today, the strategic needs of the United Kingdom have required, and still require, that we maintain relationships with Governments of many kinds, not all of whom have demonstrated the fullest adherence to international obligations or been free from problems with their own people. That applies to the region that we are discussing, and to other parts of the world. A number of Members have reflected today that these events provide an opportunity to reset relationships, and that must be true. The Prime Minister has referred to the “precious opportunity” that they have created, an opportunity that should be seized and not denied. I think that the House will re-examine those relationships with great excitement and genuine relish.

It is in that atmosphere of change, and recognition of change, that today’s debate has taken place. Let me set the tone by making some key points before dealing in more detail with issues that Members have raised.

There must be a recognition of the sovereign position of the peoples in the region. This is not a west-inspired change; it is an Arab-inspired situation, locally driven and locally led. I too have met some of the young people in Egypt. I met some just last week who had been part of the Tahrir square protest, and who are now part of the national dialogue. Their style and commitment should give any of us in this place genuine hope for the future.

Our policy needs to be resilient. We need to remain on a crisis footing. Members did not linger on consular issues today, but they will be aware that some of the changes in the region have raised significant consular issues for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, both here and overseas. In the main, that office has responded remarkably. There are tales all over the world of people who have been brought back to this country thanks to its extraordinary work and effort. I appreciated what the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) said about that. However, we must remain alert to future emergencies.

We need to keep an eye on strategic issues, including immediate issues that may pop up. We have discussed the middle east peace process and Iran, and I will return to those subjects later. We need to continue to make a case for those building blocks for the future, based not on western values but, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby said, on universal values. We need to take account of the clearly expressed views of the Arab League. We must recognise that the case for Arab exceptionalism may now be weaker than it has ever been before, and that the tides of history affect all. We must also recognise that all countries are different, and will handle the pathway to reform in different ways.

Finally, we must build on relationships in the region. When we came to office, we recognised that both north Africa and the Gulf would repay closer attention. With the Gulf initiative and our activities in relation to north Africa, we sought to build and boost relationships. I do not think we expected then that quite so much attention would be focused on the Gulf and north Africa, but I think that both this Government and this Parliament are ready to meet the challenges.

I want to divide some of the issues that have been raised today into themes, and then answer some of the questions that have been asked. The broad sweep of the events in the region was mentioned by a number of Members, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) spoke with great passion about the opportunities for relationships between peoples that had been generated, and my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) brought his experience to bear in discussing that broad sweep of events. More colleagues raised a number of these issues, but I have not mentioned them now as I want to try to refer to Members only once.

Several Members addressed future opportunities for the exercise of soft power. I am pleased that the Westminster Foundation for Democracy was mentioned by, among others, the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), the right hon. Member for Rotherham—again—and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael). When any of us visit any of the countries mentioned, we are struck by the extraordinary respect that there is for our language, the British Council and the Chevening scholarships, all of which help to create a relationship between peoples, and we can only see greater opportunities for them in the future. The House can rest assured that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is alert to the opportunities that are available in this regard.

A number of colleagues mentioned specific countries. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) spoke of Tunisia. I recently met the ambassador, who is a first-rate ambassador for his country. We have spoken to him about the opportunities for economic progress. My hon. Friend was right to say that the economics of what has happened is as important as the politics. A number of these countries—especially Tunisia and Egypt—have been greatly affected by the changes in tourism and other industries. It is essential that the work on the economic package that we are currently doing with our European partners bears fruit, and that support is made available. I can assure my hon. Friend that that is indeed the case. We have drawn up priority areas for our own bilateral support, and we are also working with the EU on new, more substantial financial packages, which are likely to be available in the new financial year. My hon. Friend’s comments were well drawn.

On Morocco, we welcomed the recent statement by His Majesty the King, and the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) rightly drew attention to issues there, as he often does. Egypt was mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), and I want to turn briefly to that country as the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), made a number of remarks on it, and I am keen to respond.

The sense that I got from being in Egypt last week was one of optimism. I do not think there is any sense there that the military are looking to hang on to office. Indeed, the reverse is the case; I think they wish to push power back to the people as quickly as possible. There is widespread debate about the sequence of the elections. There is no firm timetable yet; indeed, there is no agreement as to whether the presidential should come before the parliamentary, and there is much talk about that.

There is a general sense of optimism in respect of the engagement between the politicians, and their relationship with those activists who were outside the Government, as well as the relationship between all of them and the military. Many things can go wrong, and there is concern about those who might have ties to the old regime seeking to create trouble between different communities such as the Muslims and the Copts, but the people seem to be alert to that. There is a lot of time still to go, but the signals from those with responsibilities were good, and I suspect any colleague visiting would pick that up.

The right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South asked about asset freezes. The United Kingdom has been at the forefront of the arguments within the EU to take action on Egyptian requests to freeze the assets of several members of the former regime. A decision on that has not been taken, but we expect that a decision will be taken soon at EU level. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary suggested, the difficulty has been the lack of information that has been supplied by the Egyptian authorities. We need to see evidence of corruption as well as further information about the individuals in question, but that process is under way.

I have mentioned the election timetable. The right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South asked about representations made in respect of political prisoners. We have continued to urge the authorities to respect fully human rights and democratic freedoms, including freedom of expression and communication and the right of peaceful assembly. On numerous occasions throughout the revolution we raised our concerns with the authorities about the mistreatment of journalists and human rights defenders, and during the Prime Minister’s recent visit to Egypt he called on the Government to release all political prisoners and end the state of emergency. I think the right hon. Gentleman and I find ourselves in tune on that.

A number of colleagues mentioned the middle east peace process and issues affecting Israel and Palestine. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex raised the Arab peace initiative, and we support that. There is a huge sense of urgency in this House about the need to get an element of certainty introduced to an uncertain area. That is why we are working so hard to help both the Israelis and the Palestinians appreciate that seeking a settlement now, or at least getting the parameters set out, would be of such benefit to all. We have been working tirelessly on this over the past few months and we are not letting this ball drop just because people’s minds have been distracted by other things.

Many colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr Offord), the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), the hon. Members for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), spoke of some of the misery on both sides. This House knows of this catalogue of misery only too well, and what it does, whether we are talking about the Fogels or another group, is increase the urgency of finding an answer. This Government will press on that, with all parties, as much as we can.

Iran was mentioned by a number of colleagues, principally my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and for Harrow East, and we are all watching to see what exploitation there might be of the current situation. Despite everything else that is going on, we remain concerned about Iran’s nuclear activities. Following the disappointing talks in Istanbul, which were sabotaged by the attitude of the Iranians, we are continuing not only to keep a door open, but to make clear suggestions that the tightening of sanctions will continue. They are having an impact and we all want that process to lead to an abandonment of the Iranians’ desire for nuclear capability. Civil nuclear power is something that we all support and that can be controlled, but Iran must be open about its nuclear ambitions. It must open its doors and its books to the International Atomic Energy Agency in a way that it has not done before. It must come back to the open negotiating table of colleagues in order to reassure the world community.

Understandably, the no-fly zone and Libya dominated a great deal of what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and other colleagues said, and the concerns expressed echoed the warnings that the Prime Minister gave here just the other day. If Gaddafi were able to secure victory at the point of a gun and again dominate and terrorise his people, that would send out a sad signal. So far, the work that has been done to isolate and shrink that state, and warn it of the consequences, has had an effect: it has reduced the money that could have gone towards arms and it will have affected behaviour on the ground. However, as the troops advance, the urgency gets ever more acute. That is why the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister are working so hard, and why so much work is going on in New York today on the resolution. We are hoping that the urgency of the situation will convince those who have been reluctant. Nobody should underestimate either the difficulty or the commitment that this Government have to see that through. We have heard the pleas of the people of Libya for what it is they wish to see and we, too, call on the international community to respond to the resolution that we have put forward with others and, crucially, with the support of the Arab League, to make some of this a reality. It is much needed and time is short.

We watch the situation in Bahrain with great concern. We know that the Government of Bahrain have been involved in a political dialogue, but that it has been stalled for a period of time. We are monitoring the situation closely. We call on all parties to exercise maximum restraint and avoid violence, so that a political dialogue can begin.

Arms is the only substantive topic that I have not really touched on, and I have only a minute in which to do so. The issue has been raised before, and the Prime Minister said the other day that although we have the most rigorous arms control legislation, which does require looking back and revoking licences when necessary, there probably are some questions to be asked. It must remain rigorous and colleagues are right to examine the issue in terms of the future. The regime will remain as rigorous as possible, not only to satisfy the legitimate desires of nations to defend themselves—this is an industry that we are able to supply well—but to ensure that neither internal repression nor regional conflict is supported.

The House of Commons has been thoughtful and informed this afternoon. It has expressed itself optimistic that the changes sweeping the region could be beneficial. We have said that we would desire such an outcome and that both bilaterally and with friends we will do all we can to will the means—economic, political and social—to make such an end possible. But we have rightly also been wary. Long experience of such matters in this place means that we would not be doing our job if we were not cautious and careful of what we wish for and of dangers that lurk around the corner. We have reasserted the values that uphold us, although we are not blind to our past or to the reality of the future. We seek to support those in other places who have the same wishes as us. The great thing about what has happened is that it is led by those in those countries who wish to see the freedoms and freedoms of expression that we have. We hope that we will stand by them. What the Prime Minister has called a “precious moment of opportunity” will be watched carefully at Westminster—

18:00

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Medway City Status

Thursday 17th March 2011 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)

18:00

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for choosing my topic for this debate. I declare my interest as a councillor on Medway council. Since I became the Member for Gillingham and Rainham, I have, as I am sure hon. Members know, keenly spoken about my wonderful constituency and the wider area of Medway—a place that is less than 30 miles from the House. After all, it is the place where I went to school, grew up and, of course, still live. It is therefore no wonder that I am a passionate advocate for the Medway area and strongly support its bid to become a city during the Queen’s diamond jubilee year in 2012.

Anyone who visited Medway would fully understand why. It is not only a place with a fantastically rich history and heritage, but an innovative and growing area that is going places with a great future ahead of it. Medway consists of the towns of Chatham, Gillingham, Rainham, Rochester and Strood, as well as the internationally renowned Hoo peninsula. All those places are interwoven by one thing: the River Medway, a place that, over the centuries, has been the setting for an awe-inspiring history.

Medway has Rochester castle, which was built in the 13th century for the Archbishop of Canterbury and is one of the finest examples of a Norman keep anywhere in the country. It has Rochester cathedral, which is England’s second oldest cathedral, built in the 7th century. If we move along the river, there is Upnor castle—an Elizabethan fort built to defend naval ships from attack by the Dutch. Mind you, as they sailed past it to burn the English fleet at anchor 70 years later, it could be said that it was not exactly the finest example of public money being spent on a successful infrastructure project.

There is also, of course, the naval dockyard, a place that has provided men and arms during the ages of sail and steam and in more recent times. For example, Admiral Nelson’s flagship HMS Victory was built there and the old sea dog himself lived there. The Chatham naval dockyard used to be one of three royal naval dockyards in England, with the others at Portsmouth and Plymouth—two places that already have city status. In the 1980s, Chatham dockyard closed and tens of thousands of people lost their livelihoods. As I am sure the House will understand, that was a devastating and bleak time for the whole area. Many people thought Chatham and the wider Medway towns would never recover, but the people of Medway are a resourceful and resilient lot, who, after a period of shock, picked themselves back up.

Even though no one at the time would have imagined that Medway could have recovered from that awful milestone in its history, it has shown it can do more than that and has exceeded all expectations. Since the closure, Medway has been transformed. St Mary’s island and the Chatham docks have been successfully regenerated and more is to come along the Rochester riverside and in Chatham town centre, where regeneration work continues despite the recession.

We have seen major growth companies starting up in Medway over the last few decades and four universities have also come together in a unique partnership at a shared campus that caters for more than 10,000 students. The figure is set to grow. With the new high-speed rail links, its close proximity to the capital and Kent’s major ports, it also has fantastic transport connections.

We are proud of our close historic ties with the armed forces, including, of course, the fact that Chatham was at the forefront of British naval history for centuries, as well as our association with the Royal Engineers, based at Brompton barracks. That rich association led to the area being the first to host the national armed forces day in 2009.

Medway also offers a diverse range of sporting and cultural events, thanks to its new centre for sporting excellence, Medway Park, an Olympic training ground based in my constituency, and our excellent calendar of activities, which include cutting-edge art festivals and celebrations of Charles Dickens, who moved to Medway at the age of five and based part of his novel “Great Expectations” and his unfinished work “The Mystery of Edwin Drood”, there. We are also home to Kent’s only league football club, the mighty Gills, which I know will get promoted this year. Who knows—one year they might be in the premiership. I am told that Medway has more days of free festivals than any other area in the south-east outside London and I think it is fair to say that Medway is a city in all but name—a place with a rich heritage that is going places and that undoubtedly has a great future.

Over the past few decades, much of our regeneration work has benefited from Government funding, but with the huge national deficit the country now has, much of that funding is no longer possible. Medway council realises that and is acting in a thoroughly pragmatic way. Not only has it just approved, through careful and concise planning, a balanced budget for the next financial year, but it has found savings while protecting all its front-line services. Recently, the council’s leader, Rodney Chambers, has spoken of the need to bring more inward investment to Medway. He said that city status would present Medway with a “golden opportunity” to up its profile and bring that about.

Businesses across Kent agree. Medway’s bid is backed by Arriva, BAE Systems, MHS Homes, Asda, Sainsbury’s, Christian Salvesen, Swain Haulage, Hochiki Europe, Peel Ports, Nordic and Ward Homes to name just a few. My hon. Friend the Minister will know that some of the hardest people to win over in any debate are our friends in the media. That is why I am particularly delighted that Medway’s bid is also backed by the Kent Messenger group, which publishes the south-east’s biggest-selling weekly regional newspaper.

Medway also plays host every July to some of the biggest names in UK music in our castle concerts. Last summer, Medway’s city status bid was backed wholeheartedly by stars from Status Quo to Will Young, The Saturdays and Diversity, but support from celebrities, businesses and the media is not enough. It is also important that people living in Medway back the bid for city status. That is why I am pleased to tell the House that I know, from the many conversations I have had with people living in Medway, that the idea of the area becoming a city in recognition of Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee is definitely a popular one. A Medway council opinion poll has shown that more than two thirds of people in Medway are in favour of the bid. They recognise that being honoured with city status next year by Her Majesty would give it the greater national and international profile it deserves, putting it back on the map.

People elsewhere in the country might know about the five towns that make up Medway, but they might not realise that those towns make up the largest conurbation in the south-east outside London, or that it has great links to London and continental Europe. City status would give Medway new opportunities to present itself as a great place to do business. I know the area could attract more inward investment to increase job prospects for young people by providing them with more good, quality local jobs. I am aware that Medway has a number of competitors for city status in 2012, many of which have some of the things that make a great city but none of which has the full range of qualities of Medway. I have said it before and I will say it again: Medway is a place with a rich heritage and a great future, and I believe in recognition of that it should be honoured next year with city status.

18:09

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) on securing the debate. He follows the recent example of our hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) in securing an opportunity to debate his area’s hopes of winning the diamond jubilee city status competition. As I said in that debate, other hon. Members will note this mechanism for promoting the bid of their constituency or area for city status. I am sure, Mr Speaker, that you and your team of Deputy Speakers will have the opportunity to hear about many more interesting bids over the coming year as we travel around our United Kingdom.

I understand that my hon. Friends the Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless)—the other two Members whose seats contain parts of Medway—share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham, but unfortunately they could not attend the debate because of pressing constituency engagements that they had previously arranged. I spoke to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford this morning, so I know that she agrees with many of the views that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham expressed.

I welcome today’s manifestation of Medway’s intention to apply for city status, which gives us an indication of the interest and enthusiasm that the diamond jubilee competition has aroused throughout the United Kingdom. Some people have tried to cast doubt on the legitimacy of a bid from a local authority area such as Medway, which contains within its borders a number of towns and rural areas. It is therefore worth saying that I can confirm that the local authority is welcome to apply, as are others like it. Medway’s entry will be fairly and impartially considered alongside all those received. The only absolute requirement, which applies everywhere but Scotland, is that an applicant local authority must want the whole of its area to be made a city. The position is different in Scotland for historical reasons and because of the way local government works there.

I shall give my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham an example of a similar area, although I hope he will forgive me for mentioning it because this area and Medway were in competition before. Brighton and Hove became a city in a previous competition, so it was not Brighton alone that became a city but the entire local authority area. Brighton and Hove is a good example for Medway to follow, given that its bid was successful. We understand that Medway council intends to bid on behalf of the entire local authority area and we welcome that intention.

Medway has something unique about it, because as well as the towns of Chatham, Gillingham, Rainham and Strood, the surrounding rural areas and the Hoo peninsula, Medway includes within its borders a former city. It is well known that Rochester had the misfortune to lose its ancient city status in 1998 following local government reorganisation. Given that Rochester does not have its own council, it would not be allowed to apply by itself for this competition, but a bid from Medway council for the entire area of Medway will be very welcome.

[Rehman Chishti]

The Minister acknowledges the unique nature of Medway and Rochester’s former city status. Does that mean that he will look on Medway’s bid more favourably?

[Mr Harper]

I am afraid that I will have to disappoint my hon. Friend. The Government will look fairly and impartially at all bids that meet the rules, and eventually we will make a recommendation to Her Majesty the Queen on the grant of city status in her diamond jubilee year.

My hon. Friend set out well the area’s claims and some of its history. He talked about its business and culture, and concluded by setting out the public support for the bid. He and other hon. Members will understand, however, that I cannot endorse or support Medway’s aspirations, exactly as I could not support those of Southend. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had to refuse to support the claims of Ballymena, even though the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) tempted him to do so. Ministers will remain impartial, as we must, to ensure that city status continues to be a real honour that is fairly bestowed, and that the diamond jubilee competition remains a real competition all the way to the end.

We know that local authorities in all parts of the United Kingdom are compiling their entries, or looking at the guidelines on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s diamond jubilee website so that they can decide whether to apply. All valid entries that reach the Cabinet Office by the closing date of 27 May will be fairly and impartially considered, and I look forward to Medway’s being among them.

Question put and agreed to.

18:14

House adjourned.

Westminster Hall

Thursday 17th March 2011 Westminster Hall

Thursday 17 March 2011

[Mr Peter Bone in the Chair]

backbench business

Thursday 17th March 2011 Westminster Hall

Bill of Rights

Thursday 17th March 2011 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)

14:30

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

This very important debate is about articles 9 and 13 of the Bill of Rights and the role of Parliament in dealing with all grievances and the importance of freedom of communication between constituents and Members, and I know that it is very important, because the Leader of the House trailed it earlier. I remind Members of the importance of privilege, which we have here in Westminster Hall as in other parts of Parliament, but Members should always exercise their rights with care, particularly when naming individuals, and should avoid intrusion into areas that are within the jurisdiction of the courts, particularly things that are active before the courts.

14:31

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

I thank you, Mr Bone, and also the Backbench Business Committee, on which I sit, for providing the opportunity to debate this very important issue.

I often find the older laws interesting to look at, and they are all available on the modern websites. On the statute law website, found at legislation.gov.uk, we can find the Bill of Rights 1688, which is sometimes called the Act of Rights 1689. Article 9 of that Bill is on freedom of speech, and says that

“the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.”

Interestingly, that it is often misunderstood to mean absolute privilege, when it in fact means that the courts cannot look at what is said in Parliament, which gives a defence not only against defamation but against contempt of court. Things that perhaps otherwise could not be spoken of, can be spoken of within Parliament because of article 9. It is absolutely crucial to recognise that that is a liberty of the British people: the powers of Parliament, in the body of democracy, to represent the citizens of the United Kingdom are liberties of the British people. Contempt of Parliament and parliamentary privilege are there to protect the citizens of the UK, and of the world more widely, and I shall go into some detail about that later.

Article 13 is about frequent Parliaments:

“And that for Redresse of all Grievances and for the amending strengthening and preserveing of the Lawes Parlyaments ought to be held frequently.”

That clearly gives Parliament two functions, one being the redress of all grievances. The nub of my arguments today is that if Parliament does not know what is going on, for one reason or another, it is somewhat difficult for it to produce any results whereby the grievances are redressed. We face serious problems if Parliament is blinded or deafened by the actions of others.

I have some other laws here, which are important. In the area of family proceedings, people very often refuse to, or are pressurised not to, give information to Members of Parliament. There have been a number of changes over the years. In 2005, a statutory instrument creaked open the door to the family courts, and then there were the Family Proceedings (Amendment) (No.2) Rules 2009, which are important because they made it clear under “communication of information for purposes connected with the proceedings” that a

“party or the legal representative of a party, on behalf of and upon the instructions of that party, may communicate information relating to the proceedings to any person where necessary to enable that party…by confidential discussion, to obtain support, advice or assistance in the conduct of the proceedings”.

This might come as a surprise to some people: Members of Parliament are human beings. The law was opened up very clearly in 2005, and it was made explicit in 2009 that any person is allowed to have information from a party. Article 9 of the fundamental constitutional law of the UK of course trumps statute and statutory instruments, but we have here a statutory instrument that makes it extremely clear that a Member of Parliament may obtain information from a party; for example, from a parent or a child who is aggrieved at their treatment by the family courts. Often children have great difficulty escaping from this strange world; a number of teenagers who have found it very difficult to escape the system have contacted me.

There is another old constitutional law that I would like to refer Members to, the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta 1297 is the version that is in force—in statute. It is rather sad, in some senses, that so little of it remains. A lot of it has been repealed, and only articles I, IX and XXIX are left. Article I is on the confirmation of liberties, and basically refers to the Church of England. Article IX refers to the liberties of London, and as a Member of Parliament for Birmingham I wonder why an article about London and the Cinque ports has not been repealed when so many of the others have gone.

Article XXIX is an important one, on imprisonment contrary to law and the administration of justice:

“NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”

I emphasise the last sentence of that article, the key to which, as I see it, is that people are equal before the law, and that one’s wealth should not affect how one is seen by the legal system. There are lots of debates going on about access to justice, and last week I raised the issue of the balance between two different cases, and of how the people involved in them were treated. One case involved a particularly wealthy person and the other a relatively poor person, and I will come on to that later because it is important.

This debate is particularly about the position of communication with Members of Parliament, and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) has a very important point to raise in association with that. Even if we did not have the Bill of Rights, it is clear that there are circumstances in which it would be lawful for people to communicate with Members of Parliament. There are other situations, when there are court injunctions or other pressures on people through employment contracts and the like, when it perhaps is not as lawful for people to communicate with their Member of Parliament. I am particularly concerned about situations in which people are bullied and threatened to prevent them from raising their grievances with their Member of Parliament, and there is obviously a question as to where the limits of that lie. I tend to construe it more broadly, in that when information is needed for proceedings in Parliament that should be protected by the law. The law of Parliament is part of the law, even if some solicitors firms do not understand that, such as Withers last year.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

On that point, and particularly in connection with family law, it is the bullying of constituents that is one of the most offensive aspects of this. In trying to explain to parliamentary colleagues why we sought to hold this debate and what is so important about it, the example that I have given that has most grabbed their attention is that of a social services department saying to a constituent, “If you talk to your Member of Parliament, we’ll make sure you lose custody of your child.” Does that not illustrate vividly the nature of the problem that we are dealing with?

[John Hemming]

Yes, it is a dreadful abuse of state power to threaten to remove a child from the care of the parents because they deign to speak to their Member of Parliament. That happened to one of my constituents, Andrew France, and I will come to the detailed documentation on that later. I think that is a dreadful thing to do with people.

On the Family Proceedings (Amendment) (No. 2) Rules 2009, I pointed out that it is in fact entirely lawful to talk to anyone. To say, “We will remove your child, because you had the effrontery to raise your concerns about process with your Member of Parliament” is a dreadful thing to do. Parliament should not tolerate that, because it undermines the actions of Parliament. Later, I will come in detail to the example from Australia which demonstrates that it can be interpreted as contempt of Parliament, so Parliament could take action on those grounds to ensure that people’s right to talk to their MP is protected.

Last week, I raised the issue of Fred Goodwin and Lee Gilliland. Everyone tended to concentrate on Fred Goodwin and the banker issue, but I think that the issue of Lee Gilliland is more important. The Gilliland case is slightly complex, and I cannot refer to some things, because proceedings are continuing. However, in the historic proceedings to which I referred last week, he had his mental capacity removed, on his right to instruct a solicitor, on the basis of a report from his GP which was written some five months after his GP had last seen him and which he has still not seen—I spoke to him about half an hour ago.

It took me a little time to get into the issue of mental capacity, when I first encountered it a number of years ago, because it seemed so shocking. Yes, we have the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which specifies circumstances under which people’s capacity can be removed, but I was surprised to find a situation in which someone who seems coherent could be told, basically, “You’re too stupid to tell a solicitor what to do. And, because you are too stupid to tell a solicitor what to do, we will appoint what is called a litigation friend”—one must distinguish between a litigation friend and a McKenzie friend, because people sometimes confuse the two. The litigation friend acts on someone’s behalf. The Official Solicitor is often appointed as litigation friend even though the Official Solicitor ought really to be appointed as a litigation friend of last resort.

With the agreement of the Official Solicitor on behalf of Mr Gilliland, a decision was made by the court. The house he lived in was to be sold, with half the money going to him—roughly £50,000. However, he was to be evicted and, of the £50,000, more than £37,000 would go to his solicitor. Who is protecting Mr Gilliland’s interests? He did not start out as a particularly wealthy individual, then the state came in and said, “You are too stupid to instruct a solicitor, but you can’t see the basis upon which we have made that decision. Oh, and by the way, we are going to take three quarters of the money you might have had, turfing you out of your house and putting you on the streets, and give it to your solicitor.”

I do not see that as treating Fred Goodwin on the one hand and Lee Gilliland on the other hand equally. Fred Goodwin can afford to spend a lot of money on getting an injunction, or even a super-injunction under which someone cannot even talk about him having the injunction. I will come to what I call hyper-injunctions. One of the freedom of speech issues is that media organisations are generally commercial organisations, and there gets to be a point at which it is not worth their while trying to challenge the system and to get information out. With that, we return to the article 9 issue, because our freedom of speech in the House is obviously on behalf of the citizens. We need to know of grievances so that we can raise them and talk about them publicly, so that the citizens of the UK can know. If it costs £20,000 or £30,000 in legal fees to write an article, in most circumstances a media organisation will just give up. The freedom of speech is basically sold down the river, because of the costs of the legal processes.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate on a massively important subject.

I was not at the signing of the Magna Carta, or later ones, but I have been in the House for 22 years and I have a couple of observations. One of the reasons that the Cinque ports and London are still on the statute book is because the redress of grievances was always done before the Crown—the state now—and it got its interest, its reward, its return and its borrowing from the City of London.

What we are seeing, and it has got worse over the course of the past 22 years, is the interests, prejudices and career risks of the organisation dealing with the individual, be it a solicitor or even a family or social services officer, put to the fore—not always, but sometimes—ahead of the interests of the constituent. Those officers of local authorities, courts and so on have put their interests or privileges ahead of ours, and it has happened time and time again. In my constituency, teachers have been accused of sexual misdemeanours which were later proven not to be true, and people have been threatened with their children being taken away—a whole series of areas.

Our job is to be the defence of last recourse for the individual. We stand between the individual and the misdemeanours of the state or, indeed, the lynch-mob law at the other extreme. That is why, in modern terms, and not just in terms of the ancient rights, our access to information is fundamental to continuing freedom in Britain. Once our right to have that information is taken away, the freedoms of our citizens and constituents are undermined. Parliament itself—its officers and the Speaker—should take a stand and make a statement to the effect that we have those rights on behalf of our constituents. May I have the view of my hon. Friend?

[John Hemming]

I very much agree with my right hon. Friend; he is entirely right. People recognise that we in the House act as the last resort in many ways. I will give examples from among my own constituents for whom I have acted in the last resort. We need to stand up for the citizen.

One of the problems with how things have developed, and with all the secrecy rules, is that they seem to act to protect not vulnerable people but those who make money out of the system. That is dangerous, because we then have what Councillor Len Clark in Birmingham talked about as the “penguin mentality”. Basically, whenever there is any criticism—he was citing social workers—they stand like penguins, back to back, on a different continent to everyone else, Antarctica, and they just refute all criticism. Any real problem in the system is then very difficult to deal with.

We will look at the issue of Dr Waney Squier later. Her problem is that the area on which she can argue her case is trapped by the secrecy of the family courts. That is protecting not children but the judicial process from scrutiny. It is about identifying not the children or the parents involved in the case but the rational process by which a conclusion has been reached.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden is entirely and totally right. We need to stand up collectively, and we hope that the Speaker might do as my right hon. Friend requests.

I will now look in more detail at Andrew France’s case. I have some of the documentation with me, including a county court order—for proceedings that have now completely ended, so it is a public document, and there is no issue of privilege. The document is there in the courts. In the recitals, it states:

“upon the first and second Respondents agreeing that they will make no further disclosure in respect of this matter to any third party, including in particular the media and John Hemmings MP.”

It is somewhat surprising that I am such a threat to the system that so much effort will go into stopping one of my constituents speaking to me. He was wrongly imprisoned on a made-up allegation of rape, so he went through a serious process. He won his criminal appeal but he complained about a social worker in the process, so the authorities decided to start proceedings in the family courts. Luckily, an excellent judge junked it in the bin, because it was transparently such nonsense, and everything ran smoothly for the family. However, my constituent was under no illusion that had he not agreed to those recitals in the court order, the council would have taken action—he was told—which would have been to apply for a care order taking his four-year-old daughter into care.

[Mr Bacon]

For the benefit of the House, can my hon. Friend clarify, in case anyone did not notice? Is he saying that a court order was made prohibiting a constituent from talking to him as a Member of Parliament?

[John Hemming]

Exactly. The court order is slightly different from that, because it is in the recitals. Some court orders prohibit people from talking to Members of Parliament, but, because it is in the recitals, it implies an agreement. It is slightly more complex, but, in essence, a lot of pressure was placed on him to agree not to talk to me. The threat was that, if he talked to me, they would apply to take his child into care. A note from his barrister, June Williams, said:

“All the advocates stressed to me the danger of Father having any contact with John Hemmings MP”—

I wish she had got my name right—

“(for the Liberal and Democrats).”

She did not get the party’s name right either. I shall miss out a couple of the points that she mentioned, because they are totally untrue, but she continued that he was “scathing” about the care system

“and had been heavily criticised by the Court of Appeal about his involvement in cases. The collective view was that he would do more harm than good. Mr Grove confirmed that he advised Mother not to contact the media again and she confirmed that she would not. I spoke to Father about this, as the parties had prepared the recital to the order about the parents not contacting the media or John Hemming”—

she got my name right that time—

“or any third party about this case. Father was very defensive at first and said ‘No’ and that effectively this was a gagging order,”

which, of course, it is.

[Mr Bacon]

Surely, it must be the case that any right-thinking court that had informed itself properly—in this case, it would have to be a higher court revisiting the decision—would come to the conclusion that any agreement made under duress would be a nullity and void.

[John Hemming]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is completely wrong to be made to agree not to talk to one’s MP. I also think that that process of bullying is a contempt of Parliament and that action should be taken by Parliament to deal with it.

The note continues:

“I explained to Father to think carefully about his actions especially the impact on the child”.

It goes on to talk about other children getting hold of this and causing difficulties, but talking to one’s MP does not inherently mean that something will enter Parliament; it merely means getting additional support and explanations. The note goes on:

“Father said that he went to the media because he wanted to clear his name”—

which is fair enough—

“having suffered negative coverage in the media at the time of his trial. I stated that I understood why he did it, but stressed it was the potential impact on his child that he must give consideration to.”

He has been portrayed by the media as a rapist and wants to get publicity that says that he is not. I find it odd that it is thought that trying to get publicity to clear his name would cause problems for his child.

The note continues:

“Mr Grove joined me, whilst I was speaking to Father in the waiting area, and reiterated the danger in Father in having any contact with John Hemming. I advised Father that he must have faith in his legal team, and that contacting 3rd parties such as John Hemming, would not be consistent with working alongside his legal team. I stressed that John Hemming would not assist him any better than his legal team, at the fact finding hearing. I urged him against such further contact and sought his confirmation as to whether he was agreeable to the preamble to the order. Father at first said that he would agree to it but was not happy about it. I stressed that I needed to be certain that he was in full agreement to it, and after Mr Grove had spoken to Father about this, as mentioned above, Father stated clearly that he would agree to it, and appreciated the point that I was making.”

The essence of it is that he has no real choice. If he does not agree to it, the local council, of which I used to be deputy leader, would take action to take his child into care.

On the processes of councils, it is interesting that I have discovered that their senior management and councillors have no knowledge of what is really going on in social services departments throughout the country on a day-to-day basis. There is no real scrutiny in the councils, and the fact that elected officials are in charge of them does not result in any proper scrutiny.

That is one example where it is obvious that action was wrongly taken to bully somebody into agreeing not to contact me. I have to be very careful with the example of another of my constituents, because proceedings are continuing, so I shall have to refer to historic information. It may be best if I do not name this constituent, because it will save difficulties. She is 26 years old and has mild learning difficulties. She came back to Birmingham, having been separated from her family 10 years ago. A consultant psychiatrist’s report quotes the police in relation to the situation faced by my constituent, who was on the electoral role in my constituency for the general election. I should also add that Acocks Green is part of my constituency and it has an Iceland shop.

The report states:

“Police records made available to me via the instructing Solicitors provide details of the incident on 8/10/09, reported as an abduction.”

They say that she was abducted by her family. The report states that the description from the police was that she was

“out shopping in Acocks Green Village, with 2 other residents”

from her home. It goes on to say that, while in Iceland, she

“saw one of her sisters. The sister asked the carer for contact details but this was refused. She left the shop in tears. In the aftermath of this incident”

she

“and her party were walking away from ‘Iceland’ a silver car pulled over, containing”

her “two brothers.” The report goes on to say that

“it is described in the Police report that when the silver car pulled over”

she

“ran and hugged one of the males believed to be her brother, before getting into the car and being driven away. A history of”

her

“being the subject of an allegation of forced marriage was mentioned. Concerns were mentioned in the Police report that family will try to take her out of the country,”

which is refuted by the family.

The report continues:

“It was stated ‘the Airport Unit at Birmingham Airport was informed so that any immediate attempts to remove”

her

“from the country could be identified.’

It goes on to say that she

“was found by the Police at her mother’s home address in Sparkhill, Birmingham. A large number of family members were present and a party atmosphere was described. It was stated that”

she

“‘was unequivocal that she wished to remain with her parents’ and when it was explained by police that it was not possible but she could remain with her sister she was very excited. It was also stated ‘it was established that there was no legal authority to remove”

her

“to the care of Social Services and no authority to use force to do so.’”

She was separated from her family for 10 years and found them near where they live. She ran into the car with her brothers, went to her parents’ house and there was a party because they had found her after 10 years. They went to court and a social worker from Birmingham—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I just want to make sure that this is not sub judice and not active before the court.

[John Hemming]

This particular part is not active. It is a distinct proceeding that relates to a decision taken in 2009. It is important that hon. Members gain an understanding of the basis on which these decisions are taken. It is said in the Court of Protection that decisions are taken via the judge, who relies on an expert witness. I will read out the expert’s report that empowered the local authority to get a decision from the judge to put my constituent in a home. The report has a heading and includes the names of a social worker and the witness, but I shall not mention them. The specific question was: where does she want to live? It went on:

“Does the service user understand the information necessary to make the decision at this time?”

The answer given was “Yes” and the report said that she had

“listened and quickly responded that she had heard but wanted to stay with her family.”

It is clear, therefore, that she had a view of what she wanted.

The report also asked:

“Can the service user retain the information for long enough to make this decision?”

The answer given was that she

“is quickly stating yes, she is not giving reasoning or considering risks which she herself has previously expressed relating to potential forced marriage and not wanting contact with family members.”

The report went on to ask:

“Can the service user weigh up the information in order to make this decision?”

The answer given was that she

“is not weighing up information about different options for her accommodation. She will only state she wants to live with her mum and dad or sisters. She said that she likes to make people happy and that she will be happy if her family are happy. Her family will be sad and angry if she leaves so she would like to stay with them. I suggested she could have continued contact with her family even if living elsewhere but”

she

“said this would make them angry.”

The report concluded:

“The result of this Capacity assessment is that in relation to deciding accommodation”

she “does not have Capacity.”

That is not really a long assessment in terms of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Where in the assessment is there an attempt to assist her in making her decision? There is no record of it whatsoever. The assessment is given as a sufficient basis to, basically, imprison her. It was in secret and there was no accountability and no second opinion at that stage.

I wrote to a Minister who told me to write to the Care Quality Commission, which told me to write to the solicitors, who did not respond. I wrote to the council, which told me: “The judge has banned us from talking to you.” I wrote to the Official Solicitor—this is a mental capacity case and the Official Solicitor has been appointed to deal with her best interests—and I got a letter back that said:

“You are correct when you suggest that I take the view that I am not accountable to you as an MP for the way in which I act in individual cases.”

We have a sort of vacuum here. There is no proper accountability in this area whatsoever. Her sisters were talking to me and were threatened that they would be in contempt of court if they continued to do so. One of the sisters is a constituent and another one lives just outside my constituency. We have here another contempt of Parliament, where effort is being put into stopping external scrutiny of the processes.

In the case I am talking about, a large sum of money has been spent on keeping this particular girl in the custody of the state—she is effectively a secret prisoner. The family has expressed the view that the true reason she was taken into care some 10 years ago was to prevent the investigation of an allegation of sexual assault against a member of staff of the city council. They think that the reason this kicked off is that, when she came back to Birmingham, someone did not want the investigation of the sexual assault from 10 years ago to kick off. I have seen some of the police records, and the family have a reasonable case for saying that that might be the motivation underlying such a massive expenditure of public money. Whatever way we look at the matter, this is a dreadful case and it is very clear what is going on. It has been said that her father is a risk to her. However, he died last July—possibly partly as a result of the stress of the case—so he is not much of a risk now. It is therefore difficult to understand what the justification is for what has been done.

[Mr David Davis]

I am listening with fascination to this case because it seems to me that it is clearly a contempt of Parliament. Who is the Official Solicitor responsible to, if not to us?

[John Hemming]

The Official Solicitor’s answer is that he is accountable to the court. However, I cannot see where the real scrutiny of that process is. Let us consider the case I mentioned earlier—the £37,000 case—which also involved the Official Solicitor. Obviously, Alastair Pitblado does not trundle around the country like Father Christmas, visiting every court for a few seconds. We are talking about members of his staff, who will vary in calibre. As far as I can see, there is no real scrutiny of the Official Solicitor. Yes, the court may spot something, but it is very difficult. Who is actually acting to protect somebody against what the Official Solicitor does? That is a very difficult question. In addition, I have asked if I can go and see the constituent concerned and have been refused. So, someone is being held incommunicado from her Member of Parliament.

On the issues surrounding what can be done as a last resort, I shall discuss another constituent: Michael Singleton. His mum was very surprised that he had been jailed for five years, given that the allegation was that he had intentionally set fire to the house they were living in and had gone back to bed in the same house. She came to see me and we filled in the forms for him to appeal to the criminal Court of Appeal as a litigant in person, after which he was released. That shows the importance of having the last resort because the state would have wasted a lot of money keeping him locked up when there was nothing to be gained from doing so. It was lucky that that case was not covered by any confidentiality and that no one was trying to ban him from talking to me or his mum or anything like that, and he was therefore released.

The other person I have mentioned is still basically in the power of the state, and the people concerned are banned from coming to talk to me. Therefore, I cannot give them any advice on how they might be able to appeal the process and challenge things. I do not have a degree in law, although I have a certain amount of experience with it. My degree is more science-based. I shall also mention another, more recent constituency case. I will not name the person concerned because it might be sub judice. We are trying to get it to be sub judice.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. May I just say to the hon. Gentleman that it is quite proper to refer to cases to illustrate the general debate, but this is a wider debate? He should not spend too much time on any single case because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.

[John Hemming]

I will speed up a bit. Dr Waney Squier is another example of someone who, to clear her name, needs access to secret material that does not affect any children or parents. However, she cannot get access to that.

We should consider again the wider questions of court decisions in respect of contact with Members of Parliament and others. I have here a case from 2005—folio No. 773. It is an injunction that says that if someone disobeys this order, they may be found guilty of contempt of court and may be sent to prison or fined or their assets may be seized. I am not going to name the parties in that case because more research needs to be done into it. However, without me putting this into parliamentary proceedings, I cannot even write to the people involved. Obviously, an ordinary letter not connected with proceedings in Parliament is not covered by the Bill of Rights. Paragraph (1) of the document concerned states:

“Neither the Defendant nor any third party with notice of the Injunction may communicate with any third party regarding these proceedings in general and the potable water tanks or system referred to in the Injunction in particular.”

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt again. I want to go back to my previous point: we must not deal with active cases. Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that this is not active?

[John Hemming]

The case has not been active to my knowledge since 2006. It is definitely not active now. I think the case ended in 2006—the date of the injunction—partly because of the trap that the individual concerned has found himself in.

[Mr Bacon]

It may assist hon. Members if I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the Select Committee on Procedure’s 2004-05 report on the sub judice rule. On page 19, that report makes it clear that the purpose of the sub judice rule is to protect active proceedings. It also makes it clear that criminal proceedings cease to be active when they are concluded by verdict and sentence or discontinuance, and that civil proceedings are active when arrangements for the hearing—such as the setting down for a case for trial—have been made until the proceedings are ended by judgment or discontinuance. If there has been a judgment or a court order, there can be no question of the matter being sub judice.

[John Hemming]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. In fact, in this case, that goes even further because there is nothing going on. Not only was there a judgment or court order injunction in 2006, but nothing has been going on since in the courts— although there may have been other things going on in the outside world in relation to the matter. Returning to paragraph (1)(a) of the document, it states:

“The third parties with whom the Defendant (and/or such third party) must not communicate in that regard include (but are not limited to):

(i) A or any other owner or operator of ships.

(ii) The United States Coastguard or any other coastguard or similar organisation;

(iii) B or any classification society;

(iv) Members of parliament, journalists and lawyers, with the exception of lawyers or legal advisors instructed for the purpose of assisting his defence of these proceedings.

(2) The Defendant (and/or such third party) must not communicate to third parties (without prejudice to the generality of the terms of the Injunction):

(a) The existence of these proceedings;

(b) The existence or terms of the Injunction;

(c) The fact that the potable water tanks of C and D were recoated;

(d) The fact that the potable water tanks of other vessels (such as the E and F) were also recoated.

(e) Anything to do with the potable water tanks of any of the above-named vessels, their coating or recoating which he has learned as a result of these proceedings, including without limitation the content of paragraphs 5 to 7 of the first affidavit of G.

(f) Any speculation that the illness of any individual (including without limitation the collapse of H) was, has been or will be brought out by the chemical composition or the chemicals present in the coating of the potable water tanks on the C.”

There is a lot of stuff in that. It goes beyond a super-injunction; it is what I would call a hyper-injunction. It is an injunction in a case where someone is not even allowed to refer to the existence of these proceedings. There is the desire not to have the matter mentioned to Members of Parliament. There is also the interesting reference where it says

“with the exception of lawyers or legal advisors instructed for the purpose”.

I believe that the person concerned got a two-week suspended sentence for talking to a lawyer about whether he could have it on a no win, no fee basis. So there is a real question about whether he can get a fair trial on this basis. One of the things to which he is not supposed to refer is the fact that in the potable or drinking water tanks of these vessels, the paint was defective. In certain circumstances, the coating could break down and release small quantities of a toxic substance into the water contained in the tanks. What we have, therefore, is passenger vessels trundling around the world with potentially toxic substances being released into the tanks, although to be fair, the problem with the coating in the tanks is being fixed; but one of those who worked on the tanks collapsed as a result. We also know that the situation continued.

The reason why I have not named people is simple: I do not know the nature of the toxins or whether they are serious, and they might not be. However, I am greatly worried about transparency, and I might pass these details to a Committee of the House, if there is one that wishes to look at them. From a health and safety point of view, we want to think that the water we are drinking is safe and that it will not cause health problems; the difficulty in this case is that we do not know. What we do know is that corporations used the massive force of the law to gag an individual and truss him up so much that he could not really challenge the process.

[Mr Bacon]

What my hon. Friend has just said is really quite extraordinary. As I understand him, he is saying that a court in this country made an order with a whole load of provisions in it. What particularly attracted my attention, however, was that it prohibited someone from talking to a Member of Parliament and from referring to the existence of the proceedings. When one thinks of secret courts, one thinks of unsavoury regimes such as those in Burma, Cuba, Hungary in the 1950s or Stalin’s Russia, but one does not think of the United Kingdom. How can a judge feel it appropriate to make an order making it unlawful—supposedly—to refer to the existence of proceedings?

[John Hemming]

The person in question could actually be jailed for telling his MP that he had been in court case No. 773. What is so sensitive about that? In practice, even family court proceedings are not that confidential. I think this case was in the Commercial and Admiralty court. My first question is not just how the hell this could happen—I apologise for the non-parliamentary language, Mr Bone. How does this happen? How many more of these cases are there? How many secret cases do we have in this country, with people being banned from even saying that the case exists?

In the past couple of days, Lord Neuberger has said that super-injunctions are dubious. There is an argument for a temporary super-injunction from time to time in a fraud case so that money can be chased around the world, but it is complete nonsense to have something that is still in force almost five years later and whose existence cannot even be mentioned outside parliamentary proceedings. In this case, there is also the health and safety issue. I do not know how serious it is, although now that the case has been mentioned in parliamentary proceedings, I will send people a copy of Hansard, ask for their comments and see what explanation they give. If I can find an appropriate Committee in the House to pass the details to, I will do so.

This is not the sort of thing that should happen. This is not about transparency and accountability, but about using lots of money. We come back to Magna Carta and somebody with a lot of money. We are talking about various companies with lots of money gagging some poor individual. Where is the equality of arms in that? Where is the idea that we will not sell justice? The courts may not be selling justice, but the legal process as a whole is not really very balanced if this is the sort of thing that goes on.

However, let us move on. I hope I have given enough examples and that everyone is happy, but I think we should move on to the more general points about contempt of Parliament. As colleagues know, the House of Commons has the power, by referring cases to the Standards and Privileges Committee, to deal with contempt of Parliament. In fact, the last example came about at my suggestion. I moved a motion to refer someone to the Committee last year, when Withers threatened me with legal action unless I agreed not to say something in the House. That was an obvious and very straightforward contempt of Parliament.

There is an interesting case involving the Member for Preston in the Parliament of Victoria in Australia, and I have a copy of the Legislative Assembly Privileges Committee report if any hon. Member would like to see it afterwards. The case is interesting because it involved threats of legal action against a constituent for passing information to a Member of that Parliament, with a view to preventing that Member from speaking about an issue there. I think we are bang to rights, because the case provides exactly the precedent that would be necessary to justify using contempt of Parliament proceedings against those who wish to prevent people from talking to Members of Parliament in the UK.

The issue is quite straightforward; in fact, it has been looked at in the domestic courts to determine the extent to which communications with Members of Parliament are potentially privileged. In the case of Rivlin v. Bilainkin, the judgment, which was delivered on 18 December 1952, concluded that a communication with a Member of Parliament is not automatically privileged, even if it is handed over in Parliament. It is the institutions that matter; in that respect, we constitute Parliament just as much in this Chamber as in the main Chamber. If something is not connected with proceedings in Parliament, it is not privileged; if it is connected with proceedings in Parliament, it is privileged. That obviously gives the House control over which communications with Members of Parliament are privileged and protected by article 9.

[Mr David Davis]

I do not know which level of court would make that judgment, but it produces an enormous perverse incentive. That became apparent during the case involving my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green)—now the Minister for Immigration. He was arrested for handling information that had been leaked from the Government; it was actually in the public interest that he handled that information, but we will put that to one side. One of his defences was that he used the information in his role as a Member of Parliament. However, there was a vast quantity of information—I handled it and he did, too, because he worked for me at the time—and we made judgments all the time about not putting things in the public domain in Parliament. By doing so, however, we put ourselves at risk. I can think of a couple of secret pieces of information—I will not relay them now—that would have affected terrorism and which we did not put in the public domain. By not putting them into a parliamentary question or into parliamentary debate, we put ourselves at risk. The impact of this judgment therefore seems perverse in terms of public policy and in terms of its impact on the behaviour of individual Members of Parliament.

[John Hemming]

The question is how closely something is connected with proceedings in Parliament. A Member might say that something will, under no circumstances, be connected with proceedings in Parliament. I think that deals with my right hon. Friend’s valid concern. We all deal day to day with real situations and we sift information, and it should not have to find its way into a debate to be protected by privilege. I was particularly concerned about the arrest of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford because the Executive were interfering with Parliament; there is no question about that. Parliament is here to protect citizens of the UK, not MPs. The individual who was trussed up by that secret hyper-injunction needs protecting. We all need protecting from water that people are being told to drink without being warned that there are potentially toxins in it. That causes me great concern. This is about protecting people, not about using money and wealth to get legal processes to gag people. There is a way round these issues, but it requires Parliament to stand up for the people and for people’s right to communicate with Members of Parliament.

The same issues have cropped up in other jurisdictions. Obviously, all the common law jurisdictions tend to have a similar process. I gave the example from Australia, which was valid there; however, there is also the interesting case of Germany, which involves a similar sort of protection. Obviously, the exemptions on the continent are quite different. There is protection for members of the Bundestag, but not members of the Bundesrat, which is not too surprising. That protection is under article 47 of the Basic Law, which relates to the right of refusal to give evidence. Members of the Bundestag have a right to refuse to say where the information they have has come from.

We need to go further than that. We need to protect people’s right not be bullied. Somebody might say, in all innocence, that they would like to talk to their MP about a housing problem or something else, but they might then be threatened and told that if they try to get help, action will be taken against them.

We have looked at the issue of the accountability of the Official Solicitor, who is basically not accountable at all, not on an individual case basis. We were lucky with the Gilliland case because that is a probate case in open court. Most of the cases are in secret: there is no access to the transcripts, there is no way of challenging the experts’ opinions, and there is no independent scrutiny. Often the people involved are quite poor and may not be very bright, and it is a challenge getting accountability in that situation.

The accountability of the judiciary depends to some extent on openness, at least open judgments. There is the issue of article 6 subsection (1) of the European convention on human rights, though some people may not be so enthusiastic about it:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly by the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.”

There are exemptions to parts of the trial mentioned there, but judgment should be pronounced publicly. What is the basis of banning the mention of proceedings and banning telling MPs about proceedings’ existence? How many of those cases do we have?

Looking further into issues of accountability, I will cover two other cases quickly. One is of Rachel Pullen, which is in the European Court. She can be named; there are no problems there. I have a psychiatric report indicating that she does have capacity. The Official Solicitor conceded the case against her when she was told she did not have capacity. I have Husan Pari—a very similar case. The Official Solicitor was appointed in part because an IQ test was given through an interpreter who did not speak the right language. With someone who could speak to her in her own language, she has the capacity to understand the case. She was not allowed to run her own case. I am doubtful about the case I mentioned earlier. The European Court is going to look at two of those cases.

The question is: is the inter-play between the estates of our constitution operating correctly? Obviously, Government Ministers should not be looking at the decisions of judges, but Parliament should, and particularly at the secret courts. Parliament has a role to do that. I have asked for an inquiry into all the secret prisoners we have. There are a number of different types of secret prisoner. There are people such as Matthew Hawkesworth; I cannot work out why he is in jail, but he is locked up. Martin McCabe is an interesting one. His wife, Susan McCabe is living on the continent, having been on the run. He was jailed for driving her to Dover. Susan McCabe’s mother, Conservative County Councillor Janet Mockridge, is particularly irate about the situation. She lives in the constituency of the Minister with responsibility for for children, who must know about some of the strange things that get done by the family courts.

Yvonne Goder was jailed in secret for a short while last year. Her committal hearings and various discussions were all held in secret. She believes that three properties were taken from her family. This is a Court of Protection matter. On 17 January 2000, the capacity of her mother Efi Goder-Marsh to manage her own affairs was taken from her and given to her husband, who denies ever getting it. On 26 May 2000, 37 Montague road, Tottenham was sold—this is all in the public records—for £107,000 to George Leonidas of an address in Chingford. On 11 August 2000, 339 Green lanes, Harringay, N4 1DZ was sold for £230,000 to Tracey Emanual of the same address in Chingford. Then 8 Etherley road, N15 3AJ was sold on 18 January 2002 for £195,000 to Southern Territory Ltd, one of whose shareholders was George Leonidas, also of the same address in Chingford. All these properties are going to the same address in Chingford. I have the transfer deeds; each was signed differently by somebody in an illegible manner, claiming to be Efi Goder-Marsh’s husband. It looks different and he denies signing them. The documents were all witnessed by somebody in a particular solicitors’ firm, with which I am in communication.

Here is the difficulty. As it is a Court of Protection, the person cannot be identified without matters going into parliamentary proceedings. That causes all sorts of problems in terms of investigation. I hope that that will not be a problem in future. She is another secret prisoner; what was the situation there? Why were there secret committal hearings? It is a contempt issue.

Other MPs have cases. The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) has been working with me and my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) on the issue. He had a situation with a family judge pressuring constituents not to talk to him. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) had a similar problem, with pressure put on his constituents not to talk to him. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) will be here later to explain a similar problem. My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) had a constituent threatened over an employment case, who was told not to speak to the MP and that they would suffer at work if they did so. There have been secret meetings with soldiers about weaponry. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr Brine) referred to me a case where a housing association had been getting aggressive towards a constituent with learning difficulties, and refused to consider her case because her MP had been involved.

I am not the only one having problems. When I talk to colleagues of all parties, they all find similar problems with the aggressive way in which apparatchiks of the state attempt to ban constituents from talking to MPs. We have judges creating situations where it is made an imprisonable offence to tell an MP that a case exists. I do not think that is right, transparent or accountable.

I would like to thank the Backbench Business Committee, on which I sit, for agreeing to this debate. I am sorry about going on for such a long time, though I do not think I have repeated myself. I thank hon. Members for their forbearance, and hope that Parliament will act in future.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

It might be helpful to say how the debate may proceed. I intend to call the Back-Bench Members who want to speak. I will then go to the Front Bench and, at the end if we have time, let Mr Hemming sum up.

15:27

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today, Mr Bone. I was about to say that your career has peaked by your elevation to your present job. However, that would not be true, because your career peaked when you were running a business in my constituency. Any move from being a businessman in Newport to a Conservative MP is a descent rather an ascent. However, we wish you well.

The case being presented today is one with which I am familiar. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) on securing the debate. We all listened in fascination to the surprising facts he detailed. I hope that there will be a positive outcome. The Backbench Business Committee has allowed me to have this micro-debate within a debate on a subject of parallel interest, although that might not be obvious. They are, however, connected by the rights and duties of Members of Parliament.

I want to talk about the conduct of our trade representative, Prince Andrew. There are difficulties. I was told on Monday that it might be unfair to say anything that might be derogatory of a member of the royal family, on the grounds that they cannot answer back. Indeed, the person involved has been defended very adequately by both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, and he has the 24-hour support of the generously taxpayer-funded royal spin machine working on his behalf. If he is not defending himself, he is being more than adequately defended by others. I believe that he can without any problem defend himself if he so wishes, if he thinks he is being criticised unfairly.

The question of parliamentary convention has been discussed; whether there is a convention that nothing disrespectful or derogatory is said about members of the royal family. There is nothing, as far as I can see, in “Erskine May” on the matter. If there is some spectral convention that we are not allowed to speak on the matter, I believe it should have a stake driven through its heart, and should be buried today. These issues have been debated at great length in the media, in blogs and everywhere else. Why on earth should the only people to have their mouths bandaged into silence on the issue be elected Members? Why on earth should we not be free to talk about this matter, which is of considerable interest and importance? I will be very selective in what I say today. I will certainly not quote the salacious tittle-tattle that has been in the press and I will not quote from sources that appear to be ill-founded rumours. What I want to speak about are the comments made by serious people making serious criticism.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

I am determined that this debate will be as wide as possible, but it does have to be within the framework of the motion before us. It is entirely right for the hon. Member to talk about the convention and whether it should apply, and whether there even is a convention, but we cannot have a long debate on the substance. As I said to Mr Hemming, it is right to mention an individual case in illustration, but we cannot have a debate purely on that subject.

[Paul Flynn]

I previously had difficulty when I wished to have a debate on the subject of the misrepresentation of the swine flu pandemic by Governments throughout Europe. I was told that I could bring the subject up in a debate on the general issue of health. There is a real problem of order, Mr Bone, because of the view taken by the Backbench Business Committee. I communicated my problems with the previous debate to the Committee, where the previous Chair and the Minister involved did not think that the swine flu issue should be considered in such detail, although that was what was in the mind of the Backbench Business Committee. We are in the area of new procedures in the House and it was the suggestion of the Backbench Business Committee, including the hon. Member who secured this debate, that the debate should be allowed. If it is not going to be allowed, well so be it, but I wish to—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I have the slight advantage of chairing the debate and also being a member of the Backbench Business Committee. In granting the debate, it was thought appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to speak, but not that there would be a substantive debate in relation to what the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about. He can talk about the principle, but he would have to apply elsewhere if he wanted a substantive debate on what I think he was leading to. I would also say that there is something in “Erskine May” on that.

[Paul Flynn]

Well, I have looked at “Erskine May”. Perhaps we could have a ruling. I believe these are points of order, Mr Bone, between you and me. There is clearly no point in continuing if I cannot have the debate that I applied for. That was the understanding of the Backbench Business Committee. I was clear at the Backbench Business Committee that I wished to raise the conduct of Prince Andrew and the harm that many people believe it is doing. If I am to be denied the chance of doing that, I will end my speech now and apply in different circumstances.

[John Hemming]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could cite an example of something that he thinks should be allowed to be said under article 9 of the Bill of Rights that may not be allowed to be said.

[Paul Flynn]

I do not know if I can proceed on those lines, because the subject is one of—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

That may well be a point of order. [Interruption.] It was. Right. Just to help the House, “Erskine May” states on page 384:

“Unless the discussion is based upon a substantive motion, drawn in proper terms, reflections must not be cast in debate upon the conduct of the Sovereign, the heir to the throne, or other members of the Royal Family.”

Therefore, while it is possible to talk about the principle and the convention, the hon. Gentleman cannot talk about the substantive issue, because it is not a substantive motion on that point. That is my ruling.

[Paul Flynn]

In those circumstances, there really is no point in continuing. We are clearly in a position where there is censorship on hon. Members discussing an issue of great importance, where our country’s interests and business may be damaged. The view of the House, however, seems to be that MPs have a rule of omertà and we cannot discuss it.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. What the hon. Gentleman is saying now is absolutely in order, because he is referring to the principle of whether we should be debating it or not. What we cannot do is actually have the debate.

[Paul Flynn]

I am grateful to you, Mr Bone. I shall apply to the Backbench Business Committee for a full debate entirely on that subject so that we can test whether the House is under censorship.

[John Hemming]

Will the hon. Gentleman cite an example of some criticism that he thinks should be allowed to be made?

[Paul Flynn]

I could, but it would be an unsatisfactory way of conducting the debate. There is a principle involved. Can we, or can we not, discuss the conduct of minor members of the royal family? That is what I want to do. To do it under a device here, where I would be limited to what could be discussed, would seem to be futile. What I want to challenge today—

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

On a point of order, Mr Bone, it might help the hon. Gentleman to know that there is nothing to prevent him from bringing such a matter forward on a substantive motion. The problem is that he cannot do so, according to “Erskine May”, in the context of another debate, or other than in the context of a substantive motion. That is a very clear way in which he must proceed if he wishes to carry on with the comments that he wishes to make.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

I say again that the way the hon. Member for Newport West was speaking just now, when he was talking about the principle and the convention, is absolutely what this debate is about. What we cannot go into, because of that convention, is the detail of what he wants to do. By all means, the hon. Gentleman should carry on and talk about the principle and whether he thinks it is right or wrong, but we cannot actually go into the substance because we are not allowed to.

[Paul Flynn]

I can only describe what the position is, as far as I understood it. I understood that these were new procedures under the Backbench Business Committee. I had an e-mail from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), the Chair of that Committee, saying—because I anticipated this difficulty—that she had communicated with you, Mr Bone, and the Minister responsible. I understood that under the new procedures, micro-debates of this kind, which are not entirely within the boundaries of the motion before us, would be allowed. If that is not so, I must seek a further opportunity to debate the matter elsewhere.

15:37

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, Mr Bone. I was very keen to do so after discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), because of some of the things that he had described about the bullying of constituents. The idea of a debate immediately commended itself to me because of instances in my own constituency. You will be pleased to hear, Mr Bone, that I shall not dwell in great detail on any of them, and also that the particular instance I had in mind was nothing like as severe as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley.

I had a case where two parents came to see me about their child, who was being bullied in school. The child had an autistic spectrum condition and was also visually impaired. Those were contributing factors to his being bullied at school and the parents wanted me to help to sort it out. On a subsequent occasion, at a meeting with the school, the parents were told that it would probably be better if they did not go back and see me again. Naturally enough, I took umbrage at that, on the same basis as the stories told by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley. In substance, however, it did not make much difference, because in essence I ignored the school’s request, which it had not made to me. I continued to help the parents, continued to advocate on their behalf and, indeed, met with the school. The issue was—how can I put it?—improved, if not fully solved satisfactorily.

The principle of constituents being told that they should not contact Members of Parliament is deeply offensive to me, as I think it would be to most Members. The principle that a court of law should order someone not to contact their Member of Parliament, which I was not aware of until I had detailed discussions with my hon. Friend, is even more offensive. I contend that, according to the Bill of Rights, it is not correct or possible for a judge to make such an order, because the ability of a constituent to contact an MP so that they can help to deal with a grievance, whatever it is, is of the essence—it is fundamental.

[John Hemming]

Does my hon. Friend agree that making such an order is, in effect, an attempt to interfere with the workings of Parliament by preventing Parliament from obtaining information?

[Mr Bacon]

Yes, I absolutely would. I am no constitutional lawyer, but my belief is that an English judge trying to make such an order is in contempt of Parliament, which is, after all, a court. I know that people tend to roll their eyes when the subject of the High Court of Parliament is raised, but the fact is that it is a court, and that, ultimately, it has sovereign power in this country.

The subject of parliamentary privilege has been raised on several occasions, and I, too, shall refer to it. The phrase “parliamentary privilege” is particularly unfortunate, especially in the modern world. The word “privilege” has almost entirely pejorative connotations. I prefer to call it the right of MPs to speak up for and defend the British people, which I think is a much better way of conveying what we mean by parliamentary privilege. In my parliamentary career, I have certainly taken advantage of my right as an MP to use parliamentary privilege to speak up for and defend the British people in my work.

A particular case came to my attention because of paperwork that was sent to me by an official in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The dossier showed that people from eastern Europe—criminal gangs, in fact—were coming to this country, getting employment in low-paid jobs and then applying for tax credits. Once the tax credit claim had been made and a British bank account had been set up for the payments, the fraudsters returned to their home country. They left their employment but continued to receive tax credit payments which were extracted using a cash card in various points east—in different cities in eastern Europe. In some cases, the fraudsters managed to make several thousand pounds, which they used to buy homes in parts of eastern Europe where property is much cheaper: Slovakia, parts of Romania and elsewhere.

When I was sent the information, I thought that it was in the public interest that something should be done, and that that was part of my job as an MP. I have sat on the Public Accounts Committee since I was elected in June 2001. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) was the Chairman of the Committee on the day that I first attended a meeting of it. I have had great concern throughout my parliamentary career for the proper use of public money, and for ensuring that it is not squandered.

I thought that the right thing to do was to make sure that the information came into the public domain, but I was careful to ensure that nothing might be disclosed that would impede any investigation of what was happening, or disclose to anyone how it was that I had come by the information, other than to say that it was sent to me by an official. I certainly did not want to disclose who the official might be. I had his name and mobile phone number on my Blackberry and other information that would have disclosed his identity, but I felt safe in the knowledge that were I simply to send the dossier to the Comptroller and Auditor General at the National Audit Office and ask him to investigate it, things would happen, something would be done and the fraud would be stopped. Indeed, that is what happened.

Imagine my surprise to find that, in doing his job, another MP—a colleague of mine to whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden referred a moment ago—who is now the Minister for Immigration was arrested by the police. That caused me not a little concern. I remember at the time that my hon. Friend’s office was ransacked by the police in what I regarded as an unlawful and unwarranted search—in fact, unlawful search and seizure of his possessions and documents—and that his Blackberry was taken away from him. One can imagine what I started to think: what if that happened to me? What if my Blackberry were taken away from me, with the telephone number on it of the HMRC official who had given me important information which I thought it was my job to disclose, in the public interest?

For that reason, I was deeply perturbed by the arrest of my hon. Friend. It breached some important principles. One of the most important is that there has to be a certain amount of agreement. Our political system can operate only if there is agreement between different political actors and parties on certain fundamentals, and one of them is that the Government of the day shall not use the resources of the state to harry and intimidate their opponents. Indeed, I was pleased when Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary produced its report, “Review of the Lessons Learned from the Metropolitan Police Service’s Investigation of Home Office Leaks”, in which it stated:

“Departments and the Cabinet Office should have the capability to deal with the matter”—

the leaks from the Home Office—

“and should not have to rely on the police. The smooth running of Government is an understandable concern but not an obvious matter for the police.”

When the former chief constable of the British Transport Police, Sir Ian Johnston, undertook his inquiry at the request of the Government, he also found that the actions of the Home Office and of the police had not been proportionate. He said that the leaks amounted to embarrassment for the Government but did not threaten national security.

The whole case was peculiar to anyone who had followed the legislation in the late 1980s which put the security service on a statutory basis and separately redefined the law of official secrets. A significant purpose of the legislation was to remove from the ambit of the criminal law whole swathes of Government information, so that the wrongful disclosure of information by an official to someone else would not itself be a criminal act but would be a civil matter that would be dealt with under the law of employment contract. That was a welcome development. One would not have expected that disclosures of the kind that were made could possibly have led to an arrest for potential criminal action because there was no criminal action, as was subsequently shown.

I certainly would not have expected to have the police knocking on my door, looking for papers, because of what I had been doing in respect of the tax credits fraud committed by people from eastern Europe. Following the scandal of the arrest of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), I hope that we have taken a step back and recognised more rightly where the parameters should lie.

[John Hemming]

Would my hon. Friend agree that as the legislation aimed to protect whistleblowing, given that MPs are the whistleblowers of last resort, there should be greater protection of disclosures to MPs?

[Mr Bacon]

I absolutely agree. The role of an MP is to be an advocate of last resort. We all know that people come to us when they do not know where else to turn. Sometimes, sadly, they come to us too late, when there is nothing that we can do. Sometimes we see in our surgeries cases about which we think, “If only they had come a bit sooner, we might have been able to act.” I had that happen with a farmer in my constituency who had been made bankrupt by the time he came to see me, by which time it was too late to do anything for him. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Because of the nature of an MP’s work, and the nature of the contact between a constituent who has a grievance and the MP, we should get extra protection.

I mentioned that I would speak about parliamentary privilege, or the right of MPs to speak up for and defend the British people. A quite different case involved an approach made to me by people who were concerned about what was happening at the Manchester College of Arts and Technology, or MANCAT, as it is better known. They approached me in my capacity as a member of the Public Accounts Committee and because of my known predilection for detestation, if one can have a predilection for detestation—my known dislike of the waste of public money might be a better way of putting it.

The case involved MANCAT, which has subsequently merged with City College Manchester, and basically concerned investigations into management practices which had been hampered because MANCAT officials were alleged to have destroyed auditable documents and had reached financial settlements with certain ex-members of staff on the condition that they signed confidentiality agreements—gagging clauses—in their settlement agreements, which were obviously paid for with public money.

The point at issue was that staff felt that they were under pressure from the college to falsify student attendance registers and other funding-related paperwork in order to enable MANCAT to claim extra money from the then Learning and Skills Council. Indeed, one witness was planning to explain the extent of the malpractice at an employment tribunal where she had been in the process of seeking redress for constructive dismissal, but she was offered a financial settlement with a gagging clause, so she could not easily take the matter further.

As a result of the privilege granted to Members of Parliament, I was able to draw those matters to public attention in two Adjournment debates over a period of months. The Guardian later wrote an article on 27 January 2009. It was headed, “College faces fraud claims” and sub-headed, “A Manchester institution stands accused of altering registers to claim extra funding, reports Andrew Mourant”. In my view, and I suspect in the view of most hon. Members, such matters should be brought to public attention. My point is that that would not have been possible without parliamentary privilege and the right of Members of Parliament to speak up for and to defend the British people. That is why I feel so strongly about the matter.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I totally and absolutely endorse what my hon. Friend is saying. I was much involved in the Damian Green affair—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member. I know that we sometimes refer to the Damian Green affair, but we should refer to the hon. Member for Ashford.

[Mr Cash]

I accept your point, Mr Bone, and will refer to the matter of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green). Does the Minister worry that there are moves afoot to adjust, in the light of political correctness, the so-called role of the Member of Parliament and degrade it? Are they not missing the biggest wood for the biggest trees by not realising that the Member of Parliament, who is elected by voters and who, if given privilege and using it responsibly, is the best possible defence for the right of the individual to obtain the protection that they need through that privilege, not for our sake but for theirs?

[Mr Bacon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why I labour the point that “privilege” is an unfortunate word. It is better to speak of the right of Members of Parliament to speak up for and to defend the British people, because that is what we are talking about. My hon. Friend is right that those who want to chisel away at the rights of Members of Parliament are chiselling away at the rights of the British people.

At the time of the arrest of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, I received a number of e-mails from people who were under the impression that I, as a Member of Parliament, thought that some people, including Members of Parliament, should be able to break the law, and that we were somehow above the law. That was another aspect of the unfortunate phrase, “parliamentary privilege”, because that is how they had understood it. It surprised me—I had always understood it in the terms used by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone—to realise that the majority of people had put a completely different connotation on it. My hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House is listening to this debate, and perhaps Parliament should consider the whole question of what we call such things. It is misleading, and it is important that we understand what we are talking about.

One of the stupidest things I ever heard a journalist say was when someone was defending The Daily Telegraph sting, when Members of Parliament were secretly recorded in their surgeries. I thought that that was an outrage, as did many other people, including many in the media who thought that it was a step too far. I did not catch the journalist’s name, but when trying to defend the sting he said on the radio, “Well it’s not exactly the confessional.” I remember thinking at the time, as I shouted at the radio, as we sometimes do, that that is exactly what it is.

All Members of Parliament know that it is a fairly common experience for people to come to our surgeries and to burst into tears. Last time that happened to me was the week before last, not last week, but two weeks ago. It happens quite frequently, because when dealing with constituents, we are often dealing with them as an advocate of last resort when they have nowhere else to turn. Sometimes they come with a supporter—a friend—to help them, because they do not know whether they will get through it and whether the Member of Parliament will be helpful or a scary and intimidating figure of authority.

I have had people come to see me who looked completely balanced and calm, and in full possession of their faculties, only to discover when I said the wrong thing that I triggered a wave of emotion about things that had happened to them. From being perfectly collected, the constituent would suddenly break down in tears. It is exactly a confessional. I can think of a range of hypersensitive cases at my surgeries involving child custody, marital breakdown, allegations of paedophilia, armed robbery, allegations of corruption, and so on, and other hon. Members will have had similar experiences. Our ability to help people in desperate situations is what we want to protect.

[Mr Cash]

Does my hon. Friend accept that journalists are liable to be at the rough end of this, because of certain aspects of investigative orders, European arrest warrants and so on? Here we go again on the European issue. The plain fact is that the defences that are available through Members of Parliament to protect the public include invasion from external legal requirements that are imposed on us and undermine our ability to carry out our duties. That includes the Bill of Rights and a whole raft of other things. People may find that funny, but it is deadly serious, and the more they laugh, the more stupid they look.

[Mr Bacon]

I would never say of my hon. Friend, “There he is, going on about the European issue again”, and I certainly do not intend to do so today. He is right. What exercised me most in the recent debate that the Backbench Business Committee held in the main Chamber on prisoners voting was not whether prisoners should have a vote but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden said in that debate—sadly, he is not in his place at the moment—the second of the two main points at issue. The first was whether prisoners should have a vote; the second was who should decide. As he pointed out at the time—I subsequently read the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights—the court misinformed itself. It said things in its judgment about why it thought prisoners in the UK should have a vote that were factually inaccurate. I have a lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for Stone says.

I do not want to detain the House much longer, except to say that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley said at the outset, if Parliament is blinded or deafened by the acts of others, it cannot see or hear all grievances, and it is very clear from the Bill of Rights that one of our purposes is to be able to see and hear all grievances—I emphasise “all grievances”—and to do something about them. If Parliament cannot see or hear all grievances, it cannot seek to remedy them.

The whole development of English constitutional thought owes a great deal to the word “remedy”. The history of administrative law in this country and how it has grown over the past 300 years shows that the seeking of a remedy was the point at issue. When our constituents come to us with a grievance, they are seeking a remedy. The connection and the relationship between us and our constituents is a sacrament. It is something that we must work hard to protect; it is not something that we can take for granted. We must uphold it, cherish it, and protect the right of Members of Parliament to speak up for and to defend the British people.

15:58

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I had not intended to speak in this debate. Tomorrow we have a debate on the Floor of the House on parliamentary sovereignty, an issue on which I have spoken several times in this Chamber, which is the best means of expressing views that sometimes get lost in the House, with all the restrictions on debate that are imposed on Members of Parliament through the wilful use of programming. I wait with enormous interest to hear what the Deputy Leader of the House has to say.

I alluded to one aspect of this matter just now; I have spent some time taking an interest in the principles that hinge on the question of a Bill of Rights. I am all for a Bill of Rights, but the question is: which one? Similarly, on the question of the rule of law: which law, whose law, and who is going to enforce it?

Eventually, one returns to a question that I am sure exercised those who devised the original Bill of Rights in 1689, which as it happens was never incorporated in an Act of Parliament. Nevertheless, by convention, and therefore by custom, that statement was enforceable in its own fashion, and deals with some fundamental matters. I want to know exactly how, in the context of the review set up by the coalition Government, matters concerning the proposed new Bill of Rights will be tackled. I may be unduly suspicious, but I want to know whether the Bill of Rights will enhance and increase the rights of the people of the United Kingdom. That point will emerge in due course and perhaps the Deputy Leader of the House will be in a position to tell us when he responds to the debate this afternoon.

One difficulty is that, as I conceive it, the Bill of Rights would not withstand measures such as the European arrest warrant, investigative orders and powers of entry. We heard about such matters in a debate the other day on the so-called Protection of Freedoms Bill, and about the problem of the rulings by the European Court of Human Rights. Fairly recently—I think it was 11 March 2010, almost exactly a year ago—the Lord Chief Justice made a speech to the Judicial Studies Board. He said that judges were interpreting Strasbourg precedents in such a way that they were applying them as if they were UK law. The concerns of the Lord Chief Justice were encapsulated by his warning, “We must beware.” Those are the words he used and he was talking specifically to the judges. I want to know that the Bill of Rights, which includes, or is associated with, matters as important as habeas corpus, will be retained. If such things are to be given renewed constitutional primacy, they must be absolute and not a sub-text of a European legal system that overrides them.

Two days ago I attended a European Committee with the Lord Chancellor, a man I greatly respect. We have totally different views about these matters, but we should not think that he does not understand that the arguments I present must be answered. That is why he came to the Committee. He was talking about the charter of fundamental rights, which is directly related to the issue of the Bill of Rights. If we have a Bill of Rights, will it be superior in some fashion to the European treaties and to the European Communities Act 1972, which incorporates the protocol for the charter of fundamental rights? If people do not understand that matter, they should start reading the material. There is no point in pontificating about a Bill of Rights if we do not understand the hierarchy of laws. That hierarchy says that European Community law comes first and is enforceable by the European Court.

When the Lord Chancellor says, “Oh, nothing has changed; we had a discussion on the Lisbon treaty and a lot of people got it all wrong”, I am bound to point out that he voted for the Lisbon treaty and for the charter of fundamental rights—unlike the Conservative party—and he voted against the referendum. I am not criticising him for that; I respect him for it. That is his right. However, one provision in the Bill of Rights is the right of free speech, including in the House of Commons and elsewhere. It is similar to the question about privilege, or about how the rights of people in this country are expressed through the rights of their Member of Parliament, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) so rightly referred.

If we are to talk about a Bill of Rights, let us get the hierarchy right. I do not want a public relations job done on that, or any Government spin or spivvy attempt to convince the British people that they are getting something that they are not getting. Let us have it out; let us know that this is the supreme law of the United Kingdom, and not something churned out to give people the impression that they are getting something when they are not.

I want to know what the relationship will be between the Bill of Rights and the European convention on human rights, and between the Bill of Rights and the charter of fundamental rights. Therefore, I have two simple questions. At its apex, will the Bill of Rights be supreme in UK law, enforceable and enforced by the Supreme Court, as against, contradictory to and, if necessary, inconsistent with the European Court, and the assertions of certain members of the Supreme Court that they have ultimate authority? Will that be the case notwithstanding the European convention, the charter of fundamental rights and the European Communities Act 1972 and all treaties under that? If the Bill of Rights is to be effective, I want it to be a real Bill of Rights and not simply a rather obscure version of an amalgamation of those other charters and conventions. At the moment—I do not know whether the Deputy Leader of the House knows this—chapter 3, I think, of the Lisbon treaty sets out, in article after article, the source and derivation of the charter of fundamental rights. In terms of derivation, there is the United Nations this and the European Court of Human Rights that. There is a list of sources, and I trust the Minister has it with him so that he will be in a position to answer my question. Which legislation will have superiority?

[John Hemming]

One topic that has been at the top of media issues recently is the development of the law of privacy. A number of us share concerns about that, and I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s views.

[Mr Cash]

My views are very strong indeed. I can reasonably claim to have been the progenitor of the Calcutt inquiry, because some years ago I tabled an early-day motion that attracted more than 300 signatures and called for an Act on privacy, which would have been a tort, and ensured that the ordinary citizen had the right to privacy compared with those in the public eye. I distinguished matters of interest to the public from those genuinely in the public interest, and that subject remains a matter of deep concern.

It is also true—here I make a concession—that article 8 of the European convention contains a right of privacy, but my answer to that is not that I have any objection to the rights of privacy that are now in that convention. The question that is far more important than any other, in my view, is this. Why should people assume that we need a European convention? By the way, we drafted the convention for the purposes of—shall I put it delicately?—helping other countries to understand that there were rights that might be usefully employed in their own countries. There, we were helpful, but what is to prevent us from legislating, from passing laws, on our own terms, through our own elected representatives, that provide the kind of rights that otherwise are provided under things such as the European convention or the charter of fundamental rights? In other words, will this law be indigenous? I look at the Deputy Leader of the House deliberately at this point. Will it be, to use a slightly unusual expression, an autochthonous United Kingdom law or will it be a dependent law? Will there be a surrender to the so-called universality of law, or will it be something that is modelled and devised by the British people, for the British people, given that we are able to claim that we have been the defenders of liberty and freedom throughout the world for a very long time?

Last night I was at a dinner at which people were discussing the future of conservatism. I had the temerity—I think some people were quite glad—to mention Edmund Burke. I do not have the whole quotation at hand, but he wrote very clearly about the fact that there are no discoveries to be made. We have already understood, as he put it, what is a proper kind of freedom. That compares with Thomas Paine’s “Rights of Man”, which was an entirely abstract and in the event utterly destructive approach, adopted, as it happens, by the French revolutionaries with dreadful consequences.

Our rights and freedoms are based on practical experience, not on theory, so some of us get a little amused, if not bored, by people who make certain assertions about those of us who are interested in having referendums or, for that matter, insisting on the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament when all we are doing is seeking to ensure that the rights that are conferred on the British people and the legislation that is passed are consistent with what the British people in general elections, rather than coalition agreements, have actually agreed to do. That is my template: if I have made a promise to my constituents, I intend to stick to it. I also think that it is good for our democracy that people should be able to accept that the promises made in general elections are carried through.

I do not want in any way to prejudge, and I do not think that I have said a word today to prejudge, what the Bill of Rights will contain or what the new commission that has been set up will come up with, but I have taken this opportunity, at very short notice, to try to set out, very simply, the principles on which that entire judgment must be made. First, foremost and exclusively, not partially, it must be based on the Bill of Rights being supreme in terms of the law applied to the people of this country through our courts and notwithstanding any other legal systems or legal requirements, whether emanating from the European Community, the European convention on human rights, the European Union or any other source. That must be the case if the Bill of Rights is to mean anything. We are not an island in the sense that we are exclusively unaffected by other parts of the world, but we do have the right to determine our own jurisdiction and the right to determine it through this Parliament. Because we are elected by the voters of this country, we can insist that the Bill of Rights is indigenous to this country and not dependent on some other hierarchy of law.

16:14

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. This has been a very interesting debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), the other hon. Members in charge of the debate and the Backbench Business Committee on bringing it about, because it raises fundamental issues about the role of Members of Parliament and about Parliament itself. As hon. Members rightly said, the rights and privileges of Parliament exist not to provide protection for MPs merely, but to protect the rights of their constituents. In that sense, articles 9 and 13 of the Bill of Rights are complementary. We all know, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley quoted clearly, article 9, which states that

“the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.”

Article 13 makes it clear that one purpose of holding frequent Parliaments is to be able to redress grievances. In other words, Parliament is here not just to make laws, but to address the grievances of Members’ constituents—the two are part of the same thing.

[Mr Cash]

I do not want to take the hon. Lady into a great dialogue on this; I will simply ask her a question. Is she as confident of what she has just quoted in the light of the judgment in the Jackson case, in which several members of the Supreme Court questioned the extent to which they had ultimate authority and said that parliamentary sovereignty was being qualified? They used those words, and many more besides.

[Helen Jones]

If the hon. Gentleman allows me to proceed a little, perhaps I can touch on the issues that he raises, but I want to keep my remarks to the subject of the debate.

One reason why becoming a Member of this House confers huge privileges on us all is that it enables us to act on behalf of our constituents. To be able to do that effectively, as several hon. Members have said, Members of Parliament must have access to information. A number of cases have been raised today, and many of us have had experience of hospitals, schools sometimes and councils trying to deny hon. Members the information that they request. In my experience, that is normally fairly easy to deal with, although the cases involving the courts are much more complex. I hope to be able to come to those in a moment.

Hon. Members know that they must use the protection granted by parliamentary privilege sparingly and not for their own advantage, but use it they must if it is necessary to right a wrong or to get justice for a constituent. Since I came into the House, I have seen a number of examples of hon. Members rightly taking up issues on behalf of their constituents and using parliamentary privilege to do so, because that is the only way to get something done.

If I may speak anecdotally, I have had experience of that myself. Not long after I came into Parliament, I felt it necessary to initiate an Adjournment debate about a charity that I felt was not operating properly. I came under huge pressure from the people running that organisation, but I felt that it was necessary to do that and to use parliamentary privilege to do it, because I believed that the people who were supposed to be being looked after by that organisation, many of whom suffered severe learning difficulties and did not have friends or family to speak up on their behalf, were being done out of their rights. Many other hon. Members will have come across cases such as that. At some point or other, we have all known of constituents who have been told that they cannot or should not approach their Member of Parliament. I say gently to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley that I have known councils and public bodies tell people that, and he must have known of it, too. I have also known Liberal Democrat councillors tell my constituents that they should not come to see me.

A case can probably be made for educating people, but we certainly need a clearer definition. Indeed, the rights of Parliament need to be made clear to many who work for public bodies. In these circumstances, I normally find that a fairly stroppy letter from me—I can write very stroppy letters when I need to—usually puts the matter right. However, some of the cases that we have heard of today are much more serious.

We have to face up to the difficulties of interpreting article 9 that arise simply because of its age. Parliament has developed and changed since 1688. It would be strange if it had not. We now live in a multi-media age, which covers aspects of communication that were not known when the Bill of Rights was drafted.

Many Members would be surprised to learn the limits of parliamentary privilege. For that reason, a review of parliamentary privilege was undertaken by a Joint Committee in 1999. The Committee drew attention to the fact that although Members are not exposed to any civil or criminal liabilities in respect of what they say and do in the course of proceedings in Parliament, there is no comprehensive definition of what “proceedings in Parliament” covers. Equally, there is no proper definition of what constitutes a place “out of Parliament”. That needs to be tackled.

It is generally accepted that proceedings in Parliament are covered by the formal proceedings of the House and its Committees and any documentation directly associated with those proceedings, but there are grey areas around that, as the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) noted about the documents that he had received. The Committee said that article 9 needs clarification. It clearly does, in light of Members’ experience and given what we have heard today.

[Mr Bacon]

Does the hon. Lady agree that in so far as article 9 needs to be clarified, it should be undertaken in such a way as to expand and strengthen the role of Members of Parliament rather than in any way inhibit or constrict them?

[Helen Jones]

The hon. Gentleman touches on an important point. I am a great defender of this House and of Members of all parties having the right to carry out their functions properly. Any review should strengthen the work of Members of Parliament, not undermine it.

The Committee believed that the general principle of article 9, which prohibits the examination in any court of parliamentary proceedings, should be confirmed. It also believed that three exceptions should be made to that general principle. That is something that the House will have to consider in due course.

First, the Committee believed that nothing in article 9 should prevent proceedings in Parliament being examined in court in so far as the examination related to the interpretation of an Act of Parliament or subordinate legislation. That would enshrine in statute the decision of the court in the case of Pepper v. Hart; that case made many Ministers much more careful about what they said in Committee and on the Floor of the House, because their words could be used to help the courts consider what purpose Parliament intended for an Act.

Secondly, the Committee suggested that nothing in article 9 should prevent parliamentary proceedings being used in court for the purpose of judicial review, or in other court proceedings where a Government decision was a material factor. That is not to question the decision itself; again, it is about interpreting the decision.

Thirdly, the Committee believed that courts should be able to examine parliamentary proceedings when there is no suggestion that anything forming a part of those proceedings is untrue or misleading, and—the “and” is very important—there is no question of legal liability.

I suspect that these recommendations, especially the last, will provoke hours of debate when we come to the privilege Bill, but other matters will probably need to be considered as well. The first is the status of Members’ correspondence, particularly that between Members and Ministers about constituency cases or proceedings before Parliament. At the moment, that is not covered by privilege. As we do more and more of our work through correspondence—not everything is done on the Floor of the House, as it was in 1688—the House will need to consider carefully how to deal with it.

The second matter is correspondence with Members of Parliament, a subject raised by the hon. Member for South Norfolk. It is clearly difficult to get the drafting right in such cases. Taking the two extremes, one wants to protect genuine whistleblowing and disclosure without protecting those who write to accuse their neighbours of all sorts of crimes but who have no evidence.

The third matter that we shall have to deal with is defining proceedings in Parliament that are placed “out of Parliament”, and the replacement of section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996. The Joint Committee recommended a new procedure, allowing the House to waive article 9 in appropriate circumstances. Again, that allows Members to defend themselves in defamation proceedings, and we have seen cases like that in past years.

There are serious matters to be considered. I know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley has already had a case referred to the Standards and Privileges Committee, in which a law firm was held to be in contempt of the House for telling him not to repeat something in the House. I confess that I do not understand how a firm of lawyers could ever draft a letter suggesting that; it is first-year law stuff. It seemed to take the firm an awfully long time to discover its error, but in the end it apologised unreservedly to the House.

The hon. Gentleman and others raised various important matters. One is that in order to redress grievances Members of Parliament need access to information. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the family courts are opening up, and that information can be given to Members of Parliament with the agreement of the parties concerned, but it is often not recognised. Another problem, when minors are involved in proceedings, is the question of who is able to give consent on their behalf. There is also the question of bullying constituents, and Parliament needs to consider that very carefully. As I said earlier, such matters are often dealt with swiftly; but if they go beyond that, Parliament needs to consider carefully people’s right to consult their MP.

[John Hemming]

Does the hon. Lady agree that if Parliament were to show some willingness to act in one or two cases, it might result in a shift of culture?

[Helen Jones]

First, Parliament needs to define what it wants to do. The question of privilege is complex. Although I might disagree with the hon. Gentleman on numerous issues, I would defend absolutely the right of any of his constituents to consult him whenever they wished to do so, as I would for any other Member of this House.

Another matter of concern was raised today—the role of the courts and of court orders when the preamble to the order or the order itself prevents people from speaking to their Member of Parliament. That is a serious issue, which the House needs to consider in some detail. Like the hon. Member for South Norfolk, I have great concern about whether such an order can stand in law. None the less, I understand that in some cases, particularly family cases, the pressure is on people to agree to such a preamble.

The hon. Member for South Norfolk asked how information coming to MPs should be protected. Many of us remember the case of Clive Ponting, who was tried for giving out information about the sinking of the Belgrano. His defence was that he had given the information to a Member of Parliament.

[Mr Bacon]

I remember the case very well because I wrote a book about it. Unfortunately, I was not able to persuade a publisher to publish it, but that is another matter. When my papers are published, it will come out. Ponting’s defence was that he communicated the information to a person to whom it was, in the interests of the state, his duty to communicate it. That was the point; not that it was a Member of Parliament, although it was, of course, the marvellous Tam Dalyell to whom he communicated it.

[Helen Jones]

I had not quite finished my sentence, but the hon. Gentleman is right; Ponting said that it was in the public interest to communicate the information. Whether or not that defence was sound, the jury simply refused to convict him.

[Mr Cash]

This is, of course, related to the proposed parliamentary privilege Bill to which the hon. Lady has referred. The Duncan Sandys case turned on the question of proceedings in Parliament. It was clear that there was a total and deliberate breach of the Official Secrets Act and that that, in itself, was in the public interest because Whitehall, or the Defence Department at the time, was correctly alleged to have been misleading the House of Commons. There are cases, therefore, in which a breach of the criminal law and the Official Secrets Act can be justified on the grounds of parliamentary “privilege”. I mention that as a good example.

[Helen Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes a point, but the public interest defence in all these cases is the one that is usually used.

I cannot comment on some of the individual cases that were raised today because I have no personal knowledge of them. None the less, they are serious matters that deserve to be addressed. We have all encountered people who do not want to answer MPs, or who just want to send a brush-off answer. In minor cases, I find that a nice letter from me saying that if they do not answer me, I will just table questions in Parliament and they will have to answer anyway sorts it out. However, we have heard about much more serious cases where there is a refusal to recognise the representative role of a Member of this House acting on behalf of a constituent. I will be interested to hear what the Deputy Leader of the House has to say about that.

Article 9 exists to facilitate article 13; the two are inextricably linked. There is no doubt that we need to clarify the scope of privilege and the rights of Members of this House. Concerns have already been expressed about the way in which some legislation might be eroding those privileges. Although the Government disagreed with this, the Clerk of the House raised concerns about the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill and how it could bring proceedings in Parliament into the ambit of the courts. Similar concerns were raised about the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. Moreover, there were issues about putting lay members on the Committee on Standards and Privileges and whether they would be able to vote on matters relating to privilege.

As Parliament has expanded its role, a load of issues have emerged that need to be clarified. We look forward to the publication of the draft parliamentary privilege Bill. I hope that the House will be given sufficient time to consider the matter seriously. We have to get it right not just for ourselves but for future Members of this House. It is not a party political issue but about getting the workings of the House right and about the privileges that need to be accorded to hon. Members to allow them to do their job.

I hope, too, that when the Bill finally comes before the House, we get sufficient time to examine it and, if necessary, to amend it. If we do not give proper consideration to this matter and ensure that the drafting is right and that Parliament works properly on behalf of the people we represent, we will be failing not ourselves but our constituents, and that is the important point that has been raised in this debate. I look forward to a proper examination of that draft Bill and to hearing the Deputy Leader of the House’s response.

16:35

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

I am pleased to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Bone. Let me start by congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) and for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) on securing this debate. This is the second time in recent weeks that I have participated in a Westminster Hall debate that was initiated by the Backbench Business Committee. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for her comments, most of which I entirely agreed with. As she said, this is not a party political issue; it is a matter of Parliament standing up for the privileges of our constituents, who are so important to our process.

The debate has focused largely on the right of constituents and others to approach their own MP to share information with them lawfully, without fear of reprisals, and the right of hon. Members, having received that information, to raise any matter in the House, without fear of legal action. It is those two issues that I wish to address this afternoon. References have been made to specific cases during the course of the debate. Like the hon. Member for Warrington North, I do not propose to comment on them today, as it would not be proper to do so in a general debate of this kind. In particular, I am mindful of the risk of contravening the House’s resolution relating to matters sub judice, and I know that hon. Members will understand why I will exercise extreme caution in everything that I have to say about the relationship between this House and the courts.

Article 9 of the Bill of Rights applies only to proceedings in Parliament, and its protection is absolute. The meaning of “proceedings” in this context is open to interpretation, but the House has never sought to assert that it should apply to dealings between Members and their constituents or other members of the public. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley asserts that it should and I am simply stating the fact that it never has. However, the courts have regarded the communication of information to a Member of Parliament by a constituent as enjoying qualified privilege at law. Similarly, a Member who passes on a constituent’s concerns in good faith to the proper authority, such as a Minister, will not be protected by parliamentary privilege, but is likely to be protected by qualified privilege. Qualified privilege provides protection in certain situations where a person, acting in good faith and without any improper motive, makes a statement about another person, which is in fact untrue and defamatory. According to the case of Adam v. Ward in 1917, qualified privilege arises in situations where

“the person who makes a communication has an interest, or a duty, legal, social or moral, to make it to the person to whom it is made, and the person to whom it is made has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it.”

That point was clearly made during the debate. There are other cases, such as Rivlin v. Bilainkin to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley referred, where the courts held that it was not lawful for a person to pass on information if they were not seeking to bring to the attention of a Member of Parliament something which was his duty to pass on to another authority, but was simply making a point. In that case, a woman was making a point about her former husband, and it was held that that was not proper use of the facility and did not benefit from the qualified privilege that would otherwise apply.

The issue of passing on correspondence to a Minister is important and it was referred to by the hon. Member for Warrington North. As I have said, at the moment that does not have absolute privilege—parliamentary privilege—but it has qualified privilege. However, there is the very important case of Beach. In that case, an MP passed on a constituent’s letter that complained about a local firm of solicitors to two third parties, the Law Society and the Lord Chancellor, and the firm of solicitors took action for defamation against the MP. The court held in that case:

“1. MPs have an interest in receiving correspondence from constituents bringing matters of concern to their attention;

2. MPs have a consequential interest or duty in “passing the complaint on to the proper quarter”;

3. The Law Society and the Lord Chancellor both had an interest in receiving complaints about the conduct of solicitors;

4. Consequently, a qualified privilege was made out in this case which acted as a bar to an action for defamation”.

That is a very clear illustration of where qualified privilege assists an MP in the exercise of their proper duties and in the sort of action that we would expect any hon. Member of this House to take on behalf of their constituents.

[Helen Jones]

The Deputy Leader of the House is quite right about the case that he has just quoted. However, does he think that it is now time to consider whether an MP who is carrying out their proper duties should be subjected to a case in court and have to defend it with qualified privilege, or should we consider enshrining privilege in statute?

[Mr Heath]

I am certainly open to the suggestion that we should consider that issue as part of the privilege Bill that we intend to introduce. I will discuss that Bill in a little while.

[Mr Cash]

What the hon. Lady has just said raises the question of who would actually interpret the statute. So we are back to the courts in that event. What we need to do is entrench a procedure into the privilege Bill, when we pass it into law, that might, for example, prevent such a case being taken to court, or that at least would ensure that if the case went to court a judge would have a kind of pre-trial opportunity to consider it. It is probably a procedural question, but we cannot avoid the fact that even if privilege is put into statute it will still be open to interpretation.

[Mr Heath]

I think that we would be in the same position that we are in now, with the present interpretation of the absolute parliamentary privilege that we enjoy in the comments that we make in this House. I do not see that there would be any difference if we were to extend our statutory interpretation of proceedings to include correspondence in the way that the hon. Lady suggests. However, let me not attempt to pre-empt a serious debate that will inevitably need to happen in preparing the statute on which this Bill will be based, both in terms of the pre-legislative scrutiny and then our scrutiny of whatever is proposed.

[John Hemming]

I may not be right but I am thinking of the Strauss case, which was about a letter from a Back-Bench MP to a Minister about cables. I believe that at the time the Standards and Privileges Committee recommended that the House should consider that case to have privilege, but the House voted—albeit not unanimously—not to treat it as being privileged.

[Mr Heath]

My hon. Friend brings me on to a very important point about the attitude of the House to date. He is eager to change that attitude, but the House has not yet shown a predilection, to use his own word, to do so, because in the past the House itself has not regarded attempts to interfere with or to frustrate a constituent’s communication with their MP as a breach of privilege. “Erskine May” records cases where threats have been made against a constituent by his employer in respect of communications with the constituent’s MP and either the House has declined to refer the matter to the Standards and Privileges Committee or the Committee has found that the actions alleged did not amount to a breach of privilege.

My hon. Friend addressed the situation in Australia, where the position in the state of Victoria is slightly different from that here. There was a 2006 case in the Parliament of Victoria, in which the Parliament upheld a privilege complaint from Michael Leighton, the Member for the electoral district of Preston. In that case, the complaint was that a constituent who provided information to Mr Leighton relating to an issue that he had previously raised in the Parliament later received a solicitor’s letter threatening legal action if Mr Leighton repeated certain allegations in the Parliament. That illustrates that there might be particular circumstances in which interference with communication between an MP here and a constituent might be regarded as a contempt of the House, although it does not demonstrate that communications between MPs and constituents should generally be regarded as being protected by parliamentary privilege.

However, there are two points that we must remember about the Victoria case. First, the threat to take legal action against the constituent was specifically in respect of any allegations that might be repeated by the Member in the Parliament of Victoria and it was therefore an indirect attempt to constrain the Member’s freedom of speech in the Parliament. I have to say that that bears some level of similarity with my hon. Friend’s case against Withers, where the House acted quite properly in his defence, or perhaps it would be more correct to say that it acted in defence of his constituent.

The second point, or rather the second difference between the situation here and the situation in Australia, is quite important in the context of this debate. It is that parliamentary privilege in Australia is defined in the Parliamentary Privilege Act 1987, so Australians do not rely on the Bill of Rights as we do. In addition, there is a definition of “proceedings” in that Act, which is

“all words spoken or acts done in the course of, or for the purposes of or incidental to, the transacting of the business of a House or of a committee.”

I think that my hon. Friend is arguing that we ought to have some similar provision here and we will need to look at that issue when we consider the matter of parliamentary privilege more widely.

[Mr Bacon]

I am listening with great interest to the Deputy Leader of the House. There is an article 13 point here, which is that the Bill of Rights says that Parliament should “frequently” meet

“for redress of all grievances”.

Is it not an axiom of that, in effect, that Parliament can only do its job of redressing “all grievances” if MPs know about “all grievances”, and therefore that communications that are intended to ensure that MPs do know about “all grievances” are inherently bound up with the Bill of Rights?

[Mr Heath]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I have some sympathy with what he says. However, I have some difficulty with the interpretation of article 13 of the Bill of Rights. I say that not as a constitutional lawyer, but as someone who is making the simple observation that article 13 of the Bill of Rights is headed, “Frequent Parliaments”, and therefore it seems to me to that article 13 is inherently about the frequency of Parliament rather than the reason for holding Parliaments frequently, which is

“for redress of all grievances”.

It is the emphasis within article 13 of the Bill of Rights that I am addressing. Having said that, we are talking about a 1688 Act and it would be very surprising indeed if it was construed in 1688 in exactly the same way that modern eyes construe it. Therefore, I do not want to replace centuries of jurisprudence on the subject with my lay observations today. However, I hear what the hon. Gentleman says.

I want to move on to Parliament and the courts, because a lot of what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley had to say was about the relationship between Parliament and the courts. Yet again, I enter the caveat that as a member of the Executive I need to be careful about what I say about that relationship and I hope that hon. Members will understand that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley referred to circumstances in which parties to court proceedings are forbidden to talk about them, either because of a specific injunction to that effect or, as in the case of certain family court proceedings, because proceedings are conducted in private, for example in the family court or the Court of Protection. That would not prevent a Member from raising in the House matters that it would be a contempt of court to raise elsewhere. We saw that in the recent Trafigura case, in which I had an interest. I was clear about what Parliament’s position should be, and I am happy that that was supported by others. If proceedings had been concluded, the House’s sub judice resolution would not necessarily prevent such matters being referred to.

The crux of the issue is the degree of legal protection offered, not to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley were he to raise the matter in the House—as he has done this afternoon—but to an individual who discloses information to their Member of Parliament. The extent of that protection is less clear, as in many cases it depends, as we have heard, on qualified privilege. In family proceedings, the Family Proceedings (Amendment) (No. 2) Rules 2009 include certain exemptions about the disclosure of information, including in rule 11.4(1)(d), which provides that a

“party or the legal representative of a party, on behalf of and upon the instructions of that party, may communicate information relating to the proceedings to any person where necessary to enable that party…to make and pursue a complaint regarding the law, policy or procedure relating to a category of proceedings to which this Part applies.”

However—that is a significant “however”—I emphasise that that is a general rule, which is subject to any direction of the court, and the court may direct that such disclosure, though generally allowed, should not be allowed in certain cases. That, I think, is the circumstance to which my hon. Friend refers.

I agree with the many Members who have said that an individual’s right to approach his or her MP should be regarded as an essential part of the democratic process. However, we need to consider how to deal with cases in which one person’s right of access to their MP could interfere with the rights of others, including the right to a fair trial and the right to privacy. There is no point in Parliament making laws conferring decision-making powers on the courts, if an individual Member can vitiate those decisions by disclosing on the Floor of the House information that might fatally undermine their purpose. For example, if a court orders that the identity of a party to legal proceedings should not be disclosed—usually because it would render the proceedings nugatory—Members should think very carefully before using the auspices of parliamentary privilege to subvert such a judgment.

The guiding principle must be one of comity: the House and its Members will respect the jurisdiction of the courts, and the courts will not trespass on to territory that is properly occupied by Parliament. If Parliament collectively believes that some injustice arises from how the courts apply the law, it is open to Parliament to change the law. There is no need to use the blunt instrument of parliamentary privilege as a battering ram with which to beat the courts.

If there are deficiencies in family court proceedings, my hon. Friend ought to seek to amend those rules, in the first instance, or the statute under which they operate, if he feels that they are ineffective in allowing him properly to represent the interests of his constituents.

[Mr Cash]

I appreciate that I am intruding somewhat into this rather narrow debate about parliamentary privilege and the Act. The Deputy Leader of the House referred to family law. As such matters are absorbed into the broader context of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, the manner in which the courts respond to them within the framework of the law will be interpreted by that Court. I fear that some of the assumptions being made, including that we will be able to legislate in line with the kind of principles that the Deputy Leader of the House has referred to, will not be applicable, because it will not be a matter exclusively for our courts.

[Mr Heath]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. He talks about the European Court of Justice. I thought that he was going to talk about the European convention on human rights, because it could be argued that the way these matters operate is outwith ECHR provisions, other than the fact that we are using the licence within the relevant article in the convention, which allows for specific items—the interests of minors are mentioned—to be excluded from the general rule of open proceedings in court. We must bear that in mind. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I have no doubt that we will discuss the matter on many other occasions.

Coming back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley was saying, I think that he is particularly exercised about the office of the Official Solicitor. He seems to have an interesting relationship with the Official Solicitor, in the pursuance of his various interests in the cases in which he has been involved. He essentially asks where the Official Solicitor’s supervision and accountability are, in the exercise of his duties. My hon. Friend knows that the antecedents of the office go back a long way, to its origins in the Six Clerks Office, which was mentioned by Pepys. This officer of the court has a long pedigree, and he acts on behalf of those who were originally defined as paupers, including lunatics and infants, and needed protection under the law. The office is an ancient one, but it has always been an office of the court.

Under the most recent legislation, the office is a statutory office of the Supreme Court, and we have been very clear in the House, by statute and otherwise, that we respect the independence of the Supreme Court, and that we will not seek to interfere with the activities of the Supreme Court, as a legislature. We have to be very careful in expecting something of an officer of the Supreme Court, who I suppose is answerable in extremis to the Lord Chancellor in the exercise of their duties. It is not a matter for normal, democratic control, any more than a judge sitting in the High Court is a matter that should be under the control of the House.

[Mr Bacon]

I have listened to the Deputy Leader of the House with great interest. He said that we should not seek to interfere with the operation of the Supreme Court as a legislature. Did he mean that we should not, as a legislature, seek to interfere with the operation of the Supreme Court? There is a fundamental difference.

[Mr Heath]

I meant that we, as a legislature, should not seek to interfere with the activities of the Supreme Court. There was a comma, which the hon. Gentleman did not, I think, hear. It was there; I assure him.

[Mr Bacon]

I regret that I did not hear the comma, but does the Deputy Leader of the House not agree that this goes to the heart of what my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) was talking about? Although the late and much-lamented Lord Chief Justice, Tom Bingham, made it extremely clear in his recent book, “The Rule of Law”, that he thought that the Court should ultimately defer to the democratic will of the elected legislature, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone says that there is abroad—“abroad” is the wrong word, although it is also true—around the place, including here and also abroad, a kind of judge who does not take that view. That is a source of great concern.

[Mr Heath]

I understand the concern about what is normally described as judicial activism, and about the judiciary perhaps wishing to extend its role beyond what has been the traditional separation between its role and that of the House. We have to be extremely wary about that. Nevertheless, I maintain that it is not and never has been the role of Members of Parliament to decide whether officers of the court are behaving properly in the exercise of their duties. Our role is to create the statutory environment in which they work, and that is a very different matter.

[Helen Jones]

It is a difficult area, but does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that while we would not wish to see Members of Parliament interfering in the judicial process—we have both probably had experience of telling constituents that we cannot do that—a constituent who feels that they have not received justice or due process ought to be free to raise that with a Member of Parliament? There are two different issues.

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Lady puts it very well. There is a distinction, and we are right to make it.

I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley about the growth of the super-injunction, and what he described as the hyper-injunction. I was concerned when the issue arose during the Trafigura case. I am also concerned that we have allowed a whole new jurisprudence to develop without any real consideration of where it will end, or the consequences for our judicial process.

Happily, the Master of the Rolls, who has a proper role in the matter, has recognised the public concern. He established a committee in April last year to examine the use of injunctions that bind the press, including super-injunctions. He brought together a committee of the judiciary, the legal profession and the press. I anticipate that it will report soon, and we in the House should have particular concern about what it says.

Such injunctions have an impact, potentially, on what we do in the House, and certainly on the interests of our constituents. Personally, I look forward to seeing whether the Master of the Rolls wishes to bring into effect any significant changes to how the courts interpret the whole role of super-injunctions, and what he has to say about the position that has been established whereby my hon. Friend, as a Member of Parliament, cannot know that his constituent is even involved in a case, let alone get involved in it, because his constituent is injuncted by a super-injunction to prevent him passing on that information. My hon. Friend’s concern is perfectly legitimate and I am glad he has had the opportunity to express it today.

[Mr Bacon]

Many people, including the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), who raised the Trafigura case, have had concerns about super-injunctions. Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that such people should also be concerned about what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley has identified as another category, hyper-injunctions, whereby a court makes an order not to refer to the existence of proceedings? Is that not simply a step far too far?

[Mr Heath]

I am not sure that I understand the distinction that my hon. Friend was making between a super-injunction and a hyper-injunction, because what is called a super-injunction is an injunction that requires a particular course of action to be taken, including not reporting that the injunction in place is proceeding. It is an injunction squared, or a self-referring injunction. I am concerned about it, as are a lot of hon. Members, but we must wait and see what the Master of Rolls has to say on the subject when he—or, rather, his committee—reports.

I want to conclude by talking about the draft parliamentary privilege Bill.

[Mr Cash]

I realise that I asked a much broader question than was intended for the debate, so I do not ask the Deputy Leader of the House to go into any detail, but in general does he take on board my point about the hierarchy of laws and the necessity to ensure where the final jurisdiction lies? The issue has come up in various forms in exchanges on the draft parliamentary privilege legislation and its proposals. The Supreme Court and other courts in the European dimension are claiming greater jurisdiction than previously over what we do, indirectly and, sometimes, more directly. That is an innovation, which was certainly not around five years ago. I ask the hon. Gentleman to do no more than take into account the fact that these points are not just the emanations of those who are concerned obsessively about such matters; they need to be taken very seriously because the process is on the march.

[Mr Heath]

I was going to come to the hon. Gentleman’s points at the conclusion of my other remarks, but I will answer them now.

I am loth to usurp the authority of the Lord Chancellor, which I suspect would be lèse majesté on the part of a junior Minister. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to second-guess the Lord Chancellor’s views, in particular as he had the opportunity recently to set out some concerns in a Committee, as the hon. Gentleman said.

The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government are setting up a commission to look at the case for a UK Bill of Rights. He knows that the announcement has been made and that that will happen. He knows what is in the coalition agreement in respect of the issue, and I do not need to remind him of that. He also knows, because I heard him recently ask the question of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, that the Government strongly support reform of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. There is a package of considerations and I will not pre-empt any conclusions, but I hear what the hon. Member for Stone has said. I am sure that other colleagues in the Government will have heard his comments as well. It is probably safest if I leave it at that. He understands that there is a limit to how far I can expand on the subject.

Returning to a perhaps slightly safer area for which I do have some responsibility, the Government intend to bring forward a draft parliamentary privilege Bill. As we have heard this afternoon, it is a complex subject. We have the report from some years ago to which the hon. Member for Warrington North referred. We need to revisit it, to ensure that it meets all our present circumstances, but we hope that we will soon be able to provide a draft Bill on which every hon. Member will have the opportunity to comment. In particular, I hope that Members involved in this afternoon’s debate will make their views well known as part of the consultative process, because they will have the opportunity to shape the content of the Bill.

I was intrigued by the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) that we should do away with “privilege” altogether and call it something else. I make no commitment that that will form part of the Bill, but “privilege” is sometimes misinterpreted, deliberately or purely by ignorance, and assumed to mean that we somehow place our interests, and ourselves, above those of other people, rather than what it does mean, which is that it enables us to do our job on behalf of the people we represent.

Such interpretations were perhaps exaggerated by the recent court cases involving former Members of the House. The proposition before the court was that parliamentary privilege somehow prevented them from facing due criminal proceedings in the courts. Of course, privilege did not do that; we said so at the time and I am pleased that the courts held it to be the case. However, that message simply must go out: parliamentary privilege is not about privileges for Members, it is about privilege for our constituents to have a Member of Parliament who can stand up and speak without fear or favour on their behalf in the House, and to do so on whatever terms that Member feels fit, and without the threat of court action or the actions of the Executive preventing them from acting in the fullest capacity as a Member of Parliament. We intend to produce the draft Bill by the end of this Session, in spring 2012. That will provide us with a further opportunity for these matters to be discussed.

I am grateful to you, Mr Bone, for chairing this sitting and to the Backbench Business Committee for providing us with the opportunity to debate the subject. I am grateful too to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley for bringing forward matters of considerable importance, which have now been given an airing in the House.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

With the leave of the House, I call the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley.

17:10

[John Hemming]

I thank everyone who attended this debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it. I also thank you, Mr Bone, for chairing it so ably.

The debate can be summed up in a few words. Parliament needs to know about grievances and to be able to take action. We need to take action to protect our constituents. The accountability of the courts rests on people knowing what is going on, even if anonymously. The difficulty with the operation of the Official Solicitor’s office is that people do not know what is going on. There is no question but that reform is needed in that area. However, the points have been reasonable and we have had a good debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) for working with me on the debate. On that point, I shall end.

Question put and agreed to.

17:11

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Thursday 17th March 2011 Written Statements

Thursday 17 March 2011

Solutions for Business Portfolio

Thursday 17th March 2011 Written Statements

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

The Government confirm that they have simplified the Solutions For Business portfolio. The Solutions for Business portfolio announced in March 2010 contained 32 interventions, designed to help businesses at different stages of their development. Going forward we believe that the portfolio should target only those areas where a Government lead is required, including supporting innovation and helping companies reach international markets.

Ministers have decided to proceed with simplification of the portfolio which will see it streamlined, with 13 products in the new portfolio, with a focus on growth. The details of the products in the new portfolio are being published today, alongside new information to help local enterprise partnerships as they establish their economic priorities.

The 13 products in the new nationally funded portfolio are:

High Growth Coaching

Helping Your Business Grow Internationally

Manufacturing Advisory Service

Designing Demand

Knowledge Transfer Partnerships

Networking for Innovation

Collaborative Research and Development

Grant for Research and Development

Workplace Training, including Apprenticeships

Improving Your Resource Efficiency

Finance for Business

Understanding Finance for Business

Rural Development Programme for England Business Support

The transition to the streamlined Solutions for Business portfolio will take place from April 2011 onwards. This transition will be managed and implemented as contracts for existing products expire and are retendered, to ensure maximum value for money for the taxpayer.

The new nationally funded portfolio is part of a wider package of measures that the Government are delivering to support business growth. For most of those starting out in business for the first time, or looking for straightforward advice and guidance on running their business, the improved businesslink.gov.uk website and start-up hub will be available to provide high quality online support. This will be supplemented by a telephone contact centre for businesses unable to access the internet or who cannot find the information they are looking for online. In addition, where businesses have challenges that cannot be met through the website, access to experienced business mentors will be available through the new volunteering gateway.

A simplified and well-defined national offer creates the opportunity for local businesses to work together and through their local enterprise partnership to identify local solutions to challenges that they face. The Government are supporting this approach by providing good practice information to assist LEPs in meeting their challenges.

EU Competitiveness Council

Thursday 17th March 2011 Written Statements

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

My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Baroness Wilcox, has today made the following statement.

The EU Competitiveness Council took place in Brussels on 9 and 10 March 2011. Andy Lebrecht, the UK’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU represented the UK on research issues on 9 March and I represented the UK on internal market and industry issues on 10 March. A summary of those discussions follows.

The main research issues discussed on 9 March were the Commission’s Europe 2020 (long-term EU competitiveness) strategy’s annual growth survey (from the research perspective); the interim evaluation of the seventh EU research framework programme; and the European innovation union flagship initiative. There was also a lunchtime discussion on the Commission’s proposed new “common strategic framework” for future EU research and innovation funding.

On the Commission’s annual growth survey, Ministers debated research and innovation priorities to help Europe recover from the economic crisis. The UK emphasised that it was maintaining its science spending and that there should be increased focus on innovation-oriented EU public procurement and on addressing issues regarding access to finance for innovators. The UK also said it planned to monitor the effectiveness of EU research and innovation reforms.

The Council adopted conclusions on the seventh EU research framework programme in response to the independent interim evaluation. The conclusions called for simplification of funding rules, a greater economic impact from EU research investment and examination of the reasons for low participation in certain member states.

On the European innovation union flagship initiative, the Commission reported plans to develop a new innovation performance indicator, a new EU standardisation policy and to look at how EU-wide procurement schemes and a proposed pan-EU venture capital fund could better support innovation.

In the lunchtime discussion on future EU research and innovation funding, the Commission reported plans to introduce a more co-ordinated approach. Member states generally supported the Commission’s approach and identified the simplification of existing EU funding rules as a priority. The UK emphasised the importance of scientific excellence when allocating EU funding.

The research any other business items discussed were a report on “The knowledge-based bio-economy towards 2020” conference held in September 2010 and proposals for a framework programme for nuclear research and training activities for 2012 to 2013.

The main internal market and industry issues discussed on 10 March were the Commission’s analysis of the results of the public consultation on the Single Market Act; progress on implementation of the EU services directive; the Council authorisation decision on the EU patent enhanced co-operation process; the Europe 2020 strategy’s annual growth survey (from the industry perspective) and the Commission’s raw materials initiative. There was also a lunchtime discussion on the Commission’s mid-term review of the Small Business Act.

On the Single Market Act, the Commission reported that 770 online responses had been received and that it would be difficult to identify priorities that would meet everyone’s concerns. The UK called for an emphasis on growth and that EU single market priorities should be progress on services, on the digital single market and on better regulation. Most member states supported a focus on growth. The Commission concluded that further work was needed to agree priorities with member states.

On the EU patent, the Commission said that it was vital to help EU competitiveness. In discussion, the UK stressed that it saw the EU patent as a package and that it was studying the European Court of Justice opinion on the patent court that had been issued on 8 March. Council legal services confirmed that consideration of the opinion did not prevent agreement on the enhanced co-operation process and 25 member states (including the UK) confirmed their support for the authorisation decision.

In the lunchtime discussion reviewing the Commission’s Small Business Act initiative, the UK highlighted the importance of better regulation. In the annual growth survey discussion, the UK emphasised its support for measures supporting growth. The majority of member states stressed the importance of the EU single market and to improve the EU regulatory framework.

The Council also adopted conclusions on the progress of implementation of the EU services directive and on the Commission’s raw materials initiative.

There were also internal market and industry any other business items discussed on the internal market information system (IMI); the SOLVIT annual report; the fifth consumer scoreboard; public consultations on collective redress and alternative dispute resolution; the benefits of electronic invoicing for Europe; and on the recommendations of the high-level group on the competitiveness of the European chemical industry.

Local Government Finance

Thursday 17th March 2011 Written Statements

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

I would like to make a statement on the work of the local government resource review.

The current dependency of councils on central grant allocations makes planning difficult, weakens accountability, and stifles local innovation. In the future, I am keen to move to a radically different system of funding and support for councils that is built on strong incentives, is driven by local decision making and breaks this dependency.

I have therefore set up a review of local government resources that will consider how we can recast the distribution of business rates and formula grant to deliver a more effective income stream for councils. The focus will be to free up as many local authorities as possible from dependency on central Government funding, as well as develop better incentives for local authorities to promote economic growth in their areas and to benefit financially from that growth. The first phase of the review will deliver proposals for reform by July 2011.

The review will consider the way in which local authorities are funded, with a view to giving local authorities greater financial autonomy and strengthening the incentives to support growth in the private sector and regeneration of local economies.

It will look at ways to reduce the reliance of local government on central Government funding, increase local accountability and ensure that the benefits of economic growth are reflected in the resources authorities have.

The review will include consideration of changes to the business rates system, and focus in particular on:

a) the optimum model for incentivising local authorities to promote growth by retaining business rates, while ensuring that all authorities have adequate resources to meet the needs of their communities and to deliver the commitments set out in the spending review;

b) the extent to which these proposals can set local authorities free from dependency on central funding;

c) considering how to fund authorities where locally raised funding would be insufficient to meet budget requirements and control council tax levels, as well as councils who do not collect business rates, such as upper-tier authorities, recognising that some parts of the country are currently more dependent on Government funding;

d) reviewing the scope for greater transparency and localisation of the equalisation process;

e) the position of councils whose business rate yield would be significantly higher than their current spending;

f) how to ensure appropriate protections are in place for business, within a framework of devolving power to the lowest level possible;

g) how to deliver tax increment financing proposals against a context of greater retention of business rate revenues;

h) how various aspects of the business rate system, including business rate revaluation and reliefs, should be treated;

i) examining the scope for further financial freedoms for local authorities, while standing up for and protecting the interests of local taxpayers, and

j) the wider implications of rates retention for related policies, including the work of the Commission on the Funding of Care and Support and the Government’s other incentive schemes (the new homes bonus and the commitment to allow communities to keep the business rates for renewable energy projects).

The review will take account of the responses made to the questions in “Local growth: realising every place’s potential”. It will also conduct extensive engagement with interested parties, including businesses of all sizes, to ensure that all views and perspectives are taken into account. In developing the proposals, the Government are clear that businesses should not be subject to locally imposed increases in the burden of taxation that they do not support.

Following the announcement at the spending review and through introduction of the Welfare Reform Bill that Government will localise council tax benefit, the review will also consider the design of the new scheme (to be launched in 2013-14) and what flexibilities local authorities should have to help keep overall council tax levels down.

The first phase of review will conclude by July 2011, followed by the necessary steps to implement the concluded reforms.

The second phase of the local government resource review will commence in April 2011 and will focus on community budgets. It will be taken forward in parallel with the continued roll-out of these budgets. Detailed terms of reference will be published shortly.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Thursday 17th March 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

The Government have been engaged in discussions with the parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland about the potential coincidence of elections in May 2015.

The Government have tabled amendments to the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill to implement the agreement we have reached with the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales. Following the discussions, motions were passed in the Scottish Parliament on 3 March and in the Welsh Assembly on 16 March calling on the UK Government to bring forward provision to defer the 2015 Scottish and Welsh general elections until 5 May 2016 in order to avoid the two sets of elections coinciding.

The amendment will provide that the normal rules pertaining to general elections to the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales apply to the deferred polls.

The Government will also carry out a detailed assessment of what the implications would be of the two sets of elections coinciding at a later date. Then in the light of this we will consider whether to conduct a public consultation in Scotland and Wales on whether the Parliament and Assembly terms should permanently be extended to five years.

Following correspondence with parties in Northern Ireland on this issue, Northern Ireland Office Ministers have concluded that it would be better to await the outcome of the combined polls scheduled for May 2011 before taking a decision on whether special provision would be needed for Northern Ireland.

Secondary School Application/Offers 2011

Thursday 17th March 2011 Written Statements

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

Today we are publishing validated data, based on returns from 151 local authorities showing that across the country 84.6% of families received an offer at their first-preference secondary school—compared with 83.2% last year. A further 8.1% of families were offered a place at their second-preference school and 95.6% were offered a place at one of their three preferred schools. In total, 97.2% of families were offered a place at one of their preferred schools. I am placing a copy of these data in the Library of the House.

There is considerable variation in these figures nationally. Outside London, more than 87.8% of parents were offered a place at their first-preference school. The north-east had the highest percentage of first-preference offers with 94.3% and west midlands the lowest with 81.1%. For Greater London, this figure is 66.2%. However across London, 94% of families have been offered a place at one of their chosen schools.

Parents have the right of appeal against any application that has been turned down; and over the summer, local authorities and schools will be re-allocating places where others have moved address or chosen a different route of education for their child.

We are committed to improving the supply of high-quality school places, to put our trust back in schools and to support them in raising standards for all our children. Through the White Paper, “The Importance of Teaching”, we announced our intention to review the school admissions framework, with a view to delivering a simpler, more streamlined admissions and appeals code. We are determined to remove unnecessary burdens on schools while retaining accountability, transparency and fairness. We shall shortly be consulting on slimmer, less bureaucratic admission and appeals codes.

Our aim is to create an education system where every school is a good school, where discipline and attainment are principles for all; where teachers have the confidence to teach the knowledge and concepts that young people need to thrive in a global economy. Only when every school is a good school will we be able to remove the anxiety parents feel when selecting a school for their children. These figures show that too few parents, especially in London, have access to good school places, with one in six parents failing to secure their first preference.

We will continue our focus on improving performance in underperforming schools. The Secretary of State recently wrote to all local authorities asking them to develop school improvement plans for those schools below the floor standards. These plans will help identify the action needed to turn around those schools that are failing to provide a high quality of education. Schools will be supported to improve but if they do not do so quickly, we will look to transform them through conversion to academy status, under strong sponsors with a proven record in turning around underperformance. We will also continue our drive to increase the number of academies and to open more free schools to respond to demand.

This written ministerial statement contains Government and policy statements in relation to the statistical release “Secondary school applications and offers 2011” which can be viewed on the DFE research and statistics gateway. This statistical release was produced by officials working under the direction of Government statisticians in accordance with the code of practice for official statistics and was released at 9.30 am today.

The Information as to Provision of Education (England) Regulations 2008 require local authorities to submit data to the Department for Education on how many families received an offer of a place at one of their preferred secondary schools. This year on 1 March, almost 513,000 families were advised at which secondary school their child was being offered a place.

Independent Panel on Forestry

Thursday 17th March 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

Further to my statement on 17 February 2011, Official Report, column 1155, I have today announced that the right Rev. James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool, has agreed to chair an independent panel to advise me on the future direction of forestry and woodland policy in England and on the role of the Forestry Commission in implementing policy. The members of the panel are:

Shireen Chambers (Institute of Chartered Foresters)

Dr Mike Clarke (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds)

Tom Franklin (Ramblers)

Stuart Goodall (Confederation of Forest Industries)

Stephanie Hilborne QBE (Wildlife Trusts)

Sue Holden (Woodland Trust)

Dr Alan Knight QBE (Single Planet Living)

Dame Fiona Reynolds (National Trust)

Sir Harry Studholme (Forestry Commissioner)

John Varley (Clinton Devon Estates)

William Worsley (Country Land and Business Association)

The members of the panel bring a wide range of interests and expertise covering the environmental, social and economic aspects of forestry. I have published the panel’s terms of reference on the DEFRA website (www.defra.gov.uk/rural/forestry/).

Foreign Affairs Council and General Affairs Council

Thursday 17th March 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

The Foreign Affairs Council and General Affairs Council will meet in Brussels on 21 March. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will attend the Foreign Affairs Council. I will attend the General Affairs Council.

Foreign Affairs Council (FAC)

Japan

Japan is not currently on the agenda for the FAC, and the constantly evolving situation makes it difficult to predict the nature of a possible discussion. But we would expect Ministers to review the EU’s response to the devastating earthquake and tsunami, and to take stock of the latest developments on the nuclear issue. The EU’s response so far has been summarised in the press release below.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/11/166&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN& guiLanguage=en

EU Southern Neighbourhood

On Libya, Ministers will want to take stock following the extraordinary European Council of 11 March, at which EU leaders called on Gaddafi to “relinquish power immediately” as his regime had lost all legitimacy and was no longer an interlocutor for the EU. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stressed to Parliament in his statement of 14 March, Official Report, columns 25-27 (see link below), HMG’s position is that Europe must seize this opportunity to support ordinary people in north Africa and across the middle east in their aspirations for a more open and democratic form of government. The EU now needs to follow through on its declaration of 11 March with a real and credible offer to these countries, based around the massive economic opportunities which lie in greater trade and co-operation with Europe. Discussion of Libya and other specific country issues will depend on events in the next few days.

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=PressS&id=564995382

Sahel

The Sahel is one of the poorest regions of the world. It faces a number of challenges to its security and development simultaneously, including terrorism and frequent food shortages. At the FAC, Ministers are expected to review proposals for an EU strategy to deal with the Sahel’s security and development needs in a coherent way. The proposals are particularly important given recent instability in the region.

Somalia

Ministers should be asked to agree conclusions on Somalia, the first since July 2009. Discussion is expected to focus on handling of the planned end of the transitional period in August 2011 and on tackling piracy. We want to see a clear statement that there can be no extension of the Transitional Federal Institutions beyond August without reform to make them more representative and legitimate in the eyes of the Somali people. We will look to emphasise the importance of tackling the causes of piracy on land and continue to push for the European External Action Service to play a leading role in co-ordinating donor activity in those regions most affected by piracy, including in Puntland.

Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH)

We expect conclusions to be adopted on BiH on proposals to reinforce the EU’s presence there. We are supportive of the package in which there was broad agreement at the February FAC. The conclusions should also address the political situation in BiH, where a Government is yet to be formed nearly six months after elections.

Belarus

Ministers are due to discuss the political and human rights situation in Belarus. We hope the discussion will focus on what further measures the EU can take to apply political pressure on the regime to release all political prisoners and cease the ongoing repression of human rights defenders.

Serbia/Kosovo

Baroness Ashton will update Ministers on the EU-facilitated dialogue between Pristina and Belgrade. Following appointment of the new Kosovo Government on 22 February, the first meeting of the dialogue took place in Brussels on 8-9 March. We expect EU member states to give Baroness Ashton strong support for her efforts on the dialogue as a way of building co-operation between Kosovo and Serbia and of helping both countries make progress towards the EU.

Iran human rights

We seek conclusions which pave the way towards EU targeted measures on Iran, including a travel ban and asset freeze on human rights offenders; and which develop the EU’s human rights dialogue with Iranian civil society.

Middle East Peace Process

Baroness Ashton will report on the 2 March Quartet envoys’ meeting and provide an update on work being done in preparation for the April meeting of Quartet principals. The UK will continue to make clear that the peace process must not become a casualty of uncertainty in the region, that it is too important to fail or falter, and that we must strive for a breakthrough this year. The UK has set out views on this with France and Germany in our explanation of vote on the draft UNSCR on settlement; see link below:

http://ukun.fco.gov.uk/en/news/?view=News&id=555290382

We also expect Baroness Ashton to update on progress in implementing her proposal for EU support to Gaza.

General Affairs Council (GAC)

European Councils

Ministers will review follow-up to the extraordinary European Council of 11 March, which discussed the EU’s response to the current crisis in Libya and the southern neighbourhood. The declaration made by the Council on 11 March can be found at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/119780.pdf

In addition to the Prime Minister’s statement of 14 March (see earlier link), an FCO report of the European Council can be found at:

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=News&id=564968482

Ministers will also discuss preparation for the spring European Council on 24 March. The current draft agenda includes:

the southern neighbourhood and EU action to promote stability in the region (see comments on FAC);

legislative proposals for economic governance in the Eurozone;

European Council decision amending article 136 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union and intergovernmental arrangements setting up the European Stability Mechanism. These were agreed at the December European Council, see link:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/118578.pdf

Foreign Affairs Council/Foreign Ministers (Informal Meeting)

Thursday 17th March 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary attended an informal meeting of EU Foreign Ministers on 10 March, ahead of the extraordinary European Council meeting of 11 March attended by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Baroness Ashton chaired the meeting. Her remarks ahead of the meeting can be found at the link below.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eudocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/119734.pdf

Discussion focused on action to increase pressure on the Libyan regime and the draft declaration by the European Council. The Foreign Secretary and others called for the stepping-up of pressure, to include consideration of a no-fly zone, based on a proper legal base, regional support and a demonstrable need. Many Ministers took the opportunity to comment on the draft Council declaration. Baroness Ashton conveyed these comments to President van Rompuy and EU Heads of Government at their meeting the following day.

The Foreign Secretary welcomed the Commission’s and External Action Service’s communication on the EU’s policy on the southern neighbourhood (see link below). In particular, he noted that the communication expressed the right level of ambition, and brought clarity as to what conditionality might mean in practice. He stressed the EU’s new offer to the region should be based on market access and progress towards political reforms.

http://eeas.europa.eu/euromed/docs/com2011_200_en.pdf#page=2

An FCO report of the meeting, including comments by the Foreign Secretary, can be found at:

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=News&id=563517982

Gymnich

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary attended the Gymnich informal meeting of EU Foreign Ministers of 11-12 March. The meeting was co-hosted by Hungarian Foreign Minister Martonyi (EU Presidency) and Baroness Ashton. Discussions focused on Libya, north Africa and the middle east, including a substantive session on these issues with Turkey, Croatia, Iceland, Macedonia and Montenegro. Ministers reviewed the Council’s declaration agreed the day before.

Additionally, there were brief discussions of other countries in the middle east and north Africa. There was broad support for the EU efforts to aid transition in Egypt and Tunisia.

Baroness Ashton and Commissioner Fule (enlargement/neighbourhood) briefed on the joint communication on southern neighbourhood policy (link included in FAC informal report above).

Baroness Ashton’s concluding remarks can be found at:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction. do?reference=SPEECH/11/171&format= TML&aged=0&language=en&guiLanguage=en.

Control Order Powers

Thursday 17th March 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

Section 14(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (the 2005 Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of the control order powers during that period.

The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.

The future of the control order regime

On 26 January 2011 I made a statement to Parliament setting out the Government’s intention to replace control orders with a less intrusive and more targeted regime of terrorism prevention and investigation measures. Legislation to achieve this will be introduced in due course. Additional resources for covert investigative techniques will be made available to complement the new system. The full control order regime will continue to operate until the replacement measures are in force. I have now renewed the powers in the 2005 Act until 31 December 2011, following the debates in the House of Commons on 2 March and in the House of Lords on 8 March.

The exercise of the control order powers in the last quarter

As explained in previous quarterly statements, control order obligations are tailored to the individual concerned and are based on the terrorism-related risk that individual poses. Each control order is kept under regular review to ensure that the obligations remain necessary and proportionate. The Home Office continues to hold control order review groups (CORGs) every quarter, with representation from law enforcement and intelligence agencies, to keep the obligations in every control order under regular and formal review and to facilitate a review of appropriate exit strategies. During the reporting period, no CORGs were held in relation to the orders in force at the time. This is because meetings were held just before, and are due to be held just after, the reporting period. Other meetings were held on an ad hoc basis as specific issues arose.

During the period 11 December 2010 to 10 March 2011, two non-derogating control orders were made, with the permission of the court, and served. One non-derogating control order was made, with the permission of the court, and revoked without ever being served following the identification of an administrative error. A further non-derogating control order was made in respect of the same individual, with the permission of the court, but was not served during the reporting period. Two control orders have been renewed in accordance with section 2(6) of the 2005 Act in this reporting period.

In total, as of 10 March, there were 10 control orders in force, all of which were in respect of British citizens. All of these control orders were non-derogating. Three individuals subject to a control order were living in the Metropolitan Police Service area; the remaining individuals were living in other police force areas.

One set of criminal proceedings for breach of a control order was concluded during this reporting period following a CPS decision that prosecution was no longer in the public interest.

During this reporting period, 53 modifications of control order obligations were made; 21 requests to modify control order obligations were refused.

Section 10(1) of the 2005 Act provides a right of appeal against a decision by the Secretary of State to renew a non-derogating control order or to modify an obligation imposed by a non-derogating control order without consent. No appeals have been lodged with the High Court during this reporting period under section 10(1) of the 2005 Act. A right of appeal is also provided by section 10(3) of the 2005 Act against a decision by the Secretary of State to refuse a request by a controlled person to revoke their order or to modify any obligation under their order. During this reporting period two appeals were lodged with the High Court under section 10(3) of the 2005 Act. In one of these appeals, an interlocutory application for an injunction was also made, seeking an order staying the effect of the modification until a full hearing had taken place and judgment handed down.

One court order was made in relation to proceedings under section 10(1) of the 2005 Act during this reporting period. On 8 March 2011 the court dismissed BH’s appeal against the renewal of his control order but allowed it in so far as it related to obligations imposed by the order. The obligations were modified by agreement between the parties and annexed to the court order.

On 10 March 2011 an oral judgment was handed down in relation to the injunction application referred to above. The injunction was refused and directions were set for an expedited appeal.

Equality Act 2010: Public Sector Equality Duty

Thursday 17th March 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The Equality Act 2010 includes a new single public sector Equality Duty which will replace the existing race, disability and gender equality duties and will extend to also cover gender reassignment in full, age, religion or belief and sexual orientation.

The Act contains a power enabling a Minister of the Crown to make regulations imposing specific duties on public bodies listed in parts 1 (general) and 4 (cross-border authorities) of schedule 19 to the Act to enable them to carry out the Equality Duty more effectively. Following a public consultation on draft specific duties regulations which ran from August to November last year, revised draft regulations were published alongside the Government’s response to the consultation on the Government Equalities Office website on 12 January 2011.

Since then, we have considered the draft regulations further in the light of our policy objective of ensuring that public bodies consider equality when carrying out their functions without imposing unnecessary burdens and bureaucracy. As a result, we think there is room to do more to strip out unnecessary process requirements. Today, we are publishing a policy review paper seeking views on new draft specific duties regulations. Our proposals are designed to deliver a clear focus on transparency, freeing up public bodies to take responsibility for their own performance in delivering equality improvements and to publish the right information so that the public can hold them to account. This approach will be better for equality because it will focus on the delivery of results, not the performance of bureaucratic processes.

The new general Equality Duty will come into force on 5 April. For the period from 5 April until the new specific duties are in place, public bodies will still need to comply with the general Equality Duty.

We welcome comments on the new draft regulations from public bodies, equality organisations, users of public services, businesses which work with public organisations and other interested parties. Comments should be submitted to the Government Equalities Office by 21 April 2011.

The policy review paper, including the draft regulations, is available on the Government Equalities Office website: www.equalities.gov.uk. Copies are also being placed in the Library of the House. Comments can be sent to: [e-mail]

Terrorism Stop and Search Powers

Thursday 17th March 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

I announced on 26 January the findings from my review of counter-terrorism and security powers. This included a recommendation that the Government consider whether the police needed the new counter-terrorism stop and search power more quickly than the Protection of Freedoms Bill would allow. On 1 March 2011 I announced that, given the current threat environment, I had concluded that the police do need the powers more quickly than the Bill would allow.

The most appropriate way of meeting the legal and operational requirements concerning the counter-terrorism stop and search powers exercisable without reasonable suspicion is to make a remedial order under section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to make immediate changes to the legislation. I therefore made a remedial order concerning the Terrorism Act 2000 on 16 March and that order has today been laid before Parliament. The new powers contained in that order are supported by a robust statutory code of practice. I have used the urgency procedure provided by paragraph 2(b) of schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act to make the remedial order because I have concluded that having these powers available to the police now is in the interests of national security and is needed to protect the public from a risk of terrorism.

The remedial order replaces sections 44 to 47 of the Terrorism Act 2000 with a more targeted and proportionate power. The provisions in the order will cease to have effect on the coming into force of the similar provisions in the Protection of Freedoms Bill—in other words, the order makes temporary provision and Parliament will have the opportunity to fully scrutinise the replacement powers in the usual way during the passage of the Protection of Freedoms Bill. The order removes the incompatibility of sections 44 to 46 of the Terrorism Act 2000 with the European convention of human rights in the light of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in the case of Gillan and Quinton which became final in June 2010.

The making of a remedial order using the urgency procedure means that it will come into force on 18 March. It will cease to have effect if both Houses have not approved the order by resolution within 120 days of the remedial order being made (the calculation of “days” for this purpose does not include any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or both Houses are adjourned for more than four days).

The decision to make a remedial order means that the discredited, ineffective and unfair “no suspicion” stop and search powers provided by sections 44 to 47 of the Terrorism Act 2000 are, in effect, replaced by a much more targeted and proportionate power. The use of an urgent remedial order is a necessary and sensible step to ensure that the police have the necessary powers in place to continue to protect the public from a risk of terrorism.

Her Majesty's Land Registry

Thursday 17th March 2011 Written Statements

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

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, Lord McNally, has made the following written ministerial statement:

Land Registry has a new vision: “Putting the customer, quality and innovation at the heart of land registration services”.

To meet this vision, the following strategic objectives have been adopted with key performance indicators:

Customer

To identify, anticipate and satisfy customer needs by constantly refining and developing products, services and channels.

Customer satisfaction: Target 95%.

Develop and implement the capability to:

Electronically deliver the top-six dealing transactions.

View the index map online.

Increase the number of services available on business gateway.

Improve intuitive online navigation.

External e-channel availability: Target better than 99%.

Increase add value revenue by at least 25% with a minimum net contribution of 14%.

Quality

To continually improve operational delivery in order to drive efficiencies, quality and value.

Percentage of registrations processed within 12 working days: Target 80%.

Percentage of completed registrations that meet specified internal quality standards relating to key areas: Target 97%.

Percentage of completed registrations requiring correction: Target less than 1.5%.

Percentage of successful changes applied to electronic services: Target 95%.

Innovation

To build a flexible and efficient organisation to enable us to respond to market fluctuations and changing customer needs and to identify and implement opportunities for Land Registry.

Introduce performance and innovation continuous improvement methodology into two operational offices and extend use in human resources directorate by 31 March 2012.

Complete phase 1 of accelerated transformation programme by 31 December 2011.

Embed new values and behaviours into individual performance management and recruitment processes by 31 March 2012.

Percentage of staff positively engaged with Land Registry: Target 50%.

Finance

To meet all financial and efficiency targets while funding our future work investment programmes.

Percentage return on average capital employed: Target 3.5%.

Cost per unit in cash terms (real terms): Target £29.46 (£18.34).

House of Lords

Thursday 17th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Thursday, 17 March 2011.

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.

Justice: Judicial Appointments

Thursday 17th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

11:06

Asked by

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress is being made in improving gender and ethnic diversity in judicial appointments.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, in February 2010, the independent advisory panel on judicial diversity published its report, which detailed a number of recommendations to deliver speedier and sustained progress to a more diverse judiciary without diminishing appointments on merit. In response, the judicial diversity taskforce was established to oversee the assessment and implementation of those recommendations. The taskforce met last Monday to review what has been achieved to date, and will publish its report on progress shortly.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his helpful Answer, but given the lamentably low number of women judges and the virtual absence of ethnic minority judges among our senior judiciary, which bears a very poor comparison with those of other European and other common law jurisdictions, does he agree that it is time for urgent and effective action and that all necessary steps should be taken to ensure that the recommendations of the taskforce that he mentioned, set up as a result of the recommendations of the advisory panel chaired last year by my noble friend Lady Neuberger, are implemented in full and without delay?

[Lord McNally]

My noble friend makes a correct assessment of the figures for judicial appointments. The meeting last Monday was my first with the diversity group, and I made it very clear that as far as I am concerned, the concept of trickle-up is not a response to the diversity problem that we face in the judiciary.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

My Lords—

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

My Lords—

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, we have hardly started. There is time for both noble Lords. Only one of us can be standing up at one time.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

Given the nature of the issue, I think that giving way was appropriate.

I remember that when I started at the Bar there were sets of chambers that used to say, “We don't take women”. We then made a great advance where chambers would say, “Women? We've got one”. We now have one woman in the Supreme Court. That has been the situation for seven years. It is not good enough. What is being done? There are four wonderful women in the Court of Appeal. Why is not one of them, such as Dame Mary Arden, being promoted to our Supreme Court?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I understand that there are two imminent vacancies to the Supreme Court. I am sure that everyone will be watching as to what happens with those appointments. The noble Baroness touches on another point. The professions themselves— the Bar, the Bar Council, the Law Society and their members—should show leadership in encouraging more women into the legal profession.

[Baroness Prashar]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the establishment of the Judicial Appointments Commission acted like a litmus paper in highlighting the barriers which impede progress in this area? Does he further agree that more concerted action is needed by the Ministry of Justice, the judiciary and the professions in order to make a difference?

[Lord McNally]

I most certainly agree with the noble Baroness and I pay tribute to her contribution to making the Judicial Appointments Commission so valuable. I recently met the new chairman, Mr Christopher Stephens. As well as many other attributes, he is the son of a former Clerk of the Parliaments, which should reassure this House.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

My Lords, while giving every welcome to the much needed improvements in diversity over recent years, will the Minister ensure that, in the pursuit of these very proper and important aims, quality and merit will never be sacrificed by those who are responsible for appointments? Further, does the Minister agree that all these aims, including quality and merit, should apply to those who are responsible for the appointment of Queen’s Counsel as well?

[Lord McNally]

I hear what the noble and learned Lord said. I can only say that 30 years ago when I was in government in the Foreign Office, women advisers were a rarity at any meeting. Returning to government 30 years later, I quite often sit in meetings where the majority of my advisers are able and talented women. I wonder why the legal profession has not made the same progress in the past 30 years as has been made in public appointments. I suspect that, perhaps not intentionally, the idea of quality and suitability is embedded in the thought “people like us”.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

Does the noble Lord agree that the previous question implied that women and ethnic minorities possibly do not have the merit or the suitable qualifications, which should not be allowed to stand? Will he tell the House whether the judicial appointments review will set targets? If that other bastion of male privilege, the City of London, can have targets, is it not time that the senior judiciary did as well?

[Lord McNally]

I think that targetry would be the wrong approach but it is worth remembering the figures. Just over 20 per cent of our judges are women. Even in the magistracy under 8 per cent represent black and ethnic minorities. I understand selection on merit but there are still signs of old selection prejudices that produce these appalling figures. They have to be broken into.

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a deputy High Court judge of the Family Division. The noble Lord will know that that appointment was a very long time ago and that the opportunity to be a deputy is very important. Will the noble Lord tell me how many other ethnic minority women of some quality are now appointed in relation to the deputy’s role?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I do not have the figures here, but I will write to the noble and learned Baroness. Let me say this about quality. This is not an attack on our judiciary. One of my other responsibilities is as deputy to the Lord Chancellor in his international role. Time and time again, we find ourselves in areas where the judiciary is corrupt and the justice system deeply flawed. I pay tribute to the quality of our judiciary, but I must say that, when the figures show that it is 80 per cent male, we are wasting half our talent. Other professions have shown the ability to change. It is time for the legal profession to change as well.

Inflation

Thursday 17th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

11:15

Asked By

[Lord Barnett]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will clarify the comments made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Governor of the Bank of England in his letter of 15 February on inflation targets.

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)]

My Lords, consistent with the Monetary Policy Committee remit, the governor is required to write to the Chancellor if inflation deviates from the target of 2 per cent as measured by the 12-month increase in the consumer prices index by more than one percentage point. In his response to the governor, the Chancellor noted the Monetary Policy Committee’s assessment of inflation prospects relative to the inflation target and welcomed the committee’s determination to ensure that inflation returns to target in the medium term.

[Lord Barnett]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on the variety of ways that he finds not to answer a question. There are only two answers to the big issue on interest rates: whether or not you agree that they should go up. The Chancellor, in reply to the Governor of the Bank of England, who had said that increasing interest rates would be a futile gesture at the moment, said that he had “complete confidence” in the governor. In those circumstances, and given that this Government are the most transparent in history, can the Minister tell us the Chancellor’s view? Is he for or against an increase in interest rates?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, first, I am grateful for the congratulations, however backhanded, offered by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and I will bank them. We are discussing the letter from my right honourable friend the Chancellor to the governor. In that letter, as I attempted to explain in my first Answer, he does not express any view about interest rates because, as the noble Lord well knows, the setting of interest rates is an independent matter for the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. I am sorry if I have to be boring about this, but there seems to be some misunderstanding. It is absolutely not for the Chancellor to express any view on this matter. What he does, as the noble Lord recognises, is to express confidence in the governor and the MPC structure and to support their independence.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the Chancellor’s letter, which is suitably bland and opaque, contains an intriguing suggestion. It says that the Government are committed to reducing the drivers of inflation, including,

“demand for energy and supply constraints in food markets”.

Can the Minister say what the Government are doing on those two matters?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for recognising that the Chancellor’s letter was indeed couched in suitable terms. What my right honourable friend said on these points related specifically to commodity markets with our G20 partners—this is a particular focus of the G20 presidency, now with the French—to make sure that we have some global understanding of the drivers and an analysis of what might follow from that.

[Lord Peston]

My Lords—

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

This side!

[Lord Peston]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the problem is that the only instrument available to the MPC is the interest rate? The present rise in price levels is externally driven, which an increase in the interest rate can influence only by strengthening sterling. That would shift demand away from British markets to overseas markets and totally undermine the Government’s strategy. We know that the rules are that the Chancellor cannot say any of that, for obvious reasons, but is the Minister aware that three members of the MPC voted for a rise in interest rates, each one of whom is supposedly an economist? I do not know whether that is a source of enormous embarrassment to the Chancellor, but it certainly is to me.

[Lord Sassoon]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, as ever, for his insights and for pointing out that he did not expect the Chancellor to answer the question that was posed. Therefore, by extension, he would not expect me to do so. There are a number of very serious points here, the most important of which for the Government is that we need to stick to our fiscal policies as they were set out in the Budget and the spending plans last year. Only yesterday, the OECD endorsed the Government’s fiscal consolidation plans and structural reforms, pointing out that, in its view, this rebalancing was necessary for stronger growth. That is what we must stick to as a background against which the independent MPC is best able to make its interest rate decisions.

Sex Offenders Register

Thursday 17th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

11:21

Asked By

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the statement repeated by Baroness Neville-Jones on 16 February (HL Deb, cols. 714–15) on the sex offenders register, to what extent the statement took account of ministers’ duty to uphold the independence of the judiciary under section 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, Ministers are fully mindful of their duty under the Act. HMG took account of their duty to uphold the independence of the judiciary by taking steps to remedy the incompatibility identified by the court.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. It is clearly right that we do everything we can to protect the public from sex offenders, but does she accept that the Home Secretary went too far when she described an eminently reasonable judgment of the Supreme Court as appalling? Has her right honourable friend the Home Secretary been reprimanded by the Lord Chancellor and, if not, why not?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I should like to make two points in response to that. First, there was real public anxiety about some of the potential consequences of the judgment, which was being reflected by the Government. The Government have taken appropriate action to meet the court’s judgment and to protect the public interest. Secondly, the Lord Chancellor has no doubt spoken to his colleagues.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure for us on the Cross Benches when the pot calls the kettle black. No doubt the Minister will recall that it was a Labour Home Secretary, Mr Blunkett, who wrote in the Evening Standard that he would not give in to the judges. Would the Minister therefore suggest to her right honourable friend that she would do better to follow the line taken by another Labour Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, who, when asked to comment on an adverse court decision, of which there were a great many, would only ever say that he was disappointed?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, it is not a question of giving in to the courts; it is undoubtedly a question of the proper implementation of court judgments and the role of Parliament in making legislation.

[Lord Howard of Lympne]

My Lords, we all respect the independence of the judiciary, but does not this case illustrate one of the difficulties caused by the Human Rights Act, which requires judges to go beyond their traditional role of interpreting the will of Parliament and to substitute their own views on proportionality? Is it not that which justifies the concerns of those of us who believe that these matters should be decided by Parliament?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I am sure that the whole House recognises the importance of proportionality and it will note the important point that has just been made.

[Lord Corbett of Castle Vale]

In light of the decision of the court on the right of sex offenders to be able to appeal against their place on the register after 15 years, why did the Government come to the view that it was right to exclude a mental health tribunal or any other judicial body from that review process? It is fatuous for the Minister to say, as she did, that a policeman—she meant a police officer, I am sure—will know far more about the person whom he has been supervising than anyone else. Does she not realise that police officers, like offenders, move around? We cannot expect police officers to be as independent as professional and experienced people. A police officer can have a role in going to a tribunal to put a point of view. Will she think again about this?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the Government do not accept that the procedure being proposed is fatuous. Police officers concerned have a much better idea than many others about the nature of the conduct of the defendant, both in prison and later, and they are appropriate people to take a view on this. Moreover, they will do so in consultation with other agencies, as the MAPPA process, in which other specialists will be involved, will be taken into account.

[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven]

Does the Minister acknowledge that there is great disappointment on these Benches too at the tone of the Home Secretary’s Statement and that we had hoped that that sort of language had been left behind by the coalition Government. Can she explain how the Prime Minister’s statement in connection with the same case, that the Government would do the “minimum necessary” to comply with a judgment of the United Kingdom Supreme Court, was calculated to encourage respect for the rule of law?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I think that the Government should be judged by their actions. In this instance, they have put forward a reasonable, proportionate and effective proposal to meet the judgment of the court.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, would the noble Baroness not agree that the making of judgments, not just about matters of proportionality but also about reasonableness, is an inherent part of the judicial process, which is not just a matter of mechanistically interpreting the law?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I am sure that the Government and the House would agree with that sentiment.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is right that the judge’s ruling should be observed by the Government and that they should take steps to implement such rulings which are in accordance with our present law? There is no question of the judges usurping the responsibilities of Parliament because of the way in which the Human Rights Act is framed, but we have an obligation, as a matter of treaty and convention, to obey the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The Government accept that the convention has to be observed and that the Act has to be interpreted and they will act on their duties under both.

Bahrain

Thursday 17th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

11:28

Asked By

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the political situation in Bahrain.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, the Government are gravely concerned about the deteriorating security situation in Bahrain and are monitoring the situation closely. The Prime Minister spoke by telephone to King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa on 15 March and called on him to end the violent oppression of street protests in Bahrain. The Prime Minister said that it was vital that the Bahraini authorities responded through reform, not repression, and he called for restraint on all sides. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary reiterated those points when he spoke to the Bahraini Foreign Minister yesterday. The Government call on the authorities in Bahrain to respect the right to peaceful protest and to respond to the legitimate concerns of the Bahraini people. There must be open access to hospitals and medical care. The Government call on the protesters to refrain from violence and we urge them to respond positively to the offer of national dialogue.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

Does my noble friend accept that Britain has a special moral responsibility in the case of Bahrain, as it promised independence and constitutional government when it handed independence to Bahrain in 1971? Given the invitation from the Bahraini royal family for the Saudis to intervene, does my noble friend agree that this has eerie resonances of the Warsaw pact in 1956 and 1968 and, most recently, of Afghanistan in 1979? Does he intend calling in the Saudi ambassador and asking what the Saudis’ intentions are and when they expect to go back over the causeway to oppress their own people, which they seem to do rather well?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

With respect to my noble friend, the historical analogies can be overdone. The situation in Bahrain is different, as the king and the ruling authorities have sought dialogue, although it is perfectly true that this pattern does not seem to be working out at present. As to the position of Saudi Arabia, it is correct that Gulf security forces—I emphasise that it is not just Saudi but GCC forces, including a UAE deployment—have been deployed in Bahrain. We are of course concerned at the escalating situation and it is clearly vital the outside forces exercise the highest restraint and avoid violence. I am informed that the incoming forces are not involved in direct policing but are concerned with safeguarding installations. Dialogue and discussions with the Saudi Arabian ambassador are no doubt in hand and the Foreign Office will have close contact with him and other authorities.

[The Earl of Sandwich]

My Lords, is not the United Kingdom’s position somewhat compromised since we have not only been an ally of the Bahraini kingdom but supplied equipment to be used in riots and so forth? What is being done to review those exports?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

It is perfectly correct that we have regarded Bahrain as a friend. Indeed, the GCC forces, which include Bahraini forces, have a variety of equipment, some of which is of British origin. As the Trade Minister told your Lordships the other day, all export licences are considered on a case-by-case basis in the light of prevailing circumstances and, once approved, are kept under review. Every licence is scrutinised in the light of changing facts on the ground and if the situation in a country changes significantly, as is clearly happening not just in Bahrain but in other Middle Eastern countries, it is normal practice to review licences, as was done for Bahrain back in February. Of course there are dilemmas and difficulties, but we seek to support those aspects of the situation—in this case, national dialogue—that will bring stability and peace and minimise bloodshed.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, I am sure the House is very grateful to the noble Lord for giving us that update on the political situation in Bahrain. However, the Foreign Office is having to assess not only the political situation in Bahrain but the consular implications, given that we hear today that Britons are being advised to move out of Bahrain if they can. This is not the only crisis that the Foreign Office is dealing with, as there is the crisis in Japan—of which we are all acutely aware—and the crisis in Libya, too. We have three major crises, any of which would at one time be a huge burden on Foreign Office capacity. We have heard that there have been slip-ups over people going into Japan. I am not making an issue out of that but I am saying to the noble Lord that the Foreign Office is working all hours with this huge burden of three simultaneous crises. The noble Lord is a wise man and a very sensible man, and I do not say that in a back-handed way but because I think he is the most experienced head around the ministerial table. Will the noble Lord now ask his colleagues to look again at Foreign Office staffing, and in particular at the staffing for consular issues that arise out of such crises?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Baroness speaks from considerable experience and she offered, I think, some kind words—I am not quite sure how kind they were. She is absolutely right that these crises come not in ones and twos but in battalions. I actually make it that we are dealing with five major crises at the moment in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and this of course places a considerable strain on our extremely dedicated and hard-working staff. The question of support at the consular and other levels is under constant review. We believe that in the present situation—she has mentioned Japan, but there is also the Libyan problem, the Middle East generally and Bahrain, which we are talking about—we can cope with these matters efficiently and are doing so in terms of giving the right travel advice. For those who have been advised to get out of Bahrain, we are offering support for their travel and removal with charter flights. These things can be done. Occasionally there are, inevitably, some hiccups and problems, but we believe we are on top of the situation, and the question of staffing is under constant review.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, while welcoming the statement by the Prime Minister yesterday calling for reform and not repression, is it not a fact that we have spent years cosying up to the hereditary dictators in Bahrain, which makes it difficult for us to change our line to suit current circumstances? Is the noble Lord doing anything about the killing of six peaceful demonstrators yesterday, the importation of the foreign mercenaries and the re-arrest of six opposition leaders who have only just been released from weeks and weeks of illegal detention and torture?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I have considerable respect for my noble friend, who is constantly campaigning for human rights and justice in all these areas, as he is right to do, even among those with whom we have had good relations in the past. I think that “cosying up” is slightly the language of the media. We were dealing with a country which was at peace, was well administered and was supportive of dialogue and reform. There is no comparison at all with Gaddafi and his crazed approach in Libya, where there is a different situation.

However, my noble friend is also quite right that the arrests of political figures give us great concern. We do not want to see a reversion to the days when Bahrain routinely held political prisoners. We argued against that. The Government and the security forces must respect the civil rights of peaceful protestors, including the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. We make those points to those who have been our friends and we believe that, having had well intentioned relationships in the past, we can carry more influence. Of course, in the present situation we have to work hard to get that influence through.

Human Trafficking (Further Provisions and Support for Victims) Bill [HL]

Thursday 17th March 2011 Lords Chamber

First Reading

11:38

A Bill to make provision about human trafficking offences, measures to prevent and combat human trafficking and the provision of support for victims of human trafficking.

The Bill was introduced by Lord McColl of Dulwich, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Business of the House

Thursday 17th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Timing of Debates

11:38

Moved By

[Lord Strathclyde]

That the debates on the motions in the names of Baroness Williams of Crosby and Baroness Walmsley set down for today shall each be limited to two and a half hours.

Motion agreed.

Draft Detention of Terrorist Suspects (Temporary Extension) Bills

Thursday 17th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Membership Motion

11:38

Moved By

[The Chairman of Committees]

That the Commons message of 16 March be considered and that a Committee of six Lords members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Commons to consider and report on the draft Detention of Terrorist Suspects (Temporary Extension) Bills presented to both Houses on 11 February (Cm 8018) and that the Committee should report on the draft Bills by 9 June 2011;

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

L. Armstrong of Ilminster, L. Davies of Stamford, L. Faulks, L. Freeman, L. Goodhart, B. Liddell of Coatdyke;

That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;

That the reports of the Committee from time to time shall be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee shall, if the Committee so wishes, be published; and

That the Committee meet with the Committee appointed by the Commons on Monday 21 March at 4.00pm.

Motion agreed, and a message was sent to the Commons.

European Union Committee

Thursday 17th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Membership Motion

11:38

Moved By

[The Chairman of Committees]

That Lord Foulkes of Cumnock be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of Lord Liddle, resigned.

Motion agreed.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Thursday 17th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Order of Consideration Motion

11:39

Tabled By

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order: Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clause 2, Schedule 2, Clause 3, Schedule 3, Clause 4, Schedule 4, Clause 5, Schedule 5, Clause 6, Schedule 6, Clauses 7 to 28.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach on the Order Paper.

Motion agreed.

Financial Crime: Legislation

Thursday 17th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Debate

11:39

Moved By

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

To call attention to the United Kingdom’s record on legislation regarding bribery, tax avoidance, corruption and money laundering; and to move for papers.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, it could well be argued that corruption is perhaps the major single threat to good governance and to democracy in the world today. If we look just at the two countries that my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford has always been extremely concerned about, China and India, they each confront huge problems with corruption. In the case of China, extreme measures have been taken to try to deal with it including, in some cases, capital punishment. In India, to quote its report of last week, the Economist said on 12 March:

“Indians’ anger over rising corruption has reached feverish levels”.

It then refers to the $40 billion in revenues that seem to have been lost as a result of deals over telecommunications licences. These are huge issues for India and for China.

Here in this country, it is a long time since we passed serious legislation with regard to bribery and corruption; the last time we did was no later than 1916. One of the consequences is that in many ways our legislation is seriously out of date.

At Question Time we have just been discussing Bahrain. It is perhaps worth saying that one of the major factors in the uprisings throughout the Arab world has been resentment at the sense of widespread corruption and at the benefit that has gone to leaders, many of them not elected, in some cases saving substantial sums of money for themselves. It would be fair to say that we in this country can remember the argument about President Abacha of Nigeria, who salted away many billions of dollars that were then money-laundered through financial arrangements where in most cases the money was not recovered, in a country that desperately needed it.

Today in countries such as Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, huge sums of money appear to have passed out of the possession of their own populations and passed via money-laundering methods into private accounts of various kinds. The present UK Government have been assiduous in freezing some of those assets so that they can be recovered for the people of those countries; I give them due credit on that point. But there is much further to go. One has to say, quite honestly, that a number of our own banks have been profoundly involved in money-laundering activities, at least in the past, that have hidden money coming not only from dictatorial rulers but from the pervasive effects of organised crime.

When we look at corruption today, we have to say right away that the issue requires two parties to it: the people who raise the money—the people who make the bribes—and the people who launder that money at the end of the day. In that respect the Federation of Small Businesses, which has sent me a briefing note, says that it is important that the UK maintains its reputation as a sound and ethical centre in which to do business. I cannot echo that too strongly.

The domestic record of our own country has always been regarded internationally as good. The United Kingdom has been thought to be a relatively incorrupt country. However, we would be less than blunt and honest if we did not admit that our domestic reputation had been substantially damaged by the parliamentary expenses scandal. People may say that it was exaggerated but the huge media coverage that it got, not just in this country but throughout the world, undoubtedly damaged the otherwise high reputation of the UK for domestic non-corruption. It is also the case that the issue of phone-hacking, although very separate, has done some damage to the sense that the UK is free of criminal activity in the way that it conducts its business and its public discussion.

Our international record, however, is bad and getting worse. Some of my colleagues will talk about the way in which Britain’s standing on the index of corruption has dropped dramatically over the past few years. I will not pursue that now beyond saying that our international record has been damaged, particularly since the decision not to continue with the investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into BAE’s relations with Saudi Arabia. The investigation was dismissed by the then Prime Minister on the grounds that it might assist terrorism and dry up sources of intelligence, but nevertheless it did a great deal of damage to the reputation of British business. The Serious Fraud Office is even now pursuing the fallout from that discussion in South Africa and elsewhere, with strong indications that corrupt practices on the part of a major British company were involved.

More recently still there has been a great deal of discussion and controversy over the role of the United Kingdom on the bribery convention. I shall again be very frank. I declare a past interest as for some years I was one of the OECD’s advisers on employment policy, during which time I discovered a lot about its concerns. One of the major concerns of the so-called financial affairs task force, headed by a very distinguished Swiss professor, Monsieur Pieth, was to apply continual pressure on OECD members to sign bribery conventions. Its first major argument was with Japan, which finally signed a bribery convention after many years of delay. That left only one country that had not done so—the United Kingdom. For 13 years we were pressed to draw up anti-bribery legislation and all that time we somehow managed to escape doing so. The previous Labour Government, at the end of their period of office, brought forward bribery legislation, with the strong support of all parties in both Houses of Parliament. There can be no argument that this was seen to be a divisive matter.

The bribery convention came about after years of pressure, particularly on the part of the United States, which passed an extremely fierce piece of bribery legislation, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. In the 1980s, the reputation of the United States was poor. It was deeply involved in corrupt practices. In the 1990s, it became aware of that and passed powerful legislation. The United States then became a pioneer—a beacon, if you like—in the battle against international corruption, and pressed the other countries of the OECD in this regard, as I have already described. However, it did more than that. The United States Justice Department is extremely powerful, very determined and has brought one British company after another to book. Fines of up to £250 million have been levied on BAE alone, to take one example only. There are many other examples where the long arm of the Justice Department has reached out across borders to bring to justice any company that has a UK presence but operates internationally.

We are now a signatory to the bribery convention. Good legislation was brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and others at the end of the Labour Government’s period of office. However, that does not wholly excuse them from the very long delays and the desperate attempts to stop this matter being advanced. But now, with the coalition Government, we have a further problem. The terms of the bribery convention have been met and the legislation has been drafted, approved and passed in Parliament, but now we are told that there will be a delay in implementation. I cannot say too strongly how troubling that is from the point of view of those who do not wish the UK well and will use this as a reason for saying that once again we are trying to avoid the legislation that now applies to all the other OECD nation states.

I wish to say a word or two about this delay. Apparently, there has been strong pressure from business to produce guidelines that will deal with any ambiguities in the Act of Parliament. That may be said to be fair enough: business needs to know where it stands. On the other hand, it must be said that to try to escape the effects of the bribery convention is deeply damaging to British business as it suggests that our business and trade depend on special deals, often with very dodgy regimes indeed. We have to get away from using facilitation payments and all other forms of bribery in order to do our business. It will not serve us in the long term and, I repeat, it will do huge damage to developing countries with which we are closely associated and where our bribery equals their corruption.

I will say just a word or two about where we are. I wonder very much about the pressures brought to bear by a mysterious and little-known body called the MNCG—the Multinational Chairman’s Group. This is a group of chairmen of British multinational companies, including some of the finest names in British business. That body appears to have been keen to try to soften the impact of the Bribery Act on business. I strongly urge the group to look again at that. These are great companies with great reputations and, in the end, it cannot be in their interests to be seen to be in any way supportive of bribery.

All that will turn on two things: timing and implementation. On timing, we may well have a month or two of grace, because the Government have indicated that they will again discuss guidance and then issue it, probably within two or three months. I might say gently to the House that there have now been no fewer than 11 consultative periods about bribery, and that would seem to be sufficient, even for an audience as articulate and discussant as Members of the two Houses of the British Parliament. Surely after 11 consultations we are close to what we need.

On implementation, I want to ask the Minister, my noble friend Lord Sassoon, if he can tell us more about who is responsible for implementation. The Serious Fraud Office has begun to be an effective arm of British government—much more effective than it used to be. Its director, Richard Alderman, has said in so many words, in a letter to the Secretary of State for Justice, Kenneth Clarke, that he has real concerns about further delays and that this will not stand the United Kingdom in good stead. He was supported by one of the most distinguished Members of this House, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, who said that we could not argue for delay for very much longer. He said that in clear terms a few weeks ago.

Those are the questions. What will be the implementing body? Will it be the Home Office, the SFO or some combination of the two? How aware are they of the significance and importance of doing what they are doing at a decent and rapid pace? Finally, there is the issue of the precise date by which the Minister hopes we will have completed the process of consulting over guidance, to bring this long-required legislation to book and make it operate.

I conclude where I began. Corruption throughout much of the developing world cannot work for very long without the silent co-operation of money launderers, banks and many others. The system of so-called suspicious activities reports has been very effective in beginning to limit money-laundering—much of it the laundering of terrorist money, some of it drug money, all of it bad money. I plead with the Government to take this issue now to its conclusion, so that we can stand up and be counted among those who find corruption and bribery utterly unacceptable forms of behaviour in a free and modern business world.

11:53

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to be the first to congratulate my noble friend on her extremely and expectedly impressive speech. She has given us the grand sweep, as I would have expected. I am afraid that I will take a slightly different tack. I will give a worm’s-eye view. Before I adopt the position of the worm, I need to declare some interests, because I am a director of, and am involved with, companies that export goods and services around the world. I am anxious about some of the practical implications of the Bribery Act and the money-laundering regulations. However, I shall focus on the bribery ambiguities to which my noble friend referred a few minutes ago.

To cut to the chase, I urge my noble friend the Minister, who was for a number of years our distinguished representative on the Financial Action Task Force, to hold his nerve, continue with the period of consultation and extend it if necessary, because it is absolutely vital that we get the guidance right, particularly in respect of small and medium-sized businesses, which are not surrounded by armies of lawyers and advisers to provide them with comfort.

I do not want my noble friend to think that I am soft on bribery. It corrupts the recipient and also the giver. In my experience, firms that are slack about oversees payments are often slack about internal procedures such as management expenses, and sometimes confuse what is the company's—the shareholders’—money and what is the management’s. But—and this is a very big but—the Bribery Act poses considerable challenges for UK-based small and medium-sized companies. The crux of the problem is Section 7, which creates the new offence of failure to prevent bribery and is linked to Section 8, which defines “associated person” very widely.

I will give the House an example. I am afraid that it is detailed, but it is the only way to explain the practicalities we face on the ground, where they do not seem as easy as they do in the calm and rarefied atmosphere of your Lordships' House. The company I have in mind is a mid-sized one. It has a good product and it sells well abroad. It is growing and is increasing its employment in the United Kingdom. In short, it is just the sort of company that politicians of all political parties wish to encourage. One of our export markets, which is not yet large but is growing, requires us to pay a transport tax. We pay that through our agent. I am afraid that it is not a tax in the conventional sense. It is a payment to customs officials and to transport union officials to ensure prompt and timely delivery of our goods. We know that our continental European competitors also pay it.

We are advised that when the Act comes into force, the transport tax will constitute a bribe. We do not know whether any comparable legislation will affect our continental competitors; we think probably not. My noble friend referred to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in the United States. We know that they will get round this because that Act has a specific carve-out for “facilitation payments”, of which this transport tax would be one. Noble Lords may cite proportionality and ask what UK Government would pursue a minor payment of this nature. Quite so—but one Government might one day do it, and the prospect of 10 years in jail and an unlimited fine concentrates the mind.

However, our major concern lies in a quite different direction. In this market, our major competitor is local and does not pay the transport tax. He ships direct from his factory to the customer. We are advised that there is a considerable risk that this competitor, who will be aware of the transport tax, will make an official complaint to his Government that a UK company has been bribing individuals under the terms of the Bribery Act, and the UK Government will be asked to undertake a prosecution. Who knows what will happen then? My noble friend Lady Williams talked about ambiguities. There are many more like this. They are the sort of practical issues on which our legal advisers will need guidance before they in turn can advise us.

I will make one thing clear. If the guidance does not give us sufficient comfort, we shall withdraw from the market, and from others where we face similar challenges. We will leave them to our competitors. Exporting is hard enough work without risking the very grave penalties that this Act carries with it. Therefore, although we all, understandably and rightly, work ourselves into an indignant frame of mind on what I appreciate is a very important topic, please may we not forget my little company, and thousands like it, which are concerned with how to meet the requirements of the Bribery Act while dealing with the complex and varied demands of customers and social systems in highly competitive markets across the world.

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, “Dictum meum pactum”—“My word is my bond”—has been the motto of the London Stock Exchange since 1801. It embodies an important statement about the role of trust in the operation of markets—not just financial markets but the capitalist economy in general. Trust is a fundamental component of the operation of any successful capital economy. In the absence of trust—trust in the financial system; trust in the rule of law; trust in the ultimate fairness of economic and social organisation—the efficient operation of a market economy is seriously compromised.

The importance of today’s debate does not rest on the specifics of legislation on bribery, tax avoidance, corruption and money-laundering. After all, all these activities have a very different legal status. Bribery is not yet illegal in the manner that Parliament intends, and the Minister must explain why the declared will of Parliament is being frustrated by the Government’s persistent delay in introducing the Bribery Act. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, should recall that just the same sort of fears as those that he expressed preceded the introduction of anti-insider trading legislation.

Tax avoidance is not illegal—that would be evasion—but it is clearly undesirable, and I applaud the Government’s request to Graham Aaronson to lead a study as to whether to establish a general anti-avoidance rule.

Corruption is in principle illegal but in practice not as illegal as it should be. For example, the Dodd-Frank Act that reforms US financial regulation also requires US-listed companies involved in extractive industries anywhere in the world to report all payments that they make to Governments project by project and country by country. Those that fail to do so will be excluded from US capital markets. Will the Minster tell us whether the Government would support a similar law here, and will the Government legislate to ensure that reporting failures identified in US legislation, whether at home or abroad, result in exclusion from the London financial markets as well?

Money-laundering is illegal, principally because its very definition relates to criminal or terrorist activities. What unites all these activities, legal and illegal, is that they destroy justice and fairness, and, by destroying trust, they weaken both our society and our economy. Particularly today, when the many are suffering from the greed and folly of the few, restoring trust should be at the very heart of the Government’s legislative programme.

A persistent argument—we have just heard it again—against legislation in all these areas, with the possible exception of money-laundering, although perhaps not, is that an honest economic environment will be an uncompetitive one: contracts will be lost to the foreign firm willing and able to grease a sufficient number of palms. It would be a serious error to fall into the trap of the “Everyone’s doing it, therefore so must we” argument. Condoning illegality, dishonesty or even just sharp practice is no foundation for building a strong economy or a vibrant international financial centre.

Indeed, one characteristic of the British economy which is an unambiguous success story is the recent history of financial innovation. However, Britain’s success has a dark underbelly. The very innovation that has multiplied the volume and sophistication of financial transactions has also multiplied the opportunities for money-laundering and tax evasion. A significant proportion of all financial innovation is driven not by the demands of economic efficiency but by the desire to avoid taxes and/or the strictures of financial regulation. In such an environment, bribery and corruption follow not far behind.

As a world financial centre, the UK has a peculiar responsibility to maintain the highest standards of transparency and accountability, and to have the very strictest legislation covering financial transactions and taxation. The world of finance cannot operate without trust. Lose trust and London is finished.

If a general anti-avoidance rule is to be effective in limiting tax avoidance, then fundamental structural reforms are required to the tax system. Complexity and obscurity in taxation are the mother and father of tax avoidance; simplicity and clarity are the enemies of the cheats; and because even simplification will not eliminate avoidance, in the interests of fairness and trust there should be a minimum tax—a rate that no accounting artifice can reduce.

We must not be complacent. Ten years ago Transparency International’s corruption index ranked Britain tenth among the countries of the world, with Finland and Denmark being the least corrupt. In 2010, Denmark was still ranked least corrupt—Finland had slipped to fourth—and our ranking had plummeted to twentieth. The abuse of economic power undermines the economy and destroys trust, and it destroys Britain’s reputation as an international financial and trading centre. Practices that are unfair divide and weaken. That is why effective legislation to tackle bribery, tax avoidance, corruption and money-laundering is of far greater value than the monetary value of the offence. It is also why the Government’s failure to implement the Bribery Act is doing so much damage to Britain’s economy and reputation around the world.

12:06

[Lord Goodhart]

My Lords, we in the United Kingdom have been painfully slow in penalising businesses that bribe. The main legislation is out of date, with Acts passed in 1889, 1906 and 1916. After a slow process of reports and consultations, starting in 1998, the previous Government published a draft Bill in 2009, which they referred to pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee. I was a member of that committee, and we worked very hard at that.

In general the draft was good, but one part of it was seriously defective. Under the law as it existed then—and indeed as it will exist until the Bribery Act is brought into force—a company could be prosecuted only if a senior officer of the company who was its controlling mind was him or herself personally responsible for the bribery. This was somewhat strengthened in the original version of the draft Bill by the liability of a responsible officer of the company who personally is negligent and fails to prevent the bribery. However, it became apparent to the Joint Committee that that was also inadequate. What was needed, in our view, was that a company should be liable for bribery committed on its behalf unless it could prove that it had in place adequate procedures to prevent bribery. That was accepted by the Joint Committee and by Parliament and now appears as Sections 7 and 8 of the Act. However, we accepted that the Secretary of State should provide guidance about what procedure should be treated as adequate, and that appears in Section 9 of the Act.

The Bribery Act received Royal Assent on 8 April 2010, nearly a year ago. The House of Lords Library has produced a very useful note about the Bribery Act. It reports complaints about possible damage to British companies through being denied the ability to do dubious things which some competitors might be allowed to do. That is the attitude taken by my noble friend Lord Hodgson—that nothing must be done as long as competitors are allowed to do it. I do not agree that that is a serious argument. It is proposing that the United Kingdom should enforce only the lowest common denominator of restrictions on bribery. But that is no defence. We will never cut back on bribery unless we are prepared to put ourselves alongside the countries that lead on the prevention of bribery and not with countries that drag along behind.

As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, just said, we are steadily sliding down the anti-corruption list published by Transparency International, which I should say is an organisation of which I am a member. Up to four years ago, we were far better than we are now. On bribery, we are behind the United States, and also outside Germany and France—yes, France. We will remain there until the Government provide proper guidance with sufficient strength and then bring it into effect.

The Library note also shows comments criticising the delays in implementing the Act. I shall read the statement made here by Mark Peith, to whom my noble friend Lady Williams referred. He said, on behalf of the OECD, where he was head of the working group:

“It is very disappointing that despite public commitments, the UK will further delay this important Act to tackle bribery and corruption … Establishing a level playing field for international business is as important now as ever and will help strengthen the global economic recovery. As a G20 country, the UK bears a special global responsibility and should lead by example”.

It must give that example.

I remember one evening some five or six years ago when I was working at my desk upstairs in this building at about 6 pm on a Thursday evening, when most Members had gone home. The Annunciator came up unexpectedly with an announcement that the Attorney-General, then the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, would shortly make a Statement. Out of curiosity, I went down to the Chamber to hear it. What I heard was that the director of the Serious Fraud Office had, plainly under pressure from the Prime Minister, decided to cancel the bribery investigation against BAE. I never want to hear anything like that again. I left the House on that evening with a feeling of shame.

12:11

[Baroness Wheatcroft]

My Lords, I know that I risk upsetting the sensibilities of some noble Lords when I say that I am glad that the Bribery Act has not yet been implemented. This is not because I take a cavalier attitude towards corruption, but because it is only fair to British business that the Act should not yet be in force. I do not suspect that our companies are all involved in shady practices and that they should be allowed to continue in that vein for as long as they can get away with it. On the contrary, I have sufficient faith in British business to believe that it can win contracts without resorting to buying them in one way or another. My qualms about the implementation of the Act coincide with those voiced so admirably by my noble friend Lord Hodgson.

I have listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has to say, and I cannot agree with him completely. To be critical of the Bribery Act is not to condone the payment of massive bungs to corrupt dictators and their chums, nor even to go along with expensive gifts being lavished on minor officials in the hope of winning their good will. It is merely to say that business, like life, has nuances that need to be understood. Yet the business world has been very slow to raise its voice publicly to query any aspect of the Act. It knows, as I do, that to question any aspect of this legislation is to risk being branded as somebody who condones crookery, as if one is either in favour of the Act or in favour of bribery—and this, of course, is nonsense. We need to remember that we are in complicated territory here, where perceptions differ.

In 1997, as noble Lords will surely recall, Formula 1 racing in the shape of Bernie Ecclestone wrote a cheque for £1 million and subsequently found that plans to ban Formula 1 from tobacco advertising, so important to its finances, had been put on hold. Naturally, there was no connection between the two occurrences. The then Prime Minister was appalled that anyone should think there might be. He was, as noble Lords will remember, a pretty straight sort of guy. Others saw things differently. As I say, we are in complicated territory. I found it as dispiriting as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, when the SFO inquiry into BAE was dropped; I think that it was that pretty straight sort of guy who was involved there, too.

The Bribery Act as drafted would subject business to a more draconian regime than even that of the United States. What is more, it attempts to throw its net over companies that are not even headquartered in the UK but do business here. A company that is based in Russia, with some link to the UK and doing business in Kazakhstan, for instance, could find its activities there making its directors guilty of breaking UK law. That would be quite a challenge for UK prosecutors. It seems that the impossibility of stretching the arms of British law quite so far have now been recognised and that reassurances are being given that a mere listing on the London Stock Exchange does not bring a company within the ambit of the Act. Look at the motley collection of overseas companies that now make up a large proportion of the FTSE 100 and you will understand why this point had to be clarified.

The previous Government were absolutely justified in their efforts to prevent potentates being paid large sums in exchange for contracts, but this Act goes too far. Not only does it risk disadvantaging British business, but it puts those who are striving to win much needed work for British people in the appalling position of not knowing what will or will not be considered legitimate business practice. Until we have clear guidance on matters such as facilitation payments and hospitality, this Act should not be implemented. Surely any facilitation payments are outlawed under the Bribery Act, despite them being allowed, as we have heard, even under the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. In parts of the world, a small sum ensures that goods or documents move from A to B. Presiding Governments condone that situation; it is part of the prevailing culture. We might wish that situation to change, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, does, but for Britain to say no when the rest of the world says yes is commercial madness. One leading UK company doing business in Colombia decided that it had better stop paying the minor payments that it made. The result was that every one of its vans was impounded and its drivers imprisoned. We have to move carefully on this, just as we do on hospitality.

Another issue is the fact that government has to set the lead in conduct rather than just in legislation. It is imperative that UK Trade and Investment and its special representative should be models of complete probity as they attempt to drum up business for Britain. Their aims are admirable, but there is widespread disquiet about some of the relationships that have arisen. This will not stop. Surely it is time for change. Some noble Lords have expressed concern about the reputation of British business abroad in the absence of implementation of the Bribery Act, but I fear that questions over UKTI might do at least as much damage, if not more.

[Lord Blair of Boughton]

My Lords, I spent much of the autumn teaching senior police officers in India. We explained the Bribery Act to them. They told me—

[Noble Lords]

Order. There is a speakers list.

[Lord Blair of Boughton]

I apologise to the House. I misunderstood.

12:18

[Lord McFall of Alcluith]

I thank the noble Lord. First, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on such a timely and important debate on tax avoidance and fraud. I will draw attention to the importance of the debate in the context of the outlook for public finances.

There is a consensus across the House on the need to address the deficit and to make cuts. We realise that this adjustment will be painful and that the people who bear the brunt of it will not be the ones who caused the crisis but ordinary working people. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimated that half a million jobs would be lost in the public sector as a result of the cuts, and PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated that another half a million jobs would be lost as a result of private sector cuts.

Today, youth unemployment is at its highest level since 1992. At the end of last year, unemployment for those under 25 rose above 20 per cent, compared with less than 8 per cent for the general population. Youth unemployment in Germany is just 8.6 per cent at the moment, and 7.3 per cent for the general population. On top of this, working people and the vulnerable in society will be hit by cuts in their benefits and their public services, with job losses in the police, the NHS and schools already being reported. The background to this is the issue of fairness. When Amartya Sen spoke to the Treasury Committee a few years ago, he said that the link between effort and reward is how people understand a process to be fair. The word “fairness” needs to crop up continuously in our debate.

There is a concern that tax evasion is a growing problem. The current tax gap is £52 billion, according to the latest data from the Association of Revenue and Customs. That is nearly 9 per cent of the UK’s net tax revenue forecast for 2011-12. It also appears to be rising, with the latest estimate for 2008-09 showing a rise of £4 billion compared with the previous year. With that, the number of successful prosecutions by HMRC also declined by 41 per cent between 2007 and 2009. It is imperative that HMRC has the resources it needs to close that tax gap. I welcome the £917 million that the Government have pledged over the spending review period to tackle tax evasion, which aims to bring in an extra £7 billion of tax revenue. That is a recognition by the Government that investing in dedicated compliance staff at HMRC will save the taxpayer money by closing the tax gap.

The Public and Commercial Services Union, representing HMRC staff, estimates that an average member of staff dedicated to tax compliance yields £640,000 in tax revenue, net of staff costs. However, this extra funding could be more than cancelled out by cuts of £3 billion to HMRC’s budget over the same period, which could mean a loss of 10,000 staff. This also comes after efficiency savings at HMRC equivalent to 25 per cent of its budget, which has seen staffing levels fall by more than 25,000, and 200 of its offices closed since 2004. If efficiency savings mean anything they must surely mean saving money and not, in the long run, costing money. I feel that currently there is a falseness about the process.

This is also about the engagement with staff. During my chairmanship of the Treasury Committee in the other place we found that there had been a high turnover of staff in the organisation and that there was low morale among many employees. At the end of my tenure the committee was concerned that the merger of the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise had had a knock-on effect on performance, and we were deeply concerned about employee engagement at HMRC. The current Treasury Committee has undertaken an inquiry into the performance of HMRC. In its evidence, the Chartered Institute of Taxation raised concerns about whether HMRC will be able to deliver the Government’s aim on tax compliance. The head of taxation at the Association of Chartered and Certified Accountants told the committee:

“Most people are compliant … [and] try to pay the right amount of tax at the right time”.

He went on to say that it is,

“probably the only thing that has been getting through the current problems ... It is the only reason why the Exchequer is still getting tax paid at the right time and roughly the right amounts”.

There is therefore a lot to concern us about the present situation with HMRC.

I want also to talk about offshore financial centres, because we must focus on those in ensuring that we close the tax gap. Tax havens have not only been used to avoid taxation: during the run-up to the financial crisis they helped bring about the explosion in securitisation in the financial sector. Many of us became aware of that at the time of the run on Northern Rock, when we learnt that the bank had a very large financial vehicle in Jersey. From there, Northern Rock issued securities which made up for 50 per cent of its funding. The need to re-engage with offshore financial centres is important. As my noble friend said, this issue is set against a background of trust and confidence in the system. If we do not maintain the integrity of London as a financial centre, which we all want, we will all lose in the long run.

12:24

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, the issue that caused the most grief and anguish during the passage of the Bribery Act 2010, as it still does, was the scope of the statutory defence of adequate procedures contained in Section 7(2). Section 7(1) provides that a commercial organisation is guilty of an offence if a person associated with it bribes another person to gain an advantage in a commercial transaction. It was a deliberately wide net, bounded only by the need to demonstrate that the organisation is carrying on a business, whether it is an incorporated body or a partnership formed in this country, wherever in the world it carries on its business, or a foreign company or partnership carrying on business in the United Kingdom.

Attempts were made during the passage of the Bill to insert a requirement that the prosecution must prove that the organisation has, through its responsible managers, acted negligently. However, bribery, or the absence of any objection to bribery, is more often due to the slackness of the company, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, pointed out, than to significant negligence that can be tied to specific directors or managers. Negligence by any individual director or manager is a heavy burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt, so there would be no convictions. Another amendment was proposed for the prosecution to prove that the organisation did not have in place adequate procedures to prevent bribery, but that was an impossible burden to place on the prosecution, as it would require it to delve into the files of the company in question.

The Government rightly rejected those suggestions and produced a strict liability offence subject only to the statutory defence contained in Section 7(2), the defence of adequate procedures. The burden is on the organisation to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that adequate procedures are in place. What are adequate procedures? I and others, both in the Joint Committee and in the Chamber, attempted to tie the previous Government down to a working definition of the concept of adequate procedures, but that proved impossible. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said in Hansard on 2 February last year that it was for the courts alone to determine in a specific case whether the procedures had been adequate, leaving the matter completely up in the air.

I suggested that a commercial organisation ought to be able to obtain specific advice from the Department for Business about the adequacy of its procedures to prevent bribery, or, if it proposed to trade in a new area or foreign jurisdiction, that it could get advice on facilitation, grease payments or entertainment. What is improper performance? Should the meaning be governed by the standards of the country with which the organisation is dealing or by the stringent standards of a British jury?

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in the United States provides that a rebuttable assumption will arise that a person acting in accordance with advice will not commit an offence. An advisory service in the Justice Department of the United States gives that advice. In Hong Kong, the Independent Commission Against Corruption, which has brought Hong Kong to number three in the Transparency International scale, stamped out corruption. As part of its organisation, it has the Hong Kong Ethics Development Centre, which offers a full range of consultancy services on corporate ethics. To date, it has advised more than 3,000 private companies and businesses. The ICAC, with which I have some connection, cannot believe how few charges of corruption have been brought in the United Kingdom as compared with its case load. It is satisfied that its advisory service works well.

Unfortunately, it was thought to be un-British to do that in this country when the Bill was going through Parliament. Clearly, the advice of a government department could not pre-empt the decision of prosecuting authorities to prosecute, nor could it be a complete defence, but it could provide an important piece of evidence in support of a defence of adequate procedures under Section 7(2).

The previous Government rejected that approach and preferred to rely on the guidance. We have already heard about the issuing of guidance. An industry then sprang into being. It reminds me of an evangelical Welsh preacher who spends two-thirds of his sermon convincing completely blameless people that they are sinners and will go to hell and then offers redemption in the last third. What has happened is that commercial lawyers are warning companies of dire consequences, saying that directors will go to prison. I am sure that that is why my noble friends Lord Hodgson and Lady Wheatcroft take the position that they do. Directors are being warned that they will go to hell if they are not prepared to pay for advice from commercial lawyers on current procedures. These lawyers are busy tailoring anti-bribery and corruption programmes appropriate for the size and risk profile of their clients. Therefore, instead of the state—the Government—giving advice to a firm, you have to go to very expensive lawyers and others to get that advice.

I have in front of me an anti-corruption and bribery conference brochure, which says:

“Attending this conference will allow you to answer the following questions … How far will the SFO go in prosecuting offences?”.

Who can know that?

“What is the meaning of ‘adequate procedures’?”

I have already given what the Government say and we are waiting for the guidelines.

“Will the Act be reviewed by the Government”?

Who knows? You will have to pay £600 individually to get this useless advice. That is the industry that has grown up and which, I am quite sure, has caused all the problems, the difficulties and the fears for my noble friend Lord Hodgson, just as that Welsh preacher induced fear in his congregation. I do not believe that you need these programmes. The Act is perfectly straightforward. The concepts are perfectly clear and common sense is required. The intensive lobbying that has been going on to delay the issue of these guidance notes and the implementation of the Act is wholly to be deplored.

12:31

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, in no year since the turn of the century have there been more than 25 successful prosecutions for bribery in England and Wales. Indeed, in 2005 there was only one. Those numbers are ludicrously small. Anyone who believes that the numbers reflect a standard of probity in British business that leaves little to be desired is suffering from an excess of complacency or an excess of naivety that leaves them blind to the reality. Those prosecutions were brought under the old legislation, which was principally passed in 1906 and 1889. Those statutes were plainly not fit for purpose. It is a mark of the lack of seriousness with which we have treated bribery, particularly bribery in a commercial context, that it has taken so long to replace legislation which is more than a century old and which produced such a limited response to serious criminal activity.

The OECD anti-bribery convention, to which we are now signatories, marked a milestone in international co-operation in stamping out bribery in international business. However, the UK’s response to its obligations under the convention has to date been mediocre at best. That should all have been set to change with the passage of the Bribery Act last year, yet this admirable legislation has not come into force and we are now entitled to be impatient. It was supposed to come into force last October. In September, a brief consultation on the proposed guidance was announced, which would last until November, with a view to commencement in April this year. The consultation paper had draft guidance annexed to it. In January, further delay was announced and further work on the guidance was said to be needed.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Justice says that we are back on track. He rightly says that corruption is bad for business and that we must be at the forefront of stamping it out, not only in the developing world but in international trade generally. That must mean that he completely rejects the argument that British businesses cannot compete with others that may be corrupt unless they, too, offer bribes. It is that argument that represents precisely the evil that the anti-bribery convention was designed to stamp out.

It is a pity that on occasions in recent months the CBI and the Multinational Chairman’s Group, to which my noble friend referred, have sounded close to rehearsing that argument in seeming to press for further delay and in their complaints about the implications of the Bill. That is the answer to the point powerfully and elegantly but, I suggest, wrongly advanced by my noble friends Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lady Wheatcroft. It is no good saying that it is acceptable for small companies to pay small bribes, perhaps disguised as something else such as the transport tax that was referred to, and that it is only large bribes that the Act should outlaw. We have to rely on our markets wanting to buy British goods and services because they are competitive on price and quality.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

I know that my noble friend has just six minutes, but it is a travesty of what my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft and I were saying to suggest that we were advocating small bribes. From the beginning, both of us have said that we are absolutely against bribery. It is the reality of the situation that we are asking the House to address.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, that is what was said, but the description of the transport tax being moneys paid to officials in small amounts to enable goods to be imported into those markets amounts to small bribes. I do not accept that they are acceptable. It is to be conceded by those who take our position that there may be a cost to that strict position, as my noble friends Lord Hodgson and Lady Wheatcroft point out. However, if it is a cost, it is a short-term cost, with the prize of a long-term business environment that is clean. The enforcement of the anti-bribery convention internationally and the Bribery Act in this country is a prize worth gaining.

The delay has been damaging to the reputation of this country and its business. As my noble friend Lady Williams explained, there is great anger with the United Kingdom in the United States and in the OECD. In the United States, the very strong legislation in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which is rigorously enforced by the SEC and other federal enforcement agencies, has brought about a complete change of approach. The United Kingdom’s performance has been seen as hopeless and the delay in passing the Act has been seen as worse than that.

Meanwhile, we have regular reminders of the extent of the problem. Noble Lords have referred to the British Aerospace scandal and, in particular, to the previous Government’s extraordinary decision to stop investigating the Al Yamamah contract for the sale of aircraft to Saudi Arabia. The emergence even now of further evidence, which was highlighted in the past few days by my right honourable friend Sir Menzies Campbell, of a $70 million payment in connection with the contract makes the point

We have recently had the MW Kellogg engineering case, with a £7 million settlement over a contract for a gas liquefaction plant in Nigeria after payment of more than £100 million in bribes by the parent company. We had the disgraceful Innospec case last year, where a British company had paid bribes of $17 million to secure sales in Indonesia of a highly toxic lead fuel additive that is banned in the UK and elsewhere, the bribes having been paid to prevent the chemical from also being banned in Indonesia.

The list goes on. The evil of corruption is a cancer in our international trading system. It must be removed. The anti-bribery convention and the Bribery Act are powerful instruments. In Richard Alderman we have an energetic and effective director of the SFO, but we need the Bribery Act to become law. The guidance is needed fast. It needs to show a commitment to thorough enforcement. It must not be said that it waters down the effect or the effectiveness of the Act. Only in that way can Britain’s damaged reputation for probity in international business be restored.

12:39

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords, I think I must have led a very sheltered life. I knocked around the developing world for some 20 years during which I was involved with both commercial companies and the Commonwealth Development Corporation. The corporation brought with it some really quite attractive money, risk capital as well as relatively low-interest loan capital, and a lot of technology. It operated in 53 countries in the developing world and we had around 450 investments. I shall come later to the more commercial aspects. I suppose we had a reputation for being incorruptible or something really unlikely like that, if I listen to the dark messages that are coming from my noble friends to my right. I was never on any occasion offered a bribe, and never asked for one, although I spent a great deal of time with people who lived at a much higher standard than I did myself, another point I shall come back to.

I turn first to the certainties of the Bribery Act. I do not understand the degree of uncertainty in the legislation, but what I do understand is that no one working for a company in the UK would wish to go to prison, so people have a reasonable case for saying, “Please may we be as certain as possible as to what an infringement of this Act would be”. I want to give two examples, but I have to admit that they are not from the immediate past. On two occasions I negotiated in countries where you were required by law to have a local agent. You could not operate in those countries unless you could show that you had an agency agreement, which was signed off by the government of the country.

In one case, the agreed fee was 2.5 per cent of any contract you got in that country. In the event, we won a contract which, from memory, was worth around £10 million. It was to supply a major piece of equipment for a steelworks. The chairman of the company was a cigar-smoking general. I remember that when, in the middle of the negotiations, he came to stay in our spare bedroom, he put his shoes outside the door because he expected that someone would clean them, and indeed I did clean them. When we eventually got the contract, I remember the agents, a commercial company rather than an individual in that country, saying, “You know, the general has a great ambition to own a villa in Florida”. I said that I did not know, to which the response was, “We thought you might just like to know that”. The agents did not say any more and I did not ask any more questions. Noble Lords will have worked out that 2.5 per cent of £10 million is £250,000, and this was quite a long time ago. I leave this account with noble Lords as an example and would ask whether it was an offence. Was that an associated person? I do not know. Was it an offence under Section 7, or whichever section it is, or not?

I recall another occasion in a Middle Eastern country when we were one of the last two bidders for a contract, the other bidder being a German company. Again, we were required under the law of the country concerned to have formal representation. It became absolutely clear that it did not matter which of us got the contract because the adjudicating committee was going to collect a proportion of whatever was coming from the two different local agents. You did not have to be a genius to understand that that was what was going to happen. Up to a point we outflanked them, because although my company did not get the contract, the German company then very kindly gave us a large sub-contract. Everyone came out a winner from a business point of view, but what about the Bribery Act? I do not know the answer and I hope that there is someone in this House who does. But certainty about what is or is not an offence is much more important than the high moral line which, to be frank, I do not have much regard for.

Perhaps I may turn to tax avoidance. I understand from the excellent Library note that now I must remember that it is not avoidance, it is mitigation. If I put shares into my charitable trust, thus saving myself some tax, I am no longer an avoider, I have become a mitigator.

12:45

[Lord Haskel]

My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, is very fortunate indeed. Early on in my business career, I remember visiting an official overseas in a very protected market to obtain permission to sell some of our technology to a company there. In a bookcase behind his desk were the complete works of Shakespeare, the Oxford Shorter English Dictionary and the works of Dickens. I thought I would compliment the official on his interest in and knowledge of English literature. He looked at me in rather a peculiar way and handed me a copy of Dombey and Son. I opened it, and in the centre was a cut-out that exactly fitted US dollar bills. I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, that there was absolutely nothing nuanced about that. I am not sure if it was my distaste for corruption, my concern for the law or my love of books, but I never did conclude that deal because I wanted to preserve our reputation, and there were lots more deals to be done.

In another country, corruption was explained to me by the fact that because the laws and institutions were weak, largesse should be shared with those with whom you have ties of dependence, and therefore it was not corrupt to pay off somebody’s cousin. This is why we must not undermine our strong and independent institutions—institutions such as the police. I think that the proposed legislation to make the police accountable to political commissioners can lead to undermining their independence. They have that kind of arrangement in the United States, and their experience is not good. Instead, we should be strengthening our institutions: our free press, our freedom of information and of speech. Legal tricks such as super-injunctions and unaffordable libel actions weaken our defences against corruption, and this is where our laws need strengthening. I welcome the proposed although rather timid Defamation Bill, but I wonder why it does not go a lot further.

Where I do think we have institutionalised corruption is in the world of tax avoidance. There are armies of bankers, lawyers and accountants who ensure that even though the letter of the law is respected, increasingly immoral ways are found of perverting the spirit of the law to ensure that tax is avoided. This has been justified to me by quoting my noble friend Lord Mandelson. He has said that he does not mind people being filthy rich, but people forget the rest of his sentence. He does not mind people being filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes. To hide its true purpose, the tax avoidance industry adopts the language of real business, so technical innovation and reinventing your business model do not mean finding new products, services and markets, and new ways of supplying them. No, they mean registering your business in a tax haven and becoming a non dom to avoid tax while still enjoying the, admittedly decreasing, benefits and services which make this country the civilised place that it is.

Business leaders rely on the Government to regulate, to educate, to create a skilled workforce, to do research in science and to build the infrastructure, and they are quick to complain when there is not enough. Yet they use dubious means of avoiding the taxation necessary to pay for it all. As my noble friend Lord Eatwell put it, that is financial artifice. They make it very difficult to find out how much corporation tax is actually being paid by large firms because tax planning is a cat and mouse game played all over the world. For instance, we will never know about Cadbury because Kraft has moved its domicile to Switzerland. Most studies show that 28 per cent corporation tax is budgeted for, but is rarely the amount actually paid.

Caroline Lucas MP is today introducing in another place a Presentation Bill about disclosing the amount of corporation tax paid and the profits made. Will the Government support her?

The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, explained that the tax avoidance industry also ensures that we are a wonderful tax haven for those who are resident elsewhere, irrespective of how their wealth was earned. We now know that the Home Secretary plans to give immigration priority to those who want to participate in it. Is this wise?

All this poisons our politics. However much the Government talk about us all being in this together, as my noble friend Lord McFall said, there will be very little sense of shared pain until tax avoidance is tackled. Economic morality is an ethical issue, so I congratulate the noble Baroness on introducing this debate and on raising this ethical matter.

12:50

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I should start with a sort of disclaimer. This is, I think, my 53rd year full-time in the law as a solicitor—although I am not doing very much these days. Like a previous speaker, I have to say that, in the whole of that time, no one has offered me a bribe—I feel a bit resentful of that—and only twice have I been asked to do something corrupt by a client. I suspect that there is no other jurisdiction in the wide world where someone of my longevity could say that, and I have spent a lot of that time in the commercial world.

However, let us not kid ourselves: standards of probity and integrity are falling with a rapidity that should give us all cause for pause and alarm. If you look at the statistics of crime, you see that the incidence of financial fraud is on the increase in all respects in all quarters of our society and none is exempt. There is no way of denying that corruption is highly infectious. It is a bit like spiritual dry rot. Once you have crossed the threshold of corruption, it is very difficult to go back and very easy to go forward.

Nor should we overlook or consign to the past, as Mr Diamond wants us to do, the astonishing events of the past two or three years in the City—in effect, the partial collapse of the banking system, which would have collapsed totally but for the putting-into-the-pool of trillions of pounds of funds from here, from America and elsewhere. At the root of that—again, let us not deceive ourselves—was an increased level of straightforward corruption: insider dealing, concert parties rigging the markets long enough to get in and out and make a killing, and so on.

I have practised more than 40 years in the City of London. Anyone who you know well who is deeply involved in the City will privately tell you that it is unfortunately true that corruption is on the increase everywhere. The more globalised the market becomes, and the greater the diversity of nationalities, with little common cultural cohesion, the more the corruption spreads. That is why this debate, for which I thank my noble friend Lady Williams, is of such importance.

I shall touch briefly on the role of legislation, because “the United Kingdom’s record on legislation” is in the title of the debate. Legislation can be an impediment to integrity. Too much of it plays into the hands of the smart boys, the lawyers and the accountants. For people who are involved in the different aspects of the City, it reduces their sense of their own moral autonomy, their own ability to distinguish right from wrong and to do good rather than bad.

You have only to look at the statistics. We legislate between 200 per cent and 400 per cent more than any legislature in the democratic world. Forty per cent of our tax legislation is anti-avoidance. If you were to stuff all our tax legislation into a single volume, you would not be able to carry it. For example, the Charities Bill, a consolidation Bill, which has just had its First Reading in this House, is longer than the entirety of the legislation of 1905—charities, for God’s sake. There is no substitute for individual moral integrity, and I have to say that the huge corporations are not great encouragers of that.

I have some proposals. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said in relation to the Bill just introduced in the other place by Caroline Lucas. If companies domiciled or paying tax here had to disclose year by year where else they were operating, what the turnover was, how many employees they had there and what tax they paid, it would be a huge disincentive to the ludicrous exploitation of tax havens. Let us look at Barclays. It has admitted to some 150 subsidiaries in tax havens—I think that the true figure is more than 300—and that is true of so many organisations. There is no morality or sense of fairness in corporate tax-paying in so many instances. So let us have that.

Let us have principles-based tax law, because we are disappearing out of sight with trying to block one loophole after another. I accept that there are difficulties about principles-based tax legislation in terms of certainty, but with the support for and confidence in our courts that people have, it would be a far preferable solution to the problem of tax.

Next, I suggest that any contractor with any state agency should not be allowed to bid for a contract unless they have a clean tax record over the previous five years. Lastly, we cannot hope to deal with corruption, bribery and all the rest of it unless we have the people to do the job. The Serious Fraud Office has only around 300 staff and I am told by someone in there that it is losing some of its best people right now. The Inland Revenue is scheduled to lose 40 per cent of its entire staff over the next three years. What sense can that make if we are trying to implement the laws we have? The failure to implement tax legislation in particular is devastating. On official estimates, we lost £42 billion of tax that should been paid last year for want of the people to enforce the law.

12:58

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, the subject of today’s debate is extremely topical, as was revealed by the rather unsatisfactory exchange in this House following an Oral Question I asked on 2 March about the regrettable and unjustifiable delay in the entry into force of the Bribery Act. I therefore congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, on now providing an opportunity for us to go into these issues in greater depth. It is also an opportunity, I hope, for the Minister, when he replies to the debate, to update us on developments since that exchange and on the prospects for early progress on bringing the Bribery Act into effect. I shall focus my remarks, on the one hand, on that issue of bribery and corruption and, on the other, on money laundering, leaving the issue of tax avoidance to others who know more about it than I do.

There can surely be no doubt that bribery and corruption are rife the world over, but particularly so in countries with autocratic or weak systems of governance where the rule of law is either entirely absent or at least inadequate. Nor, I think, can it be doubted that bribery and corruption in developing countries levy a heavy toll on their economies, hampering their development and often meaning that foreign aid does not reach the intended recipients. Moreover, in the long run, it feeds instability and disorder, as we have seen recently in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. This is not something that we cannot afford to tolerate, or dismiss with a weary and cynical shrug, as an inevitable part of the international scene and of doing business in developing countries.

The hard fact is that bribery, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, reminded us, requires more than one party and, far too often in the past, one of the parties has been based in a developed country. Hence the move in recent years for industrialised countries collectively to tighten up their laws on bribery and corruption and their implementation. That is welcome but, as others have said, Britain’s record is not very good. We have been operating, and we are still operating, under legislation dating from the 19th century which all recognise as inadequate. Our prosecuting record has been poor too. Hence the urgent need for the new Bribery Act and for a new attitude towards bringing prosecutions.

The campaign against the Bribery Act, which has been mounted recently in the press, anonymously for the most part, is in my view a disgraceful one, wide of the mark, and against the best interests of British business. It cannot be in the interests of British business that it should be thought, for one moment, that our companies can export successfully only by using such dubious practices, nor that we should be out of line with, and subject to sharp criticism by, our developed-country peers, as we are in the OECD and elsewhere. Business is quite right to insist—here I join the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson—that there must be clear guidelines on the application of the Act, but in my view it should be pushing for those guidelines to emerge sooner, rather than later, not trying to delay them. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to say when that damaging hiatus will be brought to an end.

Until we put our own house in order, we cannot possibly hope to operate effectively in bearing down on bribery and corruption worldwide. Nothing damaged our efforts in that respect more than when the previous Government gave in to pressure and brought a premature end to the investigation of British Aerospace’s contracts with Saudi Arabia. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that this Government will not give way to that sort of pressure. It would be useful to hear how the Government intend to pursue the issue of corruption in the context of our new development aid policy; that is, if and when we get our own house in order. The increases in foreign aid are welcome, but they must be accompanied by a drive against corruption in recipient countries.

It would also be good to hear about the Government’s assessment of the effectiveness of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. Is it contributing to the fight against corruption? What progress is being made in getting more countries and more British companies signed up to it? Is something more needed if the discovery of rich natural resources in developing countries is not to be, as it has been so often in the past, a curse rather than a blessing? Are we looking seriously at making the EITI mandatory, perhaps within an EU context?

Turning to money laundering, some time ago the home affairs sub-committee, which I have the honour to chair, of the EU Select Committee produced a report covering money laundering. We expressed considerable concern that the Financial Action Task Force, of which the Minister has enormous experience and which is the international body that deals with money laundering, was doing so little—nothing in fact—to get to grips with the money laundering aspects of Somali piracy, the increasing sums of money which were being paid to the pirates in ransom. We also expressed even greater concern that some of the money might be getting into the hands of terrorist organisations. The then Government’s response on both points was, I thought, singularly limp. They said that they had “no evidence” that any of the ransom money was reaching terrorist organisations. Two weeks ago, the Times newspaper reported that some of the pirates had done a deal to share the proceeds of their crimes with al-Shabaab, which is undoubtedly a terrorist organisation. So what are the Government doing about that now? What are they doing to galvanise the FATF machinery in following up the serious possibility that those ransoms are now reaching terrorists? Is it really satisfactory that those who put together the ransom money, which is no offence under British law, do not have to file a suspicious activity report when they do so? Is that a satisfactory state of affairs?

Sometimes I feel that the Government—not just this one—are a bit behind the game or are playing catch-up on the burgeoning ingenuity of international criminals and are reluctant to challenge or to change existing practices and our law enforcement machinery so that we achieve an effective response to some of the most daunting criminal challenges of our time. I hope that the Minister can assure us that the sort of approach that I have spoken about is a thing of the past and that the Government will be much more proactive in the future.

13:05

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Williams for initiating this debate. In my brief remarks today I would like to cover the three issues of bribery, the tax gap in the UK and the tax gap in the developed world.

As my noble friend said in her introductory remarks, our bribery is someone else’s corruption. Although a number of noble Lords have talked about BAE in the context of Saudi Arabia, arguably even more damaging were the bribes paid, in connection with selling aircraft, to the ANC in South Africa to fund an election campaign. That has changed the political culture in South Africa to such an extent that bribery is now endemic and by all accounts getting worse. A British company was the catalyst for starting that process.

I share the view of my noble colleagues that the sooner the Bribery Act comes into force the better. I was heartened by press reports earlier this week that we might now get the guidance very quickly. It is not a completely straightforward issue, of course, although morally it appears to be. I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, on the issue of British exporting companies who will lose business as a result. There should be no doubt that there will be a tangible cost and a loss of business to British businesses if they abide by the Act. Although I would like to share the view of my noble friend Lord Marks, that this would just be a short-term cost, in some circumstances it will be a long-term cost. By putting the Bribery Act on the statute book we have accepted that there will be a cost, whether or not we recognised that at the time.

I have less sympathy with the concern mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, in respect of mining companies and others listed in the UK but with no substantive operations here. Mining companies have been responsible for some of the worst abuses of corporate behaviour. It seems to me that, if they want the benefits of a London stock market listing, they should be prepared to take on the full responsibilities that that implies. I hope that the Minister can give me an assurance that there will not, in effect, be an opt-out for extractive industries with a listing here but with no operations here.

On the UK tax gap, the noble Lord, Lord McFall, pointed out that we are talking about an amount of as much as £50 billion, which covers all forms of taxation. Interestingly, the major components of that are VAT and the personal taxes—not corporate taxes, although there is a significant corporate tax loss as well. I am pleased that the Government are putting an additional £900 million into dealing with certain aspects of this, particularly tax evasion and offshore tax evasion and organised crime.

However, the cuts to HMRC, although justified in part because of the increased use of IT, have, in my view, hollowed out the organisation to such an extent that very often it cannot deal with the day-to-day tax affairs of taxpayers. That makes it easier for people, advertently or inadvertently, to pay less tax than they are due. Staffing needs to be looked at again. My suggestion, which I hope will go with the grain of the coalition thinking, is that we should incentivise the department by setting it a target for certain aspects of tax raising. If it exceeds the target, it should be allowed to keep a significant proportion of that excess to reinvest in staff—not in staff bonuses—so that there are more people the following year to devote to the task. There is no doubt that the cost of additional staff in the area of tax collection would be more than repaid.

Finally, on the international tax gap—which has barely been discussed today—the OECD recognises that poor countries are likely to lose more money through tax dodging than they receive in aid. Therefore, the more that they can collect tax themselves, the less dependent on aid they will be in the long term. Christian Aid and other development charities have described tax as the

“route out of aid dependency”.

I think we need to spend more time looking at how we can support that route. Christian Aid’s two specific proposals, which I support, are the extension of the multilateral and automatic exchange of tax information between jurisdictions and country-by-country reporting by companies, which has been mentioned by several noble Lords. On the latter, I believe that the Chancellor has said that he supports the extension of the Dodd-Frank provisions, which require the extractive industries to provide country-by-country reporting, and he has proposed that at EU and G20 level along with France and Germany. I would be grateful if the Minister will confirm that is the case and that the Government will keep the pressure on there.

The issues that we are debating today are typically seen by many of our colleagues as extremely technical, which some of them are, but of secondary importance, which they are certainly not. As today’s debate has demonstrated, these issues lie at the heart of economic development and governance. We need to keep the pressure on, to drive up standards and drive down corruption and tax evasion.

13:12

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

My Lords, the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance was once said to be the thickness of a prison wall: evasion is illegal, whereas avoidance was and is legal, when one sticks to the letter if not the spirit of the law. In recent years the difference between evasion and avoidance has been less clear. In 2005, the UK’s chief inspector of taxes said that he wanted to get rid of the distinction and talk about the level of compliance, not avoidance and evasion.

Let me say at the start of my comments that if one reduces one’s tax bill to the lowest possible, which is within the spirit of the law, that is called tax mitigation, as mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and is considered non-objectionable—even a duty to oneself so to do. It is when devices are created purely for avoiding tax that they become objectionable and can land the person in trouble.

A recent example of legal tax avoidance or mitigation which hit the newspapers was that of a captain of industry who was perceived to be the owner and operator of a large UK business—employing many employees, who, he said, pay tax—that pays VAT and corporation tax. However, the majority of the shares of that company are held in the name of the entrepreneur’s wife, who lives in a tax haven and to whom the company dividends are legally paid.

It is my belief that the UK needs to look further into these legal methods of taxation avoidance, which I believe do not obey the spirit of the law—indeed, in the view of some, they do not obey the law itself. Things are gradually changing, as significant cases have seen tax saving schemes struck down if the scheme lacks “a business purpose”. I am told that the term “money-laundering”—which we have mentioned here today—was coined to describe the activities of Al Capone, the Chicago mobster who used his laundry business to clean dirty money. Noble Lords may well remember that Mr Capone was imprisoned for tax evasion rather than for the other criminal activities.

Given that HMRC aims to stop tax evasion and discourage tax avoidance, I would like to spend a little time today talking about what is an effective agreement between the UK and Liechtenstein, whereby HMRC offers a genuine, if only partial, tax amnesty that is designed to stop evasion practice and—a point made by one noble Lord—bring in sizeable funds into UK tax coffers. In August 2009, HMRC announced the Liechtenstein disclosure facility, which is based on, and can operate because of, the tax information exchange agreement between the UK and Liechtenstein. The aim of the disclosure facility is to eliminate all UK tax evasion with a Liechtenstein connection. At the time, HMRC’s Permanent Secretary for Tax said:

“Those who have been evading UK tax on assets held in Liechtenstein banks must now settle with us. There are no alternatives”.

Financial intermediaries in Liechtenstein are now required to send a formal notification to any customers who have a UK tax exposure. The customer must provide evidence of UK tax compliance. Those who use that disclosure process benefit, in that only unpaid taxes from April 1999 are due—in other words, there is a real, if partial, amnesty. The fixed penalty is only 10 per cent of the tax due plus, of course, the tax itself. If innocent error can be shown, the settlement may be reduced to only six years of the tax with no penalty. The idea is to get people out of the cupboard and paying their taxes so that moneys they have been salting away are brought into the public sector.

As a practical way of raising taxation, both past and future, and of stopping the further hiding away of assets, the Liechtenstein disclosure facility must be applauded and encouraged, and spread to other jurisdictions and secretive tax havens mentioned by other noble Lords here today. It would be useful if the Minister could provide this House with details of the amounts raised by this scheme and indeed any similar schemes. Reducing tax avoidance and evasion is the best way for the UK to raise funds to carry out its duties and obligations in government areas such as social services and education—or whatever else noble Lords would think relevant—which I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McFall, for mentioning.

I have not dealt today with the loss of tax and income to the UK from non-doms, who by their very nature have assets abroad so behave differently from other UK citizens. Non-doms not only broadly pay no tax on foreign unremitted income but they use their funds deposited abroad to shop in Paris, Madrid and New York, and do not use those funds to shop and spend their money in the UK.

No one, including noble Lords, likes paying tax. When in the 18th century Benjamin Franklin said,

“nothing is certain but death and taxes”,

he was unaware of the era of tax avoidance and evasion. Regarding the comment made about tax conferences, I must tell you that many people in the industry—and I am a chartered accountant—believe that people go to these conferences to find out ways of avoiding, if not evading, taxes. Listening to the debate today, I was reminded of Sir Walter Scott, who said:

“Oh what a tangled web we weave,

When first we practise to deceive!”.

13:18

[Lord Parekh]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, on and thank her for securing this debate and introducing it with such passion and eloquence. As she rightly pointed out, we generally tend to maintain fairly high standards in our internal affairs, both political and economic. However, when it comes to international transactions—whether foreign policy or economic—somehow our standards slip and we do not seem particularly worried. Our legislative record on dealing with bribery, tax avoidance and money-laundering is mixed. In some respects, it is better than other European countries but in others it is much worse. The number of convictions for bribery, for example, is lower in Great Britain than in many other European countries. That is not because our companies are well behaved; it is rather because the Government are unwilling or unable to prosecute them. The Bribery Act received Royal Assent in April 2010 and should have come into effect by the end of last year, but unfortunately it has not.

For money-laundering, we seem to provide more tax havens than most other countries and some of those funds find their way into the City of London. Our taxation system, which we have talked a great deal about, has many easily exploitable loopholes. I have never understood the distinction between the things called tax avoidance and tax evasion. Technically, of course, I do but morally and practically I do not. Supposing I were to do that in my own university by saying there, “No plagiarism or copying from other students”, but that the rule was so defined that if they were to copy from the internet or something else that would not count as plagiarism. How can we have a situation where rules are designed and defined so that they virtually allow you to get away with murder? Then we sanction it in the name of tax avoidance being all right but tax evasion not. The time has come to make sure that this distinction is fairly tightly defined and narrowed as much as possible.

It is because of that distinction that a large number of corporations, multinationals and banks have been able to get away with paying so little by way of taxation. Last year, the tax gap—the gap between the tax that should have been paid and that which was paid—was £42 billion. In the year before, it was £38 billion. I am told that in 2010-11 it could be as high as £80 billion to £100 billion, which is staggering. It is made easier by companies generally being set up so that we do not know what their home base is and where they could be taxed. In this country, as in many others, we allow this to happen by introducing easy mobility between the gamekeepers and the poachers, with the result that there is a serious conflict of interest. Those who should be monitoring and enforcing the system are confronted with all kinds of temptations, some of which are not easy to avoid.

My next remarks will be about, first, tax avoidance, and then money-laundering. We in this House do not seem to appreciate tax avoidance. Perhaps we do, but for the public at large it has undermined the legitimacy of the political system. People simply cannot understand how we can have designed a system in which people earning billions and billions of pounds can get away without having to pay our tax, while a small man somewhere earning no more than £30,000 or £40,000 has to pay an enormous amount of tax. How could this kind of system continue? Therefore there is enormous anger at the systematic undermining of our democratic legitimacy.

Concerning money-laundering, I shall make one point that has often been ignored. Think of a tyrant, whether it is Mubarak, Gaddafi or whoever. He plunders his people and collects billions because he is fully confident that he will be able to enjoy the fruits of the money that he has collected. What gives him that confidence? It is that his money will be easily siphoned off somewhere such as here so that he can quietly enjoy it when he is thrown out of the country. In other words, in so far as we continue to devise a system which allows those characters access to the money, we are complicit in the crimes that they have committed. The blood of their victims is, to some extent, on our hands because we have allowed the system that gives those guys the confidence. Therefore they continue to plunder their own people. We really need to appreciate how morally implicated we are in some of the activities that go on abroad.

I end by making one or two general suggestions. In this country, we ought to be fighting for agreed global norms. We must also make sure that there is rigorous monitoring with an enforcement mechanism. There should be absolute transparency on how the Government and multinationals conduct their business. We should close tax havens. All this is widely known and is nothing new but I will also make two suggestions that have, perhaps, not been explored.

First, there must be a way of naming and shaming those who avoid taxes, even when that is done by exploiting existing loopholes. We name and shame in the cases of schools that have failed and of criminals. Why should it be difficult for us to say, “These are the companies, this is the tax they paid and this is how they arrived at it”, to show how much gap there is between tax avoidance and tax evasion? Secondly, just as all legislation passing through this Parliament has a human rights compliance statement, there should be a declaration of compliance for every major government and multinational transaction: that no form of bribery or corrupt practice has taken place in the execution of that project. That kind of compliance declaration would go a long way in discouraging people from engaging in unacceptable practices and for us in shaming them afterwards, should they be caught.

13:25

[Lord Dykes]

My Lords, I very much agree with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, particularly his regret and sadness that people are greedy and avoid paying taxes when they can easily afford them. I, too, take pleasure in thanking my noble friend Lady Williams for launching this debate, as others have done. These matters are being raised at a very important time in this Session of Parliament. I shall declare two separate interests, if I may: as being a retired member of the Stock Exchange, after many years, and that I live in France because I particularly wanted to pick up on a reference made earlier.

It happened a short while ago that one of our senior ministerial friends in the coalition Government—for obvious reasons, I will not say who—took one of my colleagues aside to say: “You don’t have to worry, you know. You talk about all this trouble with bribery, corruption and tax avoidance in Britain but look at the situation in France”. Because I live in France, I happen to have had the opportunity on quite a few occasions of having close contacts with the political, official and parliamentary classes of people in France and that is not true at all. France has increased enormously the regulations and legislation governing bribery, corruption and tax avoidance and evasion, tightening them to such an extent that people there now live in fear of being apprehended. That is not the situation in the United Kingdom where there is enormous complacency about this subject.

My noble friend Lord Sassoon is famous, quite rightly, for taking conscientious notes about the contributions made in these debates. Various excellent speeches have been made today, marred only slightly, if I may say so, by the hesitations of our three or four Tory colleagues saying that it was perhaps not such a terrible subject after all. However, I appreciate their request for absolute clarity and transparency on the regulations governing their tax and payment duties, overseas and in Britain. Now is the opportunity for my noble friend Lord Sassoon not just to answer politely and routinely on this occasion, but to reassure us fundamentally about some of these matters.

The amount of tax avoidance in this country is colossal. There is a very cosy, conspiratorial attitude in the City of London. I know it well; I am there frequently and have many friends in the City. For obvious reasons, I will not mention some names today but that attitude is quite wrong too. I am glad that my noble friend Lady Williams mentioned the Multinational Chairman’s Group, which probably sidles into the back entrance of No. 10, as Rupert Murdoch apparently does, to discuss these matters in order to mitigate the obligations that other people quite naturally accept. What is the sin in people having to pay proper taxes, be they in corporate, commercial or ordinary human activity of all sorts, when other people do it routinely?

Does nobody here feel so sad personally for Sir Philip Green, with his self-created personal dividend coming out of his brilliant reorganisation of British Home Stores? That was because of his talents as a retailer, which I pay tribute to; and that BHS reorganisation was funded, I think, not just from his own resources but by private equity borrowings, as they usually are. A billion pounds of profit was, quite rightly, taken out as a dividend. However, instead of taking just that self-created dividend he absolutely insisted that, as his wife was a recipient of that dividend, he would not pay the £200 million extra of tax or whatever it was. Is that really not a very sad reflection on the greed in our modern society, which is a disgrace for businesspeople and for others? No wonder Labour Peers here such as the noble Lord, Lord McFall, reflect on the unfairness in our society created by that.

Although this is by definition probably a fairly unlimited figure I estimate, for example, as my City friends do, that over £150 billion of tax evasion occurs because of all the tax havens that the British Empire and others have created. It is also because of the authorities in London not tightening up, given all the agencies which they have at their disposal and the improvement in the SFO to which my noble friend referred. Yet that figure is almost the size of the deficit. Then there is the £15 billion of corporate taxes that are not paid properly by companies that simply disappear along with their directors. Those amounts of money are a reflection on the unfairness of society.

The newspapers, however—most of them, incidentally, apart from the FT, the Guardian and one or two others, owned by tycoons who live in tax havens abroad and do not pay UK direct taxes, while paying low corporation tax because of their international structures—give us long, learned, pompous leaders again and again about the disgrace of people defrauding their social security. They are right—that is a terrible thing to do—particularly the example yesterday of the Afghan family who are now about to be sentenced for claiming a huge amount of money. But that amount in total is probably £20 billion, maybe £25 billion—a tiny figure given the thousands of people involved—in comparison with the small number of elite members of our business society in Britain and abroad, a reflection of the British Empire, who abuse their position.

I conclude with a quote on Rupert Murdoch. We are all thinking about the forthcoming deal. I have even been told by someone, although I do not know whether it is true, that Jeremy Hunt was actually at the Christmas supper attended by the Prime Minister and Rebekah Brooks. A newspaper said, at the end of September last year:

“From Thatcher through Blair to Cameron, our democratically elected leaders have tugged their forelocks to an unelected foreign tax exile in gibbering fear of losing his papers’ support, allowing Murdoch to regard a change of government as the mere shuffling of junior personnel”.

Corruption is not just tax avoidance and bribery; it is that kind of behaviour as well.

13:31

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I have sat through this debate and found it extremely interesting. I took part in the proceedings on the Bribery Act, and I would certainly like to see it brought into effect as soon as possible. It was passed with support from all parties in its present form.

I am an honorary fellow of the Chartered Institute of Taxation. I think that I am right in saying that this House struck a very strong blow against tax avoidance in a case called Ramsay some years ago when it said that artificial transactions were to be ignored when it came to assessing the tax of a company or an individual. I just wonder what has happened to that principle. Has it been submerged by the terrific complication in the tax statutes that has taken place over recent years?

13:32

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate and a challenging one for the Minister to respond to, not least because, although three distinct areas of legislation are referred to, all with a common theme, they each present their own enormous complexities.

The common theme was adumbrated immediately by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in her opening introduction to the debate in which she stressed in a very powerful way her concerns about fairness. That was buttressed by my noble friend Lord Eatwell indicating that our financial system also rested upon trust. The fact that the debate has a strong undercurrent of principle attached to it should come not as any surprise but as a realisation that such principles should underpin our legislation. In these areas they are efficacious in ensuring that we play our full part in the modern world, were our economy to recover and, in due course, flourish.

There were some discordant voices, such as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, with support to a certain extent from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, who is eager to look at the issues of businessmen on the ground. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, also gave us the benefit of his considerable experience in this area. While we recognise the problems that businessmen face, though, the issues that we face are clear. This is a debate about our legislation in these three areas and its effectiveness. As noble Lords have identified, we have not been coming out of international comparisons of effectiveness well. This is of colossal importance.

To take the first dimension of bribery that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, identified, we all know the challenges that are presented by dealing with regimes that are different from our own. After all, it is not so long ago that the British Government also lived with a bribery culture. We should not suggest that somehow we have had 700 years of glorious history free from bribery; very far from it. It was an underlying principle of government for several hundred years. In fact the best quote that I know about bribery is from Lord Burghley, founder of the Cecil family, with their significance in our political life. He said, “I may be bought”—that is, I never refuse a present—“but I do not sell myself”—in other words, my judgment is not impugned. That is scarcely a democratic sentiment but it is a step along the road towards cleaner and more proper government. We have prided ourselves on the Governments that we have, and we ought to; they are relatively corruption-free, with very small exceptions, with regard to either Administration and the work that our civil servants do. We all know that we have limited issues there.

The Bribery Act, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, emphasised, was passed by both Houses without serious division. It was part of a general view that we need this legislation in order to restore our reputation, which has been declining with regard to this issue. We are all party to that Act but the issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, emphasised in his contribution, is one of implementation. When is it going to be implemented? That has underpinned a number of contributions in this debate. I say to the Minister that we recognise that consultation is necessary—everything can be improved by hearing voices accurately—but this has gone through the full parliamentary process. We have all had our chance to talk to everyone outside and make our contributions, and so have our colleagues in the other place. We expect the implementation of an Act passed by Parliament. We are anxious about the degree of delay that there seems to be, not least because, as a number of noble Lords have emphasised in this debate, we look a lot weaker in this area than the United States, Hong Kong and direct business competitors on the international stage. That will not do. We require high morality to underpin both the basis of our legislation and the way that business conducts itself because, as my noble friend Lord Eatwell emphasised, the City depends on reputation as well.

I thought that we were going to spend a great deal of the debate on the issue of bribery, as indeed we have, because it was the most recent of our laws in this area to be passed and the one that has still not effectively been implemented. However, I was glad that my noble friends Lord McFall, Lord Haskel and Lord Eatwell and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, commented on the issue of tax avoidance. We all recognise that we would benefit from simpler legislation because it is easier to comply with. We all know the challenges with regard to tax legislation. When one is seeking to give incentives and to deter specific practices, legislation becomes increasingly complex and, therefore, a challenge. As we all know, there is massive investment in the industry concerned with giving advice to businesses on how to avoid—not evade—certain commitments.

We must be strong and tough in this area. The situation is scandalous and the nation sees it as such. It is not just scandalous that banks had to be bailed out by the taxpayer to the extent that they were, and that some practices were considered to be on the wrong side of sound morality, but when it is subsequently identified that a bank such as Barclays pays such a small fraction of its total profits in corporation tax, of course our people view that as an extraordinary situation. Those institutions do not even pay adequate taxation when they are making so much profit and the vast majority of people in the country are suffering privation. That is why we should look at implementation. This is not about the law but whether the Inland Revenue has the resources to pursue the objectives which we set for it in law. I cannot understand why—I cannot think of any business that would understand this—we underprovide for a body that brings in revenue. The Government go in for profit maximisation. Putting extra resources into the Inland Revenue will produce extra returns, yet the Government are engaged in wholesale cutting in that regard.

I will conclude briefly as my time is very limited. Recently, we introduced legislation on money laundering as we were becoming increasingly anxious about the extent to which money laundering might fund international terrorism. Therefore, the relevant laws are in place. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and other noble Lords have emphasised, this is a matter of implementation. We should be ashamed of a situation in which it is clear that those whom we knew to be tyrants and who paid scarce regard to the needs of their people have been able to salt away vast sums. On the whole those tyrants exploited countries with limited economies and very many poor people while keeping resources available in London for their own use.

The Minister will, of course, say that the relevant legislation is in place. That is certainly true but this matter is about good, resourceful government and the ability to implement a measure that the House wishes to see implemented.

13:43

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)]

My Lords, we have had an excellent debate and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby, who comes at this whole subject from a position of great authority.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, has pointed out the challenge that I face in attempting to respond to the huge number of points that have been made. This has been a more than normally physically challenging debate to sit through. It is one thing to watch a tennis match that is being played out in front of me, but it is even more challenging to watch one that at times has been played out intensively behind me. However, it has been a fascinating debate.

I start by reminding noble Lords that Britain is, and continues to be, a great trading nation. This Government are committed to encouraging British business to seize opportunities around the world. We all know that globalisation brings huge opportunities not just for businesses themselves but for all those who work in those businesses and for the consumers of goods. However, there are significant threats and risks in this globalised world. We have discussed some of the most insidious threats that jurisdictions around the world face. My noble friend Lady Williams talked about the most serious issues. I certainly agree that some of the most insidious threats are those posed by bribery, corruption and money-laundering. I shall take in turn bribery, tax avoidance, corruption, if I have time, and money-laundering, which were the main areas covered in the debate.

I make it absolutely clear that the Government are committed—lest anybody doubts it—to implementing the Bribery Act. We are determined to ensure that it is implemented in a way that tackles corruption while not imposing unnecessary cost and uncertainty on legitimate business and trade. Bribery should not be considered an acceptable way to win business. It distorts free markets and causes immense damage in developing and emerging economies. The Government believe that the Bribery Act will have positive benefits for UK business through an enhanced reputation for ethical standards, reduced costs incurred in doing business and a clearer business framework. The Act will contribute towards a level playing field internationally. The UK stands alongside our partners, whether in the OECD, the UN, the EU or the Council of Europe, in recognising that bribery needs to be met with robust criminal offences. Indeed, the Act modernises and clarifies the existing law, which has rightly been criticised as complex, fragmented and out of date. However, I hope that the main issue concerns not the Government’s commitment to implementation but when the Act will be implemented and whether there has been unreasonable delay, as some have painted it.

I fully respect the views on both sides of the argument. On the one side, we had the pithy intervention of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern and the contributions of my noble friends Lord Thomas of Gresford, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, Lord Goodhart and Lady Williams. I very much appreciate their sentiments. However, I find it slightly harder to accept the criticism of the noble Lords, Lord Eatwell and Lord Davies of Oldham, on the timetable for implementation given, as we have been reminded, that it took until 2009 for the previous Government to introduce the relevant legislation.

On the other side of the discussion, we have heard powerful and relevant interventions from my noble friends Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Lady Wheatcroft and Lord Eccles—the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, also recognised this—regarding some of the difficulties for business in this area. We should not minimise those. There was a depressing lack of mutual appreciation by the two camps in this debate, with one notable exception. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Newby for his contribution, to which I listened with interest. He recognised that two distinct interests are involved in implementation that need to be reconciled and that the implementation of the Act will indeed—certainly, in the short term—impose costs on business.

One of the questions asked by my noble friend Lady Williams concerned responsibility. Responsibility for implementation is with my right honourable friend the Justice Secretary, who is concerned to ensure that the Act is implemented in a way that tackles bribery effectively but avoids imposing costs or uncertainty on business and certainly does not make this another gold mine for lawyers advising on either implementing or picking up the consequences of the Act. It is the intention of my right honourable friend and the Government to publish guidance shortly. Implementation of the Act will follow publication after three months, in order to give businesses time to prepare themselves. On the other question about responsibility, I can confirm that enforcement of the legislation will be a matter for the Serious Fraud Office and the police.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Is it fair or unfair of me to ask my noble friend what his answer is to the circumstance enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, where a business is faced with either compliance with the Bribery Act or losing a valuable order?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, that is a perfectly fair question, but I am not going to stand at the Dispatch Box—no Minister would—and suggest that anyone should break the law. I hope that that is a clear answer to the question.

The point that I wanted to make about implementation was that I know that my right honourable friend the Justice Secretary has been speaking regularly to the secretary-general of the OECD, because there has rightly been reference to the OECD’s important contribution to driving forward standards in this area. My right honourable friend has been speaking regularly, including this week and last month, to the secretary-general to keep the OECD informed and updated on our plans for implementation.

My noble friend Lord Phillips and the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, mentioned the fall in the UK’s ranking. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, leads with the chin, but it is interesting to note that that fall in the ranking happened under the previous Administration. I hope that implementation of the Bribery Act will contribute to the UK’s ranking increasing again.

I acknowledge the point made by my noble friend Lord Hodgson about SMEs. In all that the Government are doing in the regulatory space, we need to be sensitive to the particular needs of SMEs. It is the intention to publish a quick-start guide, as it will be called, that focuses particularly on the needs of small businesses. UK Trade & Investment and overseas posts will be geared up to provide guidance and support on managing risks of corruption in particular export markets.

Lastly in this area, questions relating to extractive industries were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, and my noble friend Lord Newby. It is a topic that my right honourable friend the Chancellor has recently addressed. He drew particular attention to it at the February G20 Finance Ministers’ meeting in Paris, where he raised the issue of new international rules; he believes that this was the first time that that has happened. My right honourable friend, along with my right honourable friend the Business Secretary, will be arguing for a European agreement that matches the new standards set in the US in this area. This is very much on our agenda.

Let me turn now to the issue of tax avoidance. For the avoidance of doubt—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, has no doubt, but he raised the question—let me say again clearly that the Government are fully committed to making sure that everyone contributes to reducing the deficit by paying their fair share of tax. Tax avoidance and evasion damage the ability of the tax system to deliver its objectives. They impose additional costs on all taxpayers and undermine the tax system.

The noble Lord, Lord McFall of Alcluith, and others raised a number of questions about HMRC resources. I was grateful to the noble Lord for drawing attention to the announcement last year that more than £900 million will be made available to HMRC over the spending review period to raise additional revenues by tackling non-compliance. This is expected to bring in around £7 billion in additional tax each year by 2014-15. However, I recognise that the noble Lord bracketed, as did other noble Lords, recognition of that approach by HMRC with concerns about its resources more generally. That point was mentioned in particular by my noble friends Lord Newby and Lord Phillips of Sudbury. It is the case that HMRC workforce levels are projected to reduce. That reflects continuing improvements in the underlying efficiency in the way in which HMRC conducts its business. I should point out that, since the 2005 merger between the Inland Revenue and Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise, a reduction in headcount has had no negative impact on revenue flows. As with many other parts of the public sector, although there is a big challenge on management and implementation, HMRC has recently proved that it is able to rise to that challenge.

The noble Lords, Lord McFall and Lord Parekh, and others drew attention to the size of the tax gap, which is estimated to be around £42 billion, but I was pleased that there was recognition for some of the important steps that the Government are taking in this area, including the specific case to which my noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill referred on the arrangements with Liechtenstein. That was the best answer to some of the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Dykes. The steps that are being taken are very practical and raise considerable sums of money. In respect of Liechtenstein, the facility will run until the end of March 2015 and it is forecast that it will raise £940 million. These are considerably important initiatives to make sure that we tackle offshore financial centres and repatriate tax revenue to this country.

I recognise the questions around tax transparency. My noble friend Lord Goodhart touched on this area, but I will not repeat the names of all noble Lords who mentioned it. In the past year, we have seen unprecedented progress on tax information exchange. More than 500 tax information exchange agreements have been negotiated to the international standard. This means that there are fewer and fewer places for evaders to hide their money.

The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, raised the question of Caroline Lucas’s Bill in another place. My understanding is that the Second Reading of that 10-minute rule Bill is scheduled for June. The Government will decide at that stage whether to support it. I understand its import.

In my final couple of minutes, I will deal with the remaining two issues that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, raised the issue of corruption. At the risk of stating the obvious, I stress that the Government recognise that corruption is bad for development, bad for people in developing countries and bad for business in those countries. As we maintain our aid budget, looked after by DfID, there will be great focus on raising standards of governance. It is very much on the agenda of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.

I turn lastly to money-laundering. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Williams for recognising that the Government have been assiduous on asset freezing. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that we should not rely too much on reports in the newspapers. As my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford said in the House a couple of days ago, we are investigating and watching carefully to see what links there may be between pirates and terrorism in the region linked to Somalia. However, as he said, we have no firm evidence of particular patterns of transactions, although we recognise that there may be personal, entrepreneurial or other links between groups. The noble Lord is right to emphasise that we need to be on the case, as we are. The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, raised general concerns in this area. As we discussed in the House recently, particularly in the context of Libya but also of other countries, the Government have been and continue to be at the forefront of calling for and implementing asset freezes against corrupt regimes.

My time is up. I have attempted to answer as many points as possible. It has been a very stimulating debate in which important questions were asked. I end by thanking my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby for stimulating such an interesting two and a half hours.

14:03

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords, I thank all those who took part in the debate, which showed once again the extraordinary sweep of experience in this House. I agree with my noble friend Lord Sassoon that the debate has been searching and constructive. I thank him personally because what he said laid to rest many concerns and fears that noble Lords had about the implementation of the Bribery Act. That will be appreciated also in overseas circles, for which I am very grateful.

I end by saying that on the walls of my sitting-room I had a series of lithographs by William Hogarth called “The Election”. I am picking up on what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, said when he reminded us that corruption and bribery are hardly new actors on the stage. It was perhaps appropriate that the whole set of lithographs was stolen; that seemed to be the proper end. The series was a reminder of how strong corruption in the democratic system was in the 17th and 18th centuries. We came out of that primarily because of the extraordinarily powerful legislation laid down for public service towards the end of the 19th century by William Gladstone and other famous Prime Ministers. It is perhaps worth putting on record our gratitude to public servants, in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, expressed, for their consistent very high standards and moral quality.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, for what he said about the need for us to be more aware of a moral dimension to what we do in the financial and economic world—and, indeed, more generally—and about the danger that we could be slowly undermined by failing to pay attention to it, failing to bring our legislation up to date and failing to take it sufficiently seriously. I thank him for what he contributed to the debate and I thank all noble Lords who took part.

Motion withdrawn.

Children: Early Intervention

Thursday 17th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Debate

14:05

Moved by

[Baroness Walmsley]

To call attention to the cost-effectiveness, and impact on quality of life, of early intervention in the first few years of a child’s life; and to move for papers.

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this very important topic and look forward to hearing from the star-spangled cast assembled in the Chamber. In particular, I look forward to the maiden speeches of my noble friend Lord Storey and of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich.

The successful development of our children is one of the most crucial responsibilities of government, both for their sake and for the sake of society and the economy as a whole. There are about 12 million children in the UK, of whom about 1.5 million are growing up in “at risk” situations. However, only 25,000 were on the “at risk” register when it was discontinued. Practitioners have had to raise the bar for intervention because of lack of resources. For example, if one or even both parents are drug addicts, that is no longer sufficient cause to act.

Each child has rights under Article 19 of the UNCRC which compels Governments to intervene on their behalf. It states:

“Governments should ensure that children are properly cared for, and protect them from violence, abuse and neglect by their parents or anyone else who looks after them”.

That is why, although in our culture government intervention in family life is a sensitive issue, we must respond to the evidence that is stacked up so high about the importance of the early years.

It is parents who should bring up their children, and we must help them do it well. In his recent report, Graham Allen states that,

“if we could equip parents to optimise … maternal responsiveness and their impact on their 0-3 year old children, we would be laying secure and strong foundations for all the work that the public sector did thereafter … Crucially, it would enable public expenditure to become developmental and not just remedial”.

The WAVE Trust states:

“The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that dysfunction strongly correlates with adverse experience in early life”.

The relationship with the mother or first carer is the most crucial in the whole of life. Unless there is attachment and attunement, the child will find it very difficult to form future relationships. Unless she feels warm and safe, is rocked and stimulated, has eye contact and a lot of love, her brain and the rest of her body will not develop to its full potential and may become very damaged. Damaged brains mean damaged people, damaged lives and damage and cost to society. To coin a popular phrase, it is a “no-brainer” that investing in that crucial relationship and the early years is money well spent.

There are multiple reasons why I was anxious to have this debate at this time, in the hope of influencing the Government. The Budget is next week. The Government have emphasised their firm intention to improve social mobility during their term of office, and their strategy will be published soon. We also await the child poverty strategy, which will no doubt respond to the report by Frank Field. Graham Allen produced last December his report entitled Early Intervention and its equivalent in Scotland, the Deacon report, has already had a major influence on the policy of the devolved Government. There has been a report on children's services from Professor Eileen Munro, and the important Green Paper on special educational needs. Dame Clare Tickell's review of the foundation years will be out soon. All these government-commissioned documents demonstrate the determination of this coalition Government to get things right for children. What we need to know now is how the Government are going to respond to all this well-evidenced advice, and I look forward to hearing about that from my noble friend the Minister.

There is an enormous amount of evidence which shows that the prenatal and first three to five years of a child’s life are the most important. This is because of the biological fact that the human brain is so complex and so large that we have to be born three years premature. In other words, our brain is not fully developed at birth. It reaches 85 per cent of its potential at age three, and development goes on into the teenage years. During this development, the brain is extremely vulnerable to trauma and responsive to the child’s experience.

Several studies show that it is possible to predict things about a child’s future from as early as 22 months. The Prime Minister himself is clearly aware of this. He said to the Local Government Association in 2007 that if you,

“ask a primary school teacher with a class of 5 year olds, which ones are likely to be in trouble”—

with the law—

“in 5 or 10 years’ time—and chances are, the teacher will be able to tell you with total accuracy”.

It is not just the law where effects will be seen. Education, health, working life and relationships will all be affected. A number of important longitudinal studies all point to the fact that, if we get things wrong in the early years, the results will be long-lasting and expensive.

So what do we mean by early intervention? The word “early” can be ambiguous. It can mean intervening early in a child’s life or early in the genesis of a problem that develops at any stage. All the evidence shows that, if you do enough of the first kind, you avoid the need to do a great deal of the second kind. It is also more cost-effective, bringing returns of £7, £9, £12 or even £19 for every pound invested in various programmes. A £600 family programme can save £45,000 to keep a child in custody for a year.

Some countries are leading the way—notably Sweden, where they start very early indeed with prenatal care. Nearer home, in Scotland, the Finance Committee of the Scottish Parliament has concluded a six-month investigation into preventive spending. It ended with the unanimous cross-party conclusion that a shift to investment in early-years preventive spending should be a priority for action by the Scottish Government, and that it should be carried forward in a non-partisan, all-party manner not just during the next Parliament but over the next 20 years. I believe that we should do the same in the rest of the UK because the problem extends well beyond today’s generation of children. Graham Allen said:

“Those who are dysfunctional have to be assisted not only because of the problems they create in the here and now for themselves and society, through their involvement in crime, drugs and violence. Even more importantly, they also need to be assisted because in their role as parents such problems will impact adversely on newborns and be perpetuated intergenerationally”.

Therefore, we need to take action now for the sake of future generations.

The economic costs of falling behind are enormous, and we are falling behind other countries. UNICEF’s Report Card 9 has a league table of inequalities in child well-being, which shows the UK in 21st position among other OECD countries. The consequences of this include the risk of poorer health and nutrition, more frequent visits to health services, impaired cognitive development and educational under-achievement, reduced linguistic ability, lower skills and aspirations, reduced productivity and adult earnings, higher rates of unemployment and welfare dependence, increased behavioural difficulties, crime and antisocial behaviour, and a greater likelihood of teenage pregnancy and drug or alcohol dependence. The significant costs are borne by business and the economy as a result of lower rates of return on investment, greater expenditure on social services and the justice system, and lower productivity and tax revenues. There is also a price tag on social cohesion and the overall quality of life.

Our Government are relying on growth to improve our economic situation, and growth relies on the abilities of the workforce. A recent report by the Nobel prize-winning economist, James Heckman, on the crucial importance of the pre-school years for skill formation, and the critical role of skill formation in programmes to reduce inequalities, shows that gaps in achievement are primarily due to gaps in skills; skills determine success; families are major producers of skills; gaps emerge early; and investment in the early lives of children in disadvantaged families will help to close achievement gaps. He points out, too, that the skills needed for success require more than cognition and IQ; also important are soft skills such as conscientiousness, perseverance, motivation, ability to work with others, and so on.

Frank Field has outlined the link between child poverty and achievement. He acknowledges the massive amounts of money that the previous Government spent on trying to get families out of poverty but accepts that they had limited success. He now believes that the spending was not sufficiently targeted at the early years and recommends that Governments concentrate not just on supplementing incomes but on providing services to support families. Poverty contributes to educational failure, family stress—which in its turn leads to poor child development—mental health problems, family separation and often violence, so its effects are not just about how big a television you can afford or even whether you can buy good, simple food.

So when and how is it best to intervene? The Chief Medical Officer for Scotland, Harry Burns, concluded that there are four key periods when one can make the greatest difference—pregnancy, age zero to one, pre-school, and the transition from primary to secondary school—and that we should focus investment on interventions for each of these periods based on the strongest evidence.

The Graham Allen report talked about a virtuous circle of interventions: a prenatal package, a postnatal programme, Sure Start children’s centres, primary school follow-on programmes, anti-drug and alcohol programmes, and pre-parenting education through PSHEE in schools for teenagers before they become the next generation of parents. He is right to start with the period before birth. Professor Michael Meaney from McGill University recently explained the important physical changes that take place in the brain as a result of early life experiences and that some of these changes persist throughout life. He did this via the science of epigenetics, which explains how the early life environment changes the function and structure of our very genes, such that twins with identical parental DNA could end up with very different effective DNA. He claimed that early family environment is correlated strongly with many health problems. He said that the child’s experiences affect messenger RNA—a substance through which DNA has its effect on our cells—and that the effects of various chemicals produced during abuse and stress affect the development of the brain and the personality. He emphasised the critical importance of protecting mothers from stress during pregnancy. Pregnancy is the peak period in relationships when domestic violence occurs. Whereas outside pregnancy men mainly hit their partners on the face, during pregnancy the principal target is the woman’s stomach. Therefore, in the argument between nature and nurture, nurture wins and it is the only one that Governments can affect.

All the evidence leads to the importance of fathers as well as mothers and the benefits of investing in parenting programmes. However, there is compelling evidence from the charity Relate that programmes that do not include work on the relationship between the parents are not as effective or enduring in their effect. It tells us that 70 per cent of relationships deteriorate in the first year of a child’s life and that 20 per cent break up. However, trained counsellors and health visitors can and do offer help, so Relate is calling for all health visitors to receive training on the importance of the parental relationship to child development and on how to identify and address the problems.

We can have effective early intervention only if we identify problems early. Here, I should like to mention my concern at the reduction in posts for educational psychologists, who play such an important professional role in identifying not just educational problems but many other mental and emotional problems. There are many effective interventions. Other colleagues will speak about the importance of early intervention in autism, speech and language therapy, child safeguarding, special educational needs, children in care, literacy and counselling in schools.

Getting children into high quality early education is vital, especially for the disadvantaged two year-olds who are now about to receive free early years provision. I am proud to tell the House that, even during all the budget cuts that local authorities have had to endure recently, not one Liberal Democrat authority has closed a single Sure Start centre. It is a matter of priorities and they have made the right decisions. When children get to school it is important that there are follow-on programmes which involve their parents. School Home Support and the FAST programme from Save the Children both help parents to get involved with their children’s learning. Programmes which help children to develop emotional resilience and relationships are also essential. I believe that the SEAL programme and a high quality PSHE come in here.

Where do we go from here? Graham Allen proposes a national assessment centre to do research and evaluate initiatives. Personally I feel that we already have plenty of evidence and need to get on with it. There is, of course, the need to measure the value for money of programmes so that local authorities have a good evidence base to help them to choose on what to spend their money, but that evaluation must be done well. There must be a political will, such as now exists in Scotland and Wales, and there must be money up front. But Graham Allen is talking to the banks about that.

In conclusion, we cannot affect the genes that a child receives—that is up to his parents. However, we can affect how his mother is treated and supported when she is pregnant. We can affect the information that parents receive about what babies need. We can set up a system to identify and work with families that need extra help and support. We must do all that or continue to fail our children.

14:21

[Baroness Ritchie of Brompton]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Walmsley for bringing this important topic to the House for us to debate again. I know that the coalition Government take early intervention very seriously, and I am sure that they will be listening to our contributions—the Minister is with us. I know that they want to ensure that effective strategies are put in place throughout the country.

Early intervention has been proven to work by numerous anecdotes, individual programmes and—as my noble friend Lady Walmsley said—a lot of research both in Britain and overseas. However, as I said in my previous contributions on this topic, I am concerned that the effect of early intervention can only be seen in the very long term, and often it is quick results and short-termism that attract continued finance. Therefore, we must ensure that long-term funding, support and monitoring are all put in place for all early intervention programmes to ensure their effectiveness. It is difficult to prove the positive impact of early intervention as many of the projects have been funded for too short a time although they are showing excellent results. As the National Children’s Bureau has commented, the real research findings on the outcomes of Sure Start tend to show that results really become evidenced many years down the line. I declare an interest as president of the NCB.

Perhaps I may bring to the House’s attention the latest report from the Centre for Excellence and Outcomes in Children and Young People’s Services, also known as C4EO, which collates much of the work on outcomes for children and families, including work on early intervention. Grasping the Nettle is a joint report with the Association of Directors of Children’s Services and makes the very good point that although targeted approaches tend to be judged more cost-effective than universal approaches, there is little comparative evidence to determine which approach might be the right course of action. Indeed, the report concludes that it is likely to be a combination of both and that a range of interventions would support different levels of need.

However, one outcome is clear. It is far more cost-effective to put in place rigorous early intervention schemes than to have to deal with the cost of problems later on. A long-term scheme in the United States called the Nurse Family Partnership found that $9,000 spent per child had the average benefit of more than $26,000 per child in later life, and also that crime reduction was an important contributor to that benefit. The scheme is replicated in the UK as the Family Nurse Partnership, but a long-term evaluation has not yet been completed.

My second point is that parenting programmes, to which my noble friend Lady Walmsley referred, are an essential part of any early intervention support. International studies and effective local practice in the UK have shown very clearly that good parenting, regardless of background, is crucial to good outcomes for children and young people Effective parenting support leads to improved outcomes for children, parents and families. Parenting is one of the most difficult jobs and yet there is no training or recognition for this vital role in our society.

Again, I believe that we need properly funded long-term projects. It is not fair that some parents get support while a three or five-year project being run before closure possibly due to a lack of funding leaves other parents with no help. When resources are scarce we need to ensure that we have the vision—which I believe that this Government have—to lead the commissioning of good, evidenced-based, multi-agency targeting of parenting and other early intervention support. Evidence by the NCB suggests that multi-agency approaches are the most effective in complex families.

The OECD suggests that expenditure on children should be regarded as if it were an investment portfolio, with a continual process of evaluation and reallocation to ensure that child well-being is actually improved. I welcome the model that C4EO has developed to help assess the cost of effective interventions at a time of reducing resources, as the methodology up to now has been weak. I hope that local authorities will make use of it. All the international evidence suggests that spending more intensively earlier is cost-effective, particularly for children in disadvantaged families, and we need to ensure that we roll out successful early intervention support throughout the United Kingdom.

14:26

[Baroness Morris of Yardley]

My Lords, I very much welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate and to join others in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on initiating it. The noble Baroness has a long history of interest in this subject and it is good to hear that her passion has survived moving from opposition to government—and long may that be the case.

There is probably unanimity about the importance of this issue. I suspect that had we been discussing this 20 years ago, there would have been a debate about whether it was right for government to comment on or intervene in what happened in families. That battle has been won. If we are to move forward, it is important not only to stand on that as a basis but to realise that we have to sustain and protect that belief. I do not necessarily want to go through the evidence of how early intervention works; I believe in it passionately and have enjoyed listening to the evidence so far, and no doubt there will be other contributions on it. However, having won that battle, we need to be very careful about any government action that would take us back to where we were before.

I do not want to dwell on this for too long, but I also remember that, in 1997, parts of this country were a waste field as regards early intervention. Some local authorities had no provision for nursery education. However, the infrastructure has been built up over the past 15 years, and we now have more than 3,000 Sure Start centres covering 2.7 million people. The provision of a £2.2 billion budget just for Sure Start and early years intervention has led to a massive change. It has provided more than simply the fabric and the bricks; it has brought about a change in culture in this country, such that it would now be unimaginable for a politician from any party to say that they did not believe in early years intervention and support. That is how far we have moved and it is very important that we do not risk it. It is still early days and it may not be as rooted as I hope that it is.

I want to look forward on the two fronts by which I will judge the extent to which we are likely to build on the progress, or to throw it away. I shall consider, first, the amount of provision and, secondly, the quality of that provision in the coming years.

On both those issues, the Government’s record so far does not give me confidence that they will build on the past 15 years of investment and progress. There are three main threats to the amount of provision. First, there is the 13 per cent cut in cash terms to the intervention budget, which is real money out of the service and will have real consequences. Secondly, there is the un-ring-fencing of the budget, and, thirdly, the diminishing of our nation’s ambition for a universal service to a targeted service. I do not want to go into all of those in great depth, but this was a Government in which both parties went to the election promising to protect the early years and protect Sure Start. Now the Minister who is now responsible for that has said to people that if they want Sure Start to continue they must lobby their local council to let it happen. That is not government responsibility; the public have made clear their view about Sure Start and early intervention. They have done their lobbying and voted for parties at the general election that promised to keep Sure Start and the amount of investment in that sector—and that was all three of the major parties. I worry that what the Government have done in their early months is to give away every single lever they had to ensure that this work continues. That is what happens when you un-ring-fence a budget and say to local authorities, “Here is a smaller budget—you decide how it will work out”. I am left wondering where the Government’s levers are to deliver the pledges that they made before the election.

The next thing that I wanted to look at was the quality of provision, because there are some fairly ineffective things happening in this sector. It is bound to be the case. In education, we are quite good at carrying on doing ineffective things; we are not as good at actually changing our practice so that we build on the evidence of what works.

I shall talk about one error that the Government have made and then comment on one opportunity that they have. Frankly, it was a mistake to remove the requirement that at least one person with qualified teacher status or early years professional status should be in our children’s centres. I admire the Minister for his commitment to the quality of teaching and praise him for having made it clear in this House that the Government are committed to that at school level. I just cannot understand why he can care so passionately about the qualification of those who work with our children at five and above but less so about those who work with our children at five and below. We have the irony of a situation in which you can teach children only when you have a degree level of 2.2 or above but do not need a qualification to work with our under-fives.

The last point that I make is about evidence. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in saying that the work that Graham Allen has done in talking about an evidence base is crucial. However, I disagree with her in that I am not sure that we have the evidence. There is some lousy research around, and we do not write it down and equate it as we should.

I want to take from Graham Allen’s comments in my last few seconds. He talks about the need to evaluate programmes by randomised control trials and other things of really good quality. I declare my interest in that as a member of the Institute for Effective Education at the University of York. We must then classify those programmes by quality, impact and caste and only then allow the professionals to make wise decisions on behalf of the interventions they make.

14:33

[Lord Storey]

My Lords, I first thank noble Lords for making my entry into the House so welcoming. Indeed, the generosity of that welcome and the support from attendants and staff has been truly remarkable. I am a city councillor forged in the political council chamber of Liverpool. Coming to the House and seeing respect, reflection, support, concern and friendship is quite remarkable.

I am a head teacher. I have been a teacher for 40 years and a head teacher for the past 25 years. My current school, of which I am head teacher, is a large three-form entry primary school, with 332 children at the last count and a 100-place nursery, in Knowsley on the outskirts of Liverpool. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Walmsley for this opportunity to give my thoughts about early intervention as a practitioner. As she rightly says, the most important intervention for any child is made by the child’s parent or parents. The love and support that the parents give to that child is crucial. But we should also be supporting parents, particularly those parents who find themselves in vulnerable situations that perhaps are not of their own making. I note the comment made by Iain Duncan Smith a few days ago when he said, rightly in my view:

“Unless something changes in the adult's life, nothing changes for the child”.

How true those remarks are.

I know that we are talking about intervention in early years, and I shall come to that in a moment, but intervention in my view has to happen throughout the life of the child or young person. Those interventions cannot just be a fad which one minute we pick off the shelf because it is the in-thing to do. They have to be thought through very carefully and, when we know they are right, we have to make sure that they are consistently given time and resources to make them work.

I am glad to say that one of the most important interventions that the last Government made was with the Sure Start centres. They have made a huge difference, particularly in deprived communities, and especially in inner-city areas, to the lives of children and young people. I regret that in some local authorities those important Sure Start and children’s centres are being closed down. I have also scripted in my mind a comment that my noble friend Lady Walmsley made—that I am proud that in my party’s control of local authorities, not one Sure Start centre has closed down.

I shall spend a few minutes talking about the Graham Allen report, Early Intervention: The Next Steps. First of all, I commend this report as it is one of the best pieces of writing about early intervention that I have read. It is hugely important, and I commend those who had the foresight to ask for it and work on it. In this report Allen makes the comment to which I alluded a few moments ago:

“This is not to say that development stops at age … We need to keep supporting them throughout childhood in ways which help them reach the key milestones of social and emotional development”.

That is very important indeed.

In this report, Allen also identifies 19 possible intervention strategies. It is sad to reflect that of those 19 interventions nearly all originate in the United States of America and only one in the UK—reading recovery. I wonder why, and what happened to UK interventions. The other point made in the report is about the use of the private sector, and I caution concern about that because, although the private sector is important, we must be careful that we do not in some people’s minds subject our most vulnerable and needy to profit and loss. That might be something that we need to consider.

I know the support mechanisms that are around to help children. While I listened with interest to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, one of the most important steps now, as a head teacher, would be to use the pupil premium to decide how my teaching staff will target that money to help the most needy as well as those who need intervention in my school. I have seen my school budget increase, so I will be able to use my own resources to target the interventions, which we think will make a difference to the lives of children.

I end by saying that schools make a real difference to children’s lives, but they cannot do it alone. They need the support of other interventions. I thank noble Lords for having the patience to listen to me on my first very nervous speech in the House of Lords.

14:39

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

My Lords, it gives me enormous pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Storey, and I congratulate him on a really excellent maiden speech. As he made clear, he has been a headmaster for 25 years, and he is a great expert in early childhood development. As well as guiding the development of many a young person in Knowsley, he has also been instrumental—he did not really say very much about this—in regenerating the proud city of Liverpool. He became a councillor in Liverpool in 1973 at the age of 23, and he has been a councillor for 37 years, becoming leader of Liverpool City Council in 1998 and lord mayor in 2009-10. It was during his leadership of Liverpool City Council that the city was transformed, becoming one of the best performing local authorities, having been one of the worst.

It was at my noble friend’s stimulation that the city bid to become the European capital of culture, and he was part of the team that delivered that most successful year of culture in Liverpool. He subsequently secured world heritage status for Liverpool. He brought to Liverpool, and Liverpool won, the largest leisure and retail development in Europe, as well as the new arena and conference centre which those of us who are Liberal Democrats enjoyed at our annual conference last September. He has also brought the cruise liner terminal and the science park to Liverpool. Indeed, under his leadership, Liverpool has emerged as one of the leading cities in the UK, and he has been very much responsible for its wholesale regeneration. We are delighted to have him here in this House; he will contribute a great deal to it and we look forward very much indeed to his further contributions.

I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Walmsley and must say how grateful I am to her for bringing this important topic to our attention yet again. We have had a number of debates on this subject in this House recently, but it is certainly a subject that is worth debating. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, said, not many of us need convincing of the importance of early intervention. The evidence is increasingly overwhelming; the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, has already mentioned some of it. One has only to look at some of the work quoted by Graham Allen in his report and in Feinstein’s work on the cohort studies here in the UK to see how important it is that we intervene early and help children at the earliest possible stage. Indeed, as my noble friend Lady Walmsley mentioned, we have had a series of reports—the Allen report, which I mentioned, and the Munro report—and we will have reports from Clare Tickell and Frank Field.

I was much influenced by the meeting on shared parenting held by the APPG on Family Law and the Court of Protection on Monday 14 March, at which Dame Clare Tickell stressed that what young parents need to be taught about parenting is actually very simple and very basic: the importance of talking to babies, communication and language, learning how to manage conflict, the difference between right and wrong, and above all showing love and affection. As she said, all those can be taught very quickly, and young couples of men and women, or of teenage boys and teenage girls for that matter, are immensely receptive in the run-up to the birth of the child and in the year that follows. They want to know and to help their children to be successful. Their aspirations at this point are sky high, and that is the time to catch them and teach them. Sadly, until now, we have failed to do this, and still far too many children slip through the net.

I, like others, pay tribute to the previous Government, who turned the spotlight on the importance of the early years and began the rapid rollout of such programmes as Sure Start, but still far too many people arriving at school are unprepared and unready for the experience. As a reception class teacher in the school of which I am a governor told me, “It’s no good trying to teach children to read if they don’t know how to talk”. In essence, getting them to talk and communicate with each other is a very important part of the whole programme. It is therefore important that intervention happens not just with very young children and babies but at this early stage when they are learning to read in primary school.

In the little time that I have left I will mention just two initiatives for which I have enormous admiration. One is the reading recovery programme, which came to this country from New Zealand and was picked up and developed in the early part of this century. It has shown enormous gains for the young people involved. It involves one-to-one teaching. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, was in the Chamber earlier but is no longer here. I remember asking a question three or four years ago about reading recovery. He said:

“it is a very expensive programme—it costs about £2,500 per child”.

I replied:

“My Lords, does the Minister not agree that it is well worth spending £2,000 on a six year-old if you are not going to have to spend £60,000 on him when he is 16?”.—[Official Report, 4/12/06; col. 960.]

The second programme that is thoroughly worth while is The Place2Be, which has allowed 172 primary schools to enjoy the services of a trained child psychologist as a counsellor in the schools, helping the children with all kinds of problems. It is vital for schools to be able to serve deprived areas by having the services of a counsellor. I recommend this programme to the Minister, and I very much hope that it will be extended.

14:46

[Lord Northbourne]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for introducing this debate and for the brilliant way in which she explained the problem. I am extremely happy to be on the same side as her on this occasion.

The classic research of Bowlby, Ainsworth and others—indeed, almost all modern published work—confirms the importance for the child of secure loving attachment during the early years to a mother or surrogate mother. During the first year of life, infants learn to love, to feel confident and to deal with stressful circumstances and negative emotions in an organised manner. As an illustration of the importance of an appropriate environment in the early years of brain development, the noble Lord, Lord Winston, in an earlier debate on this subject, told the House that kittens are born blind, and that if you put a blindfold on one for no more than 21 days the cat will be blind for life.

Similarly the synapses in a child's brain are developed by that child's experiences. Key emotional and social development takes place in the early weeks and months. The human child needs regular positive interactions with nurturing adults in order to develop the complex networks of brain connections that they will need to form healthy relationships. I have been aware of this research and this story for some time, but I must admit that the full force of it has come to me only very recently when watching my daughter care for and play with her beloved first child. That child knows that she is safe and that she is valued more than anything else in the world. She is learning how to love and be loved.

Given that the emotional and social development of the nation's children depends so much on the quality of secure attachment to a mother or another secure attachment figure in those first months and years, does it not seem logical to argue that we as a society should be doing more to optimise the chances of child/mother relationships being secure and loving? This is the basic point which the noble Baroness and others have already made, but successive Governments have shied away from this proposition because intervention in the child/mother relationship can be intrusive. Indeed, the word “intervention” sounds just a little too much like interference. I would rather change the word, focusing in the opposite direction, and talk about prevention. I was extraordinarily happy to hear the noble Baroness and other speakers talking positively about prevention. In those terms, there are many things that we can do. I do not have time to go into them this afternoon, but one is better preparation for parenthood, starting perhaps in schools and certainly elsewhere too. There should be more support for first-time parents before and around the time of birth of the child, and in the first year of the child’s life. Also, we need to think about trying to create a society which more greatly values and encourages long-term parental commitment. There are also obvious elements that we must not forget, involving the improvement of the environment in which some parents are obliged to bring up their child. These include poverty, debt, ill health, violence, addiction and many more things that your Lordships know about.

I want to turn to the subject of grandparents. In all this work, there is a very important role for grandparents. In particular, they often have key roles as supporters of parents, as carers and often as surrogate parents. I was therefore most concerned recently to hear that before the end of April The Grandparents’ Association will have to close its helpline, manned mainly by volunteers but none the less costing money, because their financial support is to be withdrawn from 31 March. This helpline has been dealing with more than 8,000 calls a year, many involving legal advice or deeply complex and emotive problems faced by grandparents.

We all have to accept that cuts are necessary, but I cannot help wondering whether this cut will not cost a great deal more than it saves. In this context, I should be grateful if the Minister could give me an answer to three questions of which I have given him notice. First, do the Government recognise the important role which grandparents can play in supporting their grandchildren during their early years? Secondly, is the noble Lord aware that each year some 8,000 grandparents have been contacting The Grandparents’ Association helpline for advice and help, and that the association has been working with grandparents for more than 23 years? Thirdly, will the Minister please ask his right honourable friend to find some way at least to provide essential short-term financial support to The Grandparents’ Association helpline at least to give it time to seek other sources of funding for the helpline or, if necessary, to try to transfer its services in an orderly manner to some other provider?

14:52

[The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to be a Member of this House and to be addressing you for this first time. I, too, would like to express my gratitude to those noble Lords who have already generously welcomed me. I would also like to acknowledge with gratitude the kindness and efficiency of the officers of the House in helping and supporting my introduction. It was a particular delight to meet Black Rod, whom I had last seen in his previous incarnation within the borders of my diocese when, as Colonel Commandant of the Royal Tank Regiment, he presented campaign medals to a squadron of the regiment on its return from Afghanistan.

I want also to pay tribute to the former Bishop of Lincoln, whose retirement was the reason for my Writ of Summons to this House. John Saxbee combined a refreshingly down-to-earth personality with a sharp intellect, which certainly enlivened bishops’ meetings and, I am sure, the proceedings of this House.

All those with Irish connections will know well that this is St Patrick’s Day. But I was introduced to the House on 8 March, which for a bishop whose diocese covers nearly all the county of Suffolk was particularly appropriate as it is the day on which we commemorate St Felix. While perhaps not the best known of saints, St Felix was the very first bishop to be recorded as exercising ministry in East Anglia in the 7th century. He established his See at Dunwich, in what is now the county of Suffolk. Dunwich was once a major east coast port, but has long since been reclaimed by the North Sea; however, Felix’s name is of course attached to the modern Suffolk port of Felixstowe that is of major significance to this country as a container port.

Suffolk is a county that attracts many visitors. It has many historical attractions, not least in the legacy of medieval churches, some of the finest in the country, built in times of local prosperity through the wool trade. These lovely buildings are of course an asset and a huge responsibility, but I assure your Lordships that often I find that these churches are at the centre of the life of the many small communities that make up rural Suffolk. They are certainly a major part of what attracts visitors to Suffolk. But this is of course not just a place of tourism. There is a significant contribution to the food production of the country from the farmers of Suffolk, and in these days of ecological awareness the county works hard to reduce food miles in the marketing of local produce. Indeed, the Greenest County programme attracts support from a very wide cross-section of the community.

However, this is not a static community. There are significant areas of new housing which the church seeks to serve, and there are likely to be more. But a place of historical and rural beauty is not immune from the challenges of modern society. Deprivation can be found in rural areas as well as some of the urban parts of the county. There have been many fine examples of both statutory and voluntary agencies seeking to break some of the cycles of deprivation and addiction which so often lead to tragic consequences, some of which we have been hearing about. These are areas where the church seeks to offer support across all denominations and indeed faiths.

The subject of this important debate that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, brings to the House is those significant implications for human flourishing about which we have been hearing. I have read closely the proceedings of the debate last month, instigated by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, “Children: Parenting for Success in School”. That made clear to me that this House is able to draw on much expertise. The debate, together with the reports by Frank Field MP and Graham Allen MP, that have already been referred to, have left no doubt about how the development of children in early years has a crucial effect on human life and flourishing. That was recently underlined in the interim report of Professor Eileen Munro in her review of child protection.

In the debate last month, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford spoke of the need to support stable and loving-couple relationships, support for volunteers who contribute to child well-being, and a commitment to continuity of provision. I note that in the county of Suffolk there are 48 children’s centres. While I am aware, as has already been referred to, that there are significant changes to the funding of these centres, these will remain open. Suffolk has, from the start, adopted a multiagency approach, and quite rightly seeks to work with families rather than doing things to them. That approach is reinforced in Professor Munro’s report. As of 1 April, 300 health visitors and school nurses will be transferring from health to children’s services in order to integrate provision further.

What I really want to plead for is an integrated approach of services, both statutory and voluntary. In a minor way, I was affected in my family when my youngest son was picked up in his early years as not developing certain speech patterns. It turned out to be a classic case of what is known as “glue ear”, which a minor operation could correct so that higher pitched sounds could be picked up and he could then develop normal speech patterns with the help of some speech therapy.

In responding to recent reports, I see that the chief executive of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapies has emphasised the importance of early intervention, describing communication as,

“the foundation life skill and the single most significant factor in determining a child’s life chances”.

She also significantly says:

“With over 60 per cent of young people in custody demonstrating difficulties with speech, language and communication, the importance of early intervention to address communication needs cannot be ignored”.

There in itself is an area which speaks of the cost-effectiveness of early intervention.

Once again, my Lords, I thank you for your welcome, and I look forward to contributing to the work of this House.

14:59

[Baroness Warnock]

My Lords, it is an enormous pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich. I congratulate him on his excellent and most interesting maiden speech. He is a man of extremely wide experience and, obviously, deep humanity. I am particularly delighted by the fact that he was introduced to this House on St Felix’s Day—Felix being the name of both my grandfather and my eldest son—and my having spent a very happy time just before the birth of my eldest son at Dunwich, no less, which now hardly exists but then was still a recognisable place, not taken over by the sea, as the right reverend Prelate said. Apart from that, we have every reason to be very glad that he is now a Member of our House and look forward to his contributions over a wide field, not just what we have heard him talk about today. I need hardly make the speech that I was going to make now that he has made his.

I shall concentrate for a few minutes on the question of communication, as the most crucial field for early intervention in childhood. I have been mildly encouraged by the recent Green Paper on special educational needs, because the Government have treated education, health and the social circumstances of the child as a seamless whole. That is, as far as it goes, encouraging. My only question is whether any concrete changes will come from the fine words in the Green Paper. The battle to treat those three areas as one in the life of the child has been fought for a very long time. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, it seems to have been fought a great deal for the past 30 years and will, I hope, change in the right direction hereafter.

It struck me that, thinking back to the 1970s when the report of the Committee on Special Educational Needs, which I was privileged to chair, was published, we were charged by the then Government with what now seems a completely absurd and impossible task, which is to recommend what such children need without mentioning a deprived background as part of the problem from which many of them suffer. That now seems ridiculous, but at the time, we were still in the days when being educationally subnormal, as it used to be called, or handicapped, put you into a class apart, a separate race of people. It seemed that we had to rule out mentioning deprivation or not having English as the first language spoken at home when talking about education, because it would put the children suffering from deprivation into the category of the handicapped, and that was known to be inferior. It would have been snobbish, at best, and racist at worst, if we had mentioned deprivation.

It is worth reflecting on what an absurd embargo was put on us at the time. It could not happen now. That is good, but it is most important to recognise the role that teachers, as well as parents, must play in identifying, and knowing what to do when they recognise, the difficulties that some children are having and the special needs that they may be demonstrating in the classroom. That means that not only specialist teachers must be prepared to intervene but that all classroom teachers must be trained to recognise such children and take the next step.

I end my remarks on a more optimistic note. This week, I was present at the launch of a new website especially designed for teachers in training and in post in the classroom. It was launched at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital School, which is a marvellous school. The website gives information and advice on an enormous number of difficulties that children may be experiencing in classrooms, starting with severe allergies and going through every possible educational obstacle. I very much hope that that website—which, incidentally, was financed entirely by Google—will be very widely used in teacher training establishments and by teachers as individuals when they are faced with a problem that they do not quite understand. I recommend that website very highly to all teacher training establishments. That may be a good example of the big society working.

15:06

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

My Lords, it is a great honour to follow that amazing campaigner, the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. I am very happy that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has secured this debate. Like me, she campaigns for the well-being of children, and I appreciated her thoughtful speech. Indeed, all noble Lords present in the Chamber today are passionate about the well-being and achievement of children. As has been said, this is, or should be, an all-party issue. I should declare an interest as the chairman of the All-Party Group on Children. I hope that noble Lords will be able to exert their influence on the coalition Government to persuade them to look again at some of their policies on families. Children are at the receiving end of family problems, and government policies on tax, family support services, children on the edge of care, after-school services, children centres, employment, and under-fives grants will impact on families.

I am not talking just about poverty. I agree with what Frank Field said in his recent report that poverty is not the only factor to impinge on a child's quality of life. I understand that the Government will be producing a social mobility strategy, which will focus on the causes of poverty. I well understand that, but if we consider possible causes of poverty, for example, drug or alcohol addiction—I declare an interest as the chair of the National Treatment Agency—we have also to look at what causes the drug or alcohol problem. It becomes a cyclical argument. As we know, those causes are multifaceted, such as being in care, low educational achievement, low aspiration, unemployment, or inadequate early-years care, all leading to low self-esteem and feelings of worthlessness. Family poverty can contribute to that, and bring stress in relationships, as was mentioned earlier. Causes are not simple, and poverty is not simple.

The first few years of a child's life are, of course, crucial. Intervention will be, for the most part, from parents. Parents would not call it intervention. They would call it love and care through stimulus and health-giving activities. Where families do not supply such intervention, other measures are essential if the child is to flourish. Most families do not need intervention, but I agree with Graham Allen in his report that some families require specific intervention, such as with a family intervention project or a family nurse partnership. Some families need occasional help, such as from a GP, health visitor or child psychologist.

Some interventions can benefit all children, such as language enrichment, play opportunities for children, libraries, and so on. Some families have particular needs. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, was thinking of grandparents. I am thinking of grandparents with sole care of their grandchildren because their son or daughter is dead, in prison, or addicted to drugs or alcohol. I have raised the issue before in your Lordships' House, and some concessions have been made but, frankly, such grandparents are still in serious difficulty. Outcomes for children who go into care with family or friends are so much better, socially and academically, than those for children who go into other forms of care that such grandparents deserve more financial help and other support. They save the state millions but they sometimes have to scratch around, filling in endless forms, for a pittance. Do the Government have any plans to look at this situation again?

Maternal health, both physical and perhaps, particularly, mental, in the child’s early years, is essential, yet according to a Healthcare Commission survey more women have a more negative view of postnatal care than of any other part of maternity services. Pre-school healthcare is underfunded and tends to be a postcode lottery. Health visitors are key to all this. More than 70 per cent of parents have said that they want parenting support from a health visitor. What plans do the Government have to ensure that all families have regular access to a health visitor when they need one?

Family intervention projects are targeted and specific to the most problematic families. They have been shown to reduce the burden on other services, reduce anti-social behaviour, reduce housing enforcement action and, strikingly, reduce educational problems—for example, truancy, exclusion and bad behaviour. Family nurse partnerships focus on support for the family up to toddlerhood. They impact on the mother, for example, in birth spacing and in the take-up of education or employment. They improve parenting skills and attendance at children’s centres. To what level will such interventions continue to be funded and will children’s centres continue to thrive?

I have not yet talked about cost-effectiveness and I am not sure that we yet have enough highly rigorous cost-benefit analysis of such interventions. My noble friend Lady Morris called it lousy research. But let us hope that longitudinal studies will eventually produce more meaningful and measurable outcomes. It seems clear that encouraging people to be good parents who will look after the health and welfare of their children is bound to save money. The cost of poor literacy is, I believe, about £64,000 over a lifetime. It has been estimated that family intervention projects and family services can save £9 for every £1 spent.

We know that the costs of children in care, youth offending, preventable diseases and so on affect the economy. We know that poor self-image inculcated from an early age has a profound impact on life chances. We know what works and I ask the Government to cherish the notion that such interventions not only save money but protect the health and happiness of individuals and society.

15:12

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Walmsley on initiating this debate and on her wide-ranging and extraordinarily knowledgeable introductory speech. I also congratulate our two maiden speakers, who will clearly bring enormous wisdom and experience to this House on the topics that we are debating. I declare an interest as president of Ambitious about Autism, the national charity for children and young people with autism, which through TreeHouse School provides specialist education. As so many speakers in today’s debate have emphasised, early intervention is key to securing the best possible outcomes for children with special educational needs, particularly those who have autism.

Last October, the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, instituted a debate on special educational needs. Throughout many speeches in that debate, including my own, ran the common theme of the need for early intervention, which was also called for in the very first manifesto of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Autism, of which I was vice-chairman, in 2003. But still, even now, too many children with autism are not getting diagnosed early enough. Early intervention can result in huge financial savings for society over the course of an individual's life.

The aggregate cost of supporting adults with autism in the UK is £27.5 billion annually. Some 85 per cent of adults with autism currently are not able to access the workplace and 90 per cent are dependent on their families or the state. Early intervention is particularly crucial in education. Children with special educational needs are eight times more likely to be excluded from school than their peers. The cost of failed education placements, which end in exclusion, pupil referral units, expensive specialist provision and even more expensive residential placements, is substantial. The cost of educating a pupil in a specialist school is four times that of a mainstream school. The evidence from parents and professionals is that getting the right level of support early on in school prevents the need for this expensive exclusion route.

The most effective interventions for children with autism focus on helping them to manage their behaviour, develop communication and social skills, and “learn to learn”. A recent review of research has identified a number of approaches that can result in improvements in communication skills, behaviour and social functioning. In particular, intensive behavioural interventions, such as the applied behaviour analysis that is used at TreeHouse School, have been widely evaluated and shown to be effective. There is clear evidence to support the use of ABA.

Other countries have shown a much stronger appetite for trialling early intervention approaches, but Birmingham City Council—which is Conservative-Liberal Democrat controlled—is currently trialling four interventions. The council is spending £41.7 million on early intervention programmes over 10 years in the belief that the investment will save it around £102 million over 15 years. Projects such as this are essential if we want to ensure positive outcomes for a whole range of children while delivering substantial savings. We also need to incentivise local authorities to provide appropriate support soon after a child’s needs have been identified, rather than allow costs to escalate through exclusion to more expensive provision. This would create better outcomes for children and families and a more cost-effective solution for local authorities.

We have talked about cost but, above all, a failure to identify autism and other special educational needs early on forms a barrier to delivering effective interventions. Without timely diagnosis, it is difficult for professionals to decide on appropriate intervention. There should be screening checks for SEN built in to children’s early years. There is also a lack of understanding of autism in the early years workforce, whether in health, social care or education. A host of government and independent inquiries, including that by Brian Lamb, have recommended improved training as key to identifying additional needs early and building the skills base to meet those needs.

Much of what I have proposed is reflected in the very welcome new coalition Government SEN Green Paper, Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability, which has been referred to in the debate. The Green Paper makes the case for early intervention and support far better than I can, so I congratulate my honourable friend Sarah Teather both on the care with which the paper has been prepared and on its content. In particular, the paper recognises that,

“identifying children’s support needs early is vital if they are to thrive, and enables parents and professionals to put the right approach in place quickly”.

That supports the findings from Graham Allen’s review, which has also been mentioned by other noble Lords, which concluded that early intervention creates benefits for wider society as well as the individual child and family.

Having seen the experience of so many parents faced with adversarial SEN tribunals, I particularly welcome the proposal that children and young people who would currently have a statement of SEN or learning difficulty assessment will, by 2014, have a single assessment process and an education, health and care plan for their support from birth to the age of 25. I also very much welcome the fact that the new plan will afford parents the same statutory protection as the statement of SEN, and that the Government will explore how to use the voluntary and community sector to introduce much-needed independence to the process.

There are many other positive things I could say about the Green Paper, but some questions arise from it which I hope will be answered by the Minister. Will the education, health and care plan be based on a strong legal right for families to access early support? Furthermore, what will the funding and training mechanisms be to allow early years professionals and health workers to identify needs earlier? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

15:19

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for introducing this debate so excellently and comprehensively. We seem to have had a number of debates recently on this subject, but that merely highlights the importance of the whole issue.

Many of the costly and damaging social problems that we face occur because we are not giving children the support that they need in their early years. When we do intervene, it is often too late and less effective, as problems have intensified. Because of this, disadvantaged groups more often than not face fairly disastrous personal outcomes. Studies find that when children experience impoverished, abusive or neglectful environments, they do not develop empathy or social skills and are at increased risk of mental health problems and anti-social or aggressive behavior. Even worse, research shows that boys assessed at age three as at risk have 2.5 times as many criminal convictions by the age of 21 as a control group.

The strong economic case for early intervention and for reducing the causes of poverty is clear. A 2008 report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimated the cost to public services of the consequences of unaddressed poverty. However, I follow what others have said about the range of figures. They do not always seem to add up, so there is a strong case for rather more in-depth, long-term assessment.

As well as disadvantaged children, those with special educational or disability needs require even more support in the early years. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, autism is an obvious example. I was going to quote much of what he said in his remarks, but I will now leave that out, but clearly the “learn to learn” approach can save considerable sums later on as young people with autism acquire skills.

Sadly, even though for some disabilities special ring-fenced funding is available, misinformation has apparently led to lost opportunities. My example here is deaf children, for whom, in order to develop their speech and language skills, it is vital that we intervene with specialist services as early as humanly possible after diagnosis. Yet some local authorities are apparently not aware that funding is available under the designated schools grant to help deaf children under the age of two. This was apparently the case in Sheffield. The charity NDCS has since rightly explained that the grant could and should be used for the support of very young deaf children and that the school finance regulations have now been revised to remove any doubt. However, this is apparently a persistent problem with other local authorities as well.

Inevitably, there is concern that, in this current horrendous economic climate, local authorities will look to make cuts of all kinds, including funds for special needs and disadvantaged children. Can the Minister please assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to sending a strong signal, and even incentives, to local authorities that certainly designated early intervention funding should be used and that, in any case, early funding for all children with special needs should be a priority, as it is both a socially effective and cost-effective long-term investment? Thankfully, I think that there are real signs of an increased perception that it is better to identify problems early and to intervene effectively to prevent their escalation. I pay tribute to what the previous Government did in terms of Sure Start and so on, and similarly to Frank Field and Graham Allen.

In all situations, the returns on early intervention are demonstrably beneficial. Overall benefit-to-cost ratios are as high as 17 per cent. One review of the economic benefits of early intervention education programmes found that for low-income three to four year-olds the benefits were 2.5 times the initial investment.

I expect that noble Lords will agree that the challenge for the Government in adopting an early intervention policy nationally is not just deciding whether it is a good idea—I hope that that is now firmly established—but its financing, because it is no good starting on this path unless the work can be carried through. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, made that point, too, in his excellent maiden speech.

I am sure that other noble Lords will have read with interest the paper sent to us for this debate by Save the Children, particularly the details of its FAST programme, which again emphasises the importance of early intervention for the future of those groups of children and their families whom we are discussing today. There are two points that I should like to make about this. First, I congratulate Save the Children on all the excellent work that it has done over very many years. Secondly, I note the partnership that Save the Children and FAST have entered into with Lloyds Banking Group and Morrisons—here I perhaps do not agree so much with the noble Lord, Lord Storey. The FAST programme, which has been widely and successfully tested and developed over 20 years in a number of different countries including the USA, has already gained an excellent reputation. With the £2.5 million that it has raised, it hopes to establish more than 120 new children’s centres and school sites in the UK during 2011-12, with even more ambitious programmes to improve the life chances of thousands of children by 2014. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that these kinds of big society partnerships are being encouraged nationwide. If, on top of government commitment and funding, this kind of business backing can be assured, working in partnership, of course, with the third sector and local communities, we will see real results.

15:26

[Baroness King of Bow]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for securing this debate and especially for her excellent speech, which summarised the benefits of early intervention. I do not believe that it is hyperbole to say that the future of this country rests on whether we implement successful early intervention strategies—certainly, the future of our children rests on it. That is why politicians need to become experts on very young children and how their brains develop; it is not enough for us just to kiss them at elections. It is also why we desperately need to exempt this subject from party-political point-scoring. I commend Graham Allen and Iain Duncan Smith on their excellent report and the example they provided. I congratulate also the two noble Lords who made their maiden speeches in this debate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for his non-party-political praise of Sure Start programmes.

Many good speeches have been made, but I draw attention particularly to that of my noble friend Lady Morris, who outlined the perils of moving Sure Start from universal to targeted provision. What assurances can the Minister give on that point and on funding for Sure Start centres?

As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, pointed out, we must respond to the evidence that is stacked a mile high here. As she said, we need to move spending to the developmental stage rather than it being remedial. Just how cost-effective is early intervention? Westminster Council calculates that damage caused by an unruly family costs it £273,000 every year, a figure that includes the costs of foster care, domestic violence and ASBOs. Action for Children has estimated that for every £1 spent on Sure Start children’s centres, society benefits by between £4 and £9 in the long term and that early investment can save the economy £486 billion over 20 years. I know that we are not great at thinking long term, but surely we cannot afford not to. If anyone remains unpersuaded, I ask them to read Why Love Matters by Sue Gerhardt; in fact, every politician should read this book. I realise that, at my citing a title such as this, noble Lords could be forgiven for thinking that I want to see a communal outbreak of “Kumbaya” in the Chamber. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although it might sound quite touchy-feely, that book explains precisely how we cannot afford to wait until later in a child’s development if we want that child to flourish.

Likes others, I shall not attempt to précis the excellent Graham Allen review, but I want to say something to those who say that early intervention smacks of the nanny state. It is quite ironic that those who seem to rail most against the nanny state are usually those who enjoyed the benefits of a nanny. A nanny helps children whose parents are not available to help them. I do not see why it should be only well-off children who receive that resource or, at the very least, I cannot understand why people should recoil from extending that help to the children who need it most. It is not just about those in greatest need; it is an issue that affects us all. If people talk about broken Britain, they should realise that they are more accurately talking about anti-social behaviour perpetrated by those who most often have had broken childhoods, whether in a one-parent family, a two-parent family or any other shape of family.

In seeking solutions, I mention the work of the charity 4Children. It is a national charity that provides services within Sure Start children’s centres, nurseries, youth programmes and other family services. In its submission to the Graham Allen review, it stated that,

“early intervention is not a programme, a scheme or a project. It is an approach which should run through all work with children and families … whilst there are excellent examples of early intervention projects and programmes around the country, we have not yet changed the fundamental mindset or approach—to one based on early intervention”.

Much of the work the state does with families does not take that approach. Its proposals include putting universal services at the heart of any early intervention strategy, ensuring families and communities play an important role, recognising and building on the success of children’s centres and the critical need for a whole-family approach, as that is what makes the difference.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, reminded us that by the time a child reaches the age of three 85 per cent of their brains have developed. Let us just hope that our own minds are not too inflexible to deliver the resources that early intervention desperately needs.

15:32

[Baroness Benjamin]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Walmsley on securing this debate as it deals with matters very close to my heart. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Storey on his passionate maiden speech and the right reverend Prelate on his excellent speech too.

For many years now, because of my professional and charitable work with and for children and young people, I have always advocated that early intervention is the answer as regards prevention of much pain, suffering and unhappiness later in life. Research has shown that 40 per cent of children with conduct disorders at the age of eight will go on to have repeat convictions, and 90 per cent of convicted adolescent offenders show conduct disorders. Therefore it is crucial to put early intervention in place and to work with families when difficulties first become apparent or, better still, before damaging patterns in family relationships become entrenched.

Children need to valued and loved, and not blamed, vilified or labelled. One of the ways in which we can intervene to help children to find themselves and to come to terms with fears, anxieties, death, stress and being abandoned or unwanted is play therapy. Play therapy offers a way of working with the child that is child friendly and uses the language that all children understand: play. I declare an interest as patron of the British Association of Play Therapists, which believes that filial therapy—a child-centred, non-directive play therapy—is uniquely placed to help not just children but their parents to improve their emotional well-being, and that that should be in place almost as soon as a child is born in an “at risk” situation, with parents or carers learning from the start how to have empathy with the child, how to listen, how to respond, how to set boundaries, how to discipline and how to show the child love and affection. I always say that a hug a day keeps the doctor away and there is nothing like a hug to make a child feel special.

Filial therapy is an effective therapy to help children modify their behaviour, clarify their self-concept and build healthy relationships. In play therapy, children enter a dynamic relationship with the therapist that enables them to express, explore and make sense of their difficult and painful experiences. Play therapy helps children find healthier ways of communicating, develop fulfilling relationships and increase resilience, and it facilitates emotional literacy; it allows them to express things they cannot put in words. It also allows the play therapist to have a glimpse into the child’s inner world and to gain some insight into the way forward to help that child, from as young as three upwards, with this healing process. It is one of the safest ways of working with children of all cultures. This type of therapy is so valuable because it is in the child’s control: they can move as fast or as slowly as they feel safe, stop when they feel closer to being overwhelmed and engage in repetitive play for as long as it is necessary to gain mastery over whatever the issues are.

I believe not enough consideration is given to the effects of what nowadays have become almost everyday occurrences in some children’s lives: domestic violence, alcoholism, divorce, separation, sexual and physical abuse, neglect, adoption, and fostering. They all play a part in causing conduct disorder and the craving for a loving, safe and happy parental attachment. Therefore I strongly believe that it is important to raise the status of parenting, starting in schools with helping teenagers to understand that caring for children is not just about feeding and clothing them. It is about understanding the importance of attachment and attachment behaviours, which is more than bonding—it is the ongoing relationship of the child with its primary carer. Broken attachments have far-reaching consequences for children, who find it difficult to concentrate in school and therefore to learn. Boys particularly need good role models these days, yet we have so many children growing up without a strong positive role model—they find themselves drawn into gangs, who give them that feeling of security. Parents and carers who themselves have been neglected, abused or troubled in childhood are known to be more at risk of developing difficult relationships with their own children. A lack of a secure attachment relationship can negatively affect relationships for the whole of their family life.

Research has shown that the first emotional stage in a child's life occurs during the first 12 months. This is what is sometimes called the “trust versus mistrust” stage, which is so crucial in forming attachment to parents. Neglect, abuse and emotional deprivation can all prevent a child passing through this stage, in which they can become stuck and develop lasting problems.

However, play therapy can help move a child through this stage. Filial therapy is invaluable at helping the parent or carer to understand and meet the child's emotional needs. Good attachments mean that children are more likely to form successful relationships in adult life. With the advances in neuroscience and brain scans, there is now vital information about the impact of different types of parenting on a child's brain. A newborn baby has around 200 billion brain cells but very few connections; however, when they reach the age of about 12 months, the higher brain has developed many more connections. The way these are formed is directly due to the child's experiences and in particular his or her emotional experiences with a parent or carer. It is not until around the age of seven that this process slows down and the communication and pathways between brain cells strengthen, so there is some scientific truth in the saying: “Give me a child until the age of seven and I will give you the man”. I believe—

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

I apologise for interrupting but the time is up and we are right up against the clock at the moment.

[Baroness Benjamin]

I would like to finish. Many children are suffering. Some people believe that if we leave children like Baby P, they might go on to be abusers themselves and that the answer is to give them away. However, I believe that play therapy, delivered by highly experienced professionals, can offer a different chance for children.

While I know that we are living with cuts, will the Government seriously consider setting up a pilot scheme of filial therapy to work with at-risk children and their parents and to train more therapists to practise early intervention? That would save the Government money on NHS healthcare and the judicial system, and save money for society generally. Will the Minister also consider putting practical parenting classes on the curriculum to ensure that early intervention starts as early as possible? I always say that childhood lasts a lifetime, so let us do all we can to get it right from the start by using all the tools at our disposal. Thank you for being patient with me.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, I respectfully remind your Lordships that we are up against the clock with this debate. When the clock goes to six, you have finished your six minutes. Thank you.

15:40

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I join everyone who has congratulated the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, not only on obtaining this debate but on her masterly introduction to it. Perhaps I may add my admiration for her tireless championing of issues affecting children. As always, I find debates in this House on this sort of subject absolutely fascinating. I find myself nodding with agreement and learning a great deal. Every time this subject comes up I am reminded of those wonderful words of Winston Churchill, uttered in 1910, that there is a treasure in the heart of every man if only you can find it—with the urging that it is your job to find it. That is coupled with my being one of the people who believe that the only raw material which every nation has in common is its people. Woe betide a nation if it does not do everything it can to identify, nurture and develop the talents of all of its people because if it does not, it has only itself to blame if it fails.

This debate has been preceded by three weighty documents, among others. In November came the White Paper on public health, Healthy Lives, Healthy People. Then there were the two excellent documents, already referred to, by Frank Field MP and Graham Allen MP. Only last week we received Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability. Reading that document reminded me of my time in the Army. Whenever you were invited to do a report, you immediately looked up the previous reports on the same subject to see what had happened to their recommendations. One persistent offender, which I was always concerned about, was where people regularly checked that getting progressively less sleep meant that you worked progressively less well.

I was reminded of that because I saw that that document was a consultation document, but containing a commitment that by 2014, there would be a single assessment process and education, health and care plan which would support children from birth until 25. It went on to say:

“The plan will be clear about who is responsible for which services, and will include a commitment from all parties across education, health and social care to provide their services”.

For heaven’s sake, what on earth have we been doing for the past 100 years if that has to be said as an aim by a ministry in 2011? I then looked at the back of that document and found no fewer than 102 documents quoted, all of which contained many recommendations that seemed to have got nowhere. Why?

Here, I declare interests as chair of the all-party group on learning and communication difficulties and as vice-chair of an organisation called the Institute for Food, Brain and Behaviour. I was extremely interested that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, began by talking about the developing brain because in the document that I referred to I was surprised to see no mention of nutrition and its vital role in pregnancy and the early years in helping to develop the brain. Then I looked to the list of documents and there they all were, so why has that been ignored? As chair of the all-party group, I am glad that that communication problem has come up over and over again. I am also grateful that the right reverend Prelate, in his excellent and thoughtful maiden speech, mentioned offenders.

If anyone ever wants to see the truth of the statement that is the subject of our debate, perhaps they would like to come with me into one of Her Majesty’s prisons. We could go to two places. We could go to any one of the landings, where every prisoner would be someone who had suffered from ineffective or non-existent early intervention. You see that repeated in spades and the costs cannot be quantified. Then we could go to the visiting centre and see the children of the people in prison. Those children are being deprived of one of the people who is so important in their early years, quite apart from having to go through the process of coming into that dreary place to visit the person who should be supporting them in that important process.

During my time as chief inspector I tried to get early intervention on young people, with regard to their communication skills or lack of them, properly investigated. A trial was carried out with speech and language therapists and it proved conclusively that, if they had only been able to connect with their education from an early stage, they might not have ended up there. I commend to the Minister the excellent briefing paper that has been produced for this debate by the Communication Trust, which has some very valuable information about the numbers of children who enter primary school without proper communication skills and who therefore cannot engage with a teacher. That is repeated at secondary school.

That last point has been mentioned over and again in this House in connection with legislation, which is why I conclude by asking the Minister why we have to wait until 2014 for a plan when all the evidence is already there. We do not need any more consultation; we have got it coming out of our ears. Who is actually going to be responsible for taking action rather than initiating yet another consultation?

15:46

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for introducing this timely debate. Recent debates in this House and in the other place have ensured that we are familiar with the challenging reports by MPs Frank Field and Graham Allen. As we await the Government’s response to those reports, as well as to Dame Clare Tickell’s review into the early years and foundation stage, I am particularly thankful that we continue to give significant time and thought to this hugely important area.

We know that the first few years determine profoundly how a child will be as an adult and as a citizen. More brain development takes place in the first 18 months than at any other time of life. Therefore, more damage can be done at that stage than at any other time if the environment is wrong and once that damage is done it is twice as hard to undo, so the child is hit by a double whammy.

Research tells us that by 22 months a bright child from a disadvantaged background begins to be overtaken in key abilities by a less bright but privileged child. Indeed, a child’s development score at 22 months is an accurate predictor of educational outcomes when that child is 26. Yet the public debate about life chances and social mobility often seems to pay more attention to what university a young adult of 18 should go to than to whether our three year-olds can hold a crayon or a simple conversation.

I shall focus on the importance of highly trained staff in early years education, also highlighted in Graham Allen’s report. In doing so, however, I should first like to record my support for Sure Start children’s centres in the current difficult financial climate. Giving our children the best possible start in life through improved childcare, early education, health and family support lay at the heart of the previous Government’s creation of Sure Start in 1998. Today these 3,500 life-enhancing children’s centres offer the earliest help to more than 2.5 million children and families. At their best they are hubs for community activity, offering a welcoming place to which families can turn, and, crucially, identifying difficulties before it is too late. Like many noble Lords, I am deeply concerned by reports of closures by local authorities charged with cutting budgets. The recent survey suggesting that some 250 Sure Start children’s centres could close within a year, affecting an estimated 60,000 families, is very distressing.

Of course, we cannot afford to waste money, but short-term measures mean that we risk wasting much more—what Graham Allen calls the wastage of human potential, social disruption and fractured lives. He cites the OECD in arguing that spending on young children is more likely to generate more positive changes than spending on older ones, and is likely to be fairer to more disadvantaged children. However, in the UK, for every £100 spent on the nought to five years, £135 is spent on the six to 11 years and £148 on the 12 to 17 years. As Allen points out, this is not a cost-effective way of treating society’s problems.

In championing cost-effective early intervention, I highlight the continuing need for high-quality care provided by highly trained staff. Like my noble friend Lady Morris, I am particularly concerned that children’s centres will no longer need a trained nursery teacher or early years professional of graduate status. This is a retrograde step. It goes to the heart of the call by Allen and Field to put the nought to five, or foundation years, on a par with primary and secondary education. Low-paid, low-qualified staff cannot give the expert remedial help that many families need.

I should declare an interest as my sister, an early years professional, has two nurseries in Nottingham, one rural and one urban. She sees every day the importance of an environment which is safe, secure, stimulating and loving. All these are essentials for a child’s proper development; missing any of these can be crucial. Many parents now lead unsettled, stressful, even chaotic lives. With the best will in the world, which most parents have, they are not able to provide this environment either through lack of time, money, resources or poor parenting experience themselves. Highly trained staff are, therefore, essential. High-quality childcare must be well managed and supervised. It is demanding work. Staff in children’s centres and nurseries need to be constantly aware of children, parents and each other, and vigilant about noticing change. As recent flaws in nursing care of the elderly demonstrate, the attitude of staff working in these challenging environments is critical. It must not be seen as an option for those who cannot think of any other line of work.

Training and continual professional development must be ongoing. We cannot continue with a situation whereby people can be paid more for stacking supermarket shelves than for looking after our youngest children. Will the Minister therefore endorse the schools White Paper proposal that the remit of the National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services should be extended to provide training for children’s centre leaders?

We need to find a way to make the vocation attractive to more highly qualified candidates, and we need to encourage schools, colleges and universities to teach and develop resources for the future. Therefore, will the Minister consider the call for equal status and recognition for the foundation years of nought to five, on a par with primary and secondary education? In support of this, will he also seriously consider the proposal for a workforce development framework to establish training and salary structures which recognise the challenge faced by, and importance of, early years staff?

None of this can be done on the cheap—funding is, as ever, the critical question—but I believe that these steps are vital if the early years foundation stage is to deliver what we ask of it.

15:53

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, there is nothing more important than giving all our children the best start in their lives, and there is nothing more shocking than the data which demonstrate that in the UK in the 21st century a child’s long-term future success is dictated by their place of birth and the socioeconomic status of his or her parents. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for instigating this important debate and congratulate our two excellent maiden speakers. I welcome both the Frank Field and the Graham Allen reports.

It seems to me that much of our public debate over the past 13 years has been about ensuring that all children get access to early education, and that there has been dissent between experts and politicians about the formality and nature of the early years foundation curriculum. It is on the nature of these formal stages of education that I wish to focus.

There is absolutely no doubt that access to proper early years support enhances and changes children’s life chances but certain elements must be in place to make that happen. In the 1980s, Tennessee state educators ran the now famous STAR project, providing detailed longitudinal research into the performance of children starting in kindergarten in a small class of one teacher to 15 children, and following them, initially as they moved through to third grade, and then over the subsequent three decades. Formal education did not start until these children were well into the first grade—rising sixes, as our parlance would have it. I will return later to the question of the age at which children start formal education.

I remember the Tennessee STAR data being released in the early 1990s. It was very much an education mantra of the time: for each dollar invested in these children, $7 of public money were saved later on, because these children graduated from high school, went on in education, were more likely to find regular employment, were significantly less likely to need public support, and were very much less likely to end up in the criminal justice system. It is interesting that similar long-term savings are beginning to emerge in the UK.

Those of us responsible for UK local government education budgets then—following the recession of the late 1980s and with major public service cuts—were struggling to make the case for increased funding for early-years education. Does that sound familiar? However, we achieved that in Cambridgeshire, where we Liberal Democrats were in coalition with Labour. We targeted our limited funds on providing support to children in the most deprived areas for whom we knew that this could be life-changing. It has been mentioned already that no Liberal Democrat council is closing Sure Start centres, which demonstrates that they can be a real priority.

Since then, work has continued on tracking the STAR cohort, and it still holds true that, as these former pupils become parents themselves, the next generation of children benefit from the experience in this scheme and that lower class sizes and having trained early-years professionals are a cost-effective way of providing an excellent start in life for young children, from which society as a whole reaps the benefit.

I want to focus briefly on the nature of that early-years interaction with children, because I worry greatly about the previous Government’s focus on starting the formal part of education early. I am with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who said in 1762:

“You are worried about seeing him spend his early years in doing nothing. What! Is it nothing to be happy? Nothing to skip, play, and run around all day long? Never in his life will he be so busy again”.

We need to view the world from a child’s perspective, learning at their own pace and developing their social abilities. A kindergarten should be exactly that—a place to learn to play, socialise, learn to talk and discover the world.

I am pleased that there is now a focus on providing the pedagogic specialism needed for children in these early years, because the holistic approach to a young child’s well-being must take precedence for the under-fives before enforced focus on letter recognition. I fear that much of our UK focus on early formal learning brings its own problems—hence the need for intervention, such as the highly regarded Reading Recovery and the Norfolk-based catch-up schemes for literacy, numeracy and maths. Children and teachers alike love the schemes, partly because they are much cheaper to deliver, given that they are run by teaching assistants and staff trained within the school.

It is interesting to compare the UK’s standing in the PISA education rankings of the OECD. Sadly, the UK has dropped to 21st in the rankings for reading and 22nd for maths. As a nation, we should be extremely concerned about this dip in performance, which was described as “stagnant at best”, while there has been a significant improvement in many other countries. It is interesting, however, to consider those countries nearer to the top of the rankings and examining when each starts their formal education. Finland, Canada, Japan, Australia and the US all have substantial early-years provision, but children do not start formal education until the age of six, or even when they are rising sevens, because those countries believe that the informal kindergarten stage of child self-development is so important.

Let us learn from these countries overseas that understand that balance between early years provision and the start of formal education, and make it an absolutely priority. We cannot afford to get it wrong for our country and its future, socially and economically, but most importantly for each and every child growing up in the UK today, and for those tomorrow who follow.

15:59

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who gave us such well informed and wise words about children being allowed to enjoy their childhoods and not being encouraged by their parents to start reading books on planets at the age of two—as a primary school head teacher told me only yesterday evening.

In our debate we have paid much attention to raising the status of the workforce, and to recruiting and retaining the best people to work with children. There has also been some mention of the evidence base for work in this area. I will make a brief comment on getting the balance right between those two things. Of course it is right to seek the best evidence for what we do: but it is also right to give professionals the autonomy to do what they think is best. I took from the very eloquent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, his ability as a head teacher, with money, to make the right choices for his school. Having spoken with many primary school head teachers who have been in place for some time, it did not surprise me that he got to know his local community, he got to know what was right for that area, and he went on to become an outstanding leader of the city—as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp—because he understood so well the people in it.

The danger with overreliance and insistence on an evidence base—particularly the sort of evidence base that Dame Clare Tickell talked about, namely a Rolls-Royce, randomised control trial—is that those in government and local government become back-seat drivers. It reminds me of the experience of being driven by my girlfriend with her parents in the back, and the terrible discomfort of listening to them telling her how she should be driving. During my time in this House there has always been a danger of insisting too harshly on an evidence base and inhibiting those who are very well placed at the front line to make the right choices and take the right actions.

I will also take this opportunity to join others in thanking the Minister and his colleagues for their strong focus on the workforce, particularly teachers, in the White Paper on excellence in teaching and delivering the outcomes we want for children. That is a fantastic emphasis to have. I admire the way that the previous Government did the same thing. This is now beginning to spread to social work; we are insisting and recognising that high-quality expertise, keeping people in the service near the front line and allowing them to become experienced and to make the right judgments for children will give us the best results, as it does in Finland, where they recruit the best teachers.

Most of the models of evidence-based policy that the noble Lord referred to came from the United States. One came from the United Kingdom. How well does the United States do in terms of child welfare? Where is it placed in the developed countries' league table, and where are we placed? Do the continentals not do far better? I remember a comment made by a pedagogue from Germany who came to this country some years ago. He said how wonderful it was to come to a country where there was such clear evidence of the outcomes of looked-after children. I almost wept when I listened to him, because in his country and in Denmark they had the right professional framework for these children, with a far better balance than we had.

I will talk briefly about the Cassel Hospital, where the family service is closing. The hospital was established in 1963. It serves families with complex needs where parents are at serious risk of harming their children. It struggled for its existence for a long time. It brings together outstanding professionals from all disciplines to work in a residential setting. It has 25 bed units. A forensic psychiatrist who gives evidence to courts said to me that she had almost decided that a child had to be taken away from their parents but, knowing that the Cassel service was available, she agreed to say to the court, “Perhaps this can work”. She followed the child and their family for two years at the Cassel Hospital. The family were reunited and succeeded. The evidence from the outcomes of this service shows that if the families pass the assessment period and are taken in for therapy, most children will be able to stay with their families. Those who are removed and placed in foster care or adopted have stable placements, and there are very good outcomes. This is also an outstanding place for training new practitioners. The daughter of my noble friend Lady Hollins is a child psychotherapist who trained at this flagship NHS hospital, working with those families.

Therefore, my question to the Minister is: what services will now be available to families such as these? Local services have worked with these families for two years but their intervention has not been successful. What other options are available? I understand that multi-systemic therapy approaches are being employed and I should like to know more. I would appreciate it if the Minister could ask his colleague at the Department of Health to write to me with details. I should also like consideration to be given to making use of the huge experience that is to be found at the Cassel Hospital.

16:05

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for initiating this debate. It has proved to be topical, thought-provoking and controversial in equal measure. We have heard some immensely well-informed contributions this afternoon. It was a particular pleasure to hear the maiden speeches of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, who spoke with such authority and expertise. We all look forward to many more similar contributions in the coming years.

The noble Baroness chose the title of the debate very well, because it reflects the two strands of the argument for early intervention. First, there is the moral case, based on equality of opportunity for every child—about which more later—and, secondly, there is the hard-nosed economic case addressed in Graham Allen’s report, which says that the more society is prepared to spend on early years development, the less needs to be spent on remedial action and dysfunctional young people and adults later. It is a compelling argument but it also highlights the failings in this Government’s approach to strategic economic and social investment because, however much this Government claim to be persuaded by the arguments of Graham Allen and others, they have already shown themselves unable or unwilling to act on the logic of early intervention. The scale of the cuts that they are now imposing and their hands-off approach to local government expenditure are surely testament to that.

We all understand the need for economic efficiency, but surely the sensible approach is to focus on growth and jobs to stimulate the economy, rather than rely on major cuts to public services, which appears to be the preferred route of this Government and is already putting at risk some of the successful early intervention programmes that exist.

As we have heard from a number of noble Lords around the Chamber, the funding of Sure Start is a good illustration of that point. It is an example of successful early intervention in action. The previous Government established a nationwide network of children’s centres—more than 3,500 in total—with over 2.7 million young people and their families accessing the services. Although it will not be possible to measure their impact fully for many years, the national evaluation of Sure Start has already found better social development and behaviour among three year-olds, less negative parenting and fewer accidental injuries sustained by those who attend.

Indeed, before the election Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg made personal promises to keep children’s centres open but, regrettably, the Chancellor’s subsequent announcement that the funding would be protected only in cash terms means a real-terms cut. The reduction in the early intervention grant, which now covers Sure Start, is 11 per cent just in the first year. As a result, despite the supposed political support, a Daycare Trust survey found that 7 per cent of centre managers anticipate that their centres will close within a year and 56 per cent will offer a reduced service.

There is another reason why the Government do not appear to have the political will to invest effectively in early intervention and it is an issue that I have debated with the Minister in the past. It is also one that has been argued passionately today by my noble friend Lady Morris. By removing the ring-fencing from funding to local authorities at the same time as their budgets are cut, the Government are no longer in a position to have any control over how that shrinking pot of money is spent. The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, the chair of the Local Government Association, has admitted that,

“councils are facing unprecedented cuts to their budgets following the toughest financial settlement in living memory, as well as an increased demand for services”.

It is an obvious worry for those in need of long-term or specialist care who do not have a local, vocal voice. It is also a worry for services such as those that we have been discussing today where, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, rightly argued, the benefits cannot be evaluated or the financial rewards reaped for many years to come.

It also strikes at the heart of the issue raised by my noble friends Lady Morris and Lady King, who made the case for universal rather than targeted provision to avoid families falling through the net. If the Minister is persuaded by the arguments in favour of early intervention, how can he guarantee that any of the initiatives taken by the Government will result in actual children’s services on the ground? If money is set aside for this work, such as in the form of the early intervention grant, how will the Government track whether it is used for this purpose? Does the Minister accept that the result of his hands-off approach will be a patchy set of unco-ordinated services which fail to bring about the benefits of the long-term cost-effectiveness that we have heard about today?

I am very aware that Graham Allen, in his report, made a virtue of saying that he would not be asking for any additional money to fund his proposals. Some might say that he had no choice in this and I wish him well in exploring alternative sources of funding. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, rightly sounded a note of caution over the use of the private sector in providing such services. As we all know, the voluntary sector is also being squeezed, with children’s charities having their grants cut. Even the newsletter of Philanthropy UK quotes a major funder as saying that it will be a challenge to find enough funding to make this initiative work, and that the Government should instead kick-start the process while encouraging match-funding from other sources over time. It is undoubtedly more of a challenge to lever in outside funding to a scheme whose very existence is predicated on the principle that the benefits will not be measurable for many years to come.

I return to the moral case for action. We have heard some inspiring examples from noble Lords this afternoon of schemes that are already making a difference to the lives of children and transforming their life chances. I cannot refer to them all but some very important points were made about the role of grandparents and the need for multi-agency interventions. A number of noble Lords highlighted the importance of communication skills at an early age. The need for autism and SEN was highlighted very successfully, and the case for play therapy and nutrition was argued well by noble Lords, as was the need for highly trained staff.

Like others, I shall not dwell on the evidence. Suffice it to say that these initiatives are supported by a wealth of academic research quoted by Frank Field, Graham Allen and others showing that, for example, the development of children as early as 22 months is a striking predictor of their ultimate qualifications and life chances. It is also clear that the Labour Government’s aspiration to abolish child poverty by 2020, which was repeated in the Conservative Party manifesto, is a crucial but challenging goal that could tackle the rich/poor attainment gap, but would also require a major investment by the Chancellor to target around 20 per cent of the population in order to lift children out of severe poverty.

Government policy initiatives on this scale really matter not only to avoid children becoming trapped in a cycle of low achievement and poverty but also to improve their broader well-being, which we know is an issue dear to the Prime Minister. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made an excellent case for the importance of informal play and happiness in the role of children’s broader well-being. The Child Poverty Action Group research currently lists the UK as a lowly 24th in the European ranking on this issue. What will the Government do to address that? I have great respect for the Minister, and I have no doubt that he recognises the strength of the case for early intervention. However, does he have the strategy and funding to achieve it? How will he persuade cash-strapped local authorities, businesses and the voluntary sector to play their part, and where does this work sit in the list of priorities in his department?

We have had a good debate today, and the solution now lies in the Government’s hands. Are they prepared to act, or will we one day look back in time at a lost generation whose lives could have been transformed but who have instead had their lives blighted before they even reach the starting gate?

16:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

My Lords, like others I congratulate my noble friend Lady Walmsley on securing this important debate and on setting out the issues so clearly. It is a subject on which she speaks with great passion and authority, and she demonstrated both again today.

Like other noble Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich on his maiden speech. I had not realised the connection at all between St Felix and Felixstowe, and I shall think of him every time I see an advertisement for a well known cat food product on the television. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Storey, who clearly brings great experience to this House both as a teacher and as a head teacher. I was extremely interested to hear what he had to say in particular about the pupil premium, on which other members of his party have campaigned long and hard. I also agree with him about the crucial role of schools, but equally that we cannot expect schools to put everything right on their own.

Today’s debate follows the excellent debate we had five or six weeks ago led by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on the importance of parenting, a point underlined today by my noble friends Lady Ritchie of Brompton and Lady Sharp. Both debates and the large number of speakers in each underline the importance that this House attaches to protecting the interests of children. As usual, today I have learnt a lot from the contributions made from all sides of the House. We have heard very clearly the moral arguments for why early intervention matters, and we have heard compelling financial ones. We have heard about academic research and we have heard about real-life practical examples. We have heard about the benefits for literacy, or tackling problems with speech, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, and about communication more generally—a point made very forcefully by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. We have also heard about autism and listened with care to the points made by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. We have heard about development of the brain, perhaps above all from my noble friend Lady Walmsley. All those pieces of evidence underline the importance of this issue, but common sense and our own experience as parents—and there may be a few grandparents in your Lordships' House—tells that this is true.

I know that the last Government understood these points; I also believe that this Government understand these points. I agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, on how far collectively we have travelled, and I hope to reassure her that we intend to build on that progress made in recent years. The Government agree that what happens in a child’s early years is crucial to that child’s future achievement, behaviour and happiness. That is why, in a difficult financial situation, we have put resources into the early years, extending 15 hours of free early education to disadvantaged two year-olds; providing an extra 4,200 health visitors; putting in the money to maintain a network of Sure Start centres—and I shall come back and respond to some of the concerns that have been raised about Sure Start centres; doubling up the number of places on the Family Nurse Partnership Programme from 2015; and, as we have already mentioned, introducing the pupil premium to target support in school for children on free school meals to help us narrow the attainment gap which exists between rich and poor.

While I understand the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, made about money, I thought that she was uncharacteristically grudging about the financial support that the Government have put in at a time when money overall is short. However, it is because this Government, like the previous Government, are committed to making progress on the early years that we are trying to look across the piece, with the aim of publishing a policy statement later this year that sets out our overall approach to early years. That work will be informed by the four reviews that have all been mentioned this afternoon: the review by Mr Frank Field into poverty and life changes, the review into early intervention by Mr Graham Allen, the review into the early years and foundation stage by Dame Clare Tickell, and the review into child protection by Eileen Munro.

I agree with the point that was made forcefully by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, about evaluation. I think she was saying that it is sometimes hard to get one’s hand around and pin down exactly what is being said, and, having looked at some of the research before this debate, I agree. I take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that there is a balance to be struck somewhere between the evidence and autonomy, and that we do not all want to become management consultant/KPI-type people, which I know would concern him greatly. However, I think there is a need to try to understand clearly what works and to learn the lessons.

My noble friend Lord Storey made the point about consistency, and I think that we can learn about that from looking carefully at what works.

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, made a specific point about the Cassel Hospital. I will indeed talk to my noble friend Lord Howe and ask him to write to the noble Earl.

I will now try to respond to some of the concerns that have been raised about Sure Start children’s centres. The centres remain at the heart of the Government’s vision for early intervention. I accept the importance of training for early years, a point that was made particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe. I will relay the points that she made to my honourable friend Sarah Teather and follow them up with her. It is because we are committed to a network of Sure Start children’s centres that the Government have, in a difficult financial situation, put resources into the system to maintain a network of Sure Start children’s centres.

We will further set out the role of Sure Start when we publish later this year the early years policy statement that I referred to earlier, and we will develop that in partnership with the sector and set out a vision for Sure Start children’s centres and the practical steps for achieving it. We are keen to try to increase voluntary and community sector involvement with children’s centres, to try to improve accountability arrangements, to increase the use of evidence-based interventions and to see whether it is possible to introduce greater payment by results.

We know that local authorities are looking at their budgets and working hard to make the right decisions. I was struck by the points made by my noble friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches about the record of Liberal Democrat councils in maintaining funding for Sure Start children’s centres. As noble Lords will know, Section 5D of the Childcare Act 2006 places a duty on those local authorities to consult before opening, closing or significantly changing children’s centres, and to make sure that there is sufficient children centres provision to meet local needs so far as is practical.

I do not dispute for a moment that people are concerned. This raises difficult issues, and there is a difference of opinion between the Government and the Opposition about the role of delegating responsibility to the local level. It is our view that it is better to give local authorities that discretion and flexibility so that services can be managed in ways that best meet local needs.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the SEN Green Paper. I recognise the impatience of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for the Government to make progress, and I am sure that his words will ring in the ears of my honourable friend Sarah Teather, who is driving this work forward. I assure him, and I hope he will accept, that she is extremely committed to this area and to making progress. As has been mentioned, we published our Green Paper last week. It sets out proposals for a new approach to SEN to try to make the system less confrontational, to try to give parents more control and to try to give professionals on the front line more space. I agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. However, I hope that noble Lords will generally welcome the themes set out in the Green Paper and the direction in which the Government are seeking to move.

We hope to help professionals to identify and meet children’s needs through a new approach to identifying SEN in early-years settings in schools, and to have in place a new single assessment process and education, health and care plan. We want local authorities and other services to set out a local offer of all services available to support children who are disabled and have SEN; to consider the option of a personal budget by 2014, an issue raised in an earlier debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock; to give parents a choice of school, either mainstream or special; and to try to introduce greater independence to the assessment of children’s needs, testing how the voluntary and community sector could co-ordinate assessment and input from across education, health and social care as part of our proposals to move to a single assessment process.

We believe that the Green Paper marks a milestone in the development of the Government’s approach to supporting children and young people with SEN, or who are disabled, and their families. The consultation on these proposals will run until 30 June. I certainly hope that noble Lords will take the opportunity to respond to that. On the specific question about the statutory underpinning of the new SEN assessment raised by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, we are looking to test the key proposals in the Green Paper through local pathfinders from September 2011, and we will look to make any legislative changes that may be necessary to secure the new education, health and care plan and the offer of personal budgets, as well as any other necessary improvements to the system identified by the pathfinders from 2010.

We had an interesting discussion about the role of grandparents. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about their importance, a point also made strongly by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen. I do not believe that the Government have any plans to move on financial assistance, but I will take that point back. As anyone who has had children knows, the relationship between grandparent and grandchild is a very special one both ways, and is often far less complicated than the one between child and parent. I agree entirely about the importance of grandparents.

As regards the Grandparents’ Association, my understanding, which I will check, is that it was asking for new funding but that it was unsuccessful in its bid. I understand that it was for additional funding and that it has not been faced with a cut in existing funding. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, kindly alerted me to this issue and I have spoken to my officials, but having just seen him shake his head I will go back and follow up his points. Having done so, I will get back to him specifically in writing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, raised the important point about funding for services for children with special educational needs under the age of two, and asked whether that could be funded under the dedicated schools grant. The short answer to that is yes. As she pointed out, there is a slightly longer, more technical answer, but I take her point about the need to ensure that local authorities are clear of that. We have written to them, but I am certainly happy to reflect again on whether there are further things we can do to ensure that her important point is properly understood.

A number of noble Lords talked about families with multiple problems. Several figures have been given, all of which have been compelling. The one I have seen is that having one professional working with a family costs on average £14,000 per family per year compared with costs to local services that could be up to £330,000 a year. There is therefore no doubt about the need for addressing these problems. In December, the Prime Minister set out his own ambition to address those concerns. As noble Lords have argued, there is a clear financial sense in that. Equally, and perhaps more compellingly, there is a strong moral need. All Governments have grappled with the problem of coming up with approaches that deal with the needs of these families in the round, rather than the traditional Whitehall way of dealing with things in silos, by department or by institution.

We will try to develop new approaches to support those families, underpinned by freedom for local authorities to establish community budgets, pulling together different streams of money and approaches. We are hoping to set those up in 16 local areas to pool budgets for families with complex needs, and then roll them out to other local areas across the spending review period.

I was asked about help and support for assessment of young children with specific needs. As I said, we plan to expand health visitor services to ensure as a priority that all families are offered the health and development review for children aged two to two and a half, so that children who need additional support can be identified. Where families need additional support, the health visitor service will have the support needed. Where parents have concerns about their child's development, they will be offered that support and, where appropriate, referred to another professional—for example, a speech and language therapist, as was mentioned.

We have talked about the Munro review of child protection. That is due to be completed by late spring. The Graham Allen review has also been mentioned. We had the first report from Mr Allen in January. As noble Lords have pointed out, he argues that we should all be actively promoting the principle of early intervention, particularly in the early years but from conception through to 18. He has given us thoughts on how to take that forward, including through evidence-based programmes and supporting reform. We will receive a second report focused more on social finance models—the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch—this summer. In the mean time, the Government are carefully considering his recommendations and how we can respond to the challenge that he has set us to shift to a culture of early intervention rather than to continue late, reactive spending.

This has been a wide-reaching and thought-provoking debate. As is the whole House, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Walmsley for giving us the opportunity to air these important issues. Listening to the debate, it is clear that there was widespread acceptance of her case; I do not think that a single voice was raised against any of her arguments.

A number of specific points have been made on which I will reflect and respond to noble Lords if I have failed to reply in the time that I have this afternoon. Overall, there has been agreement on the need to focus on the early years and to break down barriers and silos so that children and families are at the heart of early intervention, not structures and systems. A great deal of work is going on in this area on a number of different fronts. The Government look forward to pulling that work together in its early years policy statement, to which I referred earlier, which will be published later this year. When that is published, I very much look forward to the further debates that we will have then.

16:33

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend and all those who have taken part in this debate today. Our two maiden speakers proved the truth of the saying that it is not just what you say, it is who you are when you say it, because we would not have had such respect for what they said without our knowledge of the experience that they bring to their opinions.

I take away a number of particular points from today's debate. My noble friend Lady Benjamin has given me a new mantra: a hug a day keeps the doctor away. I shall stick to that. The noble Baroness, Lady King of Bow, reminded us what 4Children has said so perceptively; the Minister reflected on the need for a culture shift. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, reminded us of the importance of food for thought; perhaps we should bring back school milk, orange juice and cod liver oil. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, brought us up short in a serious debate by reminding us that childhood is a time for happiness and fun.

The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, made an important point about early-years staff and our ridiculous upside-down funding. Only this week, I was told that staff who work with the early years are paid half what teachers of five to 18 year-olds are paid. Does that not reflect the value we put on their work? There really is a need for a culture shift. I look forward very much to the statement, to which the Minister referred, in the summer of the Government’s early-years strategy when no doubt we will debate it again. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion withdrawn.

Passenger Name Records: EUC Report

Thursday 17th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Motion to Agree

16:35

Moved By

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

That this House agrees the recommendation of the European Union Committee that Her Majesty’s Government should exercise their right, in accordance with the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, to take part in the adoption and application of the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the use of Passenger Name Record data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime (Document 6007/11) (11th Report, HL Paper 113).

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, the Motion is in my name because I have the honour to chair the European Union Sub-Committee on Home Affairs, which prepared the report now before your Lordships’ House. In the normal course of events, when this House considers reports of the European Union Committee, almost invariably the terms of the Motion are that the House should “take note” of the report. Let me explain why this Motion invites your Lordships not to take note of the report but to agree with the recommendation made by the committee in its report.

The Motion refers to the,

“Area of Freedom, Security and Justice”,

which is treaty language for what are invariably in British parlance known as justice and home affairs. JHA matters first came within the purview of the European Union in 1999 and quite a lot of—perhaps most—JHA regulation at that stage required unanimity. For the JHA legislation which required only a qualified majority of member states’ votes, the Government at that time negotiated a protocol to give the United Kingdom the necessary flexibility. The effect of the protocol is that the United Kingdom does not take part in the negotiation and adoption of such measures and is not bound by them unless, within three months of a proposal for legislation being presented to the Council, the Government notify the president of the Council that they wish to take part in the negotiation, adoption and application of the proposed measure. That is what is known in the jargon as the UK opt-in.

The entry into force of the treaty of Lisbon in December 2009 has made a quantum difference in the number of matters that fall to be covered by the opt-in procedure, because it expands greatly the application of qualified majority voting in the JHA area. Now, virtually all JHA matters are adopted by qualified majority under what is called “the ordinary legislative procedure”. The United Kingdom opt-in therefore now extends to all these. In particular, the opt-in now applies to all provisions on police and judicial co-operation and law enforcement.

In anticipation of this important change, the European Union Select Committee negotiated with the previous Government an undertaking that, where the committee concludes that the question of whether or not to opt into a measure is important and should be debated, the Government would make time for the debate well before the end of the three-month period to enable them to take the views of the House into account when reaching a final decision on whether the UK should opt in. In January, the coalition Government renewed this undertaking. Together with all the committee I express my welcome for their decision to do so and my gratitude to them for having made time for this debate at a very timely and opportune moment when we are only just over half way through the three-month period for opting in on the directive that we are going to debate. In the first full year during which this procedure operated—we are now about 15 months into the operation of Lisbon—23 matters required the Government to decide whether the United Kingdom should opt in. Only one pair of proposals on two asylum directives was thought to be so important that a report and a debate were needed, so the report that is before your Lordships’ House today is thus only the second of its kind and the first since the House approved the procedure for such debates a year ago. This demonstrates the importance that the committee attaches to the directive and to the issue of whether the Government should opt in to it.

I come to the substance of what we are talking about. The report put forward by my committee and supported by the EU Select Committee explains that passenger name record data, otherwise known as PNR, are data about passengers collected by airlines which include information not on the machine-readable part of the ticket. They include such matters as the travel agent, form of payment, contact details, billing address, complete travel itinerary and baggage information, to mention the most prominent. These data, especially when taken in conjunction with the data contained on the machine-readable part of the ticket, are particularly valuable in identifying persons potentially involved in terrorist or other criminal activities who were not previously known to the authorities.

I think one has to recognise that the collection of such data involves a considerable invasion of privacy, and it is sometimes doubted whether this is justified by the benefits flowing from its collection. The committee, I have to say, has no such doubts, although when considering earlier EU proposals on PNR we did express some doubts. However, we do not any longer have those doubts. In fact, this is our third inquiry into PNR in five years, and basically we agree with the view of the Home Office that is summed up admirably succinctly by the following phrase,

“the use of PNR data is ‘a proven and vital tool for the protection and detection of serious crime and terrorism’”.

We are convinced that the Government are right in that respect.

We also agree with the Government about the case for action at the EU level—this is the vexed issue of subsidiarity which is now covered in all explanatory memorandums produced by the Government when a Commission proposal is tabled. The United Kingdom, at the moment alone among member states, already collects PNR data. If member states were to act unilaterally and have different PNR data systems, this could lead to differing requirements being imposed on carriers and there would be no clear basis for the data to be transferred from a carrier in one member state to the authorities of another member state. So we are quite clear that the Government themselves have made a strong case for having an EU directive in this area, given the conjunction of the view about the need to have a single system with the view that PNR data are clearly an effective tool to deal with serious crime and terrorism.

The directive we are looking at is currently in the form proposed by the Commission, and negotiations in Brussels have not really started yet. It is quite clear that there will be prolonged negotiations because these are complex matters, and they are just beginning. Currently, the directive covers only flights between member states and countries outside the EU, not flights from one member state to another. The Government regard this as a major defect which they will do their best to remedy in the course of the negotiations, and we agree with them. The volume of journeys between member states is admittedly three times greater than those of flights between member states on the one hand and third countries on the other, but to limit the directive in the way proposed by the Commission would in our view—I think that it is the view also of the Government, but the Minister will no doubt confirm that when she speaks in reply—seriously and unnecessarily limit the value of the directive.

I should explain at this point that we are not asking the House to take a view on the details of the directive—that would be premature; we have not ourselves conducted full scrutiny of it. We will continue to keep the directive under scrutiny because there are many features of it which still need serious examination, in particular the purposes for which the data can be used, the length of time for which they can be kept and the adequacy of the data protection provisions. I therefore emphasise to your Lordships that, at this early stage, there is only one matter for consideration by the House. That matter was identified in what is known as the Ashton undertakings, which were accepted by the Government at the time that Lisbon was ratified and which relate to whether the UK should opt in or not, and whether it should therefore participate actively in negotiating, make its influence felt and have its views taken fully into account or whether it should walk away and leave the directive to be applied to other member states but not to the UK.

I therefore emphasise that what we are debating is whether the Government should exercise the United Kingdom’s opt-in. For the reasons that I have given, the committee is firmly of the opinion that the Government should opt in. I would hope to hear from the Minister at the conclusion of the debate that this is their intention.

16:46

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I have the honour of being a member of Sub-Committee F, the home affairs sub-committee of the European Union Select Committee of your Lordships' House. We are, as your Lordships have heard, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who marshals us so efficiently and delicately that most of the time we are not really aware that we are being marshalled at all. He has laid out the case made and the conclusions reached in our report with the skill that I have come to expect. I do not want to repeat all the comments that he made, but there are a couple of issues that I should like to raise. However, I should first say that I firmly support the conclusions that our committee reached in the report, and I shall urge my noble friend on the Front Bench to tell us that the Government intend to opt into the proposal.

I should begin by underlining, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, the issue of principle. It is excellent that we are taking the first steps in creating an established procedure for enhanced scrutiny of opt-in decisions, for, whether we like it or not, there is concern in the country at large about what is often seen as encroachment by European institutions on areas of our national life. I make no judgment on whether that is right or wrong, but enhanced scrutiny, which brings with it greater transparency, gives the opportunity for more searching debate, and so to set the issue in context is an important way of defusing, for better or worse, public concern. Thereafter, the cards of public opinion must fall where they may. I add my thanks to those offered by our chairman to the Government for having made time for us to have this debate today.

Perhaps I may raise a couple of issues about the proposed directive. The first is the information that it is proposed will be collected under the PNR agreement, which is listed in Appendix 2. There are there nine categories of API data and 19 further categories of PNR data. Some of them are duplicates; for example, the name is required under both sets. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned some of them and quite rightly picked out those that are most salient and important: the address and contact information, the billing address, the baggage information, and the number and other names of travellers on the PNR. My concern about the list, as it is printed in our report, is that it looks like a shopping list drawn up by a committee, with everyone adding their own bits, with more and more marginal ideas and marginal pieces of data being requested. Why do I worry about that? I worry about it because I think it means that there is a lack of focus. The key data get lost. We are looking for needles in haystacks and the less the amount of background information we have to sift through, the more we shall be able to focus on the intensive and important points that we need to collect about people who are travelling. I hope that my noble friend’s officials will make an effort to try to keep the data to the minimum so as to achieve the maximum effect.

The second point is the extent. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has pointed out the advantages of the directive applying to flights within, as well as into, the EU. I share the view of the committee that we should support the Government’s proposal to extend this, but I am less convinced about the arguments for it. I regard this as a nice-to-have, not a must-have, principle. Why do I think like that? I think that as we are going to collect yet more data, which may or may not be analysed properly, we run the danger of failing to see the wood for the trees. On the issue of cost, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, there are three times as many flights within the EU as there are coming into the EU. There may also be inconvenience for travellers, although I am not sure how the procedure will work. Finally, potential criminals and terrorists are not foolish; they will merely shift their travel patterns to reflect the way that the PNR data are collected. That is not to say that we should not try to impede them—we should—and undoubtedly the Government are right that, if this is extended to internal flights, it will make their work more difficult. However, Europe is sufficiently small and the road and rail transport networks sufficiently good that you can drive from one end of Europe to the other in 36 or 48 hours and, therefore, I am not sure that the capture of airline data will add enormously to what we are trying to achieve. Therefore, I regard it as a nice-to-have principle, not a must-have principle, and the advantages probably do not outweigh the various costs.

On costs, my major concern is the civil liberties aspect. I instinctively dislike Governments collecting information about their citizens for unspecific reasons. I refer to central government, local government or governments of whatever colour. I have a principled dislike of it. When we negotiate the details of this I hope that we shall be looking very carefully at the rules for data collection, retention and disposal. They need to be carefully prescribed and carefully enforced.

In the earlier report that we produced on the EU/US passenger name record, which applied to the US, paragraphs 160 and 161 drew attention to some of the dangers. Paragraph 160 states:

“The principal risk of error in using PNR data seems to us to arise, not from the quality of the data, but from the erroneous interpretation of the data”.

One of the problems is that we have considerable concerns about how that might be interpreted and whether individuals about whom data has been collected are able to be assured about its accuracy. Paragraph 161 states:

“It is important that intending passengers should be aware of who will receive their personal data, and subject to what conditions”.

Those two recommendations of an earlier report need to be reflected when we come to the final directive on this occasion. Nevertheless, I believe that the Government should opt in, despite those tactical reservations.

Last summer I was rather disobliging to my noble friend when we were discussing the European investigations order. I was extremely concerned about it then because I felt there were no agreed standards on evidence gathering and handling, no minimum basic procedural safeguards, no coherent data protection regime and no agreement on important areas of proportionality, extra-territoriality and double jeopardy. I suggested to my noble friend that we might have done better to stay outside until the shape of the final directive became a bit clearer. She told me very firmly then that we were going to opt in because we could better influence events and shape it if we were inside having opted in than from the outside. On this occasion we have a much better structured directive, with a final shape in place—although not the final details as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made clear. If she felt that we should have opted in to the much looser investigations order last summer, I cannot see the logic of why we should not opt in to this one now.

16:56

[Lord Dykes]

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, as chairman of Sub-Committee F, for presenting its report today and accompanying it with his recommendations, which also meet the Government’s own inclinations in this matter, and for his characteristic clarity and thoroughness in explaining the main issues. He is quite right to remind the House that there is further work to be done on the actual scrutiny process of the directive details themselves and that this is really just about the main issues that are encapsulated in the Motion that he has tabled today.

I welcome very much what I hope the Minister will be able to say in reply. This is an occasion, as has already been said, when the opt-in procedure is, prima facie, proceeding on a smooth basis and is one of a growing number now. The system appears to be settling in on the basis of the original Ashton procedure, set out two years ago. I welcome that too because it means that the United Kingdom can make more progress in the JHA field working with our partners than we would do on our own and can overcome some of those anxieties from some years ago about this pillar and whether we were conceding too much. For those of us who may sound old-fashioned nowadays in being enthusiastic Europeans, it seems to me that as the UK is a country renowned for having more opt-outs, exclusions, exceptions, derogations and “would you mind if we don’t” clauses in the whole system than the other member states, it does occasionally create a better impression when we do opt in with some enthusiasm, particularly in this growing field, which is becoming a major area of Community policy formation.

At the same time, I understand my noble friend’s apprehensions about some of these aspects of giving personal data in this way. This is a growing scenario in many fields of commerce as well as for many government departments and local authorities—not only in this country but all over the world and between countries. People are right to be apprehensive about what happens. Therefore, Governments and the international institutions involved need to reassure their own local and international publics that these data will be treated with the appropriate operational reverence to make sure that they do not get into the wrong hands and that there is some kind of lapsing period for the retention of data from people who are manifestly not even putative terrorists or dangerous criminals, according to the evidence.

My noble friend was also apprehensive about the list of things that can be included in the PNR list. I assume that the way in which the technology works is that people have the correct codes to feed in to the computer on the basis of the information they may have received from the security services, so that is a way in which they can do it in a tabulated process. It does not mean that they have literally to comb through every single item of data. I hasten to add that I am not an expert, but I assume that to be the case.

When the Minister comes to reply, I hope she will have time today to deal with a number of points, which I will mention quickly now, on the need for the EU-wide approach. That has already been dealt with and it does inevitably meet the Government’s ambition to make this apply to intra-EU journeys as well. It seems manifestly illogical for them not to be included and I think that the committee and the European Union Committee—the chairman is present and listening to the debate—would presumably support that wholeheartedly, as does Sub-Committee F.

A further detail that we will need to concentrate on in future is whether the committee is right to express a certain hesitation about a reply from the Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office. When it asked what he would think about opting in, he politely and rather commendably replied that the Government might want to wait for the committee to have time to give its own views and that the Government would pay attention to those. I refer here to paragraph 20 of the report. However, the chairman is quite right to add at the end of that paragraph:

“While this is a proper line for the Government to take in the light of the Ashton undertakings, it would have been helpful to have some indication of the Minister’s own views”.

I hope that habit will develop more and that the Government are not too shy of indicating even a preliminary position on that. I do not think that would be misused by members of the Select Committee or the sub-committees in their further investigation of particular subjects.

I move quickly, if I may, to paragraph 5.4.1 of the Commission’s own report to the Council of Ministers. Again, I am only speculating for the future, because it is not of course a matter for today’s debate, but there is that question of similar security procedures and the data collection of PNR in non-air travel as well as in the preliminary ticketing before PNR is collected. Paragraph 5.4.1 deals with that at some considerable length and there is something to be said for it.

Finally, I return to the other comments of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots, when he referred, with some nervousness, to the encroachment of the European Union on some aspects of our domestic life. That is not a phrase I would use because if you are a keen member of the European Union as well as a patriotic Briton—the two go hand in hand, as far as I can see—you do not regard it as an encroachment. You consider the whole organisation to be a club of like-minded sovereign members, with their own intrinsic national sovereignty but working through agreed and integrated institutions. With more and more agreed majority voting in the future, as I hope, we will sometimes be doing what other members want as well as what we want. That is in the nature of a club. The European Union is therefore one of the finest clubs in the world in that sense. I hope that my noble friend will get reassurance from my words because he, too, can change his mind on that in future.

17:03

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, I should have put my name down to speak and I am sorry that I did not. Briefly, first, I want to make it clear that I support fully all efforts to catch criminals, especially terrorists, so my objective here is not about that. However, we must not lose sight of the dangers that may sometimes be contained within well meaning measures. In the real world, an EU directive does not protect you if there is a failure in the implementation of security measures, electronic or physical. That is the bottom line.

We have a database being built up here of sensitive information. You can easily have unintended connections made, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, such as guilt by association. What happens if, by chance, you travelled a few times and coincidence came into effect and someone who might have the wrong associations travelled on a seat not far away from you? The next danger is with the credit cards. Criminals use stolen credit card details; it could be yours on someone else’s ticket. The actions with these data are therefore dangerous. There is also a danger to you. Critical financial information is kept in here, not just the billing address but your credit card details. It has everything you need to get someone’s credit card details in order to commit a fraud. If you used a debit card, they can empty your bank account so these data have to be kept extremely securely— at least to a standard such as the PCI-DSS, I hope, if not higher.

Another question is: who will have access to this information abroad and in the future? Will it be in European countries or worldwide? I can think of certain foreign countries which I would not like to have my information under any circumstances whatever. I can think of a couple of European countries where I would not be too happy with that, particularly considering things such as the European arrest warrant and the way that different crimes are created to have a different sense of gravity in different countries. The data are supposed to be retained for serious crimes, but what is a serious crime? Look at the mission creep that was behind RIPA and where we ended up with that. We have to start worrying about this. We all treat crimes in different ways, and this measure will soon creep elsewhere.

The bottom line is that if we were worried by the national identity register, why on earth are we not worried about this? This contains almost more information about you. There is a huge privacy issue here about the state looking at who you are travelling with, when and in what circumstances. Should it be snooping into some people’s private lives in that way? I have nothing to fear on that score, which is why I can stand up and say that, but some people would be very uncomfortable if they knew that conclusions were being made that could be brought up to silence them if things got awkward, particularly if foreign Governments had access to those data. I can see huge dangers here. There is also the question of business intelligence for foreign purposes. We should tread much more cautiously. You can write what you like on a bit of paper, but it is not worth anything in the real world.

17:05

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I congratulate the committee, and indeed the sub-committee on home affairs, on producing this important report. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for the historical context in which he placed the debate today. The report was published on 11 March and here we are debating it on 17 March. This is in remarkably quick time and I commend this opportunity to have an early debate and, by the terms of the Motion, come to a considered view on the question of whether or not to have the opt-in. I note from paragraph 23 that the sub-committee hopes that this will allow the Government to be fully aware of the views of the committee and of the House itself. The Opposition certainly support that aim.

One should be in no doubt about the importance of this decision. As the Home Office memorandum makes clear—I am grateful for the clarity provided in that memorandum—passenger name record data are an essential supply of data for the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies for investigations and operations, and are a proven and vital tool for the prevention and detection of serious crime and terrorism. As the committee points out, the collection of PNR data, their transfer to border and enforcement agencies and their retention for a number of years constitute a substantial invasion of privacy with major data protection implications. It is therefore right, as the committee states, that such collection is justified only if the benefits in combating terrorism and serious crime are as great as is stated.

I note the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, about the broader implications behind the collection, holding and security of such data. It is interesting to look back to 2007 when the original proposal was put to the European Parliament. Criticism was expressed at the time in that Parliament’s resolution about the need for the actions proposed to be fully justified. The European Parliament also questioned whether the proposal met the standard required for justifying interference with the right to data protection. With regard to data protection, the European Parliament called for a clear purpose limitation and emphasised that only specific authorities should have access to PNR data.

A lot of progress has been made subsequently. In the Explanatory Memorandum produced for the European Parliament and Council in February 2011, the Commission is now able to argue that the proposal is fully in line with the overall objectives of creating a European area of freedom, security and justice; that, because of the nature of the proposed provision, the proposal is subject to in-depth scrutiny to ensure that its provisions are compatible with the fundamental rights, especially the right to the protection of personal data enshrined in Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU; and that the proposal is in line with Article 16 of the TFEU, which guarantees everyone the right to the protection of personal data. Overall, it concludes that, in addition to being in line with existing data protection rules and principles, the proposal contains a number of safeguards to ensure full compliance with the proportionality principle and guarantee a high level of fundamental rights protection.

I note the committee’s conclusion that it has no hesitation in accepting the Home Office’s assessment of the value of PNR data for the prevention and detection of serious crime and terrorism. The committee agrees that the case for EU-wide legislation is compelling. I note, too, support for the directive to be extended to intra-EU flights. This seems to me a sensible approach, as explained in the committee’s memorandum.

The committee’s support for opt-in is entirely consistent with the thrust of its support generally. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response on that point. Her ministerial colleague was reluctant to give a view when he gave evidence to the committee, and I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to clarify that point and reassure the House on it.

This is a very telling report. We are in a sense setting a new pattern for the House to consider these matters, in that the committee is inviting the House to express a view. I very much support that proposition and commend the report to the House.

17:11

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, I join noble Lords in expressing my gratitude to the European Union Select Committee for organising this debate. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for acknowledging the Government’s willingness to give practical effect to the procedural undertakings that they have given. As a result, we have had a discussion on the Floor of the House at an early stage of consideration. The Government will take very serious account of what has been said today.

One of the things that has emerged from the debate is that the European Union Committee, the Government and a number of noble Lords are in agreement that there is concrete evidence of the utility and benefits to be derived from the analysis of PNR data in terms of passengers’ security. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, put the case for the directive containing intra-EU PNR data as well as data on third-country flights as least as cogently as I could, if not more so. Therefore, I do not need to go over why the Government consider this to be an important part of the legislation, and why they wish to continue to strive to get it included. We have consistently argued that the directive should contain this information and that it should cover intra-EU routes.

I note what my noble friend Lord Hodgson said—that this is a “nice to have” rather than a “must have”. However, I shall seek to explain why the Government take a different view for two reasons. First, the argument that it is possible to evade the information that this provision might yield by choosing another form of transport may be valid. However, that is not itself a compelling argument for not obtaining the information if you believe it to be necessary to inhibit terrorism. Secondly—this is the major point—we have had ample evidence since earlier drafts of this legislation that aviation is a major terrorist target. We cannot ignore that. Therefore, it is right, consistent with individuals’ right to privacy—I entirely take the points that have been made about that and will return to them—to provide and maintain the maximum security that we can for passengers on aircraft, otherwise aircraft may well be blown up before they reach us.

[Lord Dykes]

Further to that point, with which I agree, does the Minister agree that it is remarkable that, although the security procedures at airports are extremely irritating for most passengers and that we all suffer, there is a high degree of psychological support for those measures among passengers, who know how vulnerable air flights are?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The noble Lord’s point is entirely well made. One of the things that the Government are nevertheless trying to do, with international co-operation, is to reduce as much as possible the burden of those procedures—a lot of them are physical. The more information we have that enables us to alleviate some of the other constraints and put them together in a package, the safer we will be and the less intrusive the security procedures will be.

The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, made various points. API information is already collected and it is possible to know with whom you are travelling. He is quite right to say that extra information will be collected. It is precisely because that information includes details of how the ticket was paid for, which is a major indicator of the kind of passenger with whom you are dealing, that it is thought wise and helpful to have it. This directive will go no further in the information that it asks for than that which is already contained in the agreements that the EU has negotiated with third countries, such as the United States, Australia, Canada and possibly others. I repeat that the Government’s first duty is to ensure the security of their citizens.

The UK has tabled an amendment that it hopes may form part of the negotiations. Our view is that the directive should allow member states—not oblige them, if that is unachievable—to require carriers to provide PNR data. That will increase effectiveness and help us to ensure that our borders are adequately protected. The committee and the House will entirely understand that this is a key consideration regarding our decision on whether we opt in.

We have been lobbying hard on this issue for some considerable time. I am pleased that an increasing number of member states are being persuaded by the arguments involved. However, I have to say that we do not yet believe that we have reached where we need to be to ensure that such a requirement becomes part of the directive. A great deal of work remains to be done. Even if we obtain the support we need in the Council, the Government are also conscious that many Members of the European Parliament hold strong views on data protection and on whether the proposed measure is proportionate. I know that many noble Lords have connections with Members of the European Parliament, and the Government would be extremely grateful if noble Lords, if they had occasion to, were able to persuade those MEPs of the merits of our case and reassure them on any concerns they may have.

I say to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll and others that the Government will take the whole question of the safeguarding of this information extremely seriously. There is a whole section of the proposed directive that addresses that issue, and we will scrutinise that as carefully as anyone. We understand and believe in the necessity of allowing security and privacy to ride together, and not allowing them to be put in opposition to each other. We believe that the directive is proportionate, and that it would continue to be proportionate if it included intra-EU PNR.

The House wishes to know whether the Government will be able to opt in. As I said, further work must be done on the directive and we must do more lobbying in order to get to the place where we feel we need to be. There will be further discussion of the directive at an important home affairs Council on 11 April. We are striving to ensure that the Council, in its final statement, will send a strong signal that intra-EU PNR will be the common position. If we can get that signal, it is likely—and that is a very positive “likely”—that we shall want to opt in to the directive from the outset.

I hope that the House will accept that at this stage the Government need to maximise their negotiating leverage. They will reflect very carefully on the points that have been made today before they reach a final decision; they take the points made by noble Lords extremely seriously. There may be points of detail between us, but not fundamental points. We will of course communicate our decision to the House as soon as it has been made.

17:21

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, I thank all those who participated in this brief debate, which has been extremely useful and has shown a wide measure of agreement. I thank the Minister for her response which, although it may have fallen a scintilla short of what I might have hoped for, nevertheless went quite a long way in the direction that your Lordships' committee wishes to go. I will add on a personal note that she and I, so many years ago that I would not dream of embarrassing anyone by saying how many, dealt with some of the more complex aspects of EU policy, mainly the EU budget. That budget pales into insignificance compared with this system of opt-outs and opt-ins.

Perhaps I may respond to one or two contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, raised the possibility that the directive asks for too much data. I do not have a strong view on that; we do not have to have a view to support the resolution. However, it is only by opting in that we can affect the amount of data that are collected. That is yet another reason to opt in. I and the committee agree with the noble Lord—and here I part company slightly with the Minister, although I accept absolutely her plea that we should help the Government in their negotiating position by standing firmly in favour of the inclusion of intra-EU flights—that this is not a make or break issue. It is not and should not be a sine qua non for opting in. That is a personal opinion. However, the committee does support, without ambiguity, the Government's desire to include intra-EU flights.

One problem that may come up—I hope it does not, and that the Minister is right in anticipating that real progress will be made at the April council to include intra-EU flights—is that it may not be possible by the time we have to take a decision on opting in to be quite sure one way or the other. However, on one thing we can be quite certain: if we opt out, intra-EU flights will not be included, although I do not want to go further into that. I certainly did not mean in the report to criticise the honourable Member in another place, Mr Brokenshire, who gave evidence to us. He gave excellent evidence on our internal security strategy report, for which we are extremely grateful. He was entirely courteous on this matter and there is no reproach. It is, I think, due to the parliamentary timetable that we have had to publish the report and bring this debate forward at a rather early stage in the three-month period. Therefore, it is not a criticism of him in any way.

My noble friend Lord Erroll seemed a little worried about all the details being taken of his credit cards and other things. Of course, the reality is that they are taken by the Government anyway. I think that his objection is mainly that some foreigners might read them. I am sorry—we are in the European Union. There are an awful lot of things that we share with members of the European Union and this will be one of them. In my view and in the view of my committee, it will strengthen the security of this country if we are able to do that. However, as I said, that information is already being collected here.

[The Earl of Erroll]

Perhaps I may make it clear that I am not worried about the information being shared with the European Union, as of course I give my credit card details on the internet to buy things in Europe. The challenge is in the number of times that it will be propagated around systems where we do not know what the security levels are, and the Government do not have a good track record of maintaining security databases. That is my concern.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

That is a question to be directed firmly towards the Minister and not to me, so I shall not take it further.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, was very helpful and supportive about the report and the recommendations. He rightly pointed out that there is considerable intrusion into personal data and personal security and so on. It is perhaps worth pointing out that one of the changes to which I did not refer at great length is that, as a result of the Lisbon treaty, the European Parliament has now become the co-legislator on this matter. The one thing we can be quite sure of is that the European Parliament is not going to let this bone go without giving it several bites and worrying at it a good deal. Therefore, I do not think that we are at the end of that story. I believe that the privacy aspects will get a very thorough airing in the negotiations between the Council on the one hand and the Parliament on the other. I am sorry to say it again but that is yet another reason why we need to be there, exercising some influence.

Finally, the Minister asked those of us who were involved in this matter whether we could take it up with the European Parliament. So far as I am concerned, I would willingly do so. I can see my chairman, my noble friend Lord Roper, nodding sagely to my left. We are going to Brussels next week to have our six-monthly meeting with British Members of the European Parliament, and we will certainly raise this issue with them. We will try to persuade them to fan out a bit and explain why the inclusion of intra-EU flights is going to help with security for all of us.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 5.28 pm.