House of Commons

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 30 March 2011

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

1. What criteria he plans to use to assess the strategic plan for UN Women when determining the funding to be allocated to it.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

We recently reviewed the value for money of British taxpayers’ funding to all multilateral agencies through the multilateral aid review. We will use the same broad criteria to assess UN Women’s strategic plan.

[Lisa Nandy]

Currently, new funding pledges to UN Women for 2011 amount to just $55 million, less than 10% of the target set by member states in 2010. In order for this important initiative to succeed—and so that the UK can say it played its part in its success—will the Minister heed the calls of Voluntary Service Overseas and others to provide adequate funding urgently?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to flag up the importance of this new agency and the fact that it has strong cross-party support. The United Kingdom played a key role in its establishment. We have provided transitional funding, and when we see the strategic plan in June, we will then fund it. I have no doubt at all that, in consultation with other funding bodies, we will be able to play a very full part.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

UN Women’s strategic plan is guided in part by millennium development goals 4 and 5. The Secretary of State has kindly just received from me Bradford-on-Avon Oxfam’s Mothers Matter card for mother’s day. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to restate to the House his Government’s commitment to working internationally to achieve MDGs 4 and 5 on maternal and child health?

[Mr Mitchell]

Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. At the first international summit the Prime Minister attended after taking office following the election of the coalition Government, he flagged up the importance of MDGs 4 and 5 very directly. Oxfam’s campaign is an outstanding success. It is extremely important, and we will be following through on many of the aspects Oxfam has specifically mentioned when we have the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation replenishment conference in London on 13 June.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

2. What support his Department plans to give to development of the infrastructure of South Sudan in 2011-12.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

Our main infrastructure investments in 2011-12 in southern Sudan are expected to be in roads in rural areas, primary and secondary schools, teacher training centres, health care centres and other facilities to reduce insecurity and increase access to basic services.

[John Mann]

Here we have a brand new country about to form—it will do so on 9 July—that wants to join the Commonwealth. Its people speak English, and it has great links with the United Kingdom. Should we not shift part of our budget in order to allow this new country to get developing fast?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. That is why we have focused very specifically on our support for the referendum. We are working very closely with President Mbeki on the issues of the border. We have had many discussions about the very points the hon. Gentleman mentions, most recently when I saw Salva Kiir on my visit just before Christmas, and we will be strongly supporting the new state in a whole series of different ways once it is set up.

[Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

What engagement does the Secretary of State have with the African Development Bank and the World Bank on infrastructure development for southern Sudan—which, as he says, is desperately needed—given that the UK is a major contributor to both those organisations? What will their commitment be, and how will the Department for International Development co-ordinate with them?

[Mr Mitchell]

The Chairman of the departmental Select Committee is absolutely right to identify the crucial role that will be played by both the World Bank and the ADB. I recently had discussions on this very subject with Donald Kaberuka, the head of the ADB, in Addis Ababa at the African Union summit, and we will ensure that strong priority is given to infrastructure development. After all, this is a country with less than 28 km of tarmac roads.

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

Is the Secretary of State aware that there has recently been a big increase in land purchase by foreign investors in South Sudan? Although foreign investment can, of course, be very beneficial in the right circumstances, land speculation threatens food supplies and price stability not just in South Sudan but globally. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that people in countries such as South Sudan do not become victims of land grabs by speculators?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman rightly recognises one of the challenges for South Sudan. There is an array of challenges, on all of which Britain and the international community will seek to assist Salva Kiir and his new Government. I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that that country’s oil revenue gives it the opportunity between now and 2015 to make more progress on all these millennium development goals than any other country on earth. Britain will be playing its full part in trying to bring that about.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

At a meeting yesterday, a former Foreign Secretary of Sudan said that when the new Government take over in July the desperate need will be for government advice and training, as well as infrastructure. What plans do my right hon. Friend and his Department have to provide that advice and training?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: supporting democratic and accountable government will be at the heart of what we are trying to do in South Sudan. When I was in Juba to open the new British Government office there before Christmas, I was able to see some direct technical assistance that Britain is giving. As he says, we will need more of that.

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

3. What estimate he has made of the likely change in the level of official development assistance to Lesotho following the closure of his Department’s bilateral aid programme in that country.

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

The DFID bilateral programme in Lesotho has delivered impressive results in, for example, reducing HIV prevalence in Lesotho’s important garment factories from 37% to 27% in just three years. Notwithstanding the planned closure of our bilateral aid programme, we will continue to provide some £10 million in aid each year to Lesotho through multilateral channels. Our assessments indicate that official development assistance to Lesotho is likely to grow substantially in the years ahead.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

Churches in my constituency have a link with Lesotho that goes back many years. I recently met a delegation from Lesotho in Durham who told me of their grave concerns about the Government’s decision to stop bilateral aid. Would the Minister be willing to meet a delegation from Durham to discuss how Lesotho can continue to be supported by the international community?

[Mr O'Brien]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question, because I know that the Durham-Lesotho link has been an important, effective and long-standing connection of support between the two Anglican dioceses. The bilateral programme is very small, and many multilateral channels will remain available. We believe that they will grow, and that is where the future of Lesotho’s better development will be derived. I would be more than happy to meet a delegation of her constituents to explore how this approach can be additive, rather than negative, which is what she is worried about.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

The UK will soon be spending 0.7% of GDP on international development. Following the recent review all of DFID’s money is committed, so if people want more money spent somewhere in the international development framework, it behoves them to explain where they want that money taken from in the DFID budget. We cannot have continuous requests for more and more spending unless people are prepared to acknowledge where they want spending reduced.

[Mr O'Brien]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, particularly in relation to bilateral programmes. Of course, opportunities are provided through challenge funds, not least the global poverty action fund, and other funds that are available for those with an interest to continue to apply to. That will allow them not least to influence the way in which the multilaterals deploy their resources to which we contribute.

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

4. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Justice on the implications for development of his role as the UK’s international anti-corruption champion.

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

My right hon. Friends have had many discussions, including in specific meetings on this important role—yet another meeting will be held on it shortly. We agree about the importance of a cross-government champion. To be credible when working with our developing country partners in tackling corruption, it is vital that we have strong systems in place in the UK.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the Minister for that answer and welcome the news that the coalition is finally publishing guidance on the Bribery Act 2010, because delays to its publication have been very damaging to our reputation abroad. Given the devastating effects that corruption has on developing economies, can he confirm that the guidance has not been watered down to create loopholes for subsidiaries and joint ventures, and so the Act can be implemented, in the words of the Foreign Secretary, “rigorously, effectively and fairly”?

[Mr O'Brien]

I am delighted to stand here as the guidance is being published, something that has happened pretty rapidly under this Government after we waited for 13 years for something similar from the previous Government. Far from being diluted, the guidance has taken all the representations into serious consideration and it is now something on which we can work. We very much look forward to seeing it in place as the bedrock on which we can build.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

Openness and transparency are vital in the fight against corruption and in tackling exploitation of developing countries by global companies. It is a travesty that where there is massive wealth, such as in oil or minerals, local people do not benefit from it. The Government have said that they will support new European Union regulation to make companies disclose exactly how much they pay to the developing country’s Government for the right to extract natural resources, but what is needed is action. Will the Government take the lead on driving through the EU transparency regulation, and will he ensure that companies listed on the London stock exchange report the payments they make?

[Mr O'Brien]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Lady for raising this issue. As she knows, it is being addressed through the extractive industries transparency initiative on which I attended a meeting in Paris recently and to which there is now increasing commitment. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said on 20 February that we would work with our EU partners to look precisely at what we can do to examine the very obvious example that is coming from Dodd-Frank in America, but making sure that is done at an EU level.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

5. What recent representations he has received on the effects of corruption on the economies of developing countries.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

6. What recent representations he has received on the effects of corruption on the economies of developing countries.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)]

My ministerial colleagues and I have frequent meetings with non-governmental organisations and others who stress the importance of tackling corruption. Corruption threatens economic growth in developing countries, wastes resources and deters investment. The coalition Government will not tolerate corruption and will do their utmost in all their development programmes to eliminate it.

[Helen Jones]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. We welcome the publication of guidelines on the Bribery Act, for which organisations such as the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development have campaigned for some time, but will he tell the House how he expects the Act to be properly implemented given that the Serious Fraud Office is facing 50% cuts and many of its members have resigned, including the head of anti-corruption? What discussions has the Minister had with his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice about this?

[Mr Duncan]

I am sure that the hon. Lady appreciates that that is primarily a matter for the Treasury rather than the Department for International Development. We believe that corruption is bad for development, bad for poor people and bad for business, and today’s written ministerial statement lays out concrete guidance for the implementation of the Bribery Act to which we look forward.

[Greg Mulholland]

I, too, welcome the publication of the guidelines on the Bribery Act and wish to pay tribute to the leadership and personal commitment of the Secretary of State on this issue. However, I want to raise the issue of country-by-country reporting. The Government have said they are committed to that but that they will seek to do it through the EU. Can the Minister say how the UK will provide the leadership to ensure that we have the same system as that in the United States?

[Mr Duncan]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already been driving this issue very hard and DFID fully supports a process that is designed to reach agreement at EU level. We want such legislation to require, for example, extractive industries to disclose all their payments to the host Government. That is a very important step and the impact of such measures is greatest when applied to the widest range of countries.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

We all agree that tackling corruption is vital to ensuring that development delivers for the people who need it most. As the Government are finally publishing the guidelines on the Bribery Act, may I press the Minister again to assure us that the guidelines will not water down that important legislation?

[Mr Duncan]

On the contrary, the guidelines are very strict as the hon. Lady will see when she reads the written ministerial statement that is being published today.

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

7. What objectives he has set for the outcomes for his Department’s policies of the World Bank spring meetings.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will personally attend the spring meetings. Our objective is, on the back of our support for the recent funding round for the World Bank’s operations in poor countries, to take forward the outcome of our multilateral aid review and to ensure that the World Bank delivers more effectively in fragile and conflict-affected countries.

[Mr Burrowes]

I thank the Minister for that reply. The president of the World Bank has said:

“If you think about almost any poverty and development issue, you will find water at the center of it.”

Last week, I, together with the Secretary of State and constituents, joined Tearfund and Water Aid’s Westminster walk for water to highlight the lack of access of hundreds of millions of people to clean water and basic sanitation. Will the Minister stand on the shoulders of those who have walked for this great cause?

[Mr Duncan]

It is often a great advantage for me to stand on someone’s shoulders! Much of the international effort on water and sanitation is indeed led by the World Bank which, over the past 10 years, has provided 113 million people with access to an improved water source, and 5.8 million with improved sanitation facilities. With our support and that of others, the World Bank will over the next three years provide up to 44 million people with improved access to water sources. As part of our partnership, we will press it to be even more effective in what it does.

[Mr Speaker]

As the Minister will understand, I know his feelings very well.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

8. What plans he has for future levels of development aid to India.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

I have frozen the India programme at current levels until 2015. Working closely with the Government of India, we will target our support on three of the poorest states. Our programme will change to reflect the importance of the role of the private sector.

[Caroline Dinenage]

Despite the undoubted poverty in India, the Indian Government have nuclear weapons, a space programme and their own programme for foreign aid. What can we do to encourage the Indian Government to spend more money on the things that they should spend money on, rather than on the things that they want?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is right to ask whether India has reached the point where we should end our development programme. Our judgment is that we are not there yet. As she said, India has more poor people than the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. It also has the biggest Government-led pro-poor, anti-poverty programme anywhere in the world, and through our programme, we are strongly encouraging more of the same.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State outline what representations he has received from the Indian Government about his plans to spend 50% of DFID money on the private sector? Is that an aspiration only for India, or is it for other developing countries too?

[Mr Mitchell]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the nature of development is to try to move countries off welfare development on to pro-poor, private sector investment, as that is something that helps poor people to lift themselves out of poverty. The decisions on the Indian programme were made in close consultation with the Indian Government, and take account of our priorities and theirs as well.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

9. How many organisations have (a) applied for and (b) been granted funds from his Department's global action poverty fund.

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

In the first round, 366 eligible applications for funding were received for the impact and innovation windows of the global poverty action fund. Announcements on the first successful projects will be made next month.

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the Minister for his reply. Many small charities make a tremendous difference in developing countries, often with limited funding. What can be done to publicise the excellent opportunities for them to apply to the global poverty action fund?

[Mr O'Brien]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is an opportunity for many small UK-based organisations that often struggle to access DFID funding. The best thing to do is to go to the DFID website, but I would also would urge her and Members across the House to publicise through their constituency communications the fact that this is a real opportunity for their local charities to make a sensible application of that sort.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There are far too many noisy private conversations in the Chamber. I remind colleagues that we are about to discuss humanitarian aid to the people of Libya.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

10. What humanitarian aid his Department is providing to the people of Libya.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

We have provided funding for the International Committee of the Red Cross, which has sent in three medical teams, medical supplies to treat 3,000 people affected by fighting, and essential relief items for up to 100,000 of the most vulnerable.

[Ann Clwyd]

As the Minister knows, a team from Amnesty International has been in Libya for the past month, and it has found evidence of hundreds of missing and detained people. Given Gaddafi’s track record of extreme cruelty and torture, will he try to ensure that, at the very least, the ICRC has access to those detained people, so that news can be given to their families and they can have some contact with them?

[Mr Mitchell]

The right hon. Lady, who rightly always champions these issues, is entirely correct, which is why we and the United Nations have called strongly for unfettered access for humanitarian agencies. We continue to call for that access to be given throughout Libya.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The potential humanitarian crisis in Libya is one of those that should be influenced by the important report by Lord Ashdown on our response to humanitarian crises. I know that the Secretary of State welcomed the publication of that review. Can he give us some idea of the time scale for a Government response to this important piece of work?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is right. Lord Ashdown’s review of the way Britain conducts its humanitarian and emergency relief is outstanding. The Government will now consult and take six weeks to consider all the implications of that, and then report back to the House.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

Many sub-Saharan Africans work as migrant workers in Libya and do not have the resources or the opportunity to be repatriated. One of my constituents, who works with the Somali community in Belfast, has contacted me as members of that community are very concerned about their relatives. What are the international community and our Government doing to try to stem that aspect of the humanitarian crisis?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Lady is right to identify the migrant communities leaving Libya, especially through Tunisia, as particularly vulnerable. That is why Britain, along with others, has flown tens of thousands of them home to their countries and families. Britain has been involved in repatriating more than 12,500.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

11. What recent assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation on Libya’s borders with Tunisia and Egypt.

[Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)]

13. What recent assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation on Libya’s borders with Tunisia and Egypt.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

More than 350,000 people have crossed the Libyan borders since the crisis began. Early action by Britain and others has ensured that a logistical crisis has not, so far at least, developed into a humanitarian emergency.

[David Morris]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the work that he has done so far on the issue. Obviously, it is not for me to remind him that the eyes of the world are on that region, and that we must get it right for the people there.

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. Britain was one of the first countries to provide blankets and tents for those who were caught out in the open on the borders. Following that, as I said in answer to the previous question, we were at the forefront of the international community in providing flights to repatriate migrant workers from both borders.

[Joseph Johnson]

One of the biggest challenges facing Egypt’s transition to democracy is the fragile state of its economy, with capital rapidly leaving the country. Can the Secretary of State please say what he will do to stop the additional pressure on the Egyptian economy from the influx of refugees from Libya, which is draining it of remittances and pushing up already high unemployment?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is right to identify a most important issue. I have made clear Britain’s significant contribution to ensuring that migrants are flown home. On the other points that he mentioned, some of that is a matter for the Paris Club of creditors, the other international financial institutions and the significant funding available from the European Union through the neighbourhood funds.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

12. What discussions he has had with his EU and UN counterparts on the development implications of the state of emergency in Yemen.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)]

We are in close contact with EU and UN counterparts. Recent instability is limiting the ability of DFID and other donors to run development programmes in Yemen. DFID is continuing to support the social fund for development which helps low-income groups to secure basic services such as health, education and water. We are also supporting humanitarian contingency plans. We do not provide any money directly to the Government of Yemen.

[Keith Vaz]

I thank the Minister for his answer. As he knows, a state of emergency was declared in Yemen last week. As it remains one of the poorest countries on earth, it is essential that the excellent work that has been undertaken by the Government through the development programme continues. Can the Minister ensure that, subject to the security of people there, this work will continue?

[Mr Duncan]

We share the right hon. Gentleman’s objectives in trying to deliver assistance wherever we possibly can, which we are continuing to do through the social fund for development, which is not Government-run. We have, however, had to withdraw our DFID staff from Sana’a given the security situation, but we remain committed to doing everything we possibly can to help the people of Yemen once the security position and the political position become clearer and appropriate.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

14. What recent representations he has received on the effect on the economies of developing countries of the tax avoidance practices of UK companies.

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

Ministers discuss taxation and development with various parties, with the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury most recently meeting Christian Aid on 8 March. Discussions on protecting developing countries’ tax bases also take place in the OECD tax and development task force and the G20 development working group.

[Katy Clark]

The Minister will be aware that developing countries lose more through the tax avoidance of multinationals than they receive in aid each year. The Business Secretary has in the past supported country-by-country reporting of both profits and tax paid. Is that something the Minister would consider?

[Mr O'Brien]

I can certainly confirm that we expect all companies and individuals to pay the tax they owe in the countries where it falls due. There is a lot of work now going on, particularly with the G20 development action plan and the global forum on tax transparency, precisely to address the issues that the hon. Lady rightly highlights, and which we must all seek to find the most effective ways of tackling.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 30 March.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Major Matthew Collins and Lance Sergeant Mark Burgan from 1st Battalion the Irish Guards. They died in Afghanistan last Wednesday after their vehicle was caught in a blast from an improvised explosive device. They were both hugely respected, passionate and dedicated soldiers, and they will be greatly missed. Our thoughts and deepest condolences should be with their families, friends and colleagues.

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

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I pay tribute to our fallen heroes, and I am sure that I speak for many in the House when I say that we have to remember the debts we owe our brave armed forces, particularly at this time.

Is the Prime Minister aware that 14 Opposition Members signed an early-day motion congratulating UK Uncut, despite that organisation’s refusal to condemn Saturday’s violence? Will he join me in urging those Members to withdraw their names?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. First of all, we should be absolutely clear that the scenes in central London of property, shops, banks and livelihoods being destroyed were completely and utterly unacceptable. The police should have our full support for the way they policed the march and the action they took. I think that it is important for people to understand that UK Uncut refused to condemn this violence and Opposition Members should remove their names from the early-day motion.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Major Matthew Collins and Lance Sergeant Mark Burgan, who died in Afghanistan. They showed enormous bravery and courage, and all our thoughts are with their family and friends.

May I start by asking the Prime Minister about the ongoing situation in Libya? In particular, will he tell the House what his policy is on arming the rebels?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. Before starting, perhaps on behalf of everyone in the House, I congratulate him and Justine on the happy news of their forthcoming wedding and, along with everyone, wish them a long and happy life together.

I can report that the situation on the ground is extremely fluid. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that the ceasefire is still being breached, and it is absolutely right that we keep up our pressure under UN Security Council resolution 1973. I can confirm to the House that the coalition took action yesterday against regime forces harassing civilian vessels trying to get into Misrata. Yesterday and overnight the RAF flew 24 sorties, and Tornado aircraft destroyed artillery and an armoured fighting vehicle near Sirte.

The right hon. Gentleman asks about arming the rebels. I have said before in this House that we must do everything to comply with both Security Council resolutions. As I told the House, the legal position is clear—the arms embargo applies to the whole territory of Libya—but at the same time UNSCR 1973 allows “all necessary measures” to protect civilians and civilian populated areas, and our view is that that would not necessarily rule out the provision of assistance to those protecting civilians in certain circumstances. As I have told the House before, we do not rule it out, but we have not taken the decision to do so.

[Edward Miliband]

I thank the Prime Minister for that reply and am sure that the matter will be explored further in the Foreign Secretary’s statement at 12.30 pm. I also thank him, and indeed all Members, for their kind wishes on my forthcoming wedding, which I am very much looking forward to. I might have to come to him in the next couple of months for advice, because I know that he knows how to organise memorable stag nights.

Let me turn to a different issue: tuition fees. The Prime Minister said that universities will charge £9,000 in tuition fees only in exceptional circumstances. How many of the 23 universities that have announced their plans are planning to charge £9,000?

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure that there will be a free exchange of advice. When I was Leader of the Opposition, I would have done anything for a honeymoon, and the right hon. Gentleman probably feels the same way. However, we wish him well.

On tuition fees, the point about the £9,000 is well made. Universities can charge £9,000 only if they go through a number of steps to prove that they really are improving access to universities. I do not have the figures available, but I am very happy to give them to him when I do.

[Edward Miliband]

This is an important point, because when the Prime Minister was selling his tuition fees policy he reassured people that there would be a basic threshold of £6,000, but that “in exceptional circumstances” some universities would be allowed to charge £9,000. Of the 23 universities that have announced their fees, 18—more than 80%—plan to charge £9,000. It is not the exception; it is the rule. I am afraid—not for the first time—that this policy has not been implemented competently. The next problem he faces with this policy is that it will cost the Treasury more money to fund the loans. Will he guarantee that that money will not come from university budgets or through a reduction in student numbers?

[The Prime Minister]

It is worth reminding the House that university tuition fees were first introduced by the Labour party. There are two important points about this threshold. First, each university will have to spend £900 per place on access requirements. Secondly, the Office for Fair Access will decide whether universities can go to that £9,000 threshold. Very tough rules have been published and placed in the House for people to see. On the additional money that will go into higher education, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: because of the system we are introducing, we will be spending more overall on universities. However, the key thing is that because of the reductions in spending we are having to make elsewhere, this is the only way to guarantee that we have well-funded universities, well-stocked libraries, well-paid lecturers and good universities to take on the world.

[Edward Miliband]

I asked a very simple question: where will the money come from, given that the Government have miscalculated the level of tuition fees? Universities up and down the country are worried that the Prime Minister does not think that an 80% cut in the teaching budget is enough and that he will come back for more.

Policing is another area of public services that I do not think the Government are getting quite right. The police Minister was asked eight times on the radio this morning whether the number of front-line police officers would fall. May I ask the Prime Minister whether there will be fewer front-line police officers in the years ahead?

[The Prime Minister]

According to Home Office statistics, if all forces achieve the current best average for visibility and availability, it would increase the number of officers available by 8,000.

[Edward Miliband]

I do not think that people will understand what that answer was supposed to mean. The Prime Minister should listen to the chief inspector of Lancashire police:

“We cannot leave the front line untouched”.

That is because of the scale of the cuts. Two thousand police officers are being forced out under the A19 rules. Sergeant Dave Hewitt:

“'I will be walking away from the force, unfortunately not through choice… As far as I’m concerned I’m still young and I wanted to continue being a neighbourhood sergeant.”

That sounds like a front-line police officer to me. May I ask the Prime Minister the same question? Does he expect there to be fewer front-line police officers in the years ahead? Yes or no?

[The Prime Minister]

There is no reason for there to be fewer front-line officers. Both parties agree that the police budget has to be cut. I heard the shadow Chancellor on the Marr programme say that

“we would have made cuts to policing”.

The Labour party would have cut policing, and we have to do so, so the question is: how do we make those cuts? We say that we have to freeze police pay for two years, reform police allowances and cut their paperwork. The Labour party opposes all those things, so it would have to make deeper cuts in police numbers. That is the case.

[Edward Miliband]

It is very simple: we proposed 12% cuts in the policing budget; the Prime Minister is proposing 20% cuts. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary said that if we go beyond 12%, that is likely to lead to cuts in front-line officers, which is exactly what is happening up and down this country. The truth is that he used to claim that the Conservatives were the party of law and order, but now he is cutting the number of police officers up and down the country. It is the wrong choice for the police, the wrong choice for communities and the wrong choice for the country as well.

[The Prime Minister]

Not for the first time, the right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. The difference between a 12% reduction and what we are proposing is the freeze in police pay and the reform of police allowances, which he refuses to support. Has anyone seen a more ridiculous spectacle than the right hon. Gentleman marching against the cuts that his Government caused? I know Martin Luther King said he had a dream—I think it is time the right hon. Gentleman woke up.

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

From his visits to Cornwall, the Prime Minister will appreciate the high regard for the coastguard service there and around the UK. I am reassured that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), has said that the current modernisation proposals are not a done deal. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is very important to get the plans right?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. She is a Cornish MP, and I am sure that she and the whole of the House would want me to say how much we feel for our colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), who lost her husband in a tragic fishing accident. That demonstrates the extraordinary risks that people in coastal communities take, and our hearts should go out to her and her family.

We want to make changes only if they improve the coastguard support that people in fishing communities and elsewhere get. That is what the reform is about: trying to ensure that the real impetus is on the front line. If that is not the case, we will obviously have to reconsider the reforms, and that is why they are being reviewed. What I would say to everyone who cares about this issue is: work with us to make sure we get the maximum amount in those lifeboats and other ways of helping our fishing and other communities.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

Q2. Does the Prime Minister acknowledge the serious concerns that have been raised about the adverse implications and complications for cancer patients under the proposals in the Welfare Reform Bill of replacing disability living allowance with personal independence payments? Will he therefore investigate with Ministers the case for creating a straightforward cancer care and support allowance, which would be available to those who have been diagnosed with cancer and are either undergoing or awaiting treatment?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady asks an important question. We will look carefully, as the Government medical adviser is, at DLA and its interaction with people with cancer. However, I think that everyone, in all parts of the House, should recognise that DLA does need reform. The fact is that there are 130,000 people on DLA who have not had a claim revised at all since the benefit was introduced in 1992. There are 750,000 people who have had the same claim for 10 years and no contact from the Department. There are 21,000 people of working age getting DLA because they are on drink or drugs, so reform really is necessary, but making sure that we assess people with cancer properly is definitely part of that reform.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

May I congratulate the Prime Minister on what appears to have been a successful London conference on Libya? What measures are being taken to ensure that we can expand the coalition of countries taking part in action to include regional players such as Qatar and others, which is vital if we are to maintain regional support?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question: it was a successful conference yesterday, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a statement about it later. There were more than 40 delegations, widespread representation from the Islamic world and a common message from everyone at the conference about broadening and deepening the alliance, and enforcing UN Security Council resolution 1973. There was also new support, with equipment, including from the Swedes, who are making eight aircraft available. We are on track, and there is very strong support for what is being done, but we need to keep up the support, particularly in the Arab world.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Q3. Families who have lost their jobs have been able to apply for emergency loans to tide them over, so why, when unemployment is at a 17-year high and is predicted to get worse, does information leaked to me show that the Government plan to cut the fund tomorrow, and why, just like last week’s cuts to winter fuel payments, was this not announced in the Budget?

[The Prime Minister]

We are putting in place the biggest and boldest programme since the great depression to help unemployed people. That is what the Work programme is all about, and the hon. Gentleman should work with us to make sure that it can help everyone, including those in his constituency.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

Q4. Taking into account the high levels of deprivation in Lowestoft in my constituency, and in Great Yarmouth, coupled with the unrivalled potential of the East Anglian coast for creating jobs in the offshore energy sector, does the Prime Minister agree that those prospects would be significantly boosted by the creation of an enterprise zone?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very articulate case for an enterprise zone. I am delighted that we have introduced 21 enterprise zones, and clearly there is a case that colleagues can make for more. There are real strengths in his area in terms of green-tech jobs, which I know he supports, and I am sure that the Chancellor will have heard his message.

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

Dozens of families in my constituency were put out of their homes overnight and remain out of their homes as a result of terrorist activity, the latest in a long line of such incidents in Northern Ireland recently. Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning that terrorist activity? As well as supporting the police and the Army with resources, does he agree that, as we approach the Assembly elections in a few weeks’ time and mark the first full term of uninterrupted, stable devolution in Northern Ireland for generations, the best answer that we can give to such people is to reject them, reject their policies, reject their wanting to drag us back to the past and to keep Northern Ireland moving forward?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman speaks with support from all parts of the House for what he says—with both points that he makes. First, we have to be eternally vigilant against terrorists in Northern Ireland and elsewhere; we should do that, and he knows that the British Government will give every support that they can to the Northern Ireland Executive. Secondly, the best proof of success, and that there is a non-violent path, is to show the success of our democratic institutions, which he, his colleagues and all parties in Northern Ireland are doing.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

Q5. Yesterday, councillors on the Yorkshire and the Humber joint health overview and scrutiny committee were told by senior doctors that, if Leeds loses its children’s heart surgery unit, ambulance transfers will be unsafe and could prove fatal. Given that the report into the review of children’s heart units—commissioned by the previous Government, of course—contains factual errors, and given that there is a question over the impartiality of the board that made the final recommendations, will the Prime Minister now agree to halt the process? If not, does he think that the only option is judicial review?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to speak up for his constituency, which could be affected by that review, as indeed could mine. We want to make sure that the review is as transparent as possible and involved and engaged with parents and with everyone in communities. There are many times, however, when rather bogus arguments are put forward for specialisation in the NHS, but, in a really complicated case such as child heart surgery, there are cases for specialisation, and, as passionately as we all want to defend our own hospitals, we have to think about clinical safety and what is best for children. He is absolutely right to speak up for his hospital, as I am for the one that serves my constituency, but we have to have some understanding about the complexity of what we are dealing with.

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

Does the Prime Minister understand that unilaterally setting the minimum price for carbon in Britain will drive out inward investors such as Tata Steel in Swansea? Carbon trading by its very nature requires a common price, not a unilateral one, so will he suspend that price and send his Chancellor into the European Union to negotiate a common price and ensure that we have a level playing field for inward investment?

[The Prime Minister]

I respect the hon. Gentleman’s views, but I do not agree with him. I think the steps taken in the Budget are right, and we should judge companies such as Tata by the investments that they make. I have been hugely heartened by the fact that Tata is putting more investment into the UK. Its Redcar plant closed under the previous Government, but it is going to reopen in part because of the investment that Tata is making. I will of course listen to the hon. Gentleman, but I think that Ratan Tata knows a bit more about his business than he does.

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

Q6. My constituent Geoff Jacobs is in Parliament for The Prostate Cancer Charity’s action day to remind us that prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men. With only three out of 10 men being aware of the prostate-specific antigen blood test, and with 10,000 men each year dying of the disease, does the Prime Minister have a dream—of better outcomes for the increasing investment in the NHS?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. He is right that it is a dream we can have, but the fact that prostate cancer is such a massive killer is a nightmare for many families and many people in this country, and we really do need to do something about it. That means better early diagnosis, better testing, and better access to drugs. All those things are contained in our plans for the NHS.

[Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)]

Q7. The Prime Minister will be aware of the large number of women across the UK, including a number in my constituency, who are in their late 50s—58 or 59—and on low incomes, and he will be aware that speeding up the equalisation of the state pension age will affect some 2.9 million of them, with many having to wait two years and, as a result, lose up to £10,000. These are usually people on low incomes and in marginalised economies. Does the Prime Minister intend to put in place any measures to cushion the severe effects on these people on low incomes and their stretched financial circumstances?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Of course, the equalisation of the pension age does ask people to work for longer in their lives, and it is a big change. But I think that because people are living longer, it is right that we make this change to make sure we can have a good, strong and affordable pension system. The biggest thing we are doing is linking the pension to earnings rather than prices, which means that someone retiring today will be getting £15,000 more over the next period than they would have done under the old plans—so one is partly to pay for the other.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Q8. The last Government left us with one in five young people unemployed. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new university technical colleges will help to transform the lives of young people and are a matter of social justice as well as economic efficiency? Will he support Lord Baker in supporting the strong bid of Harlow college to have a UTC so that Harlow—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We get the gist of it.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to speak up for Harlow and to speak up for university technical colleges, which I think are going to be a great innovation in our country. I pay tribute to Lord Baker for the work he is doing, and to my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary and to the Chancellor, who put extra money in the Budget so that 21 of these colleges can open in our country, including, I hope, in Harlow.

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

The coalition agreement promised that the NHS budget would increase in real terms each year. Since the spending review, inflation has spiralled very high and we now face a real-terms cut of £1 billion for the NHS. What is the Prime Minister going to do about that?

[The Prime Minister]

We said that NHS spending would increase in real terms each year, and it will.

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

Q9. As we approach Good Friday, we might reflect on the role of Pontius Pilate. With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that he would never address crowds on Hyde park corner protesting about reductions in spending if he had been responsible for the economic mess that was the cause of the reductions in the first place?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend puts it extremely well. Far from standing on the shoulders of the suffragettes, or whatever nonsense we heard at the weekend, the fact is that the Leader of the Opposition is sitting in a great big pool of debt that was his creation, and he has got absolutely no idea what to do about it.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Q15. In 2009, the Prime Minister promised families with disabled children, in his own words, “a crack team of medical experts—doctor, nurse, physio—”to“act as a one-stop-shop to assess families and get them the help they need.” Can he tell the House how many of these teams have been set up?

[The Prime Minister]

What I can tell the hon. Lady is that it was very much something based on my own experience of having repeated assessments when you are trying to get help, benefits and social work, and in the special educational needs Green Paper that precise idea is rapidly becoming Government policy.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

Q10. Despite some unhelpful local party political mischief-making about the future of our valuable Sure Start services, will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming Hampshire county council’s proposals to protect front-line Sure Start services while saving public money by cutting back-office costs?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The key thing is that the head of Sure Start services has herself said that there is money available in the Budget to keep Sure Start open. That money is not being reduced.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

On 24 March last year, six weeks before the general election, the Derby Telegraph reported that the Prime Minister had accused me of distributing inaccurate information about Conservative plans for the winter fuel payment. It turns out that I was right and he was wrong, so, unless he is going to overrule his Chancellor, will he take this opportunity to apologise to the millions of pensioners who rely on the winter fuel allowance and to me for his unfair censure?

[The Prime Minister]

I cannot believe that I accused the hon. Gentleman of anything because I had absolutely no idea who he was. While we are at it, we promised that we would keep the winter fuel payments and we have kept the winter fuel payments. We promised that we would keep the cold weather payments and we have kept the cold weather payments. We promised to uprate the pension in line with earnings and we increased the earnings link. We said that we would keep the bus passes and the TV licences—we did all those things. Yes, he did mislead his electors at the election.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Q11. Queen’s award-winning Norbar Torque, rally-winning Prodrive and global award-winning CTG—Crompton Technology Group—are all manufacturing businesses based in Banbury. They are all doing so well that they want to move into larger premises, but they also have immediate skill vacancies that they need to fill. What collectively can we do to try to ensure that people who are unemployed elsewhere in the country and who have skills know of the skills they—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but we do have other Members to accommodate.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue and the reaction of the Opposition shows that they are not interested in manufacturing, skills, technology and ensuring that we expand those things. We will have 250,000 apprenticeships over this Parliament, the university technical colleges will make a difference and it is very good news to hear about the expansion of manufacturing in his constituency.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Q12. The Welfare Reform Bill proposes to introduce a £50 civil penalty for claimants who make a mistake in completing the application form. At the same time, advice agencies have stated that they are facing a perfect storm of funding cuts and many fear that they will not be in existence to help the vulnerable in completing the forms. Does the Prime Minister think that this is fair?

[The Prime Minister]

I would make two points to the hon. Lady. First, it is fair to say that the Government are not cutting the money that we put into citizens advice bureaux, for exactly the reason she gives. I urge all councils to do what my local council has done and find savings in bureaucracy to ensure that they are putting money into citizens advice bureaux. As regards her point about fines for people who misclaim benefits, I am afraid that I think that it is right. Far too much in our system is lost from fraud and error and I do not think that taxpayers go to work, and work hard, in order to fund benefits to which people are not entitled.

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

May I urge my right hon. Friend to display extreme caution in the supply of arms to the so-called rebels in Libya? The legal position is by no means clear, as his previous answer to the Leader of the Opposition made eloquently obvious. In addition, the political consequences of doing so, particularly among the nearly 40 countries that were represented at the successful conference in London yesterday, are very difficult to predict.

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. and learned Friend is right to be cautious and sceptical and I think we should consider this decision with huge care. Although the legal position is clearer, there are some strong arguments like his to which we would have listen. Yesterday, however, I met Mr Jabril of the interim transitional national council and I was reassured to see that those people who are forming an alternative Government in Benghazi want it to be interim and transitional. They are democrats, they are not tribal, and they want to see a future for the whole of Libya where the people have a choice in how they are governed. I was encouraged by what I heard.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Q13. Last week, I had the privilege of meeting a group of 25 women studying English for speakers of other languages courses in Lewisham. They and I share the Prime Minister’s desire that every migrant in the UK should speak the language of their new home. Given the Prime Minister’s belief that the practical things can make a big difference to community cohesion, will he commit today to putting a stop to this Government’s short-sighted cuts to English language courses?

[The Prime Minister]

We will have to take some difficult decisions over student numbers, and the priority should be to ensure that our universities can go on attracting the best and the brightest from around the world. [Interruption.] I will come on to the hon. Lady’s point. That is why we have said that there should be a post-study work route. However, it does mean that we should be tough, particularly on those colleges that are not highly regarded. The fact is that over the last year, about 90,000 students were coming to colleges that did not have proper regard at all.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Q14. A multinational is applying to build an incinerator the size of a football pitch some 500 metres from the small market town of Middlewich in my constituency. There is no need for this provision; it will involve importing waste and it has been unanimously rejected by the local planning committee. Does the Prime Minister agree that the concerns of local people over the negative impact that it will have on their town should be afforded paramount importance when the proposal is considered on appeal?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend that local considerations should be taken into account. That is one reason why we have made the changes to the Infrastructure Planning Commission. It is important that local communities have their say, and she has put the case extremely strongly.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

When all the local MPs met the North Staffordshire chamber of commerce last week, it asked us why north Staffordshire was not on the list to have a local enterprise zone. Does the Prime Minister understand the need for job creation in Stoke-on-Trent, and will he arrange for his colleagues in local government and at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to liaise with us and the Treasury to ensure that we get that investment when the new list is announced in July?

[The Prime Minister]

I completely understand the point that the hon. Lady makes, particularly in relation to Stoke, where the Potteries—[Interruption.] I wish that the shadow Chancellor would occasionally shut up and listen to the answer. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Other Members can now follow the Prime Minister’s advice to the shadow Chancellor. We need a bit of order.

[The Prime Minister]

I may be alone in finding the shadow Chancellor the most annoying person in modern politics—[Interruption.] No, no. I have a feeling that the Leader of the Opposition will one day agree with me, but there we are.

Where were we? The Potteries, yes. Clearly, there are massive issues because of the decline of the Potteries. I completely understand the need for Stoke to have that support. It is very important that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) is working to bring together the Potteries communities, including MPs and the local enterprise partnership. I will certainly ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to look at whether it can be in the next lot of enterprise zones, because we want to help the Potteries communities she represents.

[Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

In the light of the announcement by Statoil this week that it is cancelling £6 billion of investment in the North sea following the Budget, will the Prime Minister ensure that Ministers at the Treasury and the Department of Energy and Climate Change engage with the industry to explain how the field allowances might be adjusted to ensure that this valued investment goes ahead and that jobs are not lost?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly look carefully at the point that my right hon. Friend makes. The point that I would make about Statoil is that the regime in Norway has higher duties and taxes on petrol than the UK does. The key point is that when companies in the North sea made investment decisions, the oil price was about $65 a barrel, and it is now about $115 a barrel. I think that the break we are giving the motorist by cutting petrol tax—including for people in his constituency, many of whom rely on their cars—will be hugely welcome.

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the statement by the Foreign Secretary.

[Chris Williamson]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman, who is a new Member, that points of order, without fail, come after statements. The hon. Gentleman—

[Chris Williamson]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity at the appropriate time, but not at the inappropriate time.

Petition

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I wish to present this petition on behalf of Mr Pat Conway, No-to-North group co-ordinator, of 407 Turnpike drive in my Luton North constituency, and 947 other signatories. The petitioners oppose development to the north of Luton, and have set out the reasons for their objections, believing that there are better alternatives for growth that should be considered instead. The petitioners therefore request that

the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Luton Borough Council to consider alternative sites for development in and around Luton.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The Petition of residents of Luton,

Declares that the Petitioners strongly object to the Strategic Specific Site Allocation to the North of Luton, to the employment sites at Sundon and beside the A6 and to the proposed Luton Northern Bypass; notes that the Petitioners believe that the location for development is wrong because of the distance to Luton Town Centre, the limitation to increase capacity on the existing roads like the A6 and B579, the impact on schools and other local facilities, its poor location in relation to public transport, the direct impact on Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the negative social and economic impacts on the nearby residents and the costs to the taxpayer; and further notes that the Petitioners believe that there are better alternatives for growth instead.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Luton Borough Council to consider alternative sites for development in and around Luton.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.]

[P000911]

Libya (London Conference)

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

12:33

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the outcome of the London conference on Libya and related events.

I informed the House last Thursday that planning was under way to transfer coalition operations from US to NATO command and control. On Sunday, NATO allies decided to take on full responsibility for the implementation of all military aspects of Security Council resolution 1973, including the civilian protection mission, along with the no-fly zone and arms embargo operations which are now under NATO command. The transition to full NATO command is under way. The North Atlantic Council will provide executive political direction for the military operations, and is meeting later today. I hope the whole House will welcome the speed with which NATO has moved to put in place the planning and launch of those three demanding operations more quickly than was the case for Bosnia or Kosovo.

There are currently 16 nations contributing assets to coalition operations, including nations from the middle east region. Fifteen nations have now committed a total of nearly 350 aircraft, and vessels from 10 nations are supporting the arms embargo. Yesterday, Sweden announced that it would contribute eight fighter aircraft, and the United Arab Emirates publicly announced its contribution of 12 air defence fighters on Friday last week. The NATO Secretary-General has issued a request for further contributions, which we hope other countries will consider seriously.

UK forces have undertaken more than 160 aerial missions over Libya since operations began, in addition to missile strikes. We are continuing to target the military hardware that Gaddafi is using to kill his own people. Over the weekend, in addition to patrolling the no-fly zone, RAF aircraft destroyed a number of main battle tanks and armoured vehicles near Misrata. The RAF also took part in a successful coalition mission against an ammunition storage facility store near Sabha early on Monday morning.

As evidence of the care that we are taking to minimise the risk of civilian casualties, yesterday I received a letter from the local council in Misrata thanking Britain and our allies for the targeted strikes and the enforcement of the no-fly zone, which are alleviating pressure on the people of Misrata. The letter stated that the local council could

“testify for the effectiveness and the accuracy of those strikes and confirm that there has been not a single case of civilian injury let alone death in and around Misrata”

as a result of coalition activity. That is testament to the skill, experience and precision of our armed forces, and the whole House will join me in paying tribute to them. Our country literally could not do without them for a single day, and they are doing a great job in support of the civilian population of Libya.

The situation on the ground remains fluid. Regime forces have intensified their attacks, driving back opposition forces from ground that they had taken in recent days. Misrata also came under heavy attack yesterday, with further loss of civilian life, including children, from mortars, sniper fire and attacks on all sides from regime tanks and personnel carriers. The Department for International Development has been involved in funding the successful provision of humanitarian assistance to the city, and we are urgently examining options for the provision of further assistance. One obstacle to humanitarian support for the people of Misrata has been regime vessels trying to blockade the port. Those vessels were attacked by coalition aircraft yesterday and four of them were sunk and one was beached.

To underline our grave concern at the regime’s behaviour, I can announce to the House that we have today taken steps to expel five diplomats at the Libyan embassy in London, including the military attaché. The Government judged that were those individuals to remain in Britain, they could pose a threat to our security. We also remain strongly committed to supporting the International Criminal Court in its investigations into crimes in Libya and to ensuring that there is no impunity for barbaric acts against the Libyan people.

In my last statement to the House, I confirmed that I had invited the envoy of the interim transitional national council, Mahmoud Jabril, to visit London. He did so yesterday, for meetings with me and with the Prime Minister and to launch the council’s vision for a democratic Libya. I will place a copy of that document in the Library of the House.

A British diplomatic mission also visited Benghazi on Monday and Tuesday this week, headed by a senior British diplomat, Christopher Prentice. The purpose of the mission was to meet key Libyan opposition groups in eastern Libya, including the ITNC and its military council; to gain a greater insight into the political and security situation; to explain British Government policies towards Libya; and to discuss future governance arrangements in Libya, including identifying what Britain can do to help. The team met the president of the ITNC, Mustafa al-Jalil, among others. It has now left Libya, and further missions will follow shortly.

Yesterday, delegations including more than 30 Foreign Ministers, the UN Secretary-General and representatives of the Arab League, the European Union, NATO and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference met in London. Our Government went into the conference with three objectives, all of which were met. The first was to strengthen and broaden the international coalition committed to implementing Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973. This was achieved. Many more countries were involved in the conference and supporting our objectives than at the time of the Paris summit 11 days ago.

Secondly, we aimed to focus attention on the delivery of urgent humanitarian assistance to alleviate suffering in Misrata and at Libya’s borders, and to plan for the needs of Libya after conflict. The conference agreed priorities for a humanitarian response and welcomed an offer from the UN Secretary-General to lead the co-ordination of humanitarian assistance and planning for longer-term stabilisation support. Turkey, other key regional players and international agencies offered to support that work and take it forward.

Contingency military planning also continues in the EU to enable support to humanitarian operations, if so requested by the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, as agreed at the European Council last Friday. It is right that we start planning now to support Libyans over the long term to build a peaceful and prosperous future.

Thirdly, we argued that the conference must agree the need for a political process, led by the Libyan people, that helps to create the conditions in which the people of Libya can choose their own future, supported by the international community. Military action is not an end in itself. The announcement of a political programme by the ITNC was an important first step in that process. The conference was also attended by the UN Secretary-General’s special representative for Libya, Mr al-Khatib, who travelled to Libya last night. The conference agreed that Gaddafi has lost all legitimacy, and to continue efforts to isolate him and his regime by considering additional sanctions on individuals and companies associated with the regime.

We agreed to establish a Libya contact group to take that work forward. The contact group will provide leadership and overall political direction to the international effort to support Libya; act as a forum for co-ordinating international policy on Libya; and provide a focal point in the international community for contact with the Libyan parties. Qatar has agreed to convene the first meeting of the group, which we will co-chair. Thereafter, the chairmanship will rotate between the countries of the region and beyond it.

Security Council resolution 1973 laid out very clear conditions that the Gaddafi regime must meet, including the establishment of an immediate ceasefire, a halt to all attacks on civilians and full humanitarian access to those in need. Participants in the conference agreed to continue their efforts until all those conditions are fulfilled. The Libyan regime will be judged by its actions and not by its words.

The London conference showed that we are united in our aims—seeking a Libya that does not pose a threat to its own citizens or to the region, and working with the people of Libya as they choose their own way forward to a peaceful and stable future. It also demonstrated clear international support for the people of Libya. With that support, there is every prospect of focused and sustained assistance to the people of Libya as they seek to determine their own future.

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

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, although I regret that a copy of it was not made available timeously ahead of Prime Minister’s questions. None the less, I place on record my appreciation for the work of Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers and officials in facilitating yesterday’s London meeting.

The meeting made progress on a number of fronts on which the Opposition had specifically sought action. The establishment of a friends of Libya contact group is something that I have advocated for some weeks, and I now welcome it. Let me re-state our support for the work of our armed forces—both the RAF and the Royal Navy—in implementing UN Security Council resolution 1973. I also join the participants in the summit in welcoming the UN Secretary-General’s offer to lead the co-ordination of humanitarian assistance and planning for longer-term stabilisation support.

Although progress was made yesterday, comments from both inside and outside the conference have raised real questions for the Government. First, from the outset of this crisis, the Opposition have been keen that the Arab League and the African Union play a strong role. The Arab League was an early supporter of a no-fly zone, and African members of the Security Council supported resolution 1973. There will therefore be concerns that Saudi Arabia failed to attend yesterday’s conference, and although we welcome the presence of representatives of Tunisia and Morocco, there were few African states at the table and no representative of the African Union. Can the Foreign Secretary explain that and update the House on what work is being done to broaden and deepen the coalition of support for action beyond those who attended yesterday’s conference?

Secondly, the question regarding the arming of rebels of the eastern part of Libya has two parts: would it be legal, and if it were, would it be advisable? Yesterday, the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said on the legality of arming the forces of eastern Libya:

“It is our interpretation that 1973 amended or overrode the absolute prohibition of arms to anyone in Libya so that there could be legitimate transfer of arms if a country were to choose to do that.”

Two weeks ago, in a debate following the passage of resolution 1973, the Prime Minister was asked the same question about the resolution by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). He replied that

“our legal understanding is that that arms embargo applies to the whole of Libya.”—[Official Report, 18 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 623.]

The summary legal memorandum that the Government provided to the House for the debate on United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 is silent on this question. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary appeared to be moving closer to the US position, saying:

“Those resolutions in our view apply to the whole of Libya, although it is consistent with resolution 1973 to give people aid in order to defend themselves in particular circumstances.”

Will he therefore give the House his view on the legality of arming anyone in Libya under the terms of both Security Council resolutions? Given the importance and significance of this issue, will he also undertake to update the summary legal memorandum and to place copies of it in the Library of the House of Commons, so as to set out definitively the Government’s position on the interpretation of the Security Council resolutions?

The issue of the legality of arming the rebels sits alongside the issue of its advisability. NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe warned yesterday:

“We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential Al Qaeda, Hezbollah”.

This is therefore a pressing and urgent question for the Government. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will agree with me that, to date, the case has not been made on the advisability of taking this course of action. Of course we would all prefer a Libya without Gaddafi, but, given our lack of knowledge about some elements of the rebel forces, does he agree that we must proceed with very real caution on the question of armaments? Can he confirm that all efforts are being made to identify the risk of links to al-Qaeda? Further, can he confirm whether Libyan nationals, including from eastern Libya, have been involved in the insurgency that opposed our troops in Iraq or in the continuing conflict in Afghanistan?

The other question that has been raised in the past day is that of Gaddafi himself. The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has said that he is “one hundred per cent” certain that his investigation will lead to charges of crimes against humanity against Gaddafi and his regime. Yesterday, however, the Foreign Secretary’s ministerial colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), said that Britain

“would not stand in the way”

if Gaddafi were to leave the country. Can the Foreign Secretary set out the Government’s position on whether they would now be prepared for Gaddafi’s escape from international justice in order to prevent further bloodshed?

On 21 March, the Government received a specific mandate from the House for a specific mission in Libya, as set out in Security Council resolution 1973. I welcome the fact that post-conflict planning is now more firmly on the international agenda after yesterday’s meeting, but may I take the Foreign Secretary back to what the US President said when resolution 1973 was passed? He said that the resolution

“authorizes the use of force with an explicit commitment to pursue all necessary measures to stop the killing, to include the enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya. It also strengthens our sanctions and the enforcement of an arms embargo against the Qaddafi regime.”

President Obama continued:

“The resolution that passed lays out very clear conditions that must be met. The United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Arab states agree that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. That means all attacks against civilians must stop. Qaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya, and establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas. Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya.”

Can the Foreign Secretary therefore confirm whether, in the view of the British Government, the achievement of those conditions set out by President Obama still represent the fulfilment of the mission? Hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome a Libya free of Gaddafi’s tyranny, but the consent of the international community—and the consent of the House—was given for a specific mission, with specific aims and limitations.

As I said at the outset of this crisis, the Opposition will provide support for the enforcement of the UN resolution and sustained scrutiny of its implementation. In that spirit, I ask the Foreign Secretary to provide greater clarity in his reply, particularly on the questions of the legality of arming the rebels, the character of some of the anti-Gaddafi forces, the role of the International Criminal Court and the limited nature of this mission.

[Mr Hague]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for continuing the wide support for the idea of a contact group. It received unanimous support at the conference yesterday, which is why it was so easy to proceed with it and, indeed, with recognising the role of the UN Secretary-General in offering to lead the co-ordination of humanitarian assistance.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the attendance or otherwise of the Arab League and the African Union. The Arab League was well represented at yesterday’s meeting. The Secretary-General, Amr Moussa, was not able to come and he explained to me why he could not, but he sent his chef de cabinet, an ambassador, who made a powerful speech at the conference on the Arab League’s strong support for implementing the UN Security Council’s resolutions and for the action taken so far. No one should be in any doubt about the position of the Arab League. It is true, of course, that the African Union did not attend; there were divisions within in it over whether it should. We are in constant touch with the African Union and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is in almost daily touch with its chairman. I have had several conversations about this issue with President Museveni of Uganda. Clearly, the African Union does not have a united position, but we will invite it to engage with the contact group that we are establishing and we will keep our regular communication going.

On the question of arming the rebels, the Prime Minister made the position clear at Prime Minister’s questions. We have said that everything we do must comply with the Security Council resolutions, which also relates to the right hon. Gentleman’s last point. It is a point I make constantly—that everything we do must be consistent with those resolutions. It is acting strictly in accordance with UN resolutions that gives a legal, moral and international authority to our deeds, which has not, of course, always been there before. As I have already told the House, and as the Prime Minister said in the debate a couple of weeks ago, the legal position is that the arms embargo applies to the whole territory of Libya. At the same time, our legal advice is that resolution 1973 allows all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas and that this would not necessarily rule out the provision of assistance to those protecting civilians in certain circumstances. Clearly, there are differing views internationally about the legal position, but I have explained what is the view of the British Government. As the Prime Minister told the House, we do not rule it out, but we have not taken any decision to provide that assistance.

In response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), the Prime Minister also indicated at Prime Minister’s questions that the Government would indeed proceed with caution on this subject, as the shadow Foreign Secretary asked us to do. Questions of advisability, as the right hon. Gentleman quite rightly says, are different from questions of legality. We will always be very conscious of that. Of course, if we changed our policy, we would certainly want to inform the House, but we are not currently engaged in any arming of the opposition or rebel forces.

Of course we want to know about any links with al-Qaeda, as we do about links with any organisations anywhere in the world, but given what we have seen of the interim transitional national council in Libya, I think it would be right to put the emphasis on the positive side, as the Prime Minister did earlier. From everything we saw from our meetings with members of the council yesterday and from telephone conversations I have had with other members, I believe it is sincere in its commitment to a pluralistic, open Libya. The council published yesterday what is in effect its manifesto, which states its commitment to freedom of expression and freedom of the media, to the development of political parties and civil society and so forth. I think we should welcome that and I think there is a genuine and strong desire in Libya among the opposition groups to bring those things about. It would give the wrong impression of those groups, from everything we have seen and everything that our diplomat, Christopher Prentice, saw in Benghazi, to accentuate any allegations of links with other groups outside Libya rather than to accentuate those intentions that they clearly hold dear to their hearts.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the International Criminal Court. I mentioned in my statement how strictly we uphold its work. The United Kingdom has always done so under successive Governments and it will continue to do so. That does not mean that we can control what happens to Colonel Gaddafi, but we are not proposing to grant him any exemption from the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. That was something that we proposed should be part of UN resolution 1970.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the conditions set by President Obama on behalf of the coalition when the military operations began. Yes, those conditions still apply—the conditions of a real ceasefire, not just a pretend ceasefire. It does not mean the regime sitting in the middle of a town like Misrata and still being engaged at close quarters with the civilian population it is trying to kill. Clearly, a credible ceasefire involves disengaging from those areas. Events have moved on since President Obama made his statement, which was about not advancing on Benghazi. Since then, that has become less relevant, although we do not know whether it will become relevant again. We understand and interpret the requirement for a ceasefire and an end to violence in terms of those general conditions, which involve disengagement in order to fulfil the UN resolution. That reinforces our continuing rigid approach to enforcing the UN resolution and to staying within the UN resolution. We must also keep the international unity and moral authority that our conduct of affairs so far has given us on this issue.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

May I strongly disagree with the shadow Foreign Secretary and welcome the statement by the American and British Governments that military supplies to the insurgents would be permissible under the UN resolution if that were appropriate to protect civilian-populated areas? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the physical safety of the people of Tripoli and other parts of Libya will be ensured only if there is a speedy end to this civil war leading to the departure of Gaddafi, and that that cannot be achieved by coalition air power alone, but only if the insurgents—they are no longer rebels, as there is no longer any legitimacy for the Government in Tripoli—are properly assisted to bring this war to an end as soon as possible so that a no-fly zone is no longer required?

[Mr Hague]

I can go so far with my right hon. and learned Friend. He is quite right about the utter absence of legitimacy for the Gaddafi regime now, and I accept his welcome for the statement of the legal position on the supply of arms that we have set out; the United States Government also provided their version of that position. Nevertheless, I underline what I said to the shadow Foreign Secretary—that questions of advisability and policy would have to be examined in this regard, not just questions of legality. One can make the argument that my right hon. and learned Friend makes, but one can also make the argument that introducing new weapons into a conflict can have unforeseeable and unknown consequences both for the immediate future and for the longer term. Such considerations would have to be very carefully weighed before the Government changed their policy on this matter.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

May I reinforce the appreciation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) for the Foreign Secretary by offering my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on the way in which he has handled this conference? The fact that the Foreign Secretary did it on an inclusive basis is, as I saw on a visit to Turkey last weekend, much acknowledged and appreciated in that country and across the region. With that in mind, I turn briefly to the issue of arms supplies to the rebels. First, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, however interesting it is for us to debate the issue of legality, the decision about the legality of any such action and the interpretation of the dense texts of these resolutions is a matter for the Attorney-General and for him alone? Secondly, does he accept that if it is lawful, it becomes a matter of advisability, as he says, and that what is critical in all this is that in making any decisions, the international coalition—especially the support of the Muslim and Arab world—is paramount?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I think that I can happily agree with all of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Maintaining that breadth of international coalition is very important. We have said all along that the support of the Arab League and the participation of Arab nations—the Organisation of the Islamic Conference was represented strongly yesterday—were of huge importance, and they will continue to be of huge importance. We must not take actions that jeopardise that support.

I also strongly take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about Turkey, which played a major role in our conference yesterday. I shall have further talks with the Turkish Foreign Minister this afternoon and with the Turkish Prime Minister tomorrow. The coalition Government continue to build the strongest possible bilateral relationship with Turkey, as we have done over the past 10 months.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on a successful conference, which was an important milestone in allowing the Libyans to decide their own future. As for the arms embargo, does he agree that there is a big difference between arming the rebels to enable them to protect themselves, and arming the rebels to enable them to attack Gaddafi, which is tantamount to regime change?

[Mr Hague]

Certainly there would be a big difference between those positions. My hon. Friend should bear in mind what I said earlier, and what the Prime Minister said, about our interpretation of Security Council resolution 1973—that it does not necessarily rule out the provision of assistance for those protecting civilians in certain circumstances. This is very much about protecting civilians. It is not about weapons that would be used primarily for attack, and it is certainly not about a general arming of one side in the conflict. So yes, there is a clear distinction between those actions.

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

As the Foreign Secretary has acknowledged, the issue of arming the insurgent groups has three dimensions. The first is legality, the second is our shallow knowledge of all the people involved in those insurgencies, and the third is the impact on the international community, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) persuaded the Foreign Secretary to discuss. Can he give some indication of the feedback that he has received from different partners in this operation about their attitude to the arming of the insurgent groups?

[Mr Hague]

I agree that there are those three dimensions, but I believe that it is for other countries to state their positions. I do not think that it would be right for me to go through a checklist of countries and announce any attitudes that they have expressed to Her Majesty’s Government in private—I do not think that that would be very diplomatic—and I therefore fear that I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the information that he has requested. I can say, however, that although there is a variety of views on the issue, all the nations involved in the conference are of the same mind. That was made clear during the press conference that I held with the Prime Minister of Qatar last night. However those nations interpret the resolutions, it is not their policy at this moment to engage in arming particular groups in Libya. I believe that there is an international consensus on that.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Some of us remain of the view that the west’s intervention is as much about regime change as it is about humanitarian aid. Will the Foreign Secretary make absolutely clear whether it is the Government’s view that UN Security Council resolution 1973 would allow a no-fly zone, in effect, to follow the rebels should they wish to attack Tripoli, and also allow the west’s fighter planes to hit Gaddafi’s ground forces in Tripoli if that were to be the case?

[Mr Hague]

I disagree with some of my hon. Friend’s assumptions. This is not a western intervention but the enforcement of a United Nations resolution for which African and Arab nations voted, and Arab nations are participating in the enforcement of that resolution. The no-fly zone applies to the whole of Libya, and it is in force over a very wide area of Libya. Of course that includes Tripoli, and will continue to include Tripoli whatever the circumstances on the ground. As I keep stressing, air strikes against ground forces of the regime have been and will continue to be used—in accordance with the UN resolution—on forces that are attacking, or can be used to threaten to attack, or pose a threat of attack, to civilian and populated areas.

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

Earlier this week the Prime Minister told us that the African Union would be represented at the London conference, although he did not know the individual concerned. The Foreign Secretary has referred to some internal difficulties in the African Union, but has said in earlier answers that it has a potential role in providing for a ceasefire or a peaceful solution. Can he tell us more about why the African Union did not attend, and when the British Government were informed that it would not do so?

[Mr Hague]

The position of the African Union on attendance changed several times during the days preceding the conference, owing to internal disagreements. Only at the last moment—the night before the conference, I believe—was it certain that the African Union would not attend. Nevertheless, as I said earlier, we are engaged in constant dialogue with the African Union, and it has an important role to play. We will continue that dialogue, and I hope that the African Union will join a contact group.

I do not think that the basis of the disagreements within the African Union comes as any surprise. Yesterday’s conference expressed strong support for the implementation of the resolutions and for the actions that we are taking, including the military action, under operative paragraph 4 of resolution 1973. Some African nations find that difficult. Some of them have been the closest of all nations in the world to the Gaddafi regime, and it is not surprising that that creates some tensions in the African Union and makes it more difficult for it to engage in a conference of this kind.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Last week I had contact with someone who opposed Colonel Gaddafi in Tripoli. Having had some experience of what people such as the members of Colonel Gaddafi’s security organisation may be doing, I am quite concerned about what is happening in the streets and alleys of Tripoli. Has my right hon. Friend any knowledge of what action Gaddafi is taking against likely opponents within Tripoli?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is right to raise those fears. A report produced yesterday by Amnesty International quotes its middle east and north Africa director as saying:

“It appears that there is a systematic policy to detain anyone suspected of opposition to Colonel al-Gaddafi's rule, hold them incommunicado, and transfer them to his strongholds in western Libya”.

He is also quoted as saying:

“there is every reason to believe that these individuals are at serious risk of torture and ill-treatment.”

Given the reports from Amnesty International and other reports that have appeared in the media, and the kind of things that have been communicated to my hon. Friend, I think we can be confident that this is a regime with absolutely no regard for human rights, for human life, or for the welfare of the people of its own country. That is why, in the eyes of virtually of the whole world, it has utterly lost its legitimacy.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am slightly concerned about the fact that the Foreign Secretary appears to be taking advice on human rights from the President of Uganda on behalf of the African Union, because Uganda’s human rights record is, to say the least, questionable. Does the Foreign Secretary not acknowledge that we are now involved in a civil war? Anyone listening to his statement from outside will have recognised that Britain is supporting the insurgent forces in Libya.

Is there any endgame? Does the Foreign Secretary intend to send in ground forces? Does he intend to arm the insurgent forces? It seems to me that we are being increasingly sucked into a conflict with no obvious end in sight other than a great deal of bloodshed. Can the Foreign Secretary say something more about diplomatic efforts to bring about an internal ceasefire and an internal settlement in Libya, rather than pouring in more and more arms and weapons?

[Mr Hague]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I did not call President Museveni to ask for his advice on human rights. As I explained earlier, I called him to discuss the African Union’s attendance at the London conference. The hon. Gentleman must not place a different interpretation on what I said. In fact, I must correct what he has said in a couple of respects. He ended his question by saying that we were pouring more arms into Libya, but it follows from everything that I have said so far that we are not pouring more arms into Libya.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the end of all this. Let us remember that the purpose of resolution 1973 is to protect civilian life, which is what we have been achieving. Had we not passed that resolution and acted on it quickly, the loss of civilian life would have been dramatically greater, and the humanitarian crisis with which we would now be dealing would also be dramatically greater. Even at this stage, the achievement of those things in the last 11 days is something that people of all points of view should be able to welcome. Even the hon. Gentleman might say a word of welcome about the way in which people’s lives and human rights have been protected.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I too congratulate the Foreign Secretary. Being a bit more of an optimist than the shadow Foreign Secretary, I strongly welcome the vision of a democratic Libya published by the interim transitional national council. Does the Foreign Secretary welcome in particular its commitment to intellectual and political pluralism, the rights and empowerment of women and the rights of minorities, and what practical steps are we taking to build the ITNC’s capacity for democratic government?

[Mr Hague]

I certainly join my hon. Friend in welcoming that statement. It includes other provisions as well as those he mentions, and the ITNC has given much time and serious thought to it. It is not a rushed document: ITNC members have debated it among themselves and prepared it carefully. I encouraged them to publish it yesterday because I think it showed, alongside the London conference, that it is the people of Libya who will lead and decide their own future. It is a very encouraging document in that regard. Our diplomatic contact with the ITNC, including the visit of our diplomats there on Monday and Tuesday of this week, has included looking at how we can support it in developing capacity for, and ideas about, securing democracy and a free society in the future. Developing such links will be a prime objective of the further missions we are now planning to Benghazi.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Why cannot the Government be clear about not rearming the insurgent groups in Libya now that the NATO commander has testified to the US Senate that he cannot rule out infiltration by al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups? As an historian, the Foreign Secretary knows that in the 1980s another ally—America—decided to arm Osama bin Laden to get the Soviets out of Afghanistan, and now British troops are dying on the mountains of Afghanistan because of that error. Don’t repeat it.

[Mr Hague]

I shall put the hon. Gentleman down as being opposed to the arming of the rebels—but he must not get too excited about things that we have not done. Such questions of advisability are the very questions that would need to be assessed. As I have said, if we changed our policy on this we would say so to the House, and we would then be able to debate that. The hon. Gentleman is right that in history there are examples—more than the one example he gave—of weapons being given to people in good faith and then being used at a later stage for other purposes that their original owners had not desired. That is one of the considerations that have to be borne in mind.

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

May I urge the Foreign Secretary to resist the siren calls of the shadow Foreign Secretary about looking at the backgrounds and links of the people operating in Libya as insurgents? Otherwise we shall be accused of picking favourites. I urge my right hon. Friend to make every effort to continue both his encouragement for democracy strengthening and our sitting on the sidelines, while also being vigilant about the human rights of the civilians in Libya.

[Mr Hague]

It is very important that it is the people of Libya who determine their own future. That is very clear, and my hon. Friend underlines the point. We are not trying to determine the future Government. It is clear that the ITNC has brought together a wide spread of groups and figures in the opposition and that they genuinely represent the opposition forces in Libya at present, but that is not to say that exactly that combination of people would turn out to be the future Government of a free Libya. As my hon. Friend says, we will not pick winners, but we will support an open process of political transition in Libya.

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

The Foreign Secretary presents quite an upbeat picture, but what assessment has he made of the Deputy Prime Minister’s observation that the current action could well result in the creation of a hostile Islamist Government in Libya?

[Mr Hague]

It is very important that not only in Libya, but in north Africa as a whole, the UK and the European Union take the bold and ambitious approach that I described earlier, in order to act as a magnet for positive change—for civil society, open political systems, the building up of small and medium-sized enterprises, and all the other building blocks of democracy—but we cannot guarantee the outcome, of course. That is why we must make sure Europe provides a very big and effective magnet for those changes. If we fail to do that, not just Libya but any of the other countries in the region could become breeding grounds for terrorism and extremism. I think we should be on the optimistic side of this situation in which millions of people are seeking greater freedom, openness and democracy, but we should also be alert to the dangers if they do not succeed in getting those things.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I strongly agree with the shadow Foreign Secretary and his measured words, and urge extreme caution on my right hon. Friend. Would it not be a double win for al-Qaeda, and would we not start losing support in the Arab world, if we were seen to impose a solution on Libya and at the same time give arms to people who could prove to be Islamist insurgents in the future?

[Mr Hague]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we will not be engaged in imposing any solution on Libya. We will carry out necessary operations to implement the UN Security Council resolutions, but we are not in the business of imposing a solution, or a Government, on Libya. Indeed, if we were, we would lose that wider Arab and regional support, of whose importance he rightly reminds us.

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

Everyone would like to see the end of Gaddafi and his regime; that is not in question. It is a murderous regime, and has been for 42 years; that is not in doubt. However, has the Foreign Secretary noticed that there have been more critical voices today than at any time since the situation in Libya started? There are such critical voices both here and on the international scene because, despite what the Foreign Secretary has been telling us, there is a growing impression that the coalition forces are, in fact, involved in regime change, which is totally outside the terms of the resolution—and, indeed, outside international law.

[Mr Hague]

I would defy the hon. Gentleman to find any action taken by the coalition that is not in line with the UN Security Council resolutions. Everything we have done is in line with those resolutions. That was endorsed by everybody at the conference yesterday, and that will remain the case. The extreme care being taken to avoid civilian casualties is very clear, and a great contrast to the behaviour of the Gaddafi regime. It is important that we constantly underline these points in order to get that message across to the wider world, as well as in our own country, and the Government will continue to do so.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

In the light of reports that rape is being used as a weapon of war by Gaddafi’s forces, and the appalling recent incident of the arrest of a rape victim who dared to speak out, can the Foreign Secretary give us more information on the aspect of the political programme announced by the ITNC addressing how the voices of Libyan women will be heard and how they will be active participants, given that UN Security Council resolutions 1325 and 1880 make it very clear that involving both men and women is essential for successful post-conflict peace building?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend draws attention to one very well-publicised case of recent days that has shocked the whole world, and there are reports that such treatment of women by the Gaddafi regime is much more widespread. That is another indication of the regime’s absolute disregard for, and lack of any understanding of, human rights. As our hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) pointed out earlier, it is a good sign that a commitment to women’s rights and the involvement of women is in the ITNC’s vision for a democratic Libya. That is in a culture and a country that does not have a strong tradition of women in leadership roles, but let us hope that it will be a characteristic of a future freer Libya.

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

I thank the Foreign Secretary for coming to the House so promptly and giving such a full account of events at the London conference, as he promised he would. A growing impression is being given as a result of his and the Prime Minister’s comments today—and Secretary of State Clinton’s remarks yesterday—that we are edging our way towards arming the rebels in certain circumstances. What are those circumstances? Also, since the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have said that that would, in the Government’s view, be legal, presumably the Attorney-General has given a view on it. As far as many of us are concerned, either we must go back to the UN—I am sure the Foreign Secretary would not relish that prospect—and get a clarification of what has been called the dense text of the resolution or, at a minimum, the Attorney-General’s legal opinion on the circumstances in which we might arm the rebels should be sought and published.

[Mr Hague]

The Government’s understanding of the legal position is the one that I have set out: it lies in the exact words that I used earlier. The Prime Minister used the same words, and I used similar words on the television last night. That understanding is, of course, based on the Attorney-General’s views. As an experienced Member and former Minister, the hon. Gentleman knows the position on Government publication of the legal advice, although he also knows that we have been more forthcoming about that than has sometimes been the case in the past. The advice that I have given to the House—the statement of the Government’s position—is very much based on the legal advice and can be taken as the Government’s definitive view on the matter.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will the Foreign Secretary note that I am glad to hear that the Government have moved somewhat since my exchanges with the Prime Minister a week last Friday, when resolution 1973 was published? May I also say that we cannot have it both ways, and that the Sanctions Committee is also involved in this? Have any suggestions been made to approach it with a view to ensuring that what is done is legally done, in accordance with the best legal advice?

[Mr Hague]

As my hon. Friend will understand, we are not proposing, at this point, to change our policy on this. If we did so, we would want to be absolutely satisfied that that was not only advisable but legal. We would need to be sure of that and able to assure the House of it, so I will bear his advice in mind.

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

During the debate in this House on Monday of last week, Members on both sides expressed their concern about mission creep. That concern has been heightened by today’s debate on potentially arming the rebels. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that if the impression is given that NATO-led forces are taking sides in what is becoming a civil war, that will be deeply counter-productive to the cause of a lasting peace?

[Mr Hague]

I will put that in a slightly different way, which is that it is very important to stick to the UN resolution. I think that that is at the heart of what the hon. Lady is saying, and it is very strongly the view of the Government. Although NATO is providing the command and control, it is clear that Arab nations are also taking part in this operation and many others support it. After all, the whole of the Arab League, with only one dissenting voice, called for a no-fly zone and the protection of civilian areas in Libya. As I assured the House earlier, we will always act in a way that maintains that broad international support. We are certainly not engaged in any mission creep. We are engaged in the protection of civilian areas, the enforcement of a no-fly zone, the delivery of humanitarian aid and the enforcement of an arms embargo. That is what we set out to do, and that is what we are continuing to do.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary talked about the British diplomatic mission to Benghazi. Does he agree that Britain can play a leading role there in building necessary links and thinking through issues associated with a post-conflict democratic settlement?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, we absolutely can. We have diplomats and development advisers who are very well placed to do that. As I have mentioned before, doing that across the whole of north Africa in a way that is not patronising to the countries involved but which brings genuine expertise in the building of civil society and political pluralism is an important part of our role.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

My colleagues and I fully support resolution 1973, but the reinterpretation of it in respect of arms to the rebels does suggest mission creep and is in danger of shattering the political consensus. It has been suggested in some quarters that the rebels have also asked for British troops to help with training. Can the Foreign Secretary give us a cast-iron assurance that there will be no British troops on the ground in Libya in any circumstances?

[Mr Hague]

Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman somewhat on that point. He knows that the UN resolution is clear that there must be no occupying force in Libya or any part of Libya. Let me give him further reassurance: in my meetings with the interim transitional national council, the opposition in Libya, they have not asked for our troops to go to train them, and we are not doing that at the moment. For the reasons that I gave in the House last week, I will not exclude our ever having any forces of any kind anywhere, in small numbers, on Libyan soil, because we have already had to do that: in order to rescue our nationals from the desert a month ago, we had to send the RAF and special forces into desert locations. Circumstances can arise in which such limited operations have to take place, but there will be no ground invasion of Libya and no occupation of Libya, and the request to which the hon. Gentleman refers certainly has not been made to me.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

At this important and successful conference what discussions took place about the situation in Yemen? As the Foreign Secretary knows, Libya has 6 million people whereas Yemen has 23 million people, and a state of emergency was declared there last week. When he last came to the Dispatch Box he promised to continue the dialogue with Yemen’s president and people. Is there not a role for the international community to play to ensure that that continues?

[Mr Hague]

Yes. Yemen was not the subject of yesterday’s conference, although, as the right hon. Gentleman can imagine, it was the subject of some of our discussions in the margins. Certainly Secretary of State Clinton and I discussed Yemen, among other subjects, in the morning. We continue to look to the various parties in Yemen to settle their differences peacefully. We do not want to see civil conflict in Yemen or the collapse of all authority in Yemen, which really would raise the much greater spectre of a terrorist threat to the United Kingdom on a vastly greater scale than anything we have discussed in the House so far this afternoon. The British Government are heavily engaged in this situation and our ambassador in Sana’a, in particular, is doing an outstanding job in giving very good advice and conveying all the views of this country to the President and to the other various factions involved in Yemen. So we are doing our best to use our good offices to bring about a more peaceful situation there.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

May I commend the work that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has done on Libya and the London conference? May I also commend the work of our armed forces, whose skill and expertise has meant that there has not been a single case of civilian injury, which is incredible? Can he confirm that we may use our armed forces to deliver humanitarian aid to Libya—if we are not already doing so—and thus make sure that we are supporting civilians as much as possible?

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have not, so far, been using our armed forces to deliver humanitarian aid, although contingency planning done by various nations includes the ability to do that. However, it is better, if at all possible, to deliver humanitarian aid in a way that does not get that aid involved in the conflict that is going on in Libya. So we are trying to get that aid in by supporting other organisations and by some direct deliveries from our allies. As the Secretary of State for International Development made clear at his Department’s Question Time, that has enabled us to provide essential supplies for a very large number of people already.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

What assessment have the Government made of the risk of civilian casualties if the insurgent forces were to get to Tripoli and start fighting, street by street, for control of the capital? What likelihood is there that the political track would create some kind of solution and a ceasefire before that situation arose?

[Mr Hague]

Obviously, what we are hoping for and looking for is a genuine ceasefire—that is what the whole world wants to see. If the Gaddafi regime would accept that on the terms that I was discussing earlier with the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander)—it should not be difficult to do that—we would have a ceasefire and everybody would be able to proceed from there. All I can say about the opposition forces and the danger of civilian deaths from their activities is that, so far, we have no record of their being engaged in attacks on civilians. For one thing, they have not made frontal attacks on civilian areas and, for another, where they have managed to gain territory they have generally been welcomed by the local people. It is certainly part of the beliefs of the opposition that in most of the western towns and cities of Libya there would be a very strong welcome for the opposition forces. So they have avoided civilian casualties in their own operations so far, and we look to them to continue to do so.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

I appreciate that my right hon. Friend might need to be careful with his answer to this question. Given the news from Misrata of further attacks on civilians, can he give an estimate of the munitions supplies and military capability that remain available to Gaddafi and of the effectiveness of the blockade of munitions from land and sea and by air?

[Mr Hague]

I will have to be a bit careful with my answer. Clearly, events such as the attack by coalition aircraft on a major ammunition storage depot in the early hours of Monday will have made a difference to the ammunition supplies of the Libyan regime. It is very difficult to quantify that, but it will have made a significant difference. Equally, the successful attacks on regime vessels that were seeking to blockade Misrata yesterday will have made a significant difference to their ability to blockade that city. It is not possible to put a precise statistical estimate on the things my hon. Friend is asking for, but one can say with a fair degree of confidence that, if it had not been for coalition activity, the citizens of Misrata would by now have sustained many, many more casualties. Indeed, it is entirely possible that the city would have been taken over by regime forces, with desperate consequences for many of its inhabitants.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary says that coalition and British forces should follow the letter of the UN resolution, and indeed the resolution of the House, but are they doing so? Reports coming out of Libya suggest that we are supporting offensive actions by the rebels, and there are mixed messages about regime change, including from the Government Front Bench. Does he accept that there will be a breakdown in the broad consensus either in the UN or in this House if there is not clear evidence that only humanitarian and protective ambitions are being achieved?

[Mr Hague]

No, I do not accept any of the premises of the hon. Gentleman’s question. What we have just seen at the London conference is a serious broadening and deepening of support for what we are doing under the United Nations resolution and I have stressed the importance of maintaining that. He can be sure that British forces and our allies are acting entirely within the UN resolution and I am not aware of anyone who is able to bring to the House any evidence that they are doing anything other than that. He would do well to support our forces in the difficult job they are undertaking rather than to entertain the idea that they are doing something different.

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Although there is widespread agreement that Gaddafi has lost all legitimacy, it is increasingly unlikely that he will step down voluntarily. Apart from the no-fly zone, what does the coalition force propose to bring an absolute end to the conflict?

[Mr Hague]

I must be clear with my hon. Friend, as I have been with other hon. Members, that our military mission is defined by the United Nations resolution. As one or two Members have pointed out, neither the mission nor the resolution includes regime change. Yes, we think Gaddafi should go, as does any rational person on earth—it is impossible to see a viable future for his country while he remains there—but in our military activity we will stick absolutely to what is laid out in the UN resolution.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I note that the Foreign Secretary has not told us how much of the Gaddafi hardware now being targeted by coalition forces was provided by those countries in the first place. He also knows that in the debate of 21 March the Government clearly resiled from calls to arm the rebels and offered assurances regarding regime change and questions about the future governance of Libya. They also told us that there was international consensus on a clear and focused interpretation. Does he agree that those interpretations have been moving and varied since then, and is not the spin shift of the past 10 days evidence that the Government and the coalition are struggling to defy gravity and are being sucked into mission creep?

[Mr Hague]

No, that is entirely wrong. I wish the hon. Gentleman could have come along to the conference yesterday. If he had, he would have seen the degree of international support—indeed, unanimity—for these things, which is quite extraordinary for an international event involving such a varied group of nations from both sides of the Atlantic and around the middle east. That international consensus has been strengthened, the international focus on the UN resolution is as strong as it was at the beginning and our commitment to operate within it is as strong as it was at the beginning, so we are not engaging in any mission creep.

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

First, may I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the way in which he has handled the overall situation? Will he clarify one point about the UN resolution’s mention of protecting civilians under attack in Libya, “including Benghazi”? Why expressly mention Benghazi and not Misrata or Zawiya?

[Mr Hague]

That is a fair question. The mention of Benghazi is a product of the days in which the UN resolution was drafted and agreed at the UN Security Council, when the most specific threat to the largest number of people was to the civilian population of Benghazi. My hon. Friend will remember that at that time the Gaddafi forces were advancing rapidly on it, so when the resolution was agreed it was easy to put Benghazi in it. As he knows from reading that paragraph, its provisions apply to all the other civilian-populated areas of Libya; the inclusion of Benghazi was not meant to exclude any other areas.

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

May I press the Foreign Secretary to say something more about the contact group, specifically the size, frequency of meetings and the ministerial level at which those meetings will take place?

[Mr Hague]

The membership of the group will be decided in the coming days. Clearly, as Qatar is hosting the next meeting and we will co-chair it, we will work closely with the Qataris on the membership of the contact group, which will need to be internationally agreed. It should certainly include international organisations such as the Arab League, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the United Nations, the EU High Representative and the African Union if they want to be associated with it, and it also needs to include key nations from both sides of the Atlantic and from the middle east and north Africa region. It will need to include at least a dozen nations—perhaps a few more—to be of a size that can be cohesive and able to work together. I envisage it meeting for the first time within the next two weeks, certainly. We will be represented at senior ministerial level, which means by me or the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), if I have duties elsewhere. I think it will be a very useful and important group for the high-level political oversight of the whole work of the coalition.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his mojo on Libya. Given what my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) have said about the terrible treatment of civilians in Libya and about the prisons and torture there, did my right hon. Friend have any discussions yesterday with the other countries about bringing to justice those who are perpetrating war crimes, particularly about ensuring that Gaddafi is not allowed to go into exile but is brought before the International Criminal Court?

[Mr Hague]

We have had those discussions all along. As my hon. Friend knows, there is a reference to the prosecutor of the ICC in resolution 1970—the first of the two resolutions passed on these matters. Just as we remain strongly attached to the implementation of resolution 1973, we are also firmly committed to the implementation of resolution 1970 and we want people to know that we are not going to be advocates of impunity for those crimes.

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

May I pay tribute to the work that our servicemen and women—the RAF and the Navy—are doing once again on our behalf and the way in which they are carrying out those operations, minimising civilian casualties? We endorse the careful and cautious approach of the Foreign Secretary and the Government because of the concerns about al-Qaeda. Will the Foreign Secretary address the issue that was raised earlier about the role of fighters from eastern Libya in Afghanistan and elsewhere? What knowledge can he bring to the House about that and the role of al-Qaeda links in Libya today?

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful, as the whole House will be, for the reaffirmation from all sides of support for the work of our armed forces. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to refer to that, but I cannot give him specific information about people in eastern Libya fighting in Afghanistan. As he knows, there are fighters in Afghanistan on the Taliban side drawn from a wide area around the world, but it would not be accurate to represent the eastern part of Libya as a major factor in that or a major area for the recruitment of such people. As I say, it would be most accurate to place the accent on the positive and democratic side of the opposition in Libya rather than on any other side.

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

May I strongly and respectfully disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind)? The UN resolution is not some law that has passed through a Bill Committee of the House of Commons; it is a contract between us, Germany, Brazil and India. We should be very, very careful not to push the letter of the law, but to stick to the spirit of that resolution. If anyone is to arm the rebels, may I respectfully suggest that Britain should not be in the lead?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend makes some powerful points. He is right that in looking at a UN resolution one must bear in mind not only the precise words with which it was drafted but the circumstances in which it was agreed and any understanding at the time, and we shall certainly do so.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. It is clear from television pictures that a humanitarian catastrophe is waiting to happen—no water, no electricity, no food, medical supplies dwindling, and those who have been injured, shot or blown up by other forces queuing up at the hospital. What steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken to ensure that technical support is given to civilians in Libya so that they can resume some normality in their lives?

[Mr Hague]

We are giving a lot of support. We are giving financial support to organisations that are involved in supplying such aid. We have provided a specific amount of supplies for up to 100,000 people, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development indicated earlier. We have other projects under way to support the bringing of direct help to some of the people in the most desperate situations. However, the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot announce in advance what they are in case the Gaddafi regime tries to prevent them, but he can be assured that we are giving a lot of attention to the issue.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

I, too, warmly welcome the news that there have been no civilian casualties so far as a result of the action that we have taken, which is a testament to the skill and delicacy of our pilots. The Foreign Secretary will be aware that the closer the fighting gets to the urban centres in the west of Libya, particularly around Tripoli, the harder it will be to avoid civilian casualties as a result of fighting on the ground and from the air.

I urge the Foreign Secretary to hold robust conversations with the Arab League and other regional players to ensure that we know where the tipping point is between air action to support civilians and air action in support of offensive ground action by the rebels, because it is a grey area—

[Mr Speaker]

We are extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but we have a lot of business today. I call the Foreign Secretary.

[Mr Hague]

To give a brief answer to conclude, the best way to put it to my hon. Friend is as follows. We retain the moral and international standing, particularly because of the extreme care that we take to minimise—to avoid—civilian casualties. That must continue throughout the operation. The purpose of the operation is to protect civilians. It cannot be part of its purpose to inflict damage or death on civilians, so whatever the situation, however it develops over the coming days or weeks, we will continue to take that extreme care.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary and colleagues for their succinctness.

Points of Order

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

13:43

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This relates to unparliamentary language by the Prime Minister, which is why I was keen to make a point of order before he left the Chamber. I apologise if I appeared a little over-insistent. I believe that I heard the Prime Minister accuse me of being misleading, which is unparliamentary language.

[Mr Speaker]

I can deal with the point very simply. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer is that nothing unparliamentary was said, but for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman and of the House, let me make clear what a lot of hon. Members know, but some perhaps do not. To accuse someone of misleading the House is unparliamentary and a breach of order. The use of the word “misleading” in the way in which the Prime Minister used it is not unparliamentary or out of order. That is a statement of fact, and I hope that it is helpful both to the hon. Gentleman and to the House.

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There has been some confusion about the use of iPads and other electronic devices both in the Chamber and in Committee, particularly the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill Committee. Will you advise the House of the conclusions of the Procedure Committee on the use of such devices?

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving me advance notice of it.

I shall deal with this briefly, and in two parts. First, my guidance on the courtesies and conventions of the House states that the House has agreed to the use in the Chamber of hand-held devices to keep up to date with e-mails, provided that they cause no disturbance. All such devices may be switched on as long as they are in silent mode. Members should not use electronic devices as an aide memoire in debate.

Secondly—and the hon. Gentleman referred to this—the Procedure Committee reported last week on this matter and the House will soon want to debate its report. In the meantime, I do not think that the occupant of the Chair can reasonably prevent a Member from discreetly using such a device as an aide memoire in debate. Members should remember to send any notes, electronically or not, to Hansard. I hope—I reiterate this forcefully—that the House will soon reach a view on this in order, apart from anything else, to assist the Chair.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In an earlier exchange with the Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) seemed to imply that he possessed leaked information about a cancellation or compromise of the crisis loans scheme. Will you advise me on how we can get accurate information on this matter, as it has been raised on the Floor of the House?

[Mr Speaker]

I have a feeling that the hon. Lady’s expectations of the scope of my powers are unrealistic, however generous-spirited they might be. It is extraordinarily good of her to think that these matters are within my compass, but I fear that unless I am gifted with talents that I do not possess I am unlikely to be able to satisfy her demands on this front. More widely, I would say very simply to her that hon. Members are responsible for their own statements, and if she wishes to follow up the matter with the hon. Member in question she is welcome to do so.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the Prime Minister to claim again today that the Government have embarked on the biggest work programme since the great depression? As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, there was no meaningful work programme during the great depression, but what we did have in the 1930s was mass unemployment presided over by a Tory-Liberal coalition.

[Mr Speaker]

I may disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I state the truth when I say two things. First, the Prime Minister was in order and, secondly, in his attempted point of order, the hon. Gentleman was not, but he has put his concerns on the record.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I draw your attention to the arrangements for debates organised by the Backbench Business Committee on Tuesday 5 April, which are excellent? I think that all hon. Members will welcome the changes that have been brought about. However, I note that each Member participating in the general debate will receive

“a substantive written reply from the Department to the points raised unless they are dealt with fully in the Deputy Leader of the House’s reply.”

Who will make that adjudication? Let us hope that it is a matter for the Chair.

[Mr Speaker]

Of course, it is a matter for individual Members of the House to decide whether they have received a good reply. In fairness, and in the presence of the deputy Leader of the House, who has regularly shown himself, not least recently, to be conscientious in responding to colleagues’ concerns, my hunch would be that if the deputy Leader of the House, whose antennae are sharp, sensed widespread dissatisfaction among Members, he would want to respond to it. As for the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks about the work of the Backbench Business Committee and of the Chair, my cup runneth over. I am extremely grateful to him.

If there are no further points of order, we come to the ten-minute rule motion, for which the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) has been patiently waiting.

Alcohol Marketing

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

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

13:49

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce measures to reduce the exposure of children to the marketing of alcohol products; to make provision to establish the permitted content of marketing of alcohol products; and for connected purposes.

About 13 young people will die this week as a result of alcohol, and about 650 this year. Nearly a quarter of all deaths of young people aged between 15 and 24 are caused by alcohol. That is two every day—far more than are killed by knife crime or cancer—yet this tragic loss from alcohol attracts far less by way of a response. These totally avoidable deaths are just the tip of the iceberg and do not begin to represent the full scale of the harm caused by alcohol to children.

Alcohol blights lives, with criminal records as a result of violent and antisocial behaviour, and it results in educational failure. Regretted and unprotected sex raises the risk of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections. Around 7,500 children are admitted every year to English hospitals alone as a result of acute intoxication, and that figure does not include the carnage in our accident and emergency departments.

There are many contributing factors and no simple solutions. Ultra-cheap alcohol and saturation availability still need to be tackled, but we also need a change in our drinking culture. The Bill aims to tackle one of the root causes of that culture, and there is a clear evidence base to support it. Youth culture is heavily influenced by marketing and our children are saturated by alcohol advertising. Despite the clear evidence of harm—only Denmark and the Isle of Man have higher levels of binge drinking and drunkenness in their schoolchildren—the European school survey demonstrated that our children have the most positive expectations of alcohol of any children in Europe and were the least likely to feel that it might cause them harm.

Where do those positive expectations come from? Let us just look at the scale of marketing in the UK. The estimated spend on alcohol marketing is around £800 million, compared with the Drinkaware trust’s funding by the industry of just £2.6 million. When £307 is spent encouraging drinking for every pound spent promoting sensible behaviour, the results are predictable. The World Health Organisation hit the nail on the head when it said:

“In such a profoundly pro-drinking environment, health education becomes futile.”

The Portman Group, one of the main regulators of the industry, would have us believe that it runs a very tight ship and is effective in protecting children. That simply is not true.

Our confusing and inadequate combination of legislation and industry self-regulation is not working. The report on alcohol by the last Health Committee highlighted the fact that 96% of 13-year-olds from a sample of 920 were aware of alcohol advertising in at least five different media, and between 91% and 95% were able to identify masked brands. Nearly half owned alcohol-branded products, such as clothing. Does that matter?

A systematic review of multiple studies looking at the impact of alcohol advertising and media exposure on adolescents—a study that reviewed many studies—concluded that increasing exposure to alcohol marketing encourages children to start drinking younger and to drink more when they do. The Academy of Medical Sciences report “Calling Time” showed a consistent correlation between consumption levels by 11 to 15-year-olds and the amount spent on marketing. We can be sure that, if alcohol advertising did not work, the industry would not pay for it.

Many of the possible solutions to our binge-drinking epidemic are incompatible with European law, so it is rather refreshing to hear that France has found a way forward. In 1991, in response to saturation inappropriate marketing, the French introduced a measure called the Loi Evin. This law has been repeatedly challenged in the European courts and has been upheld as

“proportionate, effective and consistent with the Treaty of Rome”,

which all Members would agree makes a pleasant change.

Alcohol was a serious problem in France. In 1960 the French were consuming over 30 litres of pure alcohol per capita per year. Consumption is well under half that figure now. I accept that French levels of alcohol consumption were falling before the Loi Evin was introduced, but the French have managed to sustain that decline and the long-term trend continues to be downwards. That is partly because their young people are no longer exposed to a continuous barrage of insinuating and pervasive messages about alcohol.

I am not suggesting a retreat to the nanny state or a ban, but we should aim to protect children, especially as there is clear evidence of their exposure to marketing and the consequent harm. We currently have an absurd situation where advertisers are not supposed to link drinking with social or sexual success or portray drinkers as youthful or vigorous, but they can regularly sponsor major sporting and youth events, such as T in the park. The Bill aims to reduce the exposure of children to the harmful effects of alcohol marketing by setting out what advertisers are allowed to say and where they can say it. Rather than the current confused cocktail of legislation and self-regulatory codes, let us switch to something that works.

The Bill would permit the promotion of alcohol in media that adults use. That would include the print media, where at least 90% of readers are adults rather than children, radio after 9 pm and films with an 18 certificate. It would allow advertising at the point of sale in licensed premises and at traditional producer events, so it would not penalise, for example, west country cider makers or small Scottish distilleries. In these media, advertisers would be permitted only to make factual and verifiable statements about their products, such as alcoholic strength, composition and place of origin. Every advert would also carry an advisory message about responsible drinking or health.

Any other marketing or promotion not specifically permitted would therefore be banned, and this would include television, social media and youth-certified films. The Bill would specifically prevent the growing threat from viral phone marketing and ploys such as “advergames” on the internet, where so-called games are a cover for alcohol marketing. I think we would all agree that those are designed specifically to appeal to young people. Ofcom in its own research has demonstrated that for every five 24-year-olds who see an alcohol advert on television, there are four 10-year-olds who see the same advert. The industry will claim that these measures will kill off sport and culture, and that advertising is designed only to persuade people to switch brands. The same claim was made before the tobacco advertising ban. I point out that France has managed a World cup and a European cup without any help from alcohol sponsorship.

Across the channel, the Loi Evin is backed up by heavy penalties which have been imposed by the courts and now act as a significant deterrent. May I ask that we stop putting the fox in charge of the chickens and have a clear statutory code to protect our children? The Government could adopt this measure very quickly. I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) in the Chamber today. I call on him to meet me to discuss further how we could implement the measure in the Government’s alcohol strategy.

The coalition has staked a great deal on talking about outcomes. If we are serious about outcomes such as reducing health inequality, reducing violent crime and domestic violence, improving the life chances of our children and reducing teenage pregnancy, we must stop talking to the drinks industry, with its vested interest in increasing drinking, and start listening to those with real expertise in preventing alcohol-related deaths. Not so much big society, perhaps, as big sobriety.

13:58

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

It will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) that I object to the Bill in principle and in practice. Despite her best efforts to suggest otherwise, it is clearly an attempted extension of the nanny state, of which we have had far too much already. It is gesture politics to try to appease the health zealots in this country, most of whom cannot be appeased anyway.

I accept my hon. Friend’s point that the British Medical Association found that 96% of 13-year-olds are aware of alcohol advertising. However, I dispute the inference that that leads them to go out and drink. After all, many 13-year-olds are probably well aware of car adverts, but that does not mean that they all go out driving as a result of watching them. All the research has shown the exact opposite. When young people were asked what was most likely to influence people under the age of 18 to drink alcoholic drinks regularly, 67% said the influence of friends, 56% said the availability of drink, just 5% said TV advertising, and only 3% said sponsorship.

If we accept this policy, where will it end? All sorts of products are bad for us if taken in excess. Cream cakes are undoubtedly bad for us if we partake of them in excess, as are pizzas, chocolates and curries. Does my hon. Friend propose to come back at a future date to ban the advertising of cream cakes, pizzas and curries, or anything that happens to be bad for us? This is the start of a very slippery slope, and one that I am not prepared to go down.

The Bill would do enormous damage to sports clubs. It is estimated that alcohol companies spend between £150 million and £200 million a year sponsoring sport alone, including many amateur sports teams. Without that sponsorship it would be difficult for those clubs to continue. We have the rather ludicrous suggestion that we should for health reasons attempt to try to stop the advertising of alcohol, the only consequence of which would be to stop lots of people being able to take part in sporting activities, which is presumably something the health lobby wants to encourage. The Minister for Sport and the Olympics reiterated that point when he stated:

“I know both from my own experience of growing up playing sport in Kent and my work as a constituency MP that the sponsorship offered by alcohol companies to community sports clubs brings a considerable number of benefits, both financially and in kind. This allows sports clubs to reach out to more people or improve their offer in a way that would not otherwise be possible.”

I object to the Bill in principle, but even the people who accept it in principle must recognise that it is completely unnecessary. It is a solution looking for a problem. Alcohol already cannot be sold to anyone under the age of 18, so if my hon. Friend is concerned about young people drinking alcohol, surely the solution to the problem is to stop anyone selling it to them. That law already exists.

The UK already has a comprehensive framework of regulation that makes the Bill completely unnecessary. The Advertising Standards Authority has an established regulatory system, the Portman Group provides its own code of practice and Ofcom regulates TV programme sponsorship. The current alcohol advertising rules were tightened in October 2005, in response to the alcohol harm reduction strategy, and they were reviewed again in 2008, taking into account the latest evidence commissioned by the Department of Health, and were subject to a full public consultation in 2009. The rules already state that adverts must not target under-18s; be shown around programmes that especially appeal to under-18s; link alcohol with seduction, sex or social success; link alcohol with irresponsible, anti-social, tough or daring behaviour; show alcohol being served irresponsibly; show people drinking and behaving in an adolescent or juvenile way or reflecting the culture of people under 18-years-old; or be shown in publications aimed at under-18s or where more than 25% of the readership is under 18.

Additionally, alcohol adverts already cannot be shown around programmes popular with young people, such as “The Simpsons” and “Ugly Betty”, even if the programmes appear after 9 pm. The Portman Group also introduced a code in 1996 that regulates all drinks marketed in the UK through its code of practice on the naming, packaging and promotion of alcoholic drinks. Its code is so rigorous and highly regarded that the better regulation taskforce described it as a good example of how effective self-regulation can be, and the International Harm Reduction Association includes the code within its leading 50 global alcohol harm reduction initiatives.

Furthermore, the aim of the Bill is not evidence-based. The argument is that it will reduce drinking levels among younger people, but that has not been proven by any research evidence. If any such impact did exist, it would be outweighed by other factors, such as the family environment. In fact, a study, “The Impact of Alcohol Marketing on Youth Drinking Behaviour”, found that

“no association was found between uptake of drinking and baseline awareness of alcohol marketing or number of brands recalled at baseline…no association was found between uptake of monthly drinking at follow-up and baseline awareness of alcohol marketing”.

Professor Hastings actually completed a longitudinal study to try to measure the impact of alcohol marketing on 13-year-olds in the west of Scotland. He found no association between awareness of alcohol marketing at age 13 and either the onset of drinking or the volume of alcohol consumed two years later. Surprisingly, that part of the study received very little publicity.

The lack of evidence is also apparent if we look at international comparisons. Norway has strictly no advertising for alcoholic beverages, yet consumption has been steadily increasing. In Italy, where alcohol advertising is permitted, consumption is decreasing. France is also an interesting case, as it is the example on which my hon. Friend bases her Bill. The equivalent Loi Evin was introduced in France in 1991, but it has not had the intended consequences that she would have hoped for. Statistics from the World Health Organisation show that French alcohol consumption decreased from 18.46 litres per capita in 1981 to 14.88 litres in 1991. Since the Loi Evin was enacted, consumption has levelled off, dropping to only 13.24 litres, highlighting the fact that the legislation has had little, if any, impact.

The Bill smacks of the nanny state and would set a dangerous precedent for future legislation. It would damage an already fragile amateur sporting club base without any evidence-based proof that such a change in the law would reduce youth alcohol consumption. There are less burdensome means by which we can reduce underage drinking, such as enforcing existing laws on the sale of alcohol to under-18s and to do what the Government should be doing, which is highlighting the health implications of drinking alcohol and allowing people to make up their own minds. In a free country, that is what we should believe in. This is a further extension of the nanny state to try to appease health zealots and fanatics who will never be appeased.

Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Dr Sarah Wollaston, Mr Kevin Barron, Tracey Crouch, John Pugh, Stephen Gilbert, Paul Flynn, Mr David Amess, Chris Bryant, Kelvin Hopkins, Mike Wood, Anne Marie Morris and John McDonnell present the Bill.

Dr Sarah Wollaston accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 September, and to be printed (Bill 176).

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

14:08

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

I beg to move,

That the Order of 13 December 2010 (Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:

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

2. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be concluded in two days.

3. Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken on each of those days as shown in the following Table and in the order so shown.

4. The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

It would be churlish not to recognise the fact that the Government have provided an additional day’s debate. We are grateful for that. Notwithstanding the time we have, the problem is that the Bill raises so many issues that lack clarity, but no doubt we will debate them this afternoon. As I have said, however, we are grateful for the additional day, and it would be churlish not to recognise that fact.

Question put and agreed to.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[1st Allocated Day]

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 4

Commencement of Part 1

‘The Secretary of State must not make an order to bring sections 1 to 103 of this Act into force until—

(a) an inquiry by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary into the impact of the introduction of police and crime commissioners in England and Wales has been completed, and

(b) the Secretary of State has considered the recommendations of that inquiry.’.—(Vernon Coaker.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

14:10

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 6 to 10, 12, 13, 15, 20 and 14.

Amendment 134, clause 156, page 102, line 24, at end insert—

‘(2A) Commencement of Part 1 of this Act is subject to Clause [Commencement of Part 1].’.

Amendment 135, page 102, leave out line 27.

Government amendments 31 to 40, 135A, 136 to 138, 42, 50 and 51.

[Vernon Coaker]

It is very good to be reunited with many of the members of the Committee who did such sterling service upstairs. It falls to us now to scrutinise the Bill on Report, to consider the various improvements that the Government will seek to introduce and—from the Opposition’s perspective—to continue to point out the Bill’s various deficiencies.

As hon. Members will have seen, new clause 4 states that the commencement order for clauses 1 to 103 should not be brought into force until an inquiry into the impact of the Government’s arrangements, which will be given effect in England and Wales by the Bill, has been completed. In other words, the provisions should not be brought into force until we have begun to understand what the impact of police and crime commissioners will be. Obviously, we would ask Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to conduct the inquiry, and that before commencement the Home Secretary has to consider the recommendations. The Minister knows that we oppose the introduction of directly elected police and crime commissioners, which constitute the major part of this part of the Bill, and we will continue to do so. I seek again to persuade hon. Members across the House of some of the deficiencies we see in the Bill, and hence of the need for us to calm down, row back and consider what is happening and what the Government are proposing.

The Minister has provided no evidence of the need for the change. In fact, the responses to the policing and crime White Paper “Policing in the 21st Century” seem to be a mystery. After nearly 900 responses to the White Paper, all the Government did was publish a summary of them—they did not publish any of them. I challenge him again to publish all 900 responses. I have a sneaking suspicion that had those 900 responses been in favour of the introduction of police and crime commissioners, we would not have seen him for dust as he moved to publish them. He would have published them with a fanfare of glory, called a press conference and said to everyone, “Look, the introduction of police and crime commissioners supported by me, the Prime Minister and a couple of other people and whipped through the House of Commons is supported by these 900 people. No need for an inquiry. No need for anyone to be concerned.” However, he did not do that; he published a summary, on the grounds that it would be disproportionate to go further.

The silence from those who support the Government’s proposal is deafening. I do not know about other hon. Members, but I have not had people queuing up outside my surgery, knocking on my door and telling me that the introduction of police and crime commissioners is one of the foremost policies they want introduced in their communities. No doubt, the Association of Police Authorities would be among those to whom HMIC would want to talk in its inquiry. However—and I hope that hon. Members have read the Committee deliberations—the Minister does not think that the APA is worth listening to, because obviously it would be opposed to anything that the Government put forward. Clearly, given that the Bill seeks to abolish police authorities, it is thought that there is not much point in listening to the APA.

14:15

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I am following my hon. Friend’s arguments carefully. The new clause would put a lot of responsibility on HMIC. Does he feel that it has the resources to deal with what he would have it deal with? As we know, it published a report only yesterday on police numbers. Does he not think that if we give it this responsibility, it would need the resources to deal with it?

[Vernon Coaker]

My right hon. Friend, who is Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, makes a reasonable point. Of course, there would be a resources issue for HMIC that the Government would need to consider, but given the importance of the reform that the Government are seeking to introduce, and given that the police themselves say that this would be the biggest change to the policing model in this country for centuries, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it is incumbent on us to say to HMIC that we will ensure that it has the necessary resources.

The Local Government Association—I do not know whether the Minister has a higher regard for it than for police authorities—is also totally opposed to the reform. It is difficult to find a single council that supports it. Surrey county council sometimes edges towards it, but it is difficult to find many others. I would have thought that if this were a great reform, the police would be coming forward and saying, “This will make a huge difference”, but of course they are not. The challenge, therefore, is to find the demand for the change. Local people are not demanding it, so who actually is? The Minister seems to be driven by a belief that he knows best. He accused others of being elitist, but if everybody is saying that the Government have got it wrong, there might be an element of truth in it.

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

The hon. Gentleman asked for an example of a council that supports the reform. My council—Medway council—of which my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) is also a member, has supported the reforms, and our council leader, Rodney Chambers, has been a strong proponent, with me, of direct election for those who oversee our police. Surely the key thing, however, is that the electorate voted for it. The Lib Dems stood on a platform of direct election for police authorities, and we stood on one of directly elected commissioners. We now have this compromise involving a panel. The APA commissioned an opinion poll that showed that most people wanted direct election for those who oversaw the police.

[Vernon Coaker]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has cleared up the issue—there is one council in favour of the proposed changed across the country. However, I disagree absolutely with what he said about the electorate voting for this measure. The model in the Bill was not voted for by the majority of people. As he said, the model in the Liberal Democrat manifesto was completely different from the one in the Bill. He gave the game away when he said, “Of course, in the coalition agreement, there was a compromise”. Well, if there was a compromise, it obviously happened after the election, not during the election, so I do not think that anybody actually voted for this model.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the key issue is about having elected people looking after policing? That was the common ground between our two parties. The outcome was not exactly as we would have liked, but it was a balance between the two options. Does he further agree that there is a problem at the moment, in that police authorities do not represent those on district councils? District councils do not have a direct input. In fact, does he think that police authorities, as they currently are, work well at all?

[Vernon Coaker]

I do not think that police authorities are as bad as they are portrayed. There is some variation among them, but many do a reasonable job. Perhaps they are not as visible as they might be, and perhaps people do not understand exactly what they do, but people such as the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), who sits on the Kent police authority, do a good job.

As for elections, let us say this. We can come forward with different models for this election or that election. However, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) will have heard me say in Committee, whatever the arguments about direct elections, the Government’s model is at totally the wrong level of accountability. I do not get people queuing up at my surgeries to say, “Do you know what, Mr Coaker? Nottinghamshire police’s counter-terrorism strategy”—or its fraud strategy or trafficking policy—“is wrong.” People come to my surgery to say, “Mr Coaker, we’re absolutely fed up with the kids at the end of our street,” or, “We’re totally fed up with the drug dealing going on from cars in a car park down the road.” I am sure that that is true for most hon. Members.

That neighbourhood, street-level accountability is what people want, which is why, to be fair to the hon. Member for Cambridge, his party proposed elections at a very local level. Whether that was the right model or the wrong model, if we are looking at where we need to strengthen accountability arrangements, it is precisely at that neighbourhood and street level where we need to do so. We can have neighbourhood policing, community meetings, beat meetings, and so on—all the things that have happened in a calm and measured way, and which have made such a difference to confidence at that level.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have discussed that idea in another venue, along with how important ultra-local policing is and how it is different from governance at a higher level. However, I am trying to understand where he is heading. In Committee he proposed directly elected chairs of police authorities, so I am glad that he now prefers the Lib Dem model—I do not remember him saying that before the election, but it is nice to hear that he is moving our way. Why does he think that having a directly elected chair of a panel would be so different from having a single directly elected person who would also act across a whole area?

[Vernon Coaker]

We are opposed to directly elected police and crime commissioners as set out in the Bill. Having said that, the Bill will presumably go through—unless Government Members vote against their own Whip—so then what should we do? The proper and responsible thing to do is to acknowledge that fact and propose another model—the hon. Gentleman will have seen our amendments. If we are to have a directly elected individual, then as well as saying that we are opposed to that in principle, what we as a responsible Opposition should do is say how we would improve it. The amendment that we moved in Committee—the hon. Gentleman knows this, but I am repeating it for the benefit of other Members—would have made that directly elected individual the chair of the police and crime panel, and thereby would have introduced proper checks and balances in the system.

The proposal that we are putting before the House today offers another way forward. What we are saying is, “Keep them as two distinct entities”—that is, have a police and crime commissioner as a figurehead, but also have a police and crime panel with significantly enhanced powers. These are all things that, with a proper inquiry and proper research, we could check to see whether they might be more appropriate, but I will tell the hon. Gentleman this. If he was stood where I am and he was opposed to something that the Government of the day were doing, he would say that he was opposed to it, but he would also seek to improve and adapt it, to take some of the edge off. That is what we did in Committee and that is what we are doing now.

It is not just the Opposition; hon. Members will no doubt have read Lord Imbert, the former chief constable of Thames Valley police and a former commissioner, setting out his opposition in The Times today. He will not be alone, although it is easier for him, as a non-serving police officer and a noble Lord, to say why he is opposed. He says:

“If passed unamended, this Bill will undermine”

the policing model that we have had in this country for years,

“threatening the crucial political independence and non-partisanship of the police and the Rule of Law itself.”

Yesterday, Liberty published the results of a survey conducted on its behalf by YouGov, which showed the lack of public trust in elected police commissioners. In answer to the question “Who would you trust more to protect your family from crime?”, 65% chose “A Chief Constable reporting to a Police Authority, as now” as their preferred option. “A Chief Constable reporting to an individual politician elected as a Police and Crime Commissioner” was the preferred option of just 15%. Just to show that that goes across the length and breadth of the country, I found out that a survey had been conducted in Hampshire showing that only 5% of the public there support having a single elected police and crime commissioner.

That is just the sort of evidence that any inquiry would have to look at. However, the Government’s response is simply to stand back and pretend that those people are all dinosaurs who would inevitably say that, because they are looking to protect their own interests, when in fact they are trying to say to the Government, “You need to slow down a bit and look at the consequences of what you’re trying to do.” All the Minister says is, “We believe it’s the right thing to do.” I have said to him before that, with respect, simply asserting that something is the case is not the same as arguing the case. Where is the evidence for this change to policing, which will make such a fundamental difference to governance arrangements?

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman recall saying when he was Police Minister:

“only direct election, based on geographic constituencies, will deliver the strong connection to the public which is critical,”

and if so, did he have any evidence for saying that?

[Vernon Coaker]

The model of policing governance that we were considering at that time was exactly the sort of model that I was describing to the hon. Member for Cambridge. We were looking to see whether direct elections at a neighbourhood and local level would lead to improved governance arrangements, but let me say this to the hon. Gentleman. When all those people lined up to oppose the idea, I took the view—as did the Home Secretary at the time—that if everybody opposed something that we were trying to do, we should sometimes step back and reflect on whether we had got it wrong and whether, in all honesty, we should change direction. Some say that that is a sign of weakness or not knowing what we are doing, but we cannot have it both ways. We cannot propose to do something, have a public consultation and then say, “We don’t care what the public consultation says. If we disagree, we’re not going to take any notice.” What the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) described was something that was proposed at the time to deal with governance issues, but it was also something that we withdrew because we listened to what people were saying.

We could look at other issues, but I will leave the evidence there. Any inquiry that HMIC conducted would need to consider a range of other matters, but the Minister—and others on the Committee, given that we did not manage to carry the day—had no concerns about politicisation. We will come later to the debate on operational independence and the code of practice—it was a memorandum of understanding, but it has now become a protocol. Whatever: the serious point is that, given that the Government have agreed to the protocol, they must be worried that having a directly elected individual who is responsible for policing in an area risks politicising the role of chief constable. Many people have raised that issue at great length with us.

14:30

There are real worries about the issue, again dismissed by the Government, but if somebody is elected and has a mandate in a particular area, what will the nature of that mandate be and who will decide how that area ought to be policed? The Association of Chief Police Officers, which is concerned about the lack of checks and balances in the proposed model, released a statement yesterday saying that

“our professional judgment is that an effective framework of safeguards is essential to improving the Government’s ambition without creating substantial threat to the impartiality of police officers making decisions, such as the deployment of resources. Our professional view is that creating effective safeguards for such a radically different accountability regime is extremely challenging. In any event, the developing framework of safeguards is too undeveloped and uncertain, and in several respects too weak, to be confident that it will effectively ensure that this Peelian principle”—

the Peelian principle to which the association referred before—

“will not be compromised.”

That is a fairly strong statement from the most senior police officers in this country about the lack of checks and balances, and about their concerns regarding politicisation in the Bill.

[Mark Reckless]

ACPO, the hon. Gentleman tells us, has suggested that there are issues with checks and balances in the new system, but is not the real issue in the current system, with the lack of checks and balances on both the Home Office and the chief constable, and with the weakness of the police authority leg of the tripartite process? Is it not right that we do something, such as introduce direct elections as proposed in the Bill, to bolster the power of that third, local, democratic pillar?

[Vernon Coaker]

Nobody has said that the existing system is absolutely flawless or does not need improving. I said to the hon. Member for Cambridge that it is important for police authorities to improve their visibility, but I suggest to the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood that we are discussing the Government’s proposals for the future. If ACPO tells us that the Bill’s checks and balances are simply too weak, should we not then say, “We need to look at this, think about it and try to understand what we should do to further improve the system that we want”?

The Minister gets very upset when I say this, but I am going to say it again. The police and crime panels are one way in which the police and crime commissioner is supposed to be held to account, but the panel is a completely toothless watchdog with no real power. It has two vetoes: one on appointments, as the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood knows, but only with a three-quarters majority; and the other on the precept, in respect of which the hon. Gentleman has tabled an amendment, but again with a three-quarters majority. That is it.

The Minister will say, “The panel has to be consulted, referred to and involved,” but how can it be right that there will be a police and crime commissioner, without anybody able to do anything about what he does, providing obviously that what he does is within the law?

Then we come to the huge number of representations about the size of the area that that one person will have to cover. Again, the Government do not think this is a problem. They say, “Oh, there’s no problem with this; it’s fine,” but there is no evidence to support that, and that is why the House should adopt the new clause so that we may have an inquiry and the HMIC can look into the matter.

The Welsh Local Government Association points out that the system in Wales works very well, and it does not believe that replacing between 17 and 19 members of the individual police authorities in Wales

“with a single elected commissioner will…improve public accountability of the police”.

The association does not believe that one individual can properly reflect all

“the divergent communities that exist in police force areas”,

and it cites the huge area of Dyfed Powys, where one individual will cover the whole area.

We can cite other examples. The Avon and Somerset area covers 1,855 square miles, from Thornbury to Yeovil to Minehead. It has a population of 1.6 million and large rural areas such as Exmoor, major urban areas such as Bristol and Bath and significant market towns. One individual will represent all those areas. That police authority area and one or two others that I will mention across the country all point out the difficulty, and we should listen to them.

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

As the only representative from the Dyfed Powys area here, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he agrees that there is very little connection between the voters in our area and the general policing priorities? The indication that I get, which I wonder whether he agrees with, is that an elected police commissioner for the Dyfed Powys area is in fact likely to bring us closer to the policing process, rather than removing us from it. That is the feeling that I, as the only representative from the area that the shadow Minister cites, get.

[Vernon Coaker]

I do not see any evidence for that at all, and there have been no such representations. On the situation that the hon. Gentleman mentions, people in Dyfed Powys, in other parts of Wales and throughout the country have a problem getting police at a neighbourhood level to deal with the issues that they think are important, and that is why in Dyfed Powys and other areas throughout the country, through the introduction of neighbourhood policing, panel meetings and town and village hall meetings, people want accountability improved at that very level. I fail to understand how one individual representing that huge area will be able to do that. The hon. Gentleman knows the area far better than I do, but how will somebody in St David’s, in that beautiful part of the country, know about that and then be able to compare it with something 40 or 50 miles away?

We talked about moving an amendment in Committee to require this one individual to attend all the parish and ward meetings in an area, so that they really had local and detailed knowledge. These are huge issues, and one person will simply not be able to do the work. Police authority after police authority has made that point to us.

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I was fortunate enough to sit in Committee with the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure he recalls the evidence given on 19 January by Ian Loader, a professor of criminology from All Souls college, who said:

“We have gone through a decade or so of trying to run the police from 10 Downing street, and a broad move to try to reorganise the police under the rubric of local democratic accountability seems to me to be important.”––[Official Report, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Public Bill Committee, 19 January 2011; c. 47, Q 5858.]

That runs exactly counter to the hon. Gentleman’s argument now.

[Vernon Coaker]

My point is that the system the Government are seeking to introduce will not deliver the improved accountability that we want. The hon. Gentleman does not agree, as I said in Committee, but, to return to the point I was making, at least he has tried to use a piece of evidence—a small piece, but a piece none the less. Where is the massive amount of evidence that contradicts all the evidence that I have brought forward? The Government made great play of evidence-based policy when they came into power, and the main driver of our new clause is that an HMIC inquiry would allow policing experts to collect evidence to understand whether these improved governance arrangements would lead to the improved accountability that we all want.

The Devon and Cornwall, Cumbria, West Midlands and Greater Manchester police authorities all say that one person in charge of policing in their area will mean far too much work.

[Michael Ellis]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that a good piece of evidence is the fact that such a system is already working in London?

[Vernon Coaker]

First, if the system in London was working so well, why would the Government want to change it? Secondly, the change that the Government are making is to a completely different system from that which operates at the moment. The Metropolitan Police Authority is being abolished. The person who, through primary legislation, is going to be put in charge of policing in London through the Mayor’s office for policing and crime will be an unelected individual appointed by the Mayor of London. They will not be a directly elected individual as per the rest of the country, but an appointee of the Mayor following the abolition of the Metropolitan Police Authority. The hon. Gentleman asked why, if the system works so well, we should not expand it to the rest of the country. If the system in London is working so well, why are the Government changing it? Why not just leave it as it is? We are not changing the system in London to that in the rest of the country—we are completely changing the system in London to another system.

The inquiry would also need to look at the arrangements between a police and crime commissioner and the local democratic framework. One of the great successes of the current policing arrangements has been the introduction of the neighbourhood policing model, with the development of community safety partnerships in Wales and crime and disorder reduction partnerships in other parts of the country. Those arrangements have brought together all the various partners at a local level in order to try to tackle crime and improve confidence. The police and crime commissioner is not a responsible authority under the terms of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

What, then, is the relationship of the police and crime commissioner with the police and crime panel? Again, we do not understand that, and the Bill is unclear about it. I have referred to the complete lack of power that a police and crime panel has, leaving an omnipotent individual in charge of policing. Police and crime panels will have one person from each local authority—if there are not 10 authorities, we can make up the number with another couple—and a couple of independent members. If there are more than 10 local authorities, we can have a few more so that we stick to the basis of one person per authority. There is no reference to how many people might be in that local authority area or to its size—the reference is just to one person per authority, so it could be a tiny district council and a massive local authority area. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) mentioned Northumbria, which is a huge area covered by one council and a very small, highly populated area covered by another.

[Dr Huppert]

Does the hon. Gentleman think it is right that under the current system district councils such as Cambridge city council have no representation on the police authority at all?

[Vernon Coaker]

That is a fair point. We can, of course, make changes and improvements to the current system. However, the point is that we are introducing police and crime panels when we have not had a proper debate about what their constitution should be; we have merely said there should be one member per authority. The size of the district council area in terms of population is not mentioned. These are clearly things that we need to understand.

We have had numerous representations from people saying that they are concerned about this. Cumbria and Surrey police have expressed their reservations. Cheshire—I do not know if there is anyone here from Cheshire, but I might as well go round the country—says that the police and crime commissioner

“must be able to influence relevant partners if their Police and Crime Plan is to be effective in delivering improvements in community safety and crime reduction. However, if the PCC is not a ‘responsible authority’ they have no statutory role and could, therefore, be ignored.”

That is a serious flaw in the Bill that the Minister needs to address.

Another aspect that members of the Committee reflected on, as would many others, is the cost of the introduction of police and crime commissioners. That will be a particularly important area for HMIC to look at. Different police authorities across the country tell us that there will be a significant cost involved. A police and crime commissioner will have people supporting them—a chief finance officer, a chief executive and other staff. A police and crime panel will presumably need resources to be able to carry out its function properly. A chief constable will become a corporation sole—in other words, a legal entity—and able, unless the Bill is amended as the Liberals tried to do, not only to control staff but own property and assets and so will presumably need more staff to be able to do that.

14:45

The Association of Police Authorities said in a submission to us in January this year:

“Independent analysis suggests that the cost of the proposed reforms of police governance over the 5 years…will be a minimum of £453million. That is £101million more than the entire cost of running police authorities during the same period, and the equivalent to the removal of over 600 police officers.”

The Minister has stated that the new governance model should not cost any more than the current model, excluding, as he will no doubt say in his reply, election costs, but again, nobody out there accepts or believes that that will really be the case. Yesterday’s HMIC report showed that only 5% of police officers and police community support officers are in back-office roles. In looking into this, the HMIC will be interested to know what the costs are of the new governance arrangements, given that the police service finds itself facing 20% cuts from central Government. It will want to know whether this model will be real value for money. Will it add to the policing effectiveness in an area, or will the fact that 95% of police officers and/or PCSOs are not in back-office roles be threatened by its introduction? These are all huge issues with respect to the introduction of police and crime commissioners and police and crime panels.

I will finish by going back to where I started. This reform is based on an ideologically driven, philosophical desire to introduce police and crime commissioners in an untested, untried way, with no evidence, because the Minister and No. 10 believe that it will improve the effectiveness of policing in this country. I say to the Minister again: publish the evidence that shows that to be the case. There is none apart from that from the odd—I do not mean that in a disrespectful way—council and one or two individuals. This is a hugely significant change. The Local Government Association, the Association of Police Authorities, chief constables, police officers, communities, individuals and many Members of Parliament on both sides of the House see this as a deeply worrying reform. The Minister needs to argue his case rather than simply assert it. I commend new clause 4 to the House.

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Members have to stand if they want to speak—bobbing up and down like this does not help me. I call Julian Huppert.

[Dr Huppert]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for being confusing; I was trying to be helpful.

It is a pleasure in many ways to continue the work that we did on the Bill Committee with many right hon. and hon. Members whom I see around the Chamber. These are slightly larger, grander surroundings than those in which we had our last, rather extensive, discussions.

[Michael Ellis]

But about the same number of people.

[Dr Huppert]

Indeed. We have had a fair discussion in Committee, and I am glad that we are continuing it.

The shadow Minister spoke about a desire for delay, and I can understand why he sees that as his role. I am sure that the Minister will respond to the detailed points that he made. I was rather touched by the shadow Minister’s comment about how I would behave if I were in his position. He did not make it clear whether that was in a scenario where the Labour party had completely collapsed and was now a minor party, whether that had happened to the Conservatives, or whether there was a Labour-Conservative coalition. I am sure he can comment on that later.

I want in particular to speak about Government amendment 14, which deals with a rather detailed point raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart). It is a great pleasure to see him in his place. He spotted that lines 4 and 16 on page 22, in clause 30, did not quite fit together—that there was a drafting error. That led to an interesting discussion in which we genuinely explored some ideas—I think we all learned a lot—about what should be the process for suspending a police and crime commissioner, the standards and thresholds and the effects of such a suspension. There is an interesting balance to be struck as regards what should happen. The amendment corrects the drafting error and leaves the provision that a commissioner may be suspended by the panel—I emphasise that the term used is “may” rather than “must”—if charged with an offence that could lead to a term in prison of greater than two years.

Is the balance right? First, the position of police and crime commissioner is very responsible and we would not want to see a holder of it being seriously investigated for a major crime, which would put them in a position that would simply be untenable in the public eye. On the one hand, one could suggest that we should bring the threshold lower and lower until, if we want to be absolutely sure, they would be suspended if they were accused of anything. I think that would be going too far, and I shall come up with a suggestion on that point a bit later.

The flip side of the argument, however, is that such a commissioner has been charged, not convicted. There is a clear difference and a clear principle. Members on both sides of the House mentioned in Committee that we should not punish people excessively based on the fact that they have been charged. There is the principle of innocent until proven guilty that still applies to most public law—I shall avoid talking about terrorist offences on this occasion. Clause 30(3) says that during a suspension period, a commissioner does not draw their salary, their pensions or their allowances. That is a punishment, in effect.

We had a number of discussions in Committee and the Liberal Democrats have had some discussions about our proposals on the way forward. We have also discussed that with the Minister. There is the question of what offences we wish to catch. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West gave a number of examples of offences that would not be covered by the rules for the possible suspension in the context of offences with sentences greater than two years. I shall not go through every example, but they included racially or religiously aggravated assault or harassment, and I think we would have concerns about a police and crime commissioner who was charged with that. Other similar offences include aggravated vehicle taking, causing damage to property and causing injury. Vehicle taking without consent has a sentence of six months, as does assault on a police constable, as my hon. Friend pointed out. One would have great concerns if a police and crime commissioner was being charged with assaulting police constables, particularly on a regular basis. That would suggest that the relationship was not working

We must work out what to do. Our proposal—I hope that the Government will respond to it and will consider it as a way forward, and I look forward to hearing any other contributions—is that the period should be brought down from two years to six months, as suggested in the amendment originally proposed by my hon. Friend. It should be specified that the charge should be carried out by the Crown Prosecution Service—by a prosecutor—rather than a police officer, as they have powers to charge in some circumstances. We do not want police constables to be able to get at a commissioner with whom they disagree over some issue.

The flip side of bringing the threshold down to give greater public certainty is that there should be no loss of pay, no loss of pension and no loss of other allowances that would be incurred in the job—the person might not be doing that job during that period, but there might be some ongoing costs. That would avoid excessive punishment while providing public certainty that a prominent figure in such an area was not under a cloud and could not get out from under it.

There should also be a provision, regardless of the threshold, for the commissioner to be able effectively to suspend themselves and to say that there is an allegation against—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing quite a narrow set of amendments? I am not sure that he is on the point of what we are discussing now—that is, the new clause and the amendments that are being debated and have been selected.

[Dr Huppert]

I was speaking about Government amendment 14, which I think is in this group.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman said at the beginning—and this is my understanding—that that is a drafting amendment and a correction, yet he seems to be making rather a substantial point of debate. If the Government have accepted a change by tabling their own drafting amendment, it normally follows that it is quite minor. That was why I asked him.

[Dr Huppert]

I had almost finished, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall do shortly. There was an interesting debate in Committee about whether we wanted just to correct the drafting order or to go further—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. With respect, people can read the Hansard report of the Committee. I have given the hon. Gentleman a great deal of latitude. I think he has come to the main point of what he wants to say, so if he could now conclude on that point it would be helpful.

[Dr Huppert]

I am happy to do so. I hope that the Government will consider what I have said as well as the self-suspension ideas.

[Paul Murphy]

I support new clause 4, the case for which was so powerfully made, characteristically, by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). I hope that the House will divide on it.

I support the idea of deferring the commencement of part 1. Later, there might be the opportunity to debate my amendment, which would exempt Wales from part 1, but this is an opportunity to reflect on a less drastic course of action—that is, the deferral of the commencement of the Bill. There are one or two reasons for that and I hope that the House will bear with me as I set them out.

Not very long ago, the National Assembly for Wales took the unprecedented decision not to give legislative consent to part 1. That, in my experience—which goes back a few years in such matters—is entirely unprecedented. It has never happened before. As a consequence, the Communities and Culture Committee of the National Assembly has asked for the deferment of part 1. Its headline recommendation reads:

“We recommend that the Welsh Government has dialogue with the UK Government to persuade it to defer introducing those aspects of the bill related to the abolition of Police Authorities, and establishment of Police Commissioners and Police Crime Panels in Wales, at least until the effectiveness of their impact in England has been assessed.”

That is not a million miles away from new clause 4, which asks for the deferral of the commencement until such an assessment has been made by HMIC. That is why I support the new clause.

Policing, as the Minister will know, is not devolved in Wales, although it is in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but it is different in Wales from in England. I cannot see any evidence that there has been any sort of negotiation, discussion or proper Government-to-Government relationship on the issue of policing in Wales in so far as part 1 is concerned. There might have been, and doubtless the Minister will let us know when he winds up.

In Wales, there is a rather different relationship between the Welsh Local Government Association—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling has already referred and which, incidentally, is not in Labour’s hands but is controlled by independents and non-Labour Members—police authorities in Wales, of which there are four, and the Welsh Assembly Government. That relationship is very special because it touches on a working partnership arrangement between the police authorities in Wales and the National Assembly that is unique in the United Kingdom. It seems proper to me to repeat the arguments used in Wales by local government, by the police authorities, by the National Assembly and by the Welsh Assembly Government to ask for the commencement of part 1 to be deferred. One chief reason those bodies ask for the deferment is the fact that there are rather different financial arrangements in Wales for policing. Half of Welsh police forces get their money from the Welsh Assembly.

15:00

In addition, the proposals for police commissioners will inevitably be very expensive, as my hon. Friend said. I understand that only £30,000 per police force will go towards meeting the gap in paying the salary of the police commissioners and paying for police and crime panels. Over the next few years, Wales faces a reduction in its funding through the Barnett formula of nearly £2 billion. It is absolutely daft to introduce such highly expensive measures in Wales when, frankly, there is no appetite for them.

I read in the Official Report of the Public Bill Committee that the Minister said that there was evidence that in 2008 only 7% of people in England knew what police authorities did. There is a counter-issue in Wales, where a survey that was taken much more recently than 2008 indicated that 82% of Welsh people knew precisely what police authorities did. That is because in Wales, we are different and we are smaller.

The final point that I wish to make—I know that other Members want to speak—is that the decision by the Assembly not to give legislative consent to part 1 of the Bill and the decision by a major Committee of the Assembly to ask for deferment of the commencement of the Bill place this decision on a rather different level: it is now about the relationship between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations. A day or so after the general election, the Prime Minister came to Wales and talked about a respect agenda, in which he would respect the views of the devolved Administrations in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast. It seems to me that there is little respect in this measure, unless we can get a positive indication from the Minister that there will be a deferment of part 1 as far as Wales is concerned. If that is not the case, I suggest to the Minister that the Welsh Assembly Government will invoke the Joint Ministerial Committee, which is in place to ensure that disputes are resolved between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations. Otherwise, in addition to what I think is a deeply flawed measure, there will be an issue between two Governments in the United Kingdom, which we definitely do not want.

[Simon Hart]

I will restrict my comments to the impact of elected commissioners in west Wales, an area that has been referred to already. My comments are driven not by ideology, as some have suggested, but by my practical experience of the area, the reaction of police officers both junior and senior, and, perhaps even more importantly, the reaction of members of the public.

The context to this debate is the ongoing consultation about the future of the coastguard. One might wonder what the connection is, but it is simply that around Milford Haven—the important waterway that divides the constituency of Preseli Pembrokeshire from Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire—there is an enormous local attachment to and affection for that emergency service, which might not immediately appear to be an emergency service. Our community is proud of it, feels that it is part of it, and feels that it owns it. It is part of the fabric and architecture of the community. People in the community know only too well that if they pick up the telephone, they will get a trustworthy and local response to what are often traumatic problems.

The reason why I paint that little contextual picture is that Dyfed Powys police, to whom the shadow Minister referred, cover a vast and diverse area. The Minister is not entirely unfamiliar with the area. The police force is not devoted purely, as some would flippantly suggest, to sheep rustling and stolen quad bikes. One in seven terrorist incidents in the UK have a connection to our constabulary. It has the onerous responsibility of looking after the UK’s most important energy hub in Milford Haven, which has two refineries, two liquefied natural gas terminals, and the biggest gas-fired power station under construction in Europe. It is an important strategic area, which our stretched police force has to look after. That is the reason for the great connection with the local community, which I would argue is not enhanced under the current arrangements, but would be enhanced under the proposed arrangements.

Opposition Members may argue that I am simply trotting out the ideological prose as laid out by my elders and betters, but I consulted just three people in preparing the comments that I am about to make: two police constables currently serving in the Dyfed Powys force, and one rather more senior officer with whom I had a conversation at the weekend. The local police authority has—reasonably, sensibly and in a measured fashion—repeated the concerns that the shadow Minister articulated.

The two police constables, without any provocation, said to me, “At long last we’ll be able to do the job that we originally joined up to do.” I pushed them on this point, and their responses entirely endorse the Government’s proposals. They endorse, welcome and encourage the involvement of the local community. The crime panels, which are not directly related to new clause 4, will provide the accountability that some suggest is missing. The involvement of local authorities and elected individuals who are accountable to their wards and regions is a crucial piece of this jigsaw. As was said by two police constables and a more senior officer, whose rank I cannot reveal lest I give away his identity, that involvement will lead to improved prioritisation, which is in the community’s interests; improved cost effectiveness, which is vital in the Dyfed Powys force; and improved customer satisfaction—a phrase I hesitate to use.

In discussing cost and budget reductions in the coming weeks and months, the senior officer was certain that Dyfed Powys police could maintain a decent police force that would safeguard the interests of the community and businesses. However, he said that it would be different. It will not smell the same, and in many regards there will be an entirely different form of policing from what we have been used to. That does not mean that it will compromise the safety of the community or that crime will rise. Those ideas are being bandied about irresponsibly by mischief makers. The changes do not mean for one minute that people will sleep less safely in their beds; quite the opposite. There is a realistic recognition that things have to change, that they will change and that they will look different, but that those changes will guarantee a reasonable cost-effective police force for our community.

Only this morning in Prime Minister’s questions, as Members will recall, there was a suggestion that the proposals will compromise safety and the interests of the communities and the many businesses that rely on police protection—particularly in Milford Haven. I really would urge caution, because that is not the case. It is irresponsible for Opposition Members to bandwagon, to make political statements and to suggest that the proposals will damage the safety of our communities.

The House need not take this point from a lowly Member who represents a distant part of west Wales that most Members, I regret to say, have probably never heard of. As evidence, I put to the Minister the impassioned pleas of two police constables and a senior officer in one of the forces that will be most affected by the proposals. They say that there is nothing to fear, and that with a reasoned approach and a sensible balanced debate we can produce an outcome that is in the interests not only of the Treasury, which always lurks somewhere in the shadows of these debates, but of our communities, which have such great affection for their police forces, upon which they so permanently and reasonably depend.

[Keith Vaz]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), who rightly put the debate in the context of what is happening locally in his constituency. Every right hon. and hon. Member can talk about the local impact of the changes that the Government are making, but I will concentrate my remarks on new clause 4, and particularly on the desire of Opposition Front Benchers that there should be an impact study of the Government’s proposals before they are put in place.

The Government have embarked on a very ambitious and challenging policing agenda. I have just finished reading the speech that the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice made on Monday, and he used in it the memorable words:

“Reform cannot wait; we do not have the luxury of delay while a committee of wise men”—

slightly politically incorrect—

“deliberate and eventually agree to differ.”

I am not sure whether the Home Secretary would compose a committee of that type, but what the Minister was saying was that the Government want to get on with reform.

Those of us who serve on the Home Affairs Committee have been pretty exhausted by the amount of proposed legislation and the changes that the Government have brought into effect since last May. However, one would expect that from a Government who took office after 13 years in opposition. Of course Ministers, particularly the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, who I know has a passion for the debate on policing, want the Government to get on with what they want to do.

[Michael Ellis]

Was the right hon. Gentleman not also exhausted by the 13 years of the previous Government and their 10 criminal justice Bills and 3,000 new criminal offences?

[Keith Vaz]

I say to the hon. Gentleman, who has recently joined the Home Affairs Committee, that I was totally exhausted. That was why I hoped we would have a little break when the new Government got into office. Members of the Committee who are in their places today—my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) and the hon. Members for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), and indeed the hon. Gentleman himself when he is freed from the Protection of Freedoms Bill Committee, on which he is currently sitting—know that the change is rapid. I therefore have some sympathy with the Opposition Front Benchers’ proposal that there ought to be an impact study.

However, I am not absolutely convinced that the best organisation to perform the impact study is Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) will convince me of that by the time we get to the Division Lobby. I am not sure where that organisation will fit in the new landscape of policing. If my hon. Friend believes for one moment that a report by HMIC, even though it is under the distinguished leadership of Sir Denis O’Connor, will unite the House or provide the basis for moving forward, he can look at what happened to the report that it published yesterday. Opposition Front Benchers accepted it, but I caught a glimpse of the Minister on the BBC yesterday, and he did not necessarily accept the report. He may or may not have accepted part of it, but as we all know, he certainly did not accept that front-line policing would be affected. It was interesting to hear the Prime Minister’s views on that today.

My plea is that the enormous reform and challenging agenda ought perhaps to pause for a short while, to allow Parliament to consider in even greater detail what the Government are proposing. The Home Affairs Committee has published a report on police commissioners. We did not comment on the idea, because we took it as read that the Government wished to introduce them, depending on the outcome of the Bill, which has yet to be finally voted upon. We examined the implications of what the Government planned to do once the commissioners were in place. I am glad to see that the Government have accepted a number of the points that we made, particularly about clarifying the relationship between the commissioners and the chief constables. We will discuss that in a later debate.

My concern is that we are not stopping and thinking clearly enough, even if we might want to go in the direction that the Government suggest. The Home Affairs Committee examined the need for a study of the proposals, and obviously the most appropriate body to make one would have been the Committee itself. However, we have been rushing to deal with each piece of Government legislation as quickly as we possibly can. I am not sure that HMIC should produce the study, though.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling was one of the best Ministers in the last Government, and when he left the Home Office he had gained a huge reputation for what he had done. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I am not sure that when the previous Government introduced radical changes they asked HMIC for an impact study or paused to allow other bodies to conduct inquiries. I can well remember, as Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, a proposal from the then Home Secretary to replace police committees. Then, all of a sudden, we received a letter saying that the Government had changed their mind, having accepted in full our recommendations on the subject. There is a danger in picking the wrong organisation to undertake the study. The point that I believe my hon. Friend is trying to make in new clause 4, which is the right point to make, is that we should stop and consider the matter, not that we should necessarily delay it.

15:15

In his speech on Monday, in the section on reform, the Minister was clear that he rejected the idea of a royal commission. He quoted Harold Wilson as saying that royal commissions are agreed in minutes and take years. But the process need not necessarily take that long. The Minister has a close view of the nature of policing, and the Home Affairs Committee has started a new inquiry, which I hope will not last longer than our previous policing inquiry. We hope that it will last about four months. We will examine the nature of the new landscape and take on board what the public want and need.

In his speech the Minister also spoke about the need for the people, not the Government, to run the police force—he was citing the views of Ian Blair, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner. There are many stakeholders, including the Police Federation, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the superintendents, the public and many others, and they all need to be consulted on the changes.

Because of the background to the discussion, which we all accept is a cut of 20% in police finances—I mean that we all accept that that is the background, not that we all accept the cut—this is a very difficult time for the police service. I am sure the Minister will not accept new clause 4, but we are looking for words from him that will show that the Government understand the need to pause. Perhaps there is not a need for a royal commission lasting years and years, but there is a real need for a debate about what policing means to ordinary people. That would be extremely helpful, including to the Home Affairs Committee in its current deliberations.

We have not started our report yet, but we hope to have it ready by the end of July. We hope that it will give the Minister the opportunity to fashion his new landscape not from the top downwards, but starting with the public and moving upwards. Sometimes we worry a little too much about chief constables and the people right at the top, and not enough about the police constables. That is why it is was so interesting to hear what the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire said. It is the bobby on the beat, the neighbourhood police officer, on whom the policing reforms will have an impact. Let us start with them and move upwards, rather than start at the top and move down.

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

First, I apologise to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), for exhausting him. I look forward, of course, to his inquiry. I very much hope that he will invite me to give oral evidence, but that is entirely a matter for him and his Committee. I am sure that the Home Office will submit written evidence, but of course I welcome the inquiry, as I have welcomed all his reports since he assumed the chairmanship.

It seems to me that the purpose of new clause 4 is to delay the enactment of the important part of the Bill that will create directly elected police and crime commissioners. That has been expressed pretty openly. The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) was explicit about the fact that he sought that for Wales, so I will seek to address that point.

As I argued in my speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research on Monday, which is on my website and which I am happy to send to any hon. Member—I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Leicester East for quoting it—I do not believe that there is time for delay, because the changes that we need to make to policing are urgent. The democratic deficit must be addressed, and there is a need to drive savings at local level more strongly than they have been driven before. We therefore need to undertake this reform.

Furthermore, if the Government signal any kind of delay now, which the Government emphatically do not wish to do, we would create uncertainty, at a time when, subject to the further deliberations of the House and the other place, others outside are preparing in the expectation that the Bill will become law—the House gave a Second Reading to the Bill—and that the first elections for police and crime commissioners will take place in 2012.

The Home Office has a transition board, which I chair, which includes all parties, including ACPO and the Association of Police Authorities. Those parties may not have proposed the Government’s measure, and they may not be wholly happy with it, but they nevertheless sensibly recognise that it makes sense to sit down and discuss how the changes should be put into place.

I want to emphasise that although the Government are determined to proceed with the Bill and its reform, we have listened. I hope the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) accepts that we listened in Committee, when I believe we had a constructive debate. We also listened to those outside—important views have been put to us—and to the Home Affairs Committee. We will come to debate what the Committee describes as the memorandum of understanding to protect operational independence—we call it a protocol—but we agree that it is a good idea.

We also listened to ACPO’s concerns on ensuring that strategic policing is addressed despite the greater localisation expressed in the Bill. As a consequence, the Bill provides for the strategic policing requirement. We have also strengthened the powers of police and crime panels. The Government have listened and sought to address concerns, but we nevertheless remain committed to the introduction of police and crime commissioners, with the first elections in May 2012, although we could move sooner in London, which already has a Mayor.

The right hon. Member for Torfaen referred to the National Assembly for Wales Communities and Culture Committee request for a deferment of the provisions and asked whether the Government have held discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government. I must reassure him that, right from the beginning, we have sought such discussions and to respect the devolved arrangements in Wales. I have met the Minister responsible, as has the Home Secretary, and our officials have had a great deal of discussion.

The Assembly Government have made it clear that they do not favour police and crime commissioners, but of course, policing is a reserved matter, and the House of Commons has decided that police and crime commissioners should apply in England and Wales—that is what the Bill says. The question is whether we can find arrangements that respect those aspects of the devolution settlement that are within the competence of the Welsh Assembly. We sought to do that through the legislative consent motion that we tabled, which we will shortly debate further.

I very much regret that the Welsh Assembly did not pass that motion, but I repeat that we have at all times sought to address the Welsh Assembly Government’s proper concern, while recognising that it is equally proper that the House of Commons decides on that reserved matter. Saying that we must always follow a request from the devolved Parliament or one of the Assemblies for a deferment is tantamount to saying that the matter is no longer reserved. For so long as the matter is reserved, I believe that the right decisions have been taken.

[Paul Murphy]

I remind the Minister that things are not quite as simple as saying that policing is reserved. Policing is of course reserved, but aspects of the Bill touch on matters that are not reserved. Local government, which is wholly resolved in Wales, has a huge role to play on the panels, so it is not quite as simple as he says it is. There is more room for negotiation with the Welsh Assembly Government on those very important matters.

[Nick Herbert]

I absolutely accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. Local government matters are not reserved and local government touches on the panels, but that is precisely why we negotiated the legislative consent motion. It is deeply unfortunate that despite the fact that I negotiated that motion with the Minister responsible, Carl Sargeant, and he agreed it, he did not vote for it. As I said at the time, I regret that, because it was self-defeating. The motion sought to put in place the special arrangements for police and crime panels in Wales, on which the Welsh Assembly Government would have representation. I emphasise to the right hon. Gentleman that we really tried to reach an arrangement and to respect the devolution settlement.

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

The point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) makes is that the mechanism for election to police panels is a devolved matter, meaning that the Assembly is responsible. How does the Minister square that circle?

[Nick Herbert]

If I may, I will come to that matter when we reach that specific group of amendments, because the Government have tabled amendments to address it. We must find a way to ensure that the Bill is consistent with the wishes of the Welsh Assembly, which it expressed in rejecting the legislative consent motion. I shall address that question at the appropriate time, but I wanted to respond specifically to the right hon. Member for Torfaen.

When moving new clause 4, the hon. Member for Gedling made a number of wider points in which he attempted to open up once again the arguments for and against police and crime commissioners. I shall not dwell on those other than to say that he has expressed support in the past for the concept of a direct component in police authorities, as was ably pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis).

In addition, in Committee, the hon. Member for Gedling moved an amendment for directly elected chairs of police authorities, and the previous Government twice proposed a democratic element. I accept that there is a difference between that Government and this one, but the difference is not that this Government do not believe in democratic reform of police authorities—it appears that all parties do. Rather, the difference is that the previous Government backed down twice, but we have no intention of doing so, because there was a Conservative party manifesto commitment, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) pointed out, because having directly elected police authorities was separately a Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment.

We now know that the latest proposal from the hon. Member for Gedling is for directly elected chairs of police authorities. In moving and voting for that amendment, the hon. Gentleman wholly undermined his argument on cost, because implementation of directly elected chairs of police authorities would cost not the same as police and crime commissioners, but more. Therefore, the most expensive proposal for democratic reform of police authorities in the House of Commons is from the Opposition spokesman.

What is wrong with proposed new clause 4—I agree with the right hon. Member for Leicester East on this —is that it would put in the hands of the inspectorate of constabulary the power to hold an inquiry, and thereby to delay implementation of the Bill. Constitutionally, that would be very difficult. It would place the inspectorate in an invidious position. Parliament should decide reforms of this kind, after taking into account the views of both Houses and consulting widely. The idea that we can somehow park these matters into an inquiry by an independent body that is meant to look at the effectiveness and efficiency of policing is wrong. It would be very wrong for that organisation to do that, as it would effectively set up the inspectorate as judge and jury on a decision that Parliament had made. We therefore believe that these measures are the right thing to do, and we intend to proceed with them. Nevertheless, we are listening and will continue to do so.

In conclusion, on new clause 4, I would like to point out that, when the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) was proposing democratic reform of police authorities, he said that those who claimed to have the power, and who wished to hold the power, should therefore be accountable for the power. That is the right principle, and the basis on which we should proceed.

[Keith Vaz]

I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman’s peroration, but I want to make a point about the timing of the election. During the course of the inquiry, the Select Committee picked up some concern about the election taking place in May next year, just before the Olympics, when people ought to be concentrating on security measures and related issues. Is the Minister quite satisfied that this is the right timing?

15:30

[Nick Herbert]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a genuine point. There are two answers. First, I have said that the Government wish to move sooner in relation to London. The transition in London could therefore be made before the elections in 2012. Secondly, the measures relate to a change in the governance of policing. The Bill will not affect the police forces themselves. There are important changes being made, but this is principally a change to the governance of policing. There should be proper discussion, to ensure that in the run-up to the transition the police authorities do not lose sight of such important matters and that the forces that they hold to account do not do so either.

The remaining group of Government amendments will not, I hope, be controversial. They are all of a minor and technical nature, and I will summarise them briefly now. Amendments 6 and 8 will clarify the wording of the Bill so that a commissioner—or, in London, the Mayor’s office for policing and crime—will be obliged to consult a chief officer of a force on a new or revised plan only to the extent that its content is actually new. At present, the wording of the Bill includes two repetitious obligations to consult on the plan—for example, in clause 5, subsections (6)(b) and (8). It would make no sense legally to compel such individuals to consult again on material that had already been discussed. I would expect such discussion to occur naturally and when necessary between a commissioner and his chief officer, so this new wording merely puts a duty on the commissioner to ensure that new content is drawn to the chief constable’s attention. Any more burdensome requirements would be needlessly bureaucratic and prescriptive.

Amendment 9 will bring the police and crime plan issued by the Mayor’s office for policing and crime into line with other mayoral strategies, in regard to some of the matters that the Mayor has to bear in mind when drafting the plan. It is right that there should be a consistent and joined-up approach to the plan and the other strategies. Amendment 10 will clarify the scope of the duty on commissioners and criminal justice bodies to co-operate with each other. On the purpose of the co-operation, it replaces the word “in” with the word “for” in the phrase

“so as to provide an efficient and effective criminal justice system in the police area”

in relation to a commissioner’s responsibilities for criminal justice “for their force area”. This reflects the fact that elements of the system such as a court or a prison that are outside the geographical area of the force may still contribute to the criminal justice system inside the area.

Amendment 12 makes it clear that the general bar on a commissioner delegating the discharge of his functions to another commissioner or a chief constable does not prevent the delegation of functions in the context of a formal collaboration agreement. Amendment 13 will correct a reference to the wrong subsection in the provisions dealing with the delegation of the functions of the Mayor’s office for policing and crime to the Deputy Mayor for policing and crime.

Amendment 14 will correct an internal inconsistency in clause 30, which deals with the suspension of a commissioner. We noted the inconsistency in Committee. Clause 30(1) makes it clear that the threshold for suspension is that the commissioner has been charged with an offence carrying a maximum term of imprisonment exceeding two years, but clause 30(4) incorrectly refers to the limit as a maximum sentence of two years or more. The amendment ensures that those references are consistent. I have noted the suggestions of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) for a better way to proceed on suspensions. We had a debate about that in Committee, and I suspect that the other place will return to the matter. The Government will pay attention to the concerns that are expressed. However, we are clear that the current threshold is proportionate, striking the correct balance between protecting the public from criminals and not suspending the public’s representative for trivial offences.

Amendment 15 will correct an inconsistent use of language in the amendments that the Bill makes to the Police Act 1996, reflecting the fact that a commissioner will have the same function of maintaining the police force in his police area as a police authority has now under the 1996 Act. Amendment 20 will ensure that, while members of a commissioner’s staff may be compelled to answer questions and provide documents to a police and crime panel, they will not be required to divulge advice that may have been provided to the police and crime commissioner. That brings the provisions on commissioners into line with the existing arrangements for the Mayor of London, which we are retaining while replacing the Metropolitan Police Authority with the Mayor’s office for policing and crime. Not doing so would weaken a commissioner’s decision making power, as all discussions could potentially be subjected to criticism, which would discourage the free and frank flow of ideas.

I apologise to the House for going into such detail, but I think that it is important to give the public clarity on the amendments. Amendments 31, 32, 38 and 39 concern the appointment of a commissioner’s chief executive. The current wording refers to a “qualified” person. However, the Bill does not impose any qualifications in respect of candidates for appointment as chief executive—in contrast to the position of the chief finance officer, who must be financially qualified in accordance with local government legislation—so there is no need to include the word “qualified”.

Amendments 33 and 40 correct a drafting error in which references to the chief constable in amendment 33 and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner in amendment 40 should have been references to the police and crime commissioner and the Mayor’s office for policing and crime, respectively. Amendments 34 to 37 and 135 to 138 are included to make references to police staff consistent with the rest of the Bill, which refers to them as “police civilian staff”. Amendment 42 is included simply to clarify the Bill. In its present wording, it is unclear what paragraph (2)5 of schedule 7 is referring to when it uses the phrase “for these purposes”. The amendment makes it clear that this means the purposes of sub-paragraph 6.

Amendment 50 will correct a minor drafting error in relation to the replacement of the strategic policing priorities with the Home Secretary’s new strategic policing requirement. It amends the section of the Police Act 1996 that deals with policing objectives, which in future will apply only to the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a police authority, with the effect that the Common Council will frame its objectives so as to be consistent with the strategic policing requirement, rather than strategic priorities. This will bring the Common Council into line with other policing bodies. It was our intention to achieve that outcome, but the Bill as drafted did not do so.

Finally, amendment 51 changes a reference to “authorities” in respect of arrangements for the police negotiating board to “persons and bodies”. This is simply to reflect the fact that police and crime commissioners are replacing the word “authorities” and it will no longer be applicable in this context.

[Vernon Coaker]

I thought the ending of that was brilliant.

Let me say in all seriousness to the Minister that he is introducing a change to the model of policing in this country—the biggest change for centuries—without one shred of evidence that it is the right thing to do. In his response, we heard not one study cited, not one chief police officer quoted, not one police authority quoted, not one council quoted—as I say, not one shred of evidence in support. All the Minister did was repeat what he has done before—stand at the Dispatch Box and assert that he knows best. He accuses me of elitism, but I can see where the elitism lies when it comes to someone saying that they know best. This is no way to reform the police service; it should be done on the basis of evidence.

I have a couple of quick points. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, that Governments sometimes need to pause and look at what they are doing. That is the purpose of the new clause. It invites us to reflect on the evidence and on what people are saying and then to legislate and reform on the basis of that evidence, not ideological commitment. My right hon. Friend may well think that there is an alternative to Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary when it comes to who is best placed to carry out the report. Perhaps his Select Committee or other bodies should be involved, but it does not alter the fact that, as he says, we sometimes need to take stock and reflect on how best to move forward and make change.

I also want to deal with what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) and the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart). When the hon. Gentleman goes back to his constituency, he should tell the people he has been talking to in his local authority and others that, as my right hon. Friend said, proposals in the Bill mean that if local authorities do not nominate members for the police and crime panels, the Home Secretary will take upon herself the power to impose individuals on those panels. That is why my right hon. Friend and others from Wales are so upset by the proposals, which effectively drive a coach and horses through the devolution settlement. Yes, police and crime commissioners are a reserved matter, but local authorities are a responsibility of the Welsh Assembly. That explains why there is such upset and disquiet about the proposals in Wales.

This is a hugely important issue. As I said, the Association of Police Authorities, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Local Government Association, council after council and ordinary police officer after ordinary police officer all oppose this measure. We have heard not a shred of evidence from the Government. That is why we say there should be an inquiry so that we can take stock, reflect and reform on the basis of evidence, not ideology. I therefore press the new clause to the vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

15:41

Division 242

Ayes: 224

---

Labour: 211
Democratic Unionist Party: 6
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Independent: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 320

---

Conservative: 276
Liberal Democrat: 43

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I have now to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day. On the question relating to local government, the Ayes were 297 and the Noes were 187, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

New Clause 5

Memorandum of Understanding

‘(1) The Secretary of State must publish a Memorandum of Understanding on the Operational Responsibility of Chief Constables detailing where their actions shall be independent of the Police and Crime Commissioner.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument bring into force the Memorandum of Understanding published under subsection (1).

(3) Regulations under subsection (2) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’.—(Vernon Coaker.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Vernon Coaker]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 149, page 2, line 44, clause 2, at end insert—

‘such that the police and crime commissioner shall have no involvement in decisions with respect to individual investigations and arrests.’.

Amendment 155, page 4, line 15, clause 3, at end insert—

‘(8A) The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime must not ask, require or encourage the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to act in a manner which could—

(a) put the Commissioner in breach of his attestation under oath in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Police Act 1996; or

(b) conflict with the Commissioner’s exercise of direction and control under section 4(3).

(8B) If the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis reasonably believes that the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime has asked, required or encouraged him to act in a manner that is prohibited under subsection (8A), he may notify the London Assembly police and crime panel.

(8C) For the avoidance of doubt, any purported direction by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime under subsection (8A) has no legal effect.’.

[Vernon Coaker]

This group of provisions is smaller, but none the less important. It is difficult for us to discuss new clause 5 without a draft of the code of practice, memorandum of understanding or protocol, as we are now to call it. He will know that in Committee I consistently and persistently asked for a draft to be ready for our consideration. To be fair, he did not say that one would be ready for Report, and I am not suggesting that he did, but I expected that a draft of a draft of a draft would be available, and I think that most members of the Committee would have expected the same.

A huge change to policing is being made. The Minister and the Government have accepted what I said and what was in the Home Affairs Committee report, which was that such is the importance of the protocol detailing the responsibility of the police and crime commissioner vis-à-vis the chief constable—others, for example, the police and crime panel, could be included, as has been suggested—we should have it, yet we are discussing it without knowing even what shape it will be. We do not even know what things might be included in it. The Minister will say, “Don’t worry, it will be ready for the House of Lords.” Why should this House not have a draft available to it, so that it can consider what is in the protocol and make representations about it?

We have no way of knowing what will be in the protocol. Let us suppose it contains things that members of the Committee think should not be in it. I do not know what influence the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) will have, but what happens if he does not agree with what is in it? He will have no opportunity to say anything about it. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) served on the Committee with the hon. Member for Cambridge. What happens if he thinks that the protocol should not include one thing but should include another? Why should we not be able to look at it?

If the Minister was stood where I am and I was sat where he is, he would be saying exactly the same thing to me. He would be saying that it is impossible for us to legislate properly because we simply do not know what we are legislating about. It is not good enough to say, “Don’t worry, it will go to the House of Lords.” We have the most fundamental change in policing before us and we have no idea what the Government’s protocol is, although they have accepted that we should have it—that is not good enough. I do not believe that hon. Members on either side of the House would think, either in public or in private, that that is acceptable either. How does, “It will be ready for the Lords” help us to discuss this?

New clause 5 states that any such protocol must have some statutory force. The Association of Chief Police Officers believes it should be enshrined in primary legislation. The Minister said that would be very difficult, so we looked at whether an order-making power could be introduced to allow us to consider the protocol, as it would then be subject to the affirmative procedure in this House and the House of Lords.

16:00

[Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the new clause, as drafted, is in pretty poor shape? Even if we accepted it into the Bill, could not the Minister publish a memorandum under subsection (1) containing the word “none”?

[Vernon Coaker]

That might be a good debating point, but as a Bill goes through the House we need to debate its principles and the right legislative approach. We do not have the Queen’s counsel support that is available to the Minister, so the odd drafting error might occur, but that does not alter the thrust of what we are trying to do through the new clause. If the right hon. Gentleman had been here for the earlier debate he would know that the Minister, even with his bank of lawyers, supporters and helpers, has had to propose a number of amendments to correct drafting errors. So it is not only me who makes the odd drafting error, but I am doing it on my computer. Notwithstanding any drafting error, if we regard as right the principle that a protocol or memorandum of understanding should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure of the House, we should support it.

In its evidence and the report it issued yesterday, ACPO said that

“there are three broad areas where we believe improved safeguards are required”.

I shall deal with only the first of those three, as it relates to the new clause. ACPO said of the first area:

“Clarity on the responsibilities of the PCC”—

the police and crime commissioner—

“and Chief Constable. The proposed ‘protocol’ is still early in its development. We believe such a key document will need to be specific and legally binding—such as through a Code of Practice founded in law.”

That was ACPO’s advice yesterday. It continued, at paragraph 50:

“ACPO has real concerns that the Bill does not fully recognise the uniqueness of the tripartite system between the Home Secretary, Chief Constables and local democratic governance. It is considered that the Bill places too much emphasis on local considerations giving disproportionate power to the PCC to the detriment of the necessary national and legal responsibilities placed upon the Home Secretary and Chief Constables. Our concern is to ensure that Chief Constables have sufficient operational independence safeguarding their impartiality to balance the various duties and accountabilities they face. Currently, it is at best uncertain that the safeguards under development in parallel with the progress of the Bill will achieve that aim.”

I think ACPO is clearly telling the Minister that he needs to amend the Bill in a similar way to that suggested in my new clause.

[Mark Reckless]

The hon. Gentleman is telling us what ACPO said yesterday, but it is not easy for the Minister because ACPO has previously taken an entirely different line. Sir Hugh Orde told the Home Affairs Committee that he did not want anything entrenched in legislation.

[Vernon Coaker]

No doubt members of ACPO, including Sir Hugh Orde, its hugely respected president, will have considered the discussions on the Bill and will have continued to discuss it with colleagues in deciding on the most appropriate advice and guidance to give the Government. ACPO has regularly said that it is for the Government to determine the governance structure, but it will do its best, whatever structure is finally decided, to implement it and deliver the policing that we would all wish to see. However, it also has a responsibility to point out to the Government where there are problems, and it has done so in guidance. There is a serious need for clarity from the Government regarding the memorandum of understanding, code of practice or protocol.

It is not acceptable for this issue not to be subject to a legislative process, and I should be interested to learn whether the Minister agrees. He has agreed that there should be a protocol, and a draft is in the throes of production—no doubt, a group is working on it and discussions are under way. I suspect that there are disagreements, which is why it has not been issued yet—it is proving more problematic than the Minister expected.

We need a protocol, because we need to clarify the role of the police and crime commissioner vis-à-vis the chief constable. In Committee, we debated at length what their respective roles should be. The police and crime commissioner is elected on a local mandate and will make certain promises, but what is their mandate vis-à-vis the chief constable? Where is the line drawn between what the commissioner would wish to do and the chief constable’s operational responsibilities?

It is interesting that an amendment has been tabled by some of the Minister’s colleagues, who are as concerned as I am. Indeed, the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), has added his name to amendment 149. The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) is the lead Member for the amendment, and he is clearly concerned. The amendment has a great deal of merit, and it tries to deal with the issue. The hon. Gentleman is trying to clarify whether a police and crime commissioner has the opportunity to tell a chief constable to investigate a crime. Is it any crime, or no crime? Is that just a matter for the chief constable? Does the commissioner have any power over that?

What about the funding of units? Can the commissioner tell the chief constable what units they should have? On the apportioning of resources, the Minister looked very upset when I quoted the report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, which showed that only 5% of police and community support officers were not in the back office. What about the commissioner’s ability to say what the correct mix of staff is? They might not want to see as many people doing a particular job, and may want to civilianise. The Minister’s favourite thing at the moment is looking at outsourcing. What if a commissioner does not believe in that? Whose responsibility would it be?

What about the reorganisation of policing? Who has a say on that? What equipment can or cannot be used? It may be an operational decision to use horses or dogs in a public order situation, but does the commissioner have any jurisdiction or say in whether the police have a police or horse section? Is that an operational responsibility? If we had a draft protocol, we could begin to understand the differences in those areas.

We have just seen the police do a very good job overall at the weekend, and I praised the Metropolitan Police Commissioner for it. However, when I recently saw him we discussed containment. What right does a police and crime commissioner or someone else have to tell a chief constable that they had dealt with such a situation wrongly? Does the police and crime commissioner have the right to do more than express an opinion? Police and crime commissioners are directly elected. We are not talking about a police authority. Police and crime commissioners will not be appointed by the Mayor and unelected, as in London. Who has the responsibility for making such decisions? These are hugely serious issues that worry many people across the country.

The Minister’s response is, “It won’t be a problem. Don’t worry about it. Good sense will prevail. Why should the doomsday scenario presented by the shadow Minister happen?” That is a pretty poor way to legislate when we are dealing with such a serious matter. It is not enough to say, “Don’t worry. It won’t happen. Everybody’s good sense will prevail.” The amendments before us are important. Clearly, I am not the only one who is worried.

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

Has my hon. Friend noticed the lack of enthusiasm for the concept of police and crime commissioners? A good test in the House of Commons, as he knows full well, is whether, on a free vote—which obviously is not going to occur—the Government’s project would command a majority.

[Vernon Coaker]

No, on a free vote, I do not think the measure would go through. I agree with my hon. Friend. It will be even more interesting to see whether, on a free vote, the new clause, which seeks to give a legislative base to the protocol between police and crime commissioners and chief constables, would be supported by a majority. I suspect it would.

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

My recollection of the discussion that took place in Committee is that the Minister repeatedly claimed that one of the arguments for a police and crime commissioner was that the public would know who to go to and who to complain to. There would be a single point. He cited the rise in the number of complaints when the Mayor of London took on that responsibility. Is it not the clear message of amendment 149 that the public will go to the commissioner with the expectation that he can intervene in investigations and cases? Unless it is spelled out in new clause 5 or in the amendment, we will be electing people on a false prospectus because the expectation will be that the commissioner has that power. This illustrates the dilemma that the Minister has created.

[Vernon Coaker]

I agree. That is the point I am making. An individual will stand for election in a police force area, saying, “I will ensure that there are X number of officers in this area and that area. I don’t want to see Tasers used. I don’t want to see such-and-such equipment used. I want to see the police patrolling not in pairs, but singly. I don’t want to see police in cars.” It will not be possible to stop someone saying that in their election manifesto. They are not going to stand for election saying, “I think everything’s wonderful. Vote for me.” What sort of election slogan is that? They would not get elected.

Candidates will stand on an exciting, impassioned, inspirational agenda for change in policing in that area. My hon. Friend is right. That is the nub of the dilemma that the Minister faces—what happens when that individual, enthused with their election victory, or determined to be re-elected, tries to influence what the chief constable does?

[Mark Tami]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the scenario that he describes will be worse when there is a second round of elections? The police commissioners will be trying to stay in the job and others will be saying how incompetent they are and trying to introduce change. It will be the constant agenda of candidates to run down the police and offer change—sometimes change for the sake of change.

[Vernon Coaker]

That is a very real danger. The Minister will no doubt try to say that he will address that through the protocol because it will lay out what can and cannot be done. It would have been extremely helpful if Members had even a draft to consider. Without it, it is very difficult for us properly to consider and debate the new clause. Having said that, the new clause is extremely important.

16:15

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Has my hon. Friend considered the dilemma of a member of a political party being elected and the same police force being requested to investigate election irregularities of another party member—for example, a Member of Parliament who is re-standing in that police area—if the decision on whether the issue should be investigated by the police is marginal? Has he considered that dilemma that the Government are about to create?

[Vernon Coaker]

That is another interesting dilemma that might arise. No doubt there are many other such examples in which we could point out the dangers.

I cannot stress enough how important the police feel this is and how important I think it is. I am sure that we will all listen to the Minister when he responds not only to the lead new clause but to the amendment tabled by his hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood.

[Mark Reckless]

I should first declare an interest as a member of the Kent police authority. I thank the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) for his testimonial to my work in that role, which—who knows?—might find its way into one of my election leaflets.

We have heard about the protocol—let us call it that, so that we use common language—and I note that the shadow Minister refers to operational responsibility in the new clause. It would be great to have a clearly agreed definition for operational independence or responsibility as it is, but it is enormously difficult to do that. ACPO’s position has changed on that, which does not necessarily assist us. The Home Affairs Committee visited ACPO two days ago, and it seems that the draft protocol is bouncing between it and the Home Office. ACPO had no objection to the draft being shared with the Committee when we asked for it. Will the Minister give the Committee sight of the protocol, even if it is still an early draft?

Amendment 149 is a probing amendment, because it is very important to get the views of the House and of the Minister on the record. I have tried to emphasise a point that arose from the 1962 royal commission, which is that there is an important distinction, as I put it in the amendment, that the elected commissioner

“shall have no involvement in decisions with respect to individual investigations and arrests.”

That is an important constitutional protection. The Minister spoke quite strongly on that both on Second Reading and in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee. I am slightly concerned that one remark he made in the Committee, regarding the potential for too strict an interpretation of what Lord Denning said in 1968, should not be taken out of context. The context, as the Home Secretary said on Monday, is that we anticipate that it will be the elected commissioner who is in charge, as with the Mayor of London.

The Minister was very clear on Second Reading and when he gave evidence to the Committee on the role and importance of the elected commissioners and that what we are doing is rebalancing the tripartite system, moving from a police authority leg that has traditionally been too weak and bolstering the role of the democratic and local element with the directly elected commissioner.

I raised that point with the Minister in the Committee on 27 July last year, and asked whether there was any possibility of an incompatibility between what we intended with the legislation and what Lord Denning said in ex parte Blackburn in 1968. The Minister’s reply was important. He said:

“It is often stated, quoting Lord Denning's dictum that the police should be answerable to the law and the law alone. I think that is right in the sense of when they are exercising their powers of arrest and so on that that should not be subject to any kind of political interference. We would all agree about that but, clearly, somebody has to set the police budget and the strategic direction of the police, so there has to be accountability to someone, and our premise is that that should no longer be to the centre, to a faceless bureaucrat, to the Home Secretary; it should instead be to local people through the election of the police and crime commissioner.”

That is what we intend to achieve with the Bill, and it is a distinction that is consistent with what we saw back in the 1962 royal commission.

As the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) knows, the Select Committee received some helpful legal advice on this matter that read:

“This part of Lord Denning’s judgment is not strictly binding as it went beyond the range of issues that had to be decided in that case, and is therefore obiter.”

We then had an assessment from our legal advisers on a leading academic text in this area by Richard Clayton QC and Hugh Tomlinson QC, whose conclusion on Lord Denning’s judgment was:

“The doctrine is an exorbitant one and its legal foundations are very slight”.

I had a look at that leading text and some of the academic debate on the difficulty of defining operational independence and what it was considered to mean. Richard Clayton and Hugh Tomlinson referred to section 6(1) of the Police Act 1996, which the Bill carries over, and wrote that it

“appears to create a specific sphere of responsibility for the police authority”.

They go on to state that section 10(1), which deals with the direction and control of the chief constable, is subject to that provision, and

“only covers immediate operational direction and control but does not bear on the question of the extent to which the chief constable is under supervision of the police authority.”

The Committee went into the academic literature in more detail. We heard from Rick Muir, from the Institute for Public Policy Research, who has done much work—from the left—on this key issue. He agreed with me when I asked whether there was a distinction

“between the individual cases, where clearly the police should have independence in terms of arrest and investigation in those individual cases, and the broader spectrum of setting priorities, determining where budgets are spent and setting policy in general, which is properly the field of elected politicians”.

He observed that unfortunately confusion had arisen because wrongly there had been a

“tendency of chief constables to take Denning to mean that they are in charge of strategy”.

We do not have before us this protocol that the hon. Member for Gedling referred to, but the Committee was able to draw out some of the key issues.

My amendment emphasises the position in 1962. Unfortunately, when Denning made his judgment, he did not have the advantage of being able to refer to proceedings in the House. Judges have been able to do that only since Pepper v. Hart in, I think, 1994. The key 1962 royal commission, which set the consensus on operational independence, was summarised by the legal advisers in a report to the Committee. They wrote:

“The Royal Commission on Police emphasised the need for impartiality and operational independence of the police in relation to ‘quasi-judicial’ decisions”.

The royal commission included in those quasi-judicial decisions

“inquiries with regard to suspected offences, the arrest of persons and the decision to prosecute,”

adding:

“In matters of this kind it is clearly in the public interest that a police officer should be answerable only to his superiors in the force and, to the extent that a matter may come before them, to the courts. His impartiality would be jeopardised, and public confidence in it shaken, if in this field he were to be made the servant of too local a body.”

The commission said in respect of other duties:

“It cannot in our view be said that”

they

“require the complete immunity from external influence that is generally acknowledged to be necessary in regard to the enforcement of the law in particular cases.”

As our legal advisers point out, those other duties include

“general policies in regard to law enforcement…the disposition of his force, the concentration of his resources on any particular type of crime or area, the manner in which he handles political demonstrations or processions”

or

“his policy in enforcing the traffic laws and…dealing with parked vehicles”.

That clear distinction has therefore run all the way through, from the royal commission in 1962 to the evidence that the Home Affairs Committee has taken. That is what I am trying to emphasise with my amendment 149; indeed, it is also what the Minister emphasised when he appeared before the Committee. I would therefore be grateful if he confirmed that he does not resile from any of those remarks.

The other important point to make about Denning’s judgment in 1968 is that it related not to what a police authority could do in terms of a chief constable, but to what a single individual, Mr Blackburn, who as a publicly spirited gentleman came to court with a judicial review, could do. The question was about the extent to which he as an individual could require the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to implement policing in a particular operational manner. That distinction is made clear by further material, including the 1988 case of Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, in which it was clearly drawn. In that case, Lord Templeman said:

“The question for determination in this appeal is whether an action for damages is an appropriate vehicle for investigating the efficiency of a police force.”

He concluded:

“A police force serves the public, and the elected representatives of the public must ensure that the public get the police force they deserve.”

It is clearly right that there can be no interference in individual investigations or arrests, but it is important to look at the issue from both sides.

[Steve McCabe]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing to the House’s attention what I think is a dilemma that the Minister has created. As I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman, I have been reflecting on what would have happened if we had had police and crime commissioners at the time of the Stephen Lawrence murder and the subsequent inquiry. Does he think that it would have been possible for the police and crime commissioner to fulfil the requirements of both clause 1(8)(g) and his amendment 149?

[Mark Reckless]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could cite that provision, which I do not have to hand.

[Steve McCabe]

I apologise. Clause 1(8)(g) places a responsibility on the police and crime commissioner to

“hold the chief constable to account”

for

“the exercise of duties relating to equality and diversity that are imposed on the chief constable by any enactment.”

In particular, I am thinking of what came out of the Lawrence inquiry.

[Mark Reckless]

Yes, absolutely. What we saw in that instance was a failure in the operational direction of the Metropolitan police. Rather than waiting years and years for an inquiry to make the Metropolitan police have appropriate respect for diversity and follow up on such crimes in the way it should, a directly elected commissioner with sufficient authority could have pressed for that much more quickly. Indeed, that is one area where we would be looking for clear, elected oversight and guidance for the police.

16:30

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

On the point that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) just made, I note that my hon. Friend’s amendment states that

“the police and crime commissioner shall have no involvement in decisions with respect to individual investigations”.

If there were a high-profile murder, would my hon. Friend think it appropriate for the commissioner to say to a chief constable, “I think you should put more resource into that investigation. What you are doing now is not sufficient and there is real community concern”? Or is my hon. Friend saying that that would be inappropriate?

[Mark Reckless]

That is a very good example, which helps to elucidate the point. It would not be appropriate for the elected commissioner to say, “On this particular individual investigation I would like fewer”—or more—“police”, or, “You should investigate it in this way rather than that.” We do not look to the elected commissioners to do that, but I see a strong role for them in ensuring that justice is colour blind and that the police do not make assumptions about a witness or potential suspect on the basis of ethnicity or any other inappropriate basis. We have seen strong progress by the police in that area, but, with the Macpherson inquiry and the way in which some measures have been rolled out, there has not necessarily been the sensitivity that there might have been. The elected commissioner will have a relationship with the wider electorate, however, so they will sometimes be in a position to lead the police in particular areas regarding social attitudes.

I have huge respect for the police, given my work with them in Kent, but there are particular traditions in policing and the work force are made up in a particular way. Those things have changed, with a very welcome and greater number of women now working as police officers, and there has been a significant improvement in black and minority ethnic representation. In Kent, we had the first black chief constable in Mike Fuller, who did an extraordinary job of engaging with the public and involving them closely with the work of Kent police. The police have a significantly smaller proportion of graduates, although it is higher than it was, and the elected commissioner will be able to lead in those areas. I look to him to do so.

I emphasise to the House that the distinction I draw, going back to the 1962 royal commission at least, works both ways, and I am very concerned about budget setting, priorities and some of the management of public protest. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) asked some probing questions of various witnesses, but the question of whether there should be a presumption that police officers will travel in pairs, and the extent to which officers might be on bicycles, on foot or in cars, are very properly areas for elected oversight, and inevitably political decisions. If we do draw that distinction, the Bill will help chief constables.

[Vernon Coaker]

May I be clear about what the hon. Gentleman just said? Did he say that an elected individual should be able to try to influence the chief constable in terms of patrolling in pairs, individually or whatever, and in terms of the other examples he used? Or did he say that he thought it should be open to the police and crime commissioner to direct the chief constable on those matters?

[Mark Reckless]

In almost all those areas, there will invariably be agreement. There is give and take, and that has been my experience on a police authority. I am sure that in most instances it will apply to the elected commissioner and to the chief constable. I am not convinced that “direct” is the right word, but there might be public concern, as there was a few years ago in my area, about the police spending too much time in cars and not being available on the beat. Indeed, I have often heard it said that two officers who go out on the beat together will naturally tend to talk and enter into exchanges with each other, whereas one police officer on patrol might have a greater tendency to engage with the public.

I think that we would look to elected commissioners to reflect the public view, although I would not necessarily be comfortable with that in individual instances. It would be right for the elected commissioner to say, “Previously we’ve had this presumption that officers should patrol in pairs, but I think in future the presumption should be that where possible officers patrol individually,” and I would expect the chief constable to give effect to that. However, if there were issues regarding safety, I would look to the chief constable to have those considered appropriately within the discussion.

I do not agree with the view of ACPO, nor do Conservative Members or members of the Committee necessarily accept it, that police officers operate in a sort of political vacuum where they can, without reference to the elected authority, make the decision themselves. I think that people will campaign on these issues to become the elected police and crime commissioner. In many respects, it is entirely proper that the chief constable should then implement proposals with a democratic mandate behind them, as in the case of the Metropolitan police service following what Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, said about a stronger emphasis on knife crime and having more officers on public transport, particularly buses. The Metropolitan police did then implement that, and that is perfectly proper.

I should emphasise that this point goes both ways. We need to ensure that chief constables recognise the appropriate and entirely proper role of the elected commissioner in making such decisions, but there is also the other side of the coin. My experience on a police authority is that I often get asked about operational matters. A sergeant may ask me whether I thought that a particular police community support officer should be deployed from one area to another, or a constable may ask me whether I am happy about how they have dealt with a particular offence, or whether I think that a particular individual should be charged or dealt with in a certain way. It has then been incumbent on me, as a member of the police authority, to say, “Hang on a minute, this is not a proper area for an elected politician to be determining what happens within the police.” I have always been very clear about that, and when there has been an issue that is a shade of grey I have referred it to our excellent area commander in Medway, Steve Corbishley. Such sensitive issues need to be dealt with at that higher level. One cannot necessarily expect every constable, sergeant or even inspector to be totally au fait with where this line should be drawn. I am echoing the emphasis that the royal commission, and the Minister in Committee, put on this complete protection in relation to individual investigation and arrest. That is an important safeguard, and it should work both ways.

The Bill uses the phrase “have regard to” in relation to the police panel as against the commissioner for the budget, the commissioner in respect of a strategic policing objective, and the chief constable’s need to have regard to the policing plan determined by the Minister. We may be firing the starting gun for litigation, but if so, I hope that Members, particularly the Minister, have given a clear steer to the courts as to the role that we see elected commissioners having and the need to rebalance the tripartite relationship. Lord Hoffmann, in the case of Regina v. Chief Constable of Sussex ex parte International Trader’s Ferry Ltd, said that, even under the current arrangements, where regard must be had to the policing plan, the chief constable’s discretion was therefore “subject” to the statutory plan. Together with the roles of the chief constable and the Home Office, we have a rebalancing of the tripartite system. We are bolstering the democratic local element by having direct election, and that should provide a far stronger voice for the public in setting policing policy and priorities.

[John Mann]

I note the volume of Members taking part in the debate: I think attendance is under 3%. Doubtless everyone has better things to do. I note that fact because at some stage—not today—quorums will have to be challenged in the House if Members, not least on the Government side, do not turn up to promote the Bills that they propose.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) on his excellent approach to trying to dismantle the Bill, and I fully support new clause 5. Let me give an additional reason why it is appropriate for the House to vote for the new clause. When this fragile coalition collapses, which will no doubt happen soon after the May elections, if this Bill has reached Royal Assent by then, rather than wasting primary legislative time immediately, my hon. Friend could use a statutory instrument to remove the most objectionable parts of the legislation, which were most eloquently described by the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless). He wishes to direct where police resources go and to make operational decisions, such as those, as he said, on the question of whether policing should be single or double. Those are fundamental operational decisions, and it is quite extraordinary that anyone could oppose the new clause, which seeks to rectify the damage that such a loss of operational independence will cause.

This is an outrage. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling and I come under the same police authority in Nottinghamshire, and I do not know whether he has found a single member of the Nottinghamshire police who supports the idea that an elected politician with such powers should be above them directing their work, as the Government propose. In my experience, there is great resentment about what the Government are doing to the police, including the idea that a politician should be elected to do that job, on whatever manifesto. That person might come from the mainstream parties, might be a maverick independent or might be a former senior police officer who has perhaps been forced out of the police for reasons that they choose not to declare. There are many different motives why someone might wish to stand for such a position, but when there is an election, the one certainty is that somebody will be elected. We have seen this with elected mayors: however low the turnout, somebody is elected and sometimes the population is rather aghast at what they have ended up with as a result of their inaction, or their inability or refusal to vote.

It is bad enough when such things happen in local authorities, but to put such a person—an elected politician, playing to the gallery for election and re-election—in charge of operational policing matters is an outrage. This modest but well-written new clause at least offers some opportunity to pull that back. Of course, it could go further. If I were writing the memorandum of understanding, I would ensure that some of the other dangers to British policing that are being and have been brought in by this reckless Government were also rectified. There would also be an opportunity to build in something to stop the use of regulation A19, whereby experienced police officers—including those in my area—are refused the opportunity to continue in policing with the experience and training that they have built up, which the taxpayer has paid for. They want to stay on, doing a job and earning a decent living serving the public, but they have been removed by this Government. Police in my area are also very angry about police pensions.

The dangers to police pensions, and to the basis on which people join and remain with the police, which has been undermined by this rotten Government, could be rectified by some wisdom in a memorandum of understanding or in the statutory instrument behind it, or could be dealt with by emergency legislation on day one when this fragile coalition collapses.

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

It is always interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman scrutinise a Bill. He is speaking on behalf of the three Back-Bench Members of Her Majesty’s Opposition who are present. However, has he asked the people of Bassetlaw properly whether they want to have a stake in the policing in their area, to hold the police to account and to determine the priorities for policing? Is he not being presumptuous in assuming that he knows exactly what they want before there is a properly elected commissioner?

16:45

[John Mann]

I never like to be presumptuous. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, I constantly communicate with the people of Bassetlaw about their views. However, one has to prioritise. My question to them at the moment, which they are answering in their thousands, day in, day out—I am sure that there will be more answers by the end of tonight—is whether they agree with the 30% cut in police and fire services that his Government, backed by the Liberals, are bringing in. That is an even bigger danger to their standard of living and quality of life, and to the security and safety of businesses, pensioners, young people, and the whole population in my area.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have had no representations from anybody asking for another elected politician. The Government have prided themselves on getting rid of 50 MPs. Looking at the green Benches today, it appears that they might already have got rid of a random assortment of 50 MPs. Those MPs will be replaced by about 44 new politicians. It is almost a job swap. This is costing the taxpayer money. More crucially, it is diverting us away from the priorities. I know that Members from all parts of the House, and especially the Liberals, will want to vote for this excellent new clause, because it gives us the opportunity to clarify that we will not have meddling by politicians in any area of police operations. I cited the dangers of that in my earlier intervention.

The Government have given us statistics that show that across the country, cases about elections and petitions of one kind or another have been taken to the police, including by political parties. In the county of Nottinghamshire such cases have been taken by political parties, including by the Conservative party. I think that that was a bit spurious and a waste of police time, but the party was entitled to do it. If politicians or their backers are doing deals with one party or another, in the traditional way, to become the candidate for this new elected position, and they are also using the police in making allegations about elections—be they parliamentary, local or even potentially for police commissioners—how will that be dealt with? How will there be impartiality when there is one elected person at the very top? That is a fundamental flaw in the Bill and in the Government’s logic.

There will of course be an opportunity—I will not speak to this point now, Mr Deputy Speaker—to reject this rotten Bill tomorrow at 6 o’clock, or perhaps even earlier. In the meantime, any logical, rational, law-and-order politician in this House will back the excellent and considered new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling, because it will amend the Bill in a way that provides some protection. The people in my area want effective policing that is run by the police, and they want the police to be accountable.

I do not know whether as a boy the Minister liked to play with Meccano or Lego, but I can see that he has built up the idea that it is his job to meddle, to take apart and to rebuild. He has taken that forward into adult life, and when it comes to the police force, because he is the Police Minister he has to do something to demonstrate that he is worth his money.

The Minister could tell the police, “Here are the resources I’ve battled with the Treasury to get you. Go out there, catch criminals and give the general public confidence in security and safety. Get on with your job and do a good job, and we will hold you accountable to ensure that you do.” Oh, no. He cannot do that. Instead, he has to meddle and try to rebuild everything, just as the Government are doing with schools and the health service. The excellent new clause 5 would at least pull the Government back from that, so I recommend it to the House, and I trust that all Members will vote for it.

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who is clearly a grand master when it comes to playing to the gallery. I must say, I was rather worried for his health, or indeed his sanity. I wonder whether he actually believes his doom-mongering vision of the world, but he is certainly very effective at getting across his concerns. He will be very disappointed about this, but I suggest that he should not hold his breath while he waits for the coalition to collapse, because 2015 is a long way away.

I now turn to the new clause and the amendments. It is clearly welcome that the protocol, or the memorandum of understanding, is being discussed and drawn up.

[Vernon Coaker]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should have a draft of that to consider, even if it is a draft of a draft? It really is not good enough that it will be available to the House of Lords to consider without our having had it in front of us.

[Tom Brake]

I think that the Minister and I would probably agree that in an ideal world it would have been useful to have a draft, but I do not think it is essential. I am sure that the House of Lords will deal with the matter in the professional way that we would expect.

It is interesting to note that initially senior officers had strong reservations about whether they wanted a protocol, so a degree of flexibility will be needed. I have some sympathy with amendment 149, but I suspect that the Minister will make it clear that there is every expectation that the police and crime commissioners will have no involvement in decisions on individual investigations and arrests. That will be a clear requirement.

The one point that may require clarification is what would happen in a case that actually involved the police and crime commissioner. For instance, if they had been assaulted, would the amendment prevent them from taking a decision about whether charges should be pressed? I do not know whether the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) considered that in tabling the amendment, and if he has a response I would be very happy for him to intervene on me at this point. If he is not going to, the Minister might want to pick up on that point when he responds.

In an ideal world we would have been considering a draft protocol, but clearly a lot of work on it is still going on. I am sure that means that when it is put into the public domain, it will be strong and satisfy Members. As I said, I understand where the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood is coming from on amendment 149, but it is clear that there will be no expectation whatever that the commissioners will get involved in individual decisions. One would expect that the police and crime panels would have forceful things to say if they did so.

[Nick Herbert]

First, I confirm again to the House something that has been confirmed on a number of occasions: the Bill does not change the legal position that the direction and control of forces remains with the chief constable. Therefore, the basis of the legal relationship between police authorities and chief constables is maintained in the direction of control in the Bill.

Nevertheless, there is concern about ensuring the fundamental principle of the operational independence of chief constables, which we debated at considerable length in Committee. As we discussed at some length, there is no statutory definition of operational independence, and indeed, there is general agreement that it would be unwise to attempt such a definition. The matter has been considered on a number of occasions by the courts—my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) spoke of one key case. However, ACPO, which is concerned to ensure that the operational independence of chief officers is not in any way threatened, has said that it does not wish us to try to define it in law.

The debate on the proper role of the chief constable and the proper role of the local body that holds them to account will continue—as it does between police authorities and chief officers and others, with the matter sometimes ending up in court. That is part of what Sir Hugh Orde, the ACPO president, described—not pejoratively—as the tension that should exist in the relationship. However, as I said in Committee, to some extent, we are talking about shades of grey.

[Mark Reckless]

Is not one limitation of existing case law that an individual litigant—or a company such as International Trader’s Ferry—trying to get the chief constable to do something is different from the relationship that the Minister describes between the police authority and its statutory powers and the chief constable? The Home Affairs Committee heard from witnesses who felt that there is significant scope within the existing regime for police authorities to be more assertive in setting policy—it just happens that they have not done so.

[Nick Herbert]

My hon. Friend’s point is well made. However, the police and crime commissioner, who will have a mandate, could be more assertive. That is the basis and thrust of the chief constables’ concerns. I cited the example of London. The Mayor of London stood on a manifesto of placing uniformed officers on public transport and tackling knife crime. Whether that cut across the operational independence of the Met has been debated but not resolved, but it is significant that those things have happened, and the Metropolitan police have willingly implemented them. We must accept that, to some extent, there are areas of negotiation and shades of grey, which is why all parties agree that it would be a mistake to try to define in statute the notion of operational independence.

However, equally, we are all agreed—as I indicated on Second Reading, the Government were already minded to do this—on drawing up a protocol, as the Home Affairs Committee recommended, to try to set out the precise roles of the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable in the new arrangements, and to broaden the protocol to cover the role of the police and crime panel, given that that is new, and the role of the Home Secretary. It is worth stating that the Government’s intention in introducing that reform is not to abandon the tripartite, but to rebalance it, because we feel that it has been too distorted in the past, particularly in relation to the accrual of power by the centre and the Home Secretary.

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

Can the Minister enlighten us as to what would happen if someone breached the protocol?

[Nick Herbert]

May I come to that in a moment? I will address the status of the document shortly.

As I mentioned earlier, the Home Office has set up a transition board to discuss how the present system will migrate to the new one. One of the issues that we are discussing is the protocol; that work has begun. ACPO has nominated Chief Constable Adrian Lee of Northamptonshire police to be its representative. He will sit on a working party, alongside Home Office officials and representatives from other organisations including the Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Police Authority Chief Executives, to discuss the issue. Work is therefore ongoing.

17:00

I have to say to the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) that it was never going to be possible to produce a draft document in time for Report, and he knows that I never indicated that it would be. However, I have said that we will attempt to produce one in time for it to be considered in the other place. I hope that he will appreciate that that is being done with the best of intentions and at the fastest possible pace, given the complexity of the issue. It is worth reflecting on the fact that a similar protocol that was proposed in Northern Ireland by the Patten commission in 2004 was discussed over several years and has still not been put in place. That is partly because Patten recommended that the concept involved should be one of operational responsibility, and not independence. I note that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to use the words “operational responsibility” in his new clause. We are not using them ourselves, however; we are using “operational independence”. The work is ongoing, and it is our intention to try to produce something for the Lords. I am sorry that we have not had an opportunity to look at a draft here, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that the work is under way.

I want to turn to the status of the document. New clause 5 seeks to set out the memorandum of understanding in secondary legislation. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) asked what the consequences would be of not following the protocol. We envisage that this will be an extra-statutory document, and that it will be issued in the form of guidance. I am certainly willing to consider what the legal status of the document should be, and whether it should have some kind of statutory imprimatur, but we really need to see what it looks like first. We need to understand how granular it will be, and whether that would effectively define operational independence in a way that, so far, everyone has made it clear we should not so define it. I reassure the hon. Member for Gedling, however, that this matter should be considered, and I have no doubt that the other place will have a view on it.

[Mr Llwyd]

I thank the Minister for replying to my question in such short order, and in as much detail as he could muster. If he is saying that some form of legislative vehicle might encompass the protocol, would not regulation by statutory instrument be the obvious answer?

[Nick Herbert]

I repeat that we do not envisage this being a statutory document. It was originally called a memorandum of understanding by the Select Committee, and I do not think that the Committee’s recommendation envisaged it being a statutory document. Its purpose is to clarify the roles and responsibilities in law. In other words, it will be seeking not to set law but to explain what the law is. The danger is that we will be drawn into a means of setting law, when all the parties involved have so far said that we should not seek to define operational independence by statute. They have said that we should leave the matter to the understanding of the courts and the existing case law.

[Mark Reckless]

Will the Minister agree to supply the document, at least in draft form, to the Home Affairs Committee as well as to the House of Lords? The Association of Chief Police Officers and the Home Office are negotiating, but should not the negotiations be for the tripartite system, although we do not yet have the elected commissioners in place?

[Nick Herbert]

First, the Association of Police Authorities is certainly involved in the drafting; it is part of the group discussing the matter. I agree that negotiations must reflect the tripartite system, and I want to reassure my hon. Friend about that. As to supplying the draft to the Home Affairs Committee, I am happy to agree. Furthermore, if my hon. Friend would like to meet me and officials to discuss it further, I think it would assist our deliberations. I would like to organise that as soon as possible, bearing in mind the considerable experience that my hon. Friend brings as a member of a police authority with a particular view.

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s purpose in proposing amendment 149, according to which

“the police and crime commissioner shall have no involvement”

in deciding whether a person is investigated or directed. In fact, that is the existing common law principle and the courts have consistently stated that the Executive must not interfere in operational law enforcement decisions, so there is no need for that to be written expressly in the Bill.

I hope that the hon. Member for Gedling will accept the good faith with which I agreed with the recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee. I hope he will acknowledge that I have listened to the Association of Chief Police Officers and others who have expressed concern about operational independence; restated that we do not seek to cut across that principle; and confirmed that we will bring the draft document before Parliament at the earliest possible opportunity. I appreciate that he would have liked to see it sooner, but I hope he acknowledges the very considerable steps we have taken in this regard.

[Vernon Coaker]

Before I comment on the Minister’s remarks, I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) for his support on the issue of the necessity for this memorandum of understanding. It was interesting that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) commented on what was said by the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless)—that there was an expectation of no involvement. That is part of the problem. The Minister is right to say that the common law position precludes interference, but I am trying to deal with what will happen when the new model comes into effect, particularly the concern that it will change the parameters within which the policing model works.

[Mark Tami]

Given the sort of person who is going to be elected to the panels, might it not lead to an adversarial relationship almost from day one? Indeed, the person might have stood on a platform in order to take on the chief constable for something he had done.

[Vernon Coaker]

That is exactly the point. Concerns have rightly been raised about who will be elected and the mandate and manifesto on which they are elected, and particularly about the possibility of its being imposed on the chief constable. Those are very real concerns. The Minister knows that there is a general acceptance of trying not to define in statute too rigidly. I say sincerely that I appreciate he is acting in good faith. I did not say that he had promised to bring the matter before us on Report. My expectation was that he might have been able to do so, but he did not say that and I know that he has acted in good faith.

The Minister seems to have moved again in respect of this new clause. To be fair, it shows the difficulty of trying to navigate through this area, which is one of the most important parts of the Bill. None the less, I noted that the Minister said that he “may” decide that it is necessary to include a statutory legislative provision on which to base the protocol. I agree with the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Lywyd): it is essential for the Bill to contain a requirement with regard to the protocol.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

17:10

Division 243

Ayes: 216

---

Labour: 208
Plaid Cymru: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 311

---

Conservative: 267
Liberal Democrat: 42
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

New Clause 6

Issuing precepts

‘(1) The police and crime commissioner must notify the relevant police and crime panel (the “panel”) of the precept which the commissioner is proposing to issue for the financial year (the “proposed precept”).

(2) The panel must review the proposed precept and make a report to the commissioner on the proposed precept, which may include recommendations, including as to the proposed precept.

(3) The commissioner must respond in writing to the panel, either to accept the recommendations, in full or in part, or to reject them, and to state whether the proposed precept is revised or unchanged following consideration of the panel’s report.

(4) The proposed precept will then be fixed as the precept under section 40 of the Local Government Act 1992 unless the panel rejects the proposed precept by at least three-quarters of the persons who are members of the panel at such time voting for such rejection.

(5) If, following such rejection, the panel and the police and crime commissioner agree within 14 days a proposed precept, then the police and crime commissioner shall issue that proposed precept as the precept for the financial year.

(6) Otherwise the panel shall propose an alternative precept, and provision shall be made by the participating authorities for a referendum across the relevant police force area to determine whether the precept proposed by the commissioner, or the alternative precept proposed by the panel, shall be fixed as the precept for the financial year.

(7) The Secretary of State may make regulations with regard to the timing of the provisions of this Clause and the procedures that are to be followed in respect of a referendum described in sub-Clause (6).’.—(Mark Reckless.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mark Reckless]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 151, in clause 28, page 21, line 9, leave out ‘5 or’.

Amendment 152, page 112, line 15, leave out Schedule 5.

[Mark Reckless]

New clause 6 deals with the police and crime panel and, specifically, the powers that it may or may not have in respect of assessing and setting the precept. Ever since I first considered the issue of elected commissioners and their proper role, I have found the issue of budget setting particularly knotty and difficult. As a strong proponent of elected commissioners, I see a good argument for giving them the power to set the precept and the budget, and just letting them get on with that. I can see the argument that they have the mandate, so surely they should make the decision.

However, I have at least a slight concern about giving such significant budget-setting power over a whole electoral term to one individual. That is why I am attracted to some of the ideas we have heard, including from colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches, about the police and crime panel. There has been a very positive, highest common factor rather than a lowest common denominator approach, and the Bill has been improved through the interchange of ideas between Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members.

We have heard about the capping arrangements of the Labour party in recent years. There was capping under previous Conservative Governments but it seemed to become almost standard in Labour’s 13 years in government for Ministers to set a number—it was never quite clear how they determined that number—over which anything, regardless of the circumstances and however low the council tax base, was capped by central Government. That approach seems wrong to me and we have a proposal to deal with it in relation to local government: instead of having a Secretary of State—I assume for Communities and Local Government—capping a council above a certain level, that Secretary of State would have reserve powers to require a local referendum in an area where he considered an increase to be excessive. That strikes me as a reasonably sensible balance, and certainly an improvement on the status quo and the current capping power.

[Dr Huppert]

This issue is effectively about the principle of capping, which causes real problems. Is my hon. Friend aware, in the local government context, of councils in Cambridgeshire that used to charge zero council tax and were prevented by capping from charging any at all? We do not want the same sort of ridiculous problems happening with police precepts.

[Mark Reckless]

Yes, I am aware of that issue. The predecessor council to mine in Medway, Rochester upon Medway council, similarly had no council tax and when Medway took over as a unitary authority, we had one of the lowest council taxes in the country—virtually the lowest except for the Scilly Isles at one point. However, we had the same percentage limit as everyone else, so when central Government put a new burden on local government and we had to fund it as a fixed cost, we were less well-placed to do that because the amount we could get through a percentage increase was less than other councils that had previously had higher taxes could get.

A similar regime to that for local councils has applied to police authorities, but to an extent it has been less controversial than that for councils because police authorities have not had the same democratic mandate as local government. There are only nine elected councillors on my police authority among 17. It is true that the majority of those nine must approve the precept as well as a majority of the 17, but it is certainly less of a democratic mandate than that for local councils in which all the local councillors are elected. I have understood, previously, that when the Communities Secretary, rather than the Home Secretary, has capped an authority, that has not been popular with the authority, but I have understood why it happened. However, I can see the attraction of moving from that to a referendum power as we are doing with local government.

I think there is a potential problem or issue, which I hope can be resolved through the Bill or its application, with bringing in the new body—the local police and crime panel. The panel will have a representative from every council in the police area, and I particularly welcome the involvement of district councils, which have been so important in developing crime and disorder reduction partnerships and community safety partnerships. Their involvement on the ground will be a real advantage: it will bring real insight to the commissioner and the force and it will pull local government more generally into the new arrangements. We hear a lot about the Local Government Association or police authorities not liking the new arrangements, and people who have a particular stake in the existing process might say that, but the districts coming in is going to be a real gain.

There is dispute about how strong the panel will be, and its powers are characterised in various ways, but one of its key powers will be its oversight and scrutiny of the budget. It is proposed that, in extremis, if three quarters of the panel agree, the panel can exercise what is described as a veto in the Bill, and paragraphs 7 and 8 of schedule 5 prescribe that the Secretary of State can make further regulations on that. In Committee, the Minister described some of his intentions for the regulations, but I am a little unclear about that because the regulations referred to in the Bill seem to be about how that veto process will work, whereas quite a lot of the detail that the Minister gave to the Committee seemed to refer to when or where there would be a referendum and the Secretary of State’s involvement. That is one of the issues, because it is envisaged in the Localism Bill that the Secretary of State will have referendum-calling powers and will presumably use regulations to determine how that happens. It is envisaged in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill that the panel will have a veto and that there will be regulations on that. The crossover is not clear. There will be a directly elected individual who will come to office with a great mandate. One of his responsibilities is to set the budget and the precept, yet there are two other bodies—the panel and the Secretary of State; it is not clear whether it is the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government or the Home Secretary—who have at least some locus standi in setting the budget.

17:30

We have to trust the commissioner generally to get on with it. There should be a reserve power, so that in extremis if there is a serious problem with the commissioner or if he does something that is completely out of line, the body with that power can come in and mitigate the problem. However, I am not convinced that we need two bodies, with the panel supposedly exercising a veto and the Secretary of State possibly requiring a referendum. It is not quite clear how those two things work together. The new clause would try to achieve greater clarity with a focus on the local and democratic. The Bill refers to giving the panel a veto, but when I read what the Minister said about what the regulations would do, it was not clear that it was a veto. If what is described as a veto is exercised, the elected commissioner has to “have regard to” that. We heard in the preceding debate how difficult that phrase can be. Having had regard to the veto, the commissioner can propose another figure—presumably, it would be at least marginally different—and can set it as the precept for the coming year.

Does the phrase “have regard to” mean that the commissioner has to do what the panel wants or, at the other extreme, is it envisaged that he can just come back with something marginally different, and that is his decision as the commissioner? Are we saying that we cannot really make up our mind and that the courts have to decide all this and there will be litigation? That does not strike me as ideal, so I hope that, perhaps in the other place, we will reach agreement on this issue.

[Dr Huppert]

I am interested in the point that the hon. Gentleman made about having to use litigation. There is serious concern about what would happen if, when a budget was set, there was uncertainty and we had to use court orders. I am sure that he is aware of the cost of rebilling, and there is an important principle that we want to set all the amounts of council tax, while we still have council tax, at the same time, rather than send out multiple letters, which would just add to the cost of that process.

[Mark Reckless]

In my reference to litigation, I was alluding to the fact that the prospect of dispute, at least on the first occasion, given the narrow time scales and the costs of rebilling, would not be a positive thing. I have worked closely with my hon. Friend on the Home Affairs Committee on the issue—his hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) is strongly involved in these issues too— and I feel that there is a significant measure of agreement between us. In the coalition, it is important that we decide what we want to do, and state that clearly in the Bill and subsequent regulations so that we do not face the prospect of litigation.

Some Liberal Democrats may like the idea of a complete veto for the panel, but I am not sure that many of my Conservative colleagues would necessarily agree, given that the commissioner has a directly elected mandate and the members of the panel are appointed. However, I am convinced that a measure of financial oversight by the panel and by the councillors from every council who serve on it would be valuable. It will keep the commissioner linked in to local government, which is extremely important. The Minister has a criminal justice portfolio, and there is extraordinary scope for the elected commissioners to act in the wider criminal justice area. However, we do not want a great division to open up between local government and the work of the elected commissioner in criminal justice, so that knitting together is important.

[Steve McCabe]

I recognise that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this element, but if it is valid to argue that the commissioner must be virtually in a negotiation position with the panel so that they arrive at the right decision on the precept, I do not understand why, in every other respect, the commissioner should be able to arrive at his decision independently, with the role of the panel being simply to scrutinise it. Why does the hon. Gentleman make an exception in relation to the precept? Surely the logic of his argument is that the panel should have a different set of powers in relation to the commissioner.

[Mark Reckless]

The power over the precept is an extraordinarily important one, particularly over the whole elected term of the commissioner. Even I, as a strong supporter of directly elected commissioners, would be slightly nervous about one individual on his own taking those budgetary decisions for a number of years. I welcome the involvement of the panel in that, but I do not envisage a constant negotiation—[Interruption.] I apologise to the House.

A three quarters majority will be required. What is needed is almost a reserve power, so that if the commissioner wants to slash the budget massively against the will of the local area, or put through really hefty increases, there is some oversight and some way that that can be mitigated. The panel is a sensible body to do that, but we need to be clear what it would then do. Would it veto the plans and would the commissioner be obliged to accept that, or would it just say, “Go away and think again”?

The present wording, “have regard to”, represents an intended compromise, but leads to considerable uncertainty. As none of us wants to see litigation on this aspect, I am proposing instead that we bolster the local crime panel with a clear power. That will not necessarily be a veto as, if it is, it will be a soft veto. If the panel was seriously worried about the precept, there could be a referendum in the local area. The members of the panel would be appointed by the councils in that area, so those councils would bear the cost of a referendum. They would think long and hard before calling a referendum if they were paying for it.

That arrangement would provide some protection. If the commissioner went off in one direction, away from others, it would give some possibility of pulling him back, but it would not make him subject to the panel, because the commissioner would have the directly elected mandate, whereas the panel would be appointed. Giving the panel the power to require a referendum would be a sensible way forward.

We may be envisaging a referendum power, but it seems that we are expecting to import parts of the Localism Bill into the policing environment, when we already have a separate police and crime panel as a check on the elected commissioner, whereas we do not have a similar check in local government. I propose that the two should be distinct and that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government should have the power of referendum for local councils, but in the policing universe where we are setting up a panel that will be representative, that panel should be responsible. In extremis, it would have the power to call a referendum on the local precept. We therefore would not need the central oversight and dictation of the Secretary of State in this area.

The new clause would bring greater clarity and provide the local and democratic arrangements that we need. I commend it to the House.

[Steve McCabe]

I shall be brief. I am intrigued that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) has tabled the new clause. It is a matter of great regret that he was not a member of the Committee that scrutinised the Bill. What we are beginning to hear in his contributions is how much doubt exists in the hearts of Conservative Back Benchers about some of the key elements of the Bill. That was evident in some of his earlier amendments, but it is extremely evident in this group. He is prepared to tolerate a single elected individual having enormous power over the shape and influence of an area police force over a four-year cycle. He is prepared to tolerate a police and crime plan that might change the shape and direction of the force beyond all recognition. Despite being a loyal and active member of a police authority that has massive experience and whose benefits he regularly tells us about, he is prepared to put up with all those measures.

The hon. Gentleman realises in his heart the fundamental danger that, if the Government persist with their present approach to cuts in police funding, at some stage authorities in parts of the country of the kind he represents will be on a collision course with the Government. The police commissioner will be forced to look at the question of the precept as a means of off-setting the budget cuts that the force is facing. The hon. Gentleman does not want to be in that position when a single elected police commissioner is able to bring forward a proposal for a hugely increased precept, because he fears what the electors in his area will say about that and the repercussions for himself and his party followers.

[Mark Reckless]

I must say that that really is not the case and has not been my experience. In Kent we have been able to find significant savings in our budget while protecting the front line and, in the words of our chief constable, have an opportunity to have a more efficient and effective force. As an elected Member, I looked to constituents in the private sector who are suffering and wanted to see some savings made in the police budget. My colleagues did not agree this year—they perhaps did not have the same direct election focus—but then they did come to realise this and we found significant savings. It is because we have that democratic element that we are able to find the savings and get the police to operate more efficiently, and the elected commissioners should be able to do that even better.

[Steve McCabe]

That democratic element cannot be fundamentally unique in relation to setting the precept but absolutely different in relation to any other aspect of the work of the commissioner. It is my contention that the people who support the amendment fear what will happen when the precept has to be ratcheted up to compensate for the cuts. They know that there will be massive electoral consequences and so are seeking to insert a device to denude the commissioner of the one power that they fear more than any other.

[Dr Huppert]

I am not sure that I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he not agree that the precept is in some sense absolutely key to what is happening, because it sets the total envelope of resource available to a chief constable to do their job? It is one of the most fundamental decisions that could be made by the commissioner.

[Steve McCabe]

If I was to stand as a candidate for police commissioner and was setting out my stall for the kind of police force I would want to see, I would not have to put on my election material the caveat, “By the way, I’ll have no power over the fundamental decision about funding.” With the greatest respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The Government are trying to have it both ways: they want to create political commissars to run the police, but they also want to retain the power to mitigate the risk that the commissioner might come up with a precept that is unacceptable to the electorate. That is classically what is wrong with the Bill. It is designed to give the commissioner power in the areas that suit the Government, but at the heart of the Conservative party there is a doubt about that. The Government are trying to back the proposal while simultaneously watering down its key element because they fear that the course of action that they have embarked on will have electoral consequences for them.

[Michael Ellis]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether the previous Labour Government did something very similar on elected mayors?

[Steve McCabe]

I am talking about police commissioners, although I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not particularly a fan of elected mayors. However, if we are going to have mayors, I would have them elected, not imposed under a shadowing arrangement first, because that suggests that there is some doubt about their validity. If he wants to talk about elected mayors, he should move on to safer ground.

17:45

I have doubts about the intention behind the new clause. I admire the dedication that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood shows on these issues. I wonder why, however, some Government Members are happy to swallow all the other elements, but on the key element of finance, want the power to water down the powers and take hold of the commissioner.

[Dr Huppert]

I am still unclear. If the hon. Gentleman does not support the alternative in the new clause, is he saying that he prefers the existing mechanism, which involves the Secretary of State? Which is he arguing for, or is he arguing against both?

[Steve McCabe]

I am saying quite simply that the nature of the existing powers, as I understand them, would give the Secretary of State the right to intervene. If the Government do not have faith in their own system, it seems right that they should have the power to intervene. However, what I do not want is a scheme that says, “We’re in favour of police commissioners, but by the way we’re going to limit their power when it comes to the area where we think there could be electoral disadvantage for us.”

[Dr Huppert]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). We have spent much time together on the Bill Committee, on a previous Bill Committee and in the Home Affairs Select Committee crossing swords on some of these issues. I am encouraged by the new clause in the name of the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), because it would do some useful things for which I argued in Committee. It talks about strengthening the panel. We talked earlier about the Liberal Democrats’ initial manifesto commitment to having a strong panel, and there have been negotiations among the different sides about how to fit the two models together. However, the new clause moves in the direction I tend to prefer, so as ever it is a pleasure to work with him.

The new clause also leans more towards local accountability, which to me is very important. I have always been a localist—not only since the formation of the coalition Government—and I think that this policy should be about local determination. That was what was wrong with capping council taxes. We had councils that could not make sensible decisions owing to capping powers and because the Secretary of State was too remote from what was going on locally. Those councils could not make sensible decisions whether on tiny increases in very low council taxes, because those increases went above a certain percentage, or on moving from a council tax of zero, which was possible in a few rather unusual places, because any increase broke the percentage rule.

What the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak said was interesting. First, there is the issue of the precept. Why is the precept different from all other areas? We could adjust a whole lot of different premises, but the precept is the key. As I said in my intervention, it is what determines how much money is available to the chief constable. If only one decision could be made by a commissioner each year, the total amount of cash is surely the one for which we would want to provide the most control. It is also the one on which there would not be advice and policy guidance from other bodies on how to operate and what the constraints might be. It is properly a decision to be taken locally.

There are questions about what one does if a commissioner makes a decision that is held to be unreasonable by other people locally. This applies whether to a commissioner or a council leader. Whatever the structure, there will always be situations in which there is disagreement about whether something is being done appropriately. The question is: how do we resolve that disagreement? I was interested in the response that the hon. Gentleman gave to my question. He seemed to be arguing for the Secretary of State to have that power, but that is precisely the opposite of the localist agenda that I would like put in place. The Secretary of State should not be interfering in how the precept is set. They should do their utmost not to have anything to do with it, if possible. They should have a role in setting the framework, but they should not have the power to say, “That is too much. I’m the Secretary of State and I say so.”

[Steve McCabe]

Perhaps I can clarify matters a fraction for the hon. Gentleman. My point is that the police Minister and the Secretary of State inevitably have some responsibilities for the police that go beyond localism, as was discussed extensively in Committee. In fact, if I recall rightly, we discussed what would happen if the budget was set too low and therefore did not enable the police force to fulfil its obligations. The argument that the Minister advanced at the time was that the Secretary of State should have the power to step in. The hon. Gentleman seems to arguing for a pure form of localism that completely ignores that—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Interventions are becoming increasingly lengthy, and they need to be rather shorter.

[Dr Huppert]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, although this is a matter of great interest, so I have sympathy for the hon. Gentleman, having made my own mistakes earlier this afternoon. I lean towards pure localism. Let us remember that the people on the panel making the decision will be councillors appointed by their local authorities. In Cambridgeshire, for example, I find it hard to see how, say, the representative from Cambridge city council could look at a budget that was insufficient to provide the basic policing and say, “Yeah, that’s fine. I can’t be bothered to interfere with this one.” I do not have that lack of faith in our local councils or our local democratic system. I have concerns, although I prefer the new clause to the original proposals, under which the Secretary of State would have had a strong role. However, I do not entirely agree with everything in the new clause. In particular, I am not comfortable with the idea of having to have a three-quarters majority, which we discussed in Committee, as Members will know. I tend towards a somewhat lower figure.

[Michael Ellis]

My hon. Friend has misgivings about having a 75% majority, but does he not feel that it ought to be that high, because that is what would be required to overrule a democratically elected figure, which ought to be a severe circumstance and rare happening?

[Dr Huppert]

It is important to remember that, with the exception of the two independents—another example of how I would not have designed the system—the majority of panel members will be democratically elected, representing their councils in their system. They are not directly democratically elected, but they are indirectly democratically elected. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know, the model in London is a two-thirds majority for scrutiny of a democratically elected individual, so I am more comfortable with two thirds. That does not make a huge difference for a typically sized panel, which will have 12 people. We said in Committee that the difference will be between nine votes and eight votes, but it is more useful to look at it the other way. In order to stop the veto, the commission would have to get four or five people either to vote with him or not to be there. That makes a bigger difference as the panel gets bigger.

The structure of the new clause is more positive than has been described, because it leans towards trying to have sensible discussions and negotiations. It starts with a commissioner making a proposal. Then the panel looks at the proposal and comments on it, before the commissioner works out what he will do. Unless it is vetoed, the precept is set, but if it is vetoed, it does not go to a referendum straight away. Ultimately, that is something that we are all trying to avoid, because of the associated costs of running unnecessary referendums and the risk of re-billing, which is a particular problem with this issue and capping. There is then another opportunity, over 14 days, for the two sides to negotiate and see whether they can come to a more sensible arrangement that works for both of them. Only if that is not possible is a further step taken.

That step is not about saying, “Secretary of State, tell us what to do. It’s up to you.” It is about saying that what should be done is up to local people. It is up to the commissioner to set one option and the panel to set another, and then the public will decide which they prefer. That is a much more appropriate way of doing things. The panel would act responsibly when it came to cost, with the exception of the independents, who do not have that responsibility and are a piece of undemocratic grit in the system. However, it will be local decision making that makes a difference. Local people should have a say in how their precept should be set and how their policing should be run. That is what I would like to see. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) has moved the new clause for discussion, and I hope that the Government will consider it carefully.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It feels as though I have entered a meeting of the Home Affairs Committee, which is where I was yesterday, but I am not going to talk about the Metropolitan police in quite the same way today.

I sympathise with some of the arguments about localism which have been advanced by the hon. Members for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who spoke in favour of the new clause, but I say to them that, although there may be a natural constituency in some police authorities, in many there is not. In the South Wales police area, for instance, it is not easy to conceive of a single constituency of interest. The area does not exist in any other denomination, as it were, and it crosses local authority boundaries, brings together Swansea and Cardiff, which is something extraordinary in itself, and brings the valleys together with two of the three big cities of south Wales, so it would be very difficult to come to a really local idea.

The new clause is primarily about money, however, so I want to ask the Minister a few questions. I realise that he may not be able to answer this evening, but I hope that he will write to me on some of these matters, because they are—in relation to chapter 6, in particular—quite important.

The Bill partially determines the way in which somebody is elected, but there is a great deal more work to be done on exactly how the electoral system will work—for precisely the reason that I mentioned: the constituencies do not exist. New constituencies are being created, and we need to ensure that, in terms of how elections are managed, there is some consistency within the constituency that we create. I just wonder whether—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I just gently point out to the hon. Member for Rhondda that it is on the subject of precepts that he will want to focus his remarks?

[Chris Bryant]

I know I am chancing my arm, Mr Speaker, but I cannot chance it anywhere else on Report, and these issues have not yet been covered.

Of course, the issue of precepts is fundamentally about money.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I just remind the hon. Gentleman that there will be an opportunity on Third Reading for him to dilate? Whether that is convenient for him is unknown to me—but it might be appropriate.

[Chris Bryant]

Mr Speaker, I do not know whether you really want me to dilate at any point.

I was merely trying to say that, on the matter of money, which is the point at hand, there is a question about how any commissioner would be able to make sure that in advance of future elections there was enough money to be able to pay for the process of explaining to the electorate the supplementary voting system, which will not have been used in many other parts of the country. I would be grateful if the Minister were able to expand on how he will achieve that, on the precise powers that will be available to the Electoral Commission and on when he will bring forward supplementary powers in relation to that.

Having chanced my arm as far as I think you will allow, Mr Speaker, I surrender to the rest of the debate.

[Nick Herbert]

In the three minutes that are now available to me, I will have to try to explain why my hon. Friend’s approach is interesting but wrong in relation to how the precept is dealt with.

I explained in Committee the process following a veto, and the Home Secretary will set that out in regulations. They will require, as the amendment would, that the police and crime commissioner considers the panel’s recommendations and then proposes an amended precept, which must take the panel’s recommendations into account.

This is where the Bill diverges from the proposed changes, however. Under the regulations that we propose, we say that, if the amended precept is “excessive” under the definition in the Localism Bill, the police and crime commissioner will set the precept but a referendum will be triggered. The panel will not be able to prevent that, but it will be able to propose an alternative precept with accompanying reasons that will have to be published. The public will then have to decide—having both sides of the story.

[Dr Huppert]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Herbert]

I do not have time, I am afraid.

As we envisage the situation, the public will be able to decide whether to go with the police and crime commissioner’s precept, but only when a precept is excessive. Under the changes that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) proposes, however, the public would decide every time a panel vetoed a precept, unless the commissioner and the panel were able to reach an agreement within two weeks of the vote. We have not gone down that route, despite considering it very carefully, because referendums are very expensive and the police and crime commissioner would have to pay for them on each occasion. If the commissioner’s amended precept is not excessive within the Localism Bill definition, regulations will require the proposal to go again before the panel. Following that, the police and crime commissioner will be able to set the precept without a referendum. He or she must consider the panel’s recommendations. Where the panel has voted again to reject that precept, he or she must publish the panel’s alternative precept and its reasons and must set out in the same document why he or she did not implement the panel’s proposals.

I accept that the public must have a role in deciding what precept they pay, and under our policy they will have one, or potentially two, opportunities to do this—once when they elect their police and crime commissioner, and again when a police and crime commissioner sets an excessive precept.

18:00

Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.

Question negatived.

The Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

Clause 5

Police and crime commissioners to issue police and crime plans

Amendments made: 6, page 5, line 32, at end insert

‘if, and to the extent that, the plan or variation is different from the draft prepared in accordance with subsection (6)’.

Amendment 7, page 6, line 11, after ‘plan’, insert ‘or variation’.—(Nick Herbert.)

Clause 6

Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime to issue police and crime plans

Amendments made: 8, page 6, line 44, at end insert

‘if, and to the extent that, the plan or variation is different from the draft prepared in accordance with subsection (6)’.

Amendment 9, page 7, line 12, leave out ‘and (7) to (8A)’ and insert

‘(7) to (8A), and (10) to (12)’.—(Nick Herbert.)

Clause 10

Co-operative working

Amendments made: 10, page 10, line 4, leave out ‘in’ and insert ‘for’.

Amendment 11, page 10, line 27, at end insert—

‘“functions” does not include functions which are exercisable only in relation to Wales and relate to matters in relation to which the Welsh Ministers have functions;’.—(Nick Herbert.)

Clause 18

Delegation of functions by police and crime commissioners

Amendment made: 12, page 14, line 8, after ‘arrange’, insert ‘under this section’.—(Nick Herbert.)

Clause 19

Delegation of functions by Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime

Amendment made: 13, page 15, line 8, leave out from ‘of’ to end of line 9 and insert

‘the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime which is, in accordance with subsection (1), exercisable by the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime.’.—(Nick Herbert.)

Clause 25

Other grants etc under Police Act 1996

Amendment made: 15, page 19, line 20, leave out sub-paragraph (ii).—(Nick Herbert.)

Clause 28

Police and crime panels of local authorities

Amendments made: 16, page 20, line 22, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

‘(1) Each police area, other than the metropolitan police district, is to have a police and crime panel established and maintained in accordance with Schedule (Police and crime panels) (police and crime panels).’.

Amendment 17, page 20, line 33, leave out ‘elected local policing body’ and insert ‘police and crime commissioner’.

Amendment 18, page 21, line 12, leave out from ‘commissioner’ to end of line 15 and insert—

‘(6A) The police and crime panel for a police area in England must send copies of any such reports or recommendations to each local authority whose area falls wholly or partly within the police area.’.

Amendment 19, page 21, line 18, leave out from beginning to end of line 28 and insert—

‘(8) Schedule (Police and crime panels) (police and crime panels) has effect.

(9) In this section “local authority” means a county council or a district council.’.—(Nick Herbert.)

Clause 29

Power to require attendance and information

Amendment made: 20, page 21, line 33, at end insert—

‘( ) Nothing in subsection (1) requires a member of the police and crime commissioner’s staff to give any evidence, or produce any document, which discloses advice given to the commissioner by that person.’.—(Nick Herbert.)

Clause 30

Suspension of police and crime commissioner

Amendment made: 14, page 22, line 16, leave out ‘of two years or more’ and insert ‘exceeding two years’.—(Nick Herbert.)

Clause 103

Interpretation of Part 1

Amendment made: 21, page 64, line 38, leave out ‘established under’ and insert ‘referred to in subsection (1) of’.—(Nick Herbert.)

New Schedule 1

‘Police and crime panels

Part 1

Type of panel which police area is to have

England

1 (1) Each police area in England, other than the metropolitan police district, is to have a police and crime panel established and maintained in accordance with Part 2 of this Schedule.

(2) But the Secretary of State may, by order, provide that any such police area is to have (for as long as the order has effect) a police and crime panel established and maintained in accordance with Part 3 of this Schedule (instead of a panel established and maintained in accordance with Part 2).

(3) The Secretary of State may make an order under sub-paragraph (2) in relation to a single-authority police area only if the Secretary of State is of the opinion that the relevant local authority has failed to nominate or appoint one or more of its councillors as members of the panel in accordance with paragraphs 6 and 9.

(4) The Secretary of State may make an order under sub-paragraph (2) in relation to a multi-authority police area only if the Secretary of State is of the opinion that all the relevant local authorities have (whether at the same time or at different times) failed to nominate or appoint one or more of their councillors as members of the panel—

(a) in accordance with paragraphs 7 and 9 (in the case of a police area which covers ten or more local authorities), or

(b) in accordance with paragraphs 8 and 9 (in the case of a police area which covers nine or fewer local authorities).

Wales

2 Each police area in Wales is to have a police and crime panel established and maintained in accordance with Part 3 of this Schedule.

Part 2

Panels established by local authorities

Establishment and maintenance of panels

3 (1) This Part of this Schedule applies in relation to each police area in England (other than the metropolitan police district), unless an order under paragraph 1(2) has effect in relation to the police area.

(2) The local authority or local authorities which such a police area covers must—

(a) establish and maintain a police and crime panel for the police area, and

(b) make the panel arrangements (see paragraph 23) for the police and crime panel.

(3) In the case of a multi-authority police area, all the relevant local authorities must agree to the making or modification of the panel arrangements.

(4) In the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule, a reference to a police and crime panel is a reference to a panel established and maintained in accordance with this paragraph.

Membership and status

4 (1) A police and crime panel for a police area is to consist of the following members—

(a) the relevant number of persons properly appointed as members of the panel; and

(b) two members co-opted by the panel.

(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), the “relevant number” is—

(a) ten (if the police area covers ten or fewer local authorities); or

(b) the number that is equal to the number of local authorities which the police area covers (if the police area covers eleven or more local authorities).

(3) A police and crime panel is—

(a) a committee of the relevant local authority (if it is the panel for a single-authority police area), or

(b) a joint committee of the relevant local authorities (if it is the panel for a multi-authority police area).

(4) A police and crime panel may not exercise any functions other than those conferred by this Act.

Persons properly appointed as members of panels

5 (1) In this Part of this Schedule, a reference to a person properly appointed as a member of a police and crime panel is a reference to—

(a) a person nominated by a relevant local authority to be a member of the panel, and appointed by the authority as a member of the panel, in accordance with paragraphs 6 and 9, paragraphs 7 and 9, or paragraphs 8 and 9, or

(b) a person nominated by the Secretary of State to be a member of the panel, and appointed by the Secretary of State as a member of the panel, in accordance with paragraph 10.

(2) In the case of the police and crime panel for a multi-authority police area which covers nine or fewer local authorities, the panel arrangements must make provision as to the relevant local authority or authorities who are to have power to appoint the extra members of the panel (see paragraph 8(3)(b)).

(3) For that purpose “extra members” means the number of members of the panel produced by this calculation—

where L is the number of local authorities which the police area covers.

Single-authority police area: nomination by local authority

6 (1) This paragraph applies in relation to the police and crime panel for a single-authority police area.

(2) If the number of appointed members of the police and crime panel is less than the full complement, the relevant local authority may nominate the appropriate number of its councillors to be members of the police and crime panel.

(3) A relevant local authority may not make a nomination under this paragraph if, and for as long as, a notice given to the authority by the Secretary of State under paragraph 10(8) is in force.

(4) In this paragraph—

“appropriate number” means the number that is equal to the difference between—

(a) the full complement; and

(b) the number of appointed members of the panel;

“full complement” means ten members.

Police area covering ten or more local authorities: nomination by local authority

7 (1) This paragraph applies in relation to the police and crime panel for a police area which covers ten or more local authorities.

(2) In a case where—

(a) the number of appointed members of the police and crime panel is less than the full complement, and

(b) there is no member of the panel who was appointed by a particular relevant local authority,

the authority may nominate one of its councillors to be a member of the police and crime panel.

(3) A relevant local authority may not make a nomination under this paragraph if, and for as long as, a notice given to the authority by the Secretary of State under paragraph 10(8) is in force.

(4) In this paragraph, “full complement” means the number of appointed members which the panel is to have by virtue of paragraph 4(1)(a).

Multi-authority police area covering nine or fewer local authorities: nomination by local authority

8 (1) This paragraph applies in relation to the police and crime panel for a multi-authority police area which covers nine or fewer local authorities.

(2) In a case where—

(a) the number of appointed members of the police and crime panel is less than the full complement,

(b) a particular relevant local authority does not have power under the panel arrangements to appoint an extra member of the panel (see paragraph 5(2)), and

(c) there is no member of the panel who was appointed by the authority,

the authority may nominate one of its councillors to be a member of the police and crime panel.

(3) In a case where—

(a) the number of appointed members of the police and crime panel is less than the full complement,

(b) a particular relevant local authority has power under the panel arrangements to appoint one or more extra members of the panel (see paragraph 5(2)), and

(c) the number of members of the panel who are members by virtue of appointment by the authority is less than the authority’s quota of members,

the authority may nominate the permitted number of its councillors to be members of the police and crime panel.

(4) A relevant local authority may not make a nomination under this paragraph if, and for as long as, a notice given to the authority by the Secretary of State under paragraph 10(8) is in force.

(5) In this paragraph, in relation to a police and crime panel and a relevant local authority—

“full complement” means ten members;

“permitted number” means the number that is equal to the difference between—

(a) the authority’s quota of members; and

(b) the number of members of the panel who are members by virtue of appointment by the authority;

“quota of members” means the number of members calculated by adding one to the number of extra members of the panel which the authority has power to appoint under the panel arrangements (see paragraph 5(2)).

Appointment after nomination by local authority

9 (1) This paragraph applies where a relevant local authority makes a nomination under paragraph 6, 7 or 8.

(2) If the nominee accepts the nomination, the relevant local authority may appoint the nominated councillor as a member of the panel.

(3) If the nominee does not accept the nomination, the relevant local authority may nominate another of its councillors to be a member of the police and crime panel (and sub-paragraph (2) or this sub-paragraph applies accordingly, as if the nomination were made under paragraph 6, 7 or 8).

Failure of local authority to appoint member: nomination and appointment by Secretary of State

10 (1) This paragraph applies if the Secretary of State is satisfied that—

(a) the number of appointed members of a police and crime panel is less than the full complement, and

(b) a relevant local authority (the “defaulting local authority”)—

(i) has failed to nominate or appoint one or more of its councillors as members of the panel in accordance with paragraphs 6 and 9, paragraphs 7 and 9, or paragraphs 8 and 9, or

(ii) does not have power to make such a nomination and appointment because of paragraph 6(3), 7(3) or 8(4).

(2) The Secretary of State must nominate the appropriate number of persons who are councillors of relevant local authorities to be members of the police and crime panel.

(3) Sub-paragraph (4) or (5) applies in relation to each nomination which the Secretary of State is required to make under sub-paragraph (2).

(4) If the nominee accepts the nomination, the Secretary of State must appoint the nominated councillor as a member of the panel.

(5) If the nominee does not accept the nomination, the Secretary of State must nominate another person who is a councillor of a relevant local authority to be a member of the police and crime panel (and sub-paragraph (4) or this sub-paragraph applies accordingly, as if the nomination were made under sub-paragraph (2)).

(6) In complying with this paragraph in relation to the police and crime panel for a multi-authority police area, the Secretary of State must secure (as far as is reasonably practicable) that the fair representation objective is met.

(7) The “fair representation objective” referred to in sub-paragraph (6) is—

(a) in the case of a police area which covers ten or more local authorities, the objective that each relevant local authority has only one of its councillors as a member of the panel;

(b) in the case of a police area which covers nine or fewer local authorities, the objective that each relevant local authority has at least one of its councillors as a member of the panel.

(8) If the Secretary of State—

(a) is satisfied that a relevant local authority has failed to nominate or appoint one or more of its councillors as members of the panel as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b), and

(b) is considering whether to exercise, has decided to exercise, or has exercised, the power under this paragraph to make a nomination,

the Secretary of State may give the authority notice that the Secretary of State is satisfied as mentioned in paragraph (a) of this sub-paragraph.

(9) A notice given under sub-paragraph (8) may be withdrawn by the Secretary of State at any time.

(10) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b)(i), it is irrelevant that a relevant local authority which has failed to nominate or appoint a councillor as a member of the panel—

(a) may have power under any of paragraphs 6 to 9 to make a further nomination; or

(b) is complying with, or has complied with, the panel arrangements relating to that panel.

(11) In this paragraph—

“appropriate number” means the number that is equal to the difference between—

(a) the full complement; and

(b) the number of appointed members of the panel;

“full complement” means the number of appointed members which the panel is to have by virtue of paragraph 4(1)(a).

Costs of the panel

11 (1) This paragraph applies to a multi-authority panel.

(2) The panel arrangements must make provision about—

(a) how the relevant local authorities are to meet the costs of the panel; and

(b) insofar as the provision is necessary, how funds paid (whether by the Secretary of State or otherwise) to meet the costs of the panel are to be paid to, or distributed between, the relevant local authorities.

Part 3

Panels established by the Secretary of State

Establishment and maintenance of panels

12 (1) This Part of this Schedule applies in relation to—

(a) each police area in Wales, and

(b) each police area in England in relation to which an order under paragraph 1(2) has effect.

(2) The Secretary of State must—

(a) establish and maintain a separate police and crime panel for each police area to which this Part of this Schedule applies, and

(b) make the panel arrangements (see paragraph 23) for each police and crime panel established and maintained in accordance with this paragraph.

(3) The Secretary of State may make different panel arrangements for different police and crime panels.

(4) In the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule, a reference to a police and crime panel is a reference to a panel established and maintained in accordance with this paragraph.

Membership and status

13 (1) A police and crime panel for a police area is to consist of the following members—

(a) the relevant number of persons appointed by the Secretary of State as members of the panel; and

(b) two members co-opted by the panel.

(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), the “relevant number” is—

(a) ten (if the police area covers ten or fewer local authorities); or

(b) the number that is equal to the number of local authorities which the police area covers (if the police area covers eleven or more local authorities).

(3) A police and crime panel is not a committee or joint committee of any local authority or local authorities.

Wales: persons appointed by the Secretary of State as members of panels

14 In this Part of this Schedule, a reference to a person appointed by the Secretary of State as a member of a Welsh police and crime panel is a reference to—

(a) a person nominated by a relevant local authority to be a member of the panel, and appointed by the Secretary of State as a member of the panel, in accordance with paragraph 16(2) to (4)(a), or

(b) a person nominated by the Secretary of State to be a member of the panel, and appointed by the Secretary of State as a member of the panel, in accordance with paragraph 16(4)(b) to (6).

Wales: Secretary of State to ask local authorities to nominate members of panels

15 (1) This paragraph applies in relation to a Welsh police and crime panel if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the number of appointed members of the panel is less than the full complement.

(2) In the case of a police and crime panel for a single-authority police area, the Secretary of State must ask the relevant local authority to nominate the appropriate number of the authority’s councillors to be members of the panel.

(3) In the case of a police and crime panel for a multi-authority police area, the Secretary of State must—

(a) decide which of the relevant local authorities to ask to make nominations under this sub-paragraph (the “nominating authorities”);

(b) decide what number of nominations under this sub-paragraph each nominating authority is to be asked to make; and

(c) ask each nominating authority to nominate that number of the authority’s councillors to be members of the panel.

(4) In complying with sub-paragraph (3), the Secretary of State must secure—

(a) that the number of nominations which the nominating authority or authorities are asked to make (when taken together) is equal to the appropriate number; and

(b) that (as far as is reasonably practicable) the fair representation objective is met.

(5) The “fair representation objective” referred to in sub-paragraph (4)(b) is—

(a) in the case of a police area which covers ten or more local authorities, the objective that each relevant local authority has only one of its councillors as a member of the panel;

(b) in the case of a police area which covers nine or fewer local authorities, the objective that each relevant local authority has at least one of its councillors as a member of the panel.

(6) In this paragraph—

“appropriate number” means the number that is equal to the difference between—

(a) the full complement; and

(b) the number of appointed members of the panel;

“full complement” means the number of appointed members which the panel is to have by virtue of paragraph 13(1)(a).

Wales: consequences of Secretary of State asking local authorities to make nominations

16 (1) This paragraph applies if, under paragraph 15, the Secretary of State asks a relevant local authority to nominate a councillor to be a member of a Welsh police and crime panel.

(2) The authority may make the nomination.

(3) If the authority makes the nomination, and the nominee accepts the nomination, the Secretary of State must appoint the nominated councillor as a member of the police and crime panel.

(4) If the authority fails to make the nomination, or the nominee does not accept the nomination, the Secretary of State must either—

(a) ask the authority to make another nomination (and sub-paragraph (2), and sub-paragraph (3) or this sub-paragraph, apply accordingly, as if the request were made under paragraph 15); or

(b) nominate a person who is a councillor of a relevant local authority to be a member of the police and crime panel.

(5) If the nominee accepts a nomination made under sub-paragraph (4)(b), the Secretary of State must appoint the nominated councillor as a member of the panel.

(6) If the nominee does not accept the nomination, the Secretary of State must nominate another person who is a councillor of a relevant local authority to be a member of the police and crime panel (and sub-paragraph (5) or this sub-paragraph applies accordingly, as if the nomination were made under sub-paragraph (4)(b)).

England: persons appointed by the Secretary of State as members of panels

17 In this Part of this Schedule, a reference to a person appointed by the Secretary of State as a member of an English police and crime panel is a reference to a person who has been appointed by the Secretary of State as a member of the panel in accordance with paragraph 18.

England: nomination and appointment of members of panels by Secretary of State

18 (1) This paragraph applies in relation to an English police and crime panel if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the number of appointed members of the panel is less than the full complement.

(2) The Secretary of State must nominate the appropriate number of persons who are councillors of relevant local authorities to be members of the police and crime panel.

(3) Sub-paragraph (4) or (5) applies in relation to each nomination which the Secretary of State is required to make under sub-paragraph (2).

(4) If the nominee accepts the nomination, the Secretary of State must appoint the nominated councillor as a member of the panel.

(5) If the nominee does not accept the nomination, the Secretary of State must nominate another person who is a councillor of a relevant local authority to be a member of the police and crime panel (and sub-paragraph (4) or this sub-paragraph applies accordingly, as if the nomination were made under sub-paragraph (2)).

(6) In this paragraph—

“appropriate number” means the number that is equal to the difference between—

(a) the full complement; and

(b) the number of appointed members of the panel;

“full complement” means the number of appointed members which the panel is to have by virtue of paragraph 13(1)(a).

Liabilities of panels

19 (1) All relevant liabilities relating to a police and crime panel are liabilities of the Secretary of State (and accordingly are not liabilities of any member of the panel).

(2) Any expense incurred by a member of a police and crime panel—

(a) in respect of a relevant liability, or

(b) otherwise in the exercise of, or purported exercise of, a function of the panel,

is to be borne and repaid by the Secretary of State.

(3) In this paragraph “relevant liability” means a liability which, but for this paragraph, would be a liability of a member of a police and crime panel (whether personally or as a member of that panel) in respect of anything done by—

(a) that person in the exercise, or purported exercise, of a function of a member of the panel,

(b) any other member of the panel in the exercise, or purported exercise, of a function of a member of the panel, or

(c) the panel in the exercise, or purported exercise, of a function of the panel.

Provision of financial and other resources

20 (1) The Secretary of State may provide financial and other resources—

(a) to a police and crime panel in connection with the exercise of the panel’s functions;

(b) to the members of a police and crime panel in connection with the exercise of their functions; and

(c) to one or more of the relevant local authorities covered by a police area in connection with the exercise of functions by—

(i) such an authority in relation to the police and crime panel for that police area,

(ii) that panel, or

(iii) the members of that panel.

(2) The Secretary of State may provide financial or other resources under sub-paragraph (1) subject to conditions.

(3) In the case of resources provided under sub-paragraph (1)(c), the conditions which may be imposed include conditions requiring a relevant local authority to pass resources to, or share resources with, another relevant local authority.

(4) The power under this paragraph to provide resources is in addition to the duty under paragraph 19(2).

Part 4

General provisions

Restrictions on membership of panel

21 The police and crime commissioner for a police area may not be a member of the police and crime panel for the area.

22 A person may not be a co-opted member of the police and crime panel for a police area if the person is any of the following—

(a) a member of the staff of the police and crime commissioner for that police area;

(b) a member of the civilian staff of the police force for that police area;

(c) a member of a local authority which is covered by that police area;

(d) a Member of Parliament;

(e) a member of the National Assembly for Wales;

(f) a member of the Scottish Parliament;

(g) a member of the European Parliament.

Panel arrangements

23 (1) Panel arrangements are arrangements for the establishment and maintenance of a police and crime panel.

(2) Panel arrangements must make provision about the co-option of, and holding of office by, the two co-opted members of the police and crime panel.

(3) Panel arrangements must include provision about—

(a) the term of office of appointed members and co-opted members of the panel;

(b) resignation, and removal, of appointed members and co-opted members of the panel;

(c) conditions for re-appointment of appointed members and co-opted members of the panel.

(4) Panel arrangements may not make rules of procedure for the police and crime panel (as to which see paragraph 24).

(5) Panel arrangements may make different provision for different cases.

(6) The following persons must comply with the panel arrangements relating to a police and crime panel—

(a) each relevant local authority;

(b) each member of the police and crime panel.

Rules of procedure

24 (1) A police and crime panel must make rules of procedure for the panel.

(2) A police and crime panel’s rules of procedure must make provision about the appointment, resignation and removal of a person to chair the panel.

(3) The police and crime panel’s rules of procedure may, in particular, make provision about—

(a) the method of making decisions, and

(b) the formation of sub-committees.

(4) A sub-committee of a police and crime panel may not co-opt members.

(5) This paragraph is subject to paragraph 26.

Voting by members

25 All members of a police and crime panel may vote in proceedings of the panel.

Exercise of special functions

26 (1) The special functions of a police and crime panel may not be discharged by a committee or sub-committee of the panel.

(2) In this paragraph “special functions” means the functions conferred on a police and crime panel by—

(a) section 28(2) (scrutiny of police and crime plan);

(b) section 28(3) (scrutiny of annual report);

(c) Schedule 5 (issuing precepts); and

(d) Part 1 of Schedule 8 (scrutiny of appointment of chief constables).

Allowances

27 The panel arrangements may make provision about the payment of allowances to members of the police and crime panel.

Promotion of, and support, for panels

28 The panel arrangements must make provision for—

(a) the role of the police and crime panel to be promoted;

(b) administrative and other support to be given to the police and crime panel and its members;

(c) support and guidance to be given to—

(i) members of relevant local authorities,

(ii) members of the executives (if any) of relevant local authorities, and

(iii) officers of relevant local authorities,

in relation to the functions of the police and crime panel.

Validity of proceedings

29 The validity of the proceedings of a police and crime panel is not affected by a vacancy in the membership of the panel or a defect in appointment.

Duty to produce balanced panel

30 (1) In exercising functions under Part 2 or 3 of this Schedule, a relevant local authority must secure that (as far as is reasonably practicable) the balanced appointment objective is met.

(2) In exercising functions under Part 2 or 3 of this Schedule, the Secretary of State must secure that (as far as is reasonably practicable) the balanced appointment objective is met.

(3) The “balanced appointment objective” referred to in this paragraph is the objective that the appointed members of a police and crime panel (when taken together)—

(a) represent all parts of the relevant police area;

(b) represent the political make-up of—

(i) the relevant local authority, or

(ii) the relevant local authorities (when taken together);

(c) have the skills, knowledge and experience necessary for the police and crime panel to discharge its functions effectively.

31 In co-opting members, a police and crime panel must secure that (as far as is reasonably practicable), the appointed and co-opted members of the panel (when taken together) have the skills, knowledge and experience necessary for the police and crime panel to discharge its functions effectively.

Application of other legislation

32 (1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations—

(a) modify a relevant enactment in its application to Part 2 panels, or

(b) provide for a relevant enactment not to apply to Part 2 panels.

(2) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, provide for a relevant enactment to apply (with or without modifications) to Part 3 panels.

(3) In this paragraph—

“Part 2 panels” means police and crime panels established and maintained under Part 2 of this Schedule (which are committees or joint committees of the relevant local authority or authorities);

“Part 3 panels” means police and crime panels established and maintained under Part 3 of this Schedule (which are not committees or joint committees of any local authority);

“relevant enactment” means an enactment which applies to a committee of a local authority or a joint committee of local authorities.

Regulations about notifications

33 The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about notifications to be given by persons in relation to—

(a) their compliance, or failure to comply, with any duty imposed under this Schedule; or

(b) their exercise, or failure to exercise, any power conferred under this Schedule.

Regulations about making nominations

34 (1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about—

(a) the making of nominations (including provision about when nominations lapse);

(b) the notification of nominations (whether to the nominee or any other person); and

(c) the acceptance and refusal of nominations (including provision about when nominations are to be treated as having been accepted or refused).

(2) In this paragraph “nomination” means a nomination by a relevant local authority or the Secretary of State of a person to be a member of a police and crime panel.

Regulations about making appointments

35 (1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about—

(a) the making of appointments;

(b) the notification of appointments (whether to the appointee or any other person); and

(c) the termination of appointments (including provision about when appointments are to be treated as having been terminated).

(2) In this paragraph “appointment” means—

(a) the appointment by a relevant local authority or the Secretary of State of a person as a member of a police and crime panel, and

(b) the co-option by a police and crime panel of a person to be a member of the panel.

Regulations about modification etc of functions

36 (1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision for modifying, suspending, transferring or removing relevant functions insofar as they are exercisable in relation to police and crime panels in respect of which the Secretary of State is, or has been, required to nominate members.

(2) In this paragraph, “relevant functions” means functions conferred on relevant local authorities or the Secretary of State by this Schedule.

Interpretation

37 (1) A reference in this Schedule to a police area which covers a local authority is a reference to a police area whose area is the same as, or includes, all or part of the local authority’s area.

(2) The circumstances in which a relevant local authority may be taken, for the purposes of this Schedule, to have failed to nominate or appoint a councillor as a member of a police and crime panel include circumstances where a councillor who is nominated and appointed fails to remain as a member of the panel for such a period as the Secretary of State considers reasonable.

(3) In this Schedule—

“appointed member” means a member of a police and crime panel by virtue of paragraph 4(1)(a) or 13(1)(a);

“co-opted member” means a member of a police and crime panel by virtue of paragraph 4(1)(b) or 13(1)(b);

“councillor”, in relation to local authority, means a person who—

(a) is a member of the local authority, or

(b) is the elected mayor of a mayor and cabinet executive (within the meaning of Part 2 of the Local Government Act 2000) of a relevant local authority;

“English police and crime panel” means a police and crime panel for a police area in England;

“local authority” means—

(a) in relation to England, a county council or a district council;

(b) in relation to Wales, a county council or a county borough council;

“multi-authority police area” means a police area which covers two or more local authorities;

“panel arrangements” means the arrangements referred to in paragraph 23;

“relevant local authority”, in relation to a police area, means a local authority which the police area covers;

“single-authority police area” means a police area which covers only one local authority;

“Welsh police and crime panel” means a police and crime panel for a police area in Wales.’.—(Nick Herbert.)

Brought up.

Question put, That the schedule be added to the Bill.

18:01

Division 244

Ayes: 306

---

Conservative: 264
Liberal Democrat: 41

Noes: 222

---

Labour: 213
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1

New schedule 1 added to the Bill.

Schedule 1

Police and crime commissioners

Amendments made: 31, page 104, line 13 leave out ‘qualified’.

Amendment 32, page 104, line 18, leave out from beginning to ‘person’ in line 19 and insert

‘A person may not be appointed under sub-paragraph (1) to act as chief finance officer unless the’.—(Nick Herbert.)

Schedule 2

Chief constables

Amendments made: 33, page 106, line 2, leave out ‘police and crime commissioner’ and insert ‘chief constable’.

Amendment 34, page 106, line 18, after ‘force’s’, insert ‘civilian’.

Amendment 35, page 106, line 21, after ‘force’s’, insert ‘civilian’.

Amendment 36, page 106, line 23, after ‘force’s’, insert ‘civilian’.

Amendment 37, page 106, line 24, after ‘force’s’, insert ‘civilian’.—(Nick Herbert.)

Schedule 3

Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime

Amendments made: 38, page 108, line 8, leave out ‘qualified’.

Amendment 39, page 108, line 13, leave out sub-paragraph (2).—(Nick Herbert.)

Schedule 4

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Amendments made: 40, page 110, line 39, leave out ‘a police and crime commissioner’ and insert

‘the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis’.

Amendment 135A, page 111, line 5, after ‘force’s’, insert ‘civilian’.

Amendment 136, page 111, line 9, after ‘force’s’, insert ‘civilian’.

Amendment 137, page 111, line 11, after ‘force’s’, insert ‘civilian’.

Amendment 138, page 111, line 14, after ‘force’s’, insert ‘civilian’.—(Nick Herbert.)

Schedule 6

Police and crime panels

Amendment made: 41, page 114, line 29, leave out Schedule 6.—(Nick Herbert.)

Schedule 7

Regulations about complaints and conduct matters

Amendment made: 42, page 121, line 39, leave out ‘these purposes’ and insert

‘the purposes of sub-paragraph (6)’.—(Nick Herbert.)

Schedule 11

Crime and disorder strategies

Amendments made: 43, page 133, line 24, after ‘areas’, insert ‘in England’.

Amendment 44, page 135, line 7, leave out subsection (7).

Amendment 45, page 135, line 28, after ‘commissioner’, insert

‘for a police area in England’.

Amendment 46, page 135, line 30, leave out ‘the police area of the commissioner’ and insert ‘that police area’.

Amendment 47, page 136, line 2, at end insert ‘, and

(c) after “section 6 above” insert “, apart from devolved Welsh functions (as defined by section 5(7)),”.’.

Amendment 48, page 136, leave out lines 6 to 17 and insert—

‘(a) the body is not satisfied that the responsible authorities for the area are carrying out their functions under section 6 in an effective and efficient manner, and

(b) the body considers it reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances to require a report.’.

Amendment 49, page 136, leave out lines 30 to 32.—(Nick Herbert.)

Schedule 16

Police reform: minor and consequential amendments

Amendments made: 50, page 163, line 18, at end insert—

( ) For subsection (2) substitute—

(2) In issuing a policing plan, the Common Council must have regard to the strategic policing requirement issued under section 37A.”.’.

Amendment 51, page 167, line 42, at end insert—

‘In section 61 (the Police Negotiating Board for the United Kingdom), in subsection (1)(a), for “authorities” substitute “persons and bodies”.’.

Amendment 52, page 211, line 5, leave out paragraph 355.—(Nick Herbert.)

Clause 152

Restriction on issue of arrest warrants in private prosecutions

18:15

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 2, page 100, line 10, leave out clause 152.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 154, page 100, line 17, at end insert—

‘(a) A specialist unit shall be established within the Crown Prosecution Service, reporting to the Director of Public Prosecutions, so as to ensure minimal delay in decisions relating to arrest warrants issued under this section.

(b) A specialist unit shall be established within the Metropolitan Police so as to ensure minimal delay in the issuing of arrest warrants under this section.’.

[Ann Clwyd]

The amendment would remove clause 152. At the outset, I should like to say that whatever one’s views on the changes proposed by the clause, it should not be part of the Bill. It is a justice measure in a Home Office Bill, which is already packed. It would be better if the Government had not crow-barred it into the Bill. However, I am glad that we have an opportunity to debate the measure, although we cannot debate it to the extent that other Members and I would have liked.

The Government propose to change the law on the procedure for obtaining an arrest warrant in a private prosecution in a universal jurisdiction case. Such cases are concerned with the gravest crimes against humanity: war crimes, torture, genocide and so on. The Government propose that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions should be required before any such arrest warrant can be issued.

My area of interest is human rights, so it is on the human rights implications of the clause that I shall focus. I object to the clause and the Government’s proposals because they will undermine the UK’s standing on international human rights issues. The current situation in Libya and recent events there and elsewhere in north Africa and the middle east provide a helpful context for the debate. For example, if anyone from Gaddafi’s regime—his sons or other senior political and military cohorts—tries to visit the UK at some point in future, they will be affected by this change in the law.

The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers have been strong in their condemnation of Gaddafi, in their calls for him to face justice, and in their support for the International Criminal Court investigation. I agree with them. The best place for Gaddafi to end up is in front of a court on an ICC indictment for crimes against humanity. However, the existence of the ICC does not absolve us of responsibility to ensure that those most serious of crimes can be prosecuted within our jurisdiction.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the current situation is the best one, because it keeps the Government away from allegations of political bias in cases in which arrests are sought for a court in this country? Clause 152 will bring every prosecution into the political orbit, where it certainly should not be.

[Ann Clwyd]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head as usual, and I shall develop that argument in a few minutes.

We still have obligations under the Geneva conventions —they are obligations, and not discretions or permissions —to bring before a court persons suspected of committing the gravest crimes against humanity when we are able to do so. This change in the law will undermine our commitment to those Geneva convention obligations.

Why, then, are the Government seeking to change the law? The Justice Secretary, yesterday, and the Foreign Secretary, last Thursday, set out clearly in replies to questions in the Chamber the reasons why the Government are seeking to do so. The first reason that they gave was that it is too easy to obtain an arrest warrant. They suggested that anyone could turn up on a frivolous pretext, spin a yarn to the court and walk away with an arrest warrant—put a penny in the slot and out comes a warrant! I cannot believe that that argument has carried any weight with anyone at all.

[Dr Huppert]

I share the right hon. Lady’s deep interest in human rights and I absolutely accept her point. May I, however, go back to what she was saying earlier about the arrest process? Does not she accept that a prosecution is more important than an arrest, and that whether or not the clause is passed, the Attorney-General’s consent will still be required for a prosecution, making the issue a political one? Are we not having the wrong debate? Should not we be debating the Attorney-General’s role in private prosecutions?

[Ann Clwyd]

That is certainly a subject for future debate. I agree with the hon. Gentleman when he said in Committee:

“I am not persuaded that there is a need for change…I do not think that a sufficiently strong case has been made about why the current system is not working.”––[Official Report, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Public Bill Committee, 17 February 2011; c. 684.]

I hope that he still holds that view.

[Mr Llwyd]

On the question of granting a warrant on the basis of flimsy evidence, is the right hon. Lady aware that, according to the Director of Public Prosecutions, there have been only 10 applications in the past 10 years, of which only two were granted?

[Ann Clwyd]

That was to have been my very next point. It is amazing that in the past 10 years, there have been just two successful applications for arrest warrants, and that they were then either withdrawn or not acted on.

[Michael Ellis]

Does not that 80% failure rate indicate that people have been making frivolous and vexatious applications? Also, is it not right that proper evidence should be tendered to a court or other authority before the issue of an arrest warrant that could have international ramifications?

[Ann Clwyd]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware of the facts. The fact that there have been 10 applications and that only two were granted means that the judges who currently implement this legislation are absolutely spot on. They do not take frivolous applications—quite the contrary: they are only too careful. They are experienced judges, not ordinary magistrates. The current system works comparatively well, and no one can point to any frivolous applications.

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

My right hon. Friend might be aware that a document issued by the Liberal Democrats in June last year stated:

“The issue of the arrest warrant for a war crime is decided only by specialist legally qualified magistrates such as the most senior district judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court. They are well qualified to decide whether the high threshold of evidence, liability and jurisdiction has been met and that no immunity applies…The removal of the right of public prosecution in such cases would have the effect of turning our country into a safe transit point for war criminals, torturers and those guilty of genocide from all over the world.”

[Ann Clwyd]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. Indeed, all the human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Redress and Justice are opposed to this change in the law.

In Committee, the Minister conceded:

“The problem is not that large numbers of warrants are being issued—the Government are aware of only two”.––[Official Report, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Public Bill Committee, 17 February 2011; c. 682.]

It is incredible that the Government think that that is too many, and that there should be rather fewer. The fact that two arrest warrants have been granted in 10 years should be a matter of concern, not because it is too many but because it is too few.

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

I agree with my right hon. Friend that war crimes and crimes against humanity are horrific, but does she really think it just that an arrest warrant was issued against Tzipi Livni who was here seriously to negotiate peace between Israelis and Palestinians and to save lives?

[Ann Clwyd]

Well, the other reason the Government gave for the change in the law is, I suppose, the real reason, in respect of which my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head: it is the Tzipi Livni case. The Government, as the Foreign Secretary and the Justice Secretary explained, are changing the law because of an Israeli politician. Changing the law at the request of a foreign Government does not, I would argue, enhance our ability to act as an international peace broker. It does exactly the opposite by undermining our credibility to speak as a country that takes human rights seriously.

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

Is it not incongruous that at the same time as we continue to speak here about human rights, justice and democracy in the middle east, we also have to move this particular amendment?

[Ann Clwyd]

Indeed. I think it sends the wrong signal at this particular time. I hope I can persuade many more hon. Members of the force of my argument.

In today’s The Guardian online, there is an article, stating that coalition criminal justice plans

“make a mockery of universal jurisdiction”.

It continues:

“Giving suspects from ‘protected countries’ immunity from war crimes arrests would turn the UK into a safe haven for suspects”.

That was written by an eminent human rights lawyer, Daniel Machower. He goes on to say:

“A legal case for changing the current judicial process, through the senior district judge, has not been made out and parliament is entitled to reject the proposed change on that basis alone.”

I have my own views on the Tzipi Livni case. I happen to regard the crimes documented in the Goldstone report as pretty damning. The very strength of the current system, however, is that it does not matter what my view is: it is a decision taken by a court without political considerations and on the basis of the evidence alone. That is the system that the Government are going to undermine.

[Mr Offord]

The right hon. Lady claims that accusations against an individual are mentioned in the Goldstone report, but she also talks about people having immunity in this country. What evidential basis does she have for presuming to believe that to be true?

[Ann Clwyd]

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about—and I doubt whether he does either.

The Opposition Front-Bench team has tabled an amendment proposing to create new units in the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan police. As the Minister observed in Committee, however, these units already exist for war crimes investigations. The fact that they already exist, and have done for some time, helps to show us what will happen when the Director of Public Prosecutions becomes a gatekeeper for all universal jurisdiction cases: nothing. Yes, nothing will happen. As we learned from a report in The Guardian last month and the work of the all-party group on the prevention of genocide, nearly 400 war criminals are believed to be in the UK right now—from Iraq, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Rwanda, Zimbabwe and the Congo. How many prosecutions have there been? One—just one, which is the Zardad case.

I conclude here because this is the core of my case. The clause is important because it communicates our attitude towards crimes against humanity and towards international justice.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend allow me to intervene?

[Ann Clwyd]

I am concluding; I am sorry.

It is already too hard to try to bring war criminals to justice. Sadly, there are already too few prosecutions. Let us not make it even harder.

[Michael Ellis]

It might be useful to inject some legal realism into the debate. At present the law in England and Wales provides for no real evidential threshold, and contains no requirement for a prosecutor to check the credibility of a claim before an arrest warrant is issued. In other words, all that is required is for an individual to go into a police station or the equivalent and make an allegation. That allegation amounts to a prima facie case: the establishment of a prime facie case is the smallest burden that must be borne. Attention-seeking lawyers and campaign groups are being given an opportunity to use the arrest warrant process as a campaign tool. To describe it as providing immunity from prosecution is completely wrong in law, in fact and in degree, and if newspapers have described it thus they are simply wrong.

18:30

[Dr Huppert]

I had much experience of disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman on this matter when the Bill was in Committee. I am now trying to understand how he squares what he is saying with what is actually happening. As we have heard, eight of the mere 10 applications that have been made in 10 years were rejected by the district judge, so the threshold is clearly higher than he is suggesting. Moreover, the clause does nothing about the process of applying for an arrest warrant. People could still apply for one; there would just be a delay before it could be granted.

[Michael Ellis]

I have a feeling that any Member of Parliament who was subject to the arrest warrant would not be so cavalier as to consider that one or two instances were nothing to worry about. We ought to have a system that applies fairly across the board.

According to a case study, in March last year the former Vice-President of Bosnia, Ejup Ganic, was arrested at Heathrow airport after Serbian judicial authorities issued an extradition warrant. He was accused of conspiracy to murder 40 Yugoslav People’s Army soldiers in an attack in May 1992. He was subsequently released on bail when the judge remarked that the arrest warrant issued by Serbia had been politically motivated. It was reported that Serbia had yet to produce any real evidence, and that most of its supposed evidence consisted of news articles about the incident. City of Westminster magistrates court blocked Ganic’s extradition in July last year. The presiding judge—who, as was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), had considerable experience—said that he had been led to believe that the extradition proceedings were

“brought and being used for political purposes, and as such amount to an abuse of the process of this court”

Having worked in the criminal justice system for 17 years, I am concerned about the way in which the English legal system is perceived abroad, and the ramifications of some of the incidents that have occurred. For generations, the United Kingdom has been at the forefront of peace conferences and other such meetings. The very recent meeting to discuss Libya is a classic example. Circumstances in which people were fearful of entering this country because an extremely low threshold might result in their arrest would be injurious not only to the reputation of the United Kingdom’s legal system, but to the UK’s overall reputation for being a place where peace can be sought and arrangements can be made across the negotiating table. It is not in the interests of world order and international peace for obstructions to be placed in the way of people wishing to enter this country in the way that they have been doing. That does not, of course, apply to only one country; there are several other examples.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the example he gave has nothing to do with private prosecutions being pursued in relation to universal jurisdiction, as it was an extradition matter? Does he not also accept that the court had a very serious threshold and made a very serious judgment, so the process clearly could not be abused for political purposes?

[Michael Ellis]

It is important to remember that there is the issue of fear of arrest, as well as arrest itself. If someone were to say to anyone in this House, “There’s a prospect of your being arrested should you enter the United States, or France,” they would think very carefully before entering those countries, even if they knew there were no grounds for any allegations and they were entirely innocent. They would not put themselves through the hassle.

[Mark Durkan]

Can the hon. Gentleman therefore tell us how this clause removes that fear? What signal will people have that the Director of Public Prosecutions would not entertain any such warrant?

[Michael Ellis]

There seems to be a fear, including in apparently authoritative newspapers, that the provision will grant immunity from prosecution, but all it does is raise the test to the same level as for prosecutions that occur by the thousands per week in this country. Whenever there is an allegation against an individual—whether for murder, shoplifting or anything in between—the Crown Prosecution Service has to consider two tests: whether it is in the public interest to proceed, and whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction. No one suggests that the need to consider whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction in those contexts in effect means immunity from prosecution for everybody, and that is all that will be applying here.

[Dr Huppert]

This brings us on to what I consider to be an important point. Shortly after an arrest, the Attorney-General has to engage with deciding whether to continue with the private prosecution; that is one of the weaknesses of the private prosecution system. Does the hon. Gentleman think that one way in which this clause might help with prosecutions is that it would be hard for the Attorney-General to overturn a decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions, because he could not come up with the claim about the relevant person being just a magistrate? In fact the Attorney-General might find that he was in a weaker position, and it would be easier to proceed with a prosecution.

[Michael Ellis]

I am not concerned, as my hon. Friend appears to be, about the Attorney-General, because safeguards are built into our system in this country. The Attorney-General has been in a position similar to that envisaged in the Bill for decades, and there is no evidence whatever that that has been a problem in other areas. There are prosecutions in this country that can take place only with the consent of the Attorney-General, and there are other prosecutions that can take place only with the consent of the DPP—I myself have been involved in one or two of them—but no one is suggesting that those cases involve political interference. The reality is that we have to have safeguards against the misuse of a process that has increasingly been employed in highly controversial circumstances and has deeply injurious effects on international relations and British relations. As I have already enunciated, my primary concern is to maintain the good standing of the English legal system.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Gentleman is deeply confusing me; I hope he did not confuse the courts in the same way when he was practising. We are trying to ensure that people against whom there is prima facie evidence of war crimes or crimes against humanity could be subject to an arrest warrant in this country. The opposite of that is that they would be welcome in this country. I am sure that is not the hon. Gentleman’s intention, but it is beginning to sound a bit like it.

[Michael Ellis]

Of course it is not my intention that war criminals be welcomed to this country. They would be welcome to be prosecuted in this country, and I would support that. The reality is very different, however, and we must ensure that only appropriate people in appropriate circumstances are subject to the heavy penalty of arrest.

[Mike Wood (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman said that this provision had been increasingly used—10 times in the past 10 years—but what evidence has he got to suggest that that is the case?

[Michael Ellis]

As I have said, there are several offences that are rarely used, but whose presence on the statute book is in itself damaging. Many would argue that although the 42-days provision was hardly ever used, its presence on the statute book would not be uncontroversial. During the 13 years of the Labour Government some 3,000 new criminal offences were created, dozens of which have never been prosecuted yet remain on the statute book. The principle is that one ought to be interested in justice for every individual, rather than having no justice for a handful and thinking that because only a handful are being subjected to injustice we should not worry about it.

[Mike Wood]

Is the hon. Gentleman agreeing that this provision has not been increasingly used? If so, does he wish to retract what he has just said? Either it has been increasingly used or it has not. He said that it has been used 10 times in 10 years, but what was the incidence in the previous 10 years? If he cannot produce that evidence, or if the evidence suggests that this provision has not been increasingly used, perhaps he should withdraw what he has just said.

[Michael Ellis]

That is a matter of personal opinion. As I have indicated, one would have to make a comparison with the previous 10 years. The universal jurisdiction law is a common law matter and has, therefore, presumably been available for decades. If it has been used only 10 times in the past 10 years, one would have to go back to see what happened during the previous 10 years. Perhaps one would discover that during that period it had never been used once. If that is the case, it has been increasingly used; I would just posit that.

I am conscious of the fact that other hon. Members would like to speak, so may I conclude by saying that Canada is not considered to be a country that is in any way permissive towards war crimes, yet it has adopted a tack similar to the proposed British solution? Although boasting a very broad piece of legislation implementing universal jurisdiction, Canada’s law requires that all claims based on universal jurisdiction first be personally approved by its Attorney-General or deputy Attorney-General before they can be introduced in any court. So I would posit that to Labour Members, and say that if Canada has done this and is doing it—

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

rose—

[Michael Ellis]

I am going to finish now. If Canada has done this and is doing it, I see no reason why England and Wales should not do it as well.

[Vernon Coaker]

I start by saying that we support the Government on the clause. It is strangely placed in this Bill, as it deals with a foreign policy and justice issue, but our foreign policy team has made its support clear. The provision is essential to maintain universal jurisdiction: it allows for the prosecution of war crimes and crimes against humanity anywhere in the world. We also support continuing with private prosecutions.

We do not believe that there should be any weakening in the standards for and likelihood of prosecution, as that would be completely wrong. However, there is a difference between the standards and procedures for arrest and the standards and procedures for prosecution. For prosecution, a higher standard of proof and the agreement of the Attorney-General are needed, whereas for arrest they are not. That means that there could be cases where people are arrested but there is no likelihood of prosecution, because the evidence is not there and the Attorney-General will not give agreement, perhaps because of campaigning on international issues in this country. We do not believe that that is appropriate, especially if it deters people from coming to Britain for purposes associated with diplomacy or peace. So it is essential to make the change that the Government propose, which would bring arrest better into line with prosecution but would not affect the chances of a prosecution. However, if the Director of Public Prosecutions is to take these decisions, he will need to do so swiftly. Justice must not be denied by being delayed.

[Mr Love]

Is my hon. Friend not concerned about this? We have been told that the DPP will consult the Attorney-General, who can, of course, consult his Cabinet colleagues, but all that will take place behind closed doors. Is there not a real case to answer about the politicisation of the process?

18:45

[Vernon Coaker]

That would have been a real danger with the initial proposal concerning the Attorney-General—my hon. Friend is right to highlight that concern—but when the DPP gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee he was very clear about the thresholds that he would use and the way in which he would conduct his business. My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, but the moving of responsibility for this area from the Attorney-General to the DPP is a significant step forward.

[Mr Love]

The core of this matter is that the DPP will consult the Attorney-General about the public interest test, and that will be the subject of debate, not the standard of evidence that is available. I return to the same question. As that process will take place behind closed doors, is my hon. Friend not concerned about the politicisation of the process?

[Vernon Coaker]

The point that I am making is that the DPP’s involvement is to prevent that politicisation, and I was reassured by what he said when he gave evidence to the Committee.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am disappointed in the shadow Minister’s line of argument, because on the question of arraigning someone for crimes against humanity or war crimes, he appears to be saying that there has to be a foreign policy consideration. Surely the decision whether to grant an arrest warrant should be made solely on an evidential basis within international law. It should not be about the perceptions or otherwise of this country, or any other, about foreign policy.

[Vernon Coaker]

I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about this, but we are supporting the amendment because this is not only about arrest but about securing prosecution and increasing the likelihood that people can be prosecuted. That is why we support what the Government propose, now that the DPP is involved.

[Mr Offord]

I am sure that the shadow Minister will recall the DPP’s evidence to the Committee. He said:

“We have people who can work around the clock and…enough trained people so that someone is always available.”—[Official Report, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2011; c. 126, Q241.]

That would prevent anyone from fleeing justice in this country.

[Vernon Coaker]

That is one reason why I said that if the DPP is to take decisions he will need to do so swiftly. As I have said, justice must not be denied by being delayed. We believe that the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan police should play a strong role, as they have in the past, and must not be hit by the cuts. That is why we tabled amendment 154—to ensure that there is no delay and that wherever possible things are dealt with as speedily as possible so that the arrest warrant is granted where appropriate, and we can secure a prosecution.

[Dr Huppert]

I shall try to be brief because a number of hon. Members wish to speak. I have written an article today for “Liberal Democrat Voice” if anyone wants my comments in full—I am sure that hon. Members read it frequently. [Interruption.] There is only one version—unlike what happens with the Labour party, whose members seem to give different messages from the back, the front and the side.

I want to talk about how the system would work, and I urge hon. Members to look at the transcript of the DPP’s evidence to the Public Bill Committee, which was very detailed and very reassuring for those of us who want to make sure that prosecutions go ahead. He made it clear that a team was available, as has just been mentioned, and that it would be ready to act. He understood the issue of timeliness and advanced the idea of using a lower threshold test when there is not enough time to gather evidence. Importantly, he also offered to look in advance at evidence about people who we know should be prosecuted, so as to be ready to go at very short notice—to update what would be required and to be able to go ahead. I was very encouraged by that.

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

I am the chair of the all-party group for the prevention of genocide and crimes against humanity. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) has made the point that there are more than 400 war criminals in Britain, but is the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) aware that only 29 of them are being pursued by SO15? Does that not demonstrate that we have to separate the wheat from the chaff? Clause 152 will do that: it will get right to the heart of the matter and ensure that we have the evidence base to ensure that war criminals are prosecuted.

[Dr Huppert]

The role of the police is important. Private prosecutions are the wrong way to go about dealing with such people. If a private prosecution has to be used the state has failed to go ahead—but I would like to see it do so. Private prosecutions are an essential safeguard where the state has failed.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

I shall give way once more, but then I want to conclude and allow other hon. Members to speak.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the provision has been introduced because of the arrest of one individual? We are changing centuries of our law and tradition for the sake of one person.

[Dr Huppert]

My position was well summarised by an Opposition Member who spoke earlier. It is a shame that there has been a conflation of two separate issues—one about Israel-Palestine and the whole sordid tale there, and the other a legal debate about what the system ought to be. I wish it were possible to have that discussion.

The DPP made it clear that he would talk to the Attorney-General, but he said five or six times that there would have to be a very powerful weight in favour of prosecuting, because the crime is one of universal jurisdiction. The public interest would have to be overwhelming. I take comfort from that, because I am concerned that at present the Attorney-General can stop any process going ahead. We do not have a functioning private prosecution system in this country, because the Attorney-General can stop any such prosecutions at any stage. Including the DPP in the provision would make it harder for the Attorney-General to do that, because straight after the DPP—a recognised independent person—said, “Yes, there is a case. This person can be prosecuted,” the Attorney-General would be faced with the prospect of saying, “Actually the DPP is wrong. He doesn’t understand this,” and trying to end it.

The provision makes prosecutions easier, and it is prosecutions that I am concerned about. I should like to hear more about how the Government will make sure that the police take stronger action. I should like to hear whether they agree with recommendations from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I serve, that would weaken the role of Attorney-General in terminating private prosecutions. My remaining concern is about the fact that the DPP may decide not to go ahead because the evidence is too weak. If that is genuinely the case, I do not think that any of us would have a problem with it. However, what worries me are cases in which the DPP does not get round to making a decision because there is a pocket veto. I should like an assurance from the Minister that the Government will report on such cases. If there are a large number of them in which a pocket veto is exercised and no proper decision is made, I hope that the Government will look at the matter again and make sure that there is due process.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

There are two minutes remaining, as I will call the Minister at 6.54 pm.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

We heard one Liberal Democrat voice. May I, in the remaining two minutes, quote the Liberal Democrat document which I have already quoted with regard to Tzipi Livni, who has been mentioned? It says:

“Tzipi Livni, as Israeli Foreign Minister, was one of those responsible for authorising these attacks”—

on Gaza, which deliberately targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure—

“and made public statements that appeared to encourage the Israeli military to use disproportionate force and engage in deliberate destruction with no legitimate military objective.”

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

I will not give way, because I have only two minutes.

That is the person whom this lot are trying to acquit of the right even to be prosecuted, and even the issuing of a warrant against her. Her parents were terrorists who murdered great numbers of people. She was an Israeli spy in Paris when the Israelis were murdering people all over Europe and were changing the law to suit this war criminal.

[Nick Herbert]

The purpose of clause 152 is to require the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before an arrest warrant for war crimes under the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, and for the few other offences over which the United Kingdom has asserted universal jurisdiction, can be issued on the application of a private prosecutor.

Much of the criticism directed at this provision seems to assume that it will end the right of private prosecution for universal jurisdiction cases—a point that appeared to be made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) in his brief speech—and, by extension, that it will damage the principle of universal jurisdiction itself. I emphasise that this is simply not the case. Of course the provision has no effect at all on the ability of the police to investigate, and of the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute, alleged offences of universal jurisdiction, but we think it is right that citizens should be able to prosecute these cases, grave as they are. That is why, under our proposal, anyone will still be able to apply to a court to initiate a private prosecution of universal jurisdiction offences by issuing an arrest warrant, where appropriate.

Our approach, therefore, differs from that proposed by the previous Government, which removed the right to private prosecution of offences alleged to have been committed by a foreign national on foreign soil.

[Mr McCann]

Does the Minister agree that that will prevent the silliness of people like two arch-atheists trying to bring charges against Pope Benedict when he was making an official state visit to this country?

[Nick Herbert]

I will deal with some of these points as I go on.

All that the provision will do is prevent a warrant being issued in cases where there is no realistic prospect of a viable prosecution taking place. It would not, as the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) claimed when she moved her amendment, give immunity to war criminals. That is not the case.

It has been argued that the consent requirement will lead to delay and allow someone who ought to be prosecuted to leave the country. That is the force of amendment 154. That is a serious point, which the Director of Public Prosecutions addressed when he gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee. I urge those hon. Members who are concerned about the provision to read, if they have not done so already, the DPP’s evidence to the Public Bill Committee, which I believe will give them a great deal of reassurance as to how he would approach the matter.

The DPP is well aware that speed is important in dealing with such applications. He explained that the Crown Prosecution Service has suitably trained staff available around the clock, and they stand ready to act immediately in emergency cases. He also had helpful advice for anyone who wants to pursue a crime of universal jurisdiction, which is that they should not wait until the suspect has arrived here, but should engage early with the CPS. He said that they

“should come to us”—

that is, the CPS—

“with whatever evidence they have, and we will undertake to look at it and to advise.”

It has also been argued, and we have heard this evening, that there is a risk of political interference, given the likelihood that the DPP would consult the Attorney-General.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

rose—

[Nick Herbert]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will not give way; time is short.

I raised such a risk in questioning the DPP, but he made it clear in his evidence that

“the decision is the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions, taken independently.”

He added that consultation between the DPP and the Attorney-General, which is regular,

“acts as no inhibition on the independence that I would bring to the decision. At the end of the day, the decision is mine, it is independent and it is reviewable.”––[Official Report, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2011; c. 124-130.]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) pointed out, the DPP also said that there are powerful public interest reasons to prosecute in a case that has satisfied the evidential threshold.

The necessity for the provision has been questioned on two grounds. It is said that the sort of people whom it is designed to safeguard are already covered by immunity. Although this is true of some of the visitors against whom arrest warrants have been sought in the past, it is not true of all. Immunity from criminal jurisdiction applies to certain Ministers, and warrants have been sought against Ministers not covered and those who are not Ministers at all.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Herbert]

I am sorry. I do not have time.

It is said, too, that few warrants have been issued in universal jurisdiction cases, but the problem lies in the perception that a person who is not a British citizen, does not live here, and indeed has no connection with this country apart from being present here, might be at risk of arrest for a very grave crime where there is no prospect of a viable prosecution. That such an occurrence is rare misses the point. The fact is that people who are, or have been, in leading positions in their countries, with whom the Government would wish to engage in discussions, may be discouraged from coming here. That is our concern. That, in turn, creates a risk of damaging our ability to help in conflict resolution or interfere with foreign policy.

Amendment 154 would require special units to be set up in the police and the CPS. The responsibility for investigating universal jurisdiction cases lies with a specialist unit of the Metropolitan police. That unit has the specialist skills and expertise required to conduct those cases, or to decide that an investigation in this jurisdiction is not warranted or feasible. The unit is best placed to evaluate the prospects of being able to protect witnesses or secure their evidence at any trial, identify an individual responsible for the particular conduct to the criminal standard, and deal—

18:59

Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the amendment be made.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

19:00

Division 245

Ayes: 37

---

Labour: 34
Plaid Cymru: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 480

---

Conservative: 263
Labour: 170
Liberal Democrat: 43
Democratic Unionist Party: 2

The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

Amendment proposed: 154, page 100, line 17, at end insert—

‘(a) A specialist unit shall be established within the Crown Prosecution Service, reporting to the Director of Public Prosecutions, so as to ensure minimal delay in decisions relating to arrest warrants issued under this section.

(b) A specialist unit shall be established within the Metropolitan Police so as to ensure minimal delay in the issuing of arrest warrants under this section.’.—(Vernon Coaker.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

19:16

Division 246

Ayes: 179

---

Labour: 177
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 297

---

Conservative: 252
Liberal Democrat: 43
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Bill to be further considered tomorrow.

Business of the House

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 15),

That, at this day’s sitting, proceedings on the Motion in the name of Sir George Young relating to Private Members’ Bills may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)

Question agreed to.

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the last debate, I heard a Member make a comment about another Member in this Chamber. The language that they used certainly was not parliamentary. Will you take some action, or advise me on how I might make a complaint against the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) for the comments he made when the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) stood to make an intervention?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

If it had been within earshot of me, obviously I would have dealt with it straight away, but I did not hear anything.

Private Members’ Bills

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I inform that House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment.

19:28

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

I beg to move,

That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14(4), Private Members’ Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 9 September 2011, 21 October 2011, 25 November 2011 and 20 January 2012.

Briefly, the purpose of the motion is to provide extra days for private Members’ business, in line with the Government’s intention to continue this Session until spring 2012. The House will be aware that the Procedure Committee is conducting an inquiry into sitting hours. This is not a debate on the wider issue of process and timings for private Members’ business, which I know the Committee will want to consider.

The previous Government brought forward no extra days in the first Sessions of previous Parliaments. Indeed, in the final Session of the previous Parliament, the then Leader of the House brought forward a resolution that reduced the number of days for private Members’ business. This House must balance the needs of Members to proceed with private Members’ business with other priorities. The Leader of the House has received Back-Bench representations calling for fewer sitting Fridays, to allow Members to spend more time in their constituencies and to reduce the costs of this place. If the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill is agreed and we move to annual spring-to-spring Sessions, we will no longer be faced with the issue of increasing or reducing the number of days.

I cannot recall any previous Government bringing forward a motion to increase the number of sitting days. In the interests of Back Benchers, particularly those who have been successful in the ballot and wish to see their Bills taken forward, I am very happy to do so today. That is a proportionate response, and I hope the House will support the motion.

19:29

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

We welcome the motion that the Leader of the House has tabled. This is a greatly extended Session of Parliament, certainly longer than any that I can remember, and it is therefore right that more time should be allowed for Back-Bench business. As the Deputy Leader of the House said, there are other things to consider about how the House deals with private Members’ Bills and how Members can get a fair hearing for them, but they should and will be dealt with at another time.

Members who table private Members’ Bills deserve the chance for those Bills to receive proper debate and, if they get the necessary support, for them to pass into law. As with all matters before the House, however, we need to ensure that there is a little common sense and, if I may gently say so, a little consideration. Some Members have tabled an amendment to extend the amount of time available for private Members’ Bills, but at the moment a small group of Members are introducing a great many such Bills, which is unhelpful to the House as a whole and to other Members who wish to have their own Bills debated.

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

Has my hon. Friend noticed, as I have, that the same group of Members are the ones who seem to speak the most on a Friday? Perhaps if they spoke slightly less, we might have more time to make progress on Fridays.

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend tempts me into a matter that is one for Mr Speaker and his deputies. I am sure that if hon. Members were filibustering, Mr Speaker would not allow them to do so.

When I last counted, I think the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) had about 20 Bills on the go, and the hon. Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) had 13 each. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of those figures, because my eyes started to glaze over as I went through the list. Frankly, I started to lose the will to live after a while.

The problem comes down to the fact that Members who are successful in the ballot for private Members’ Bills and wish to introduce legislation should have a fair chance to have their Bills debated and voted on. It is up to them to gather enough support from all parties to get their Bills through, but I say to the hon. Members who have tabled the amendment that that cannot happen if others table so many Bills that they block up the system entirely. It is neither fair nor proportionate.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

But that cannot happen in the second part of this extended Session, because there is not going to be a further ballot to allow private Members to take part in the process. Does the hon. Lady agree with the coalition Government that there should not be a further ballot?

[Helen Jones]

We will wait to see what the Government bring forward, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks that his Bills do not have a chance of getting through, one wonders why he tabled them in the first place.

I hope that we can agree to the motion, so that Members who wish to pursue their private Members’ Bills have a proper opportunity to do so and get a fair hearing from the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call Peter Bone to move the amendment.

19:33

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I am very grateful to Mr Speaker for having selected my amendment, but having heard what the Deputy Leader of the House said in his powerful speech, with your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will not move the amendment. I should instead like to speak to the main motion.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

We thank the hon. Gentleman for the clarification. The amendment is not moved.

[Mr Bone]

Ooh, my pager has just pinged.

I do not know whether to cheer or boo—I have heard some booing tonight. I was slightly disappointed that the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) wished to carry on the old Executive’s way of controlling private Members’ days and having as few as possible. The enlightened view of the Deputy Leader of the House has encouraged me to support the motion, and I am looking forward to the reform of private Members’ business.

[Helen Jones]

Can the hon. Gentleman quote back to me anything I said that suggests I want the Executive to have control of private Members’ Bills?

[Mr Bone]

I cannot—I do not have that sort of memory—but I got the impression that the hon. Lady was saying, “No more extra days,” whereas the previous Government did not support Standing Orders and reduced the number of private Members’ days in a Session, and I shall talk about that briefly later on. That is a key issue. I was hoping she would stand up and say, “Actually, the previous Labour Government got it wrong on that particular point.”

While I am dealing with the hon. Lady’s remarks, I wanted to talk about the process and the number of Members who have tabled private Members’ Bill. She gave the impression that only three Members had tabled Bills.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

What does my hon. Friend think would have been the attitude of our late, great friend, Eric Forth to all this? He killed more private Members’ Bills than most of us have had hot breakfasts. Would he have welcomed more days for private Members’ Bills so that more people could indulge their fantasies of adding to the nanny state?

[Mr Bone]

Eric Forth was perhaps one of the best parliamentarians ever, and I rather think he enjoyed Fridays, so he probably would have liked more.

I saw a wonderful quote from the Leader of the House, who is not in the Chamber, about how wonderful it was to be selected in the ballot. The main obstacle to getting his Bill on the Order Paper was Eric Forth. Eric will probably be looking down now and saying, “Yeah. Actually, we would like more power for Parliament”—he certainly believed in that—“and therefore more power for Fridays.”

[Helen Jones]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman needs to search his memory, because what I remember most about Eric Forth, for whom I had a great deal of admiration, is that he spent most of his time on Fridays killing off private Members’ Bills rather than allowing them to get through—[Interruption.] As the Deputy Leader of the House says, he would certainly have enjoyed that.

[Mr Bone]

The hon. Lady has misunderstood my comments. Eric Forth killed off hopeless Labour private Members’ Bills, which he did with great relish. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) has now taken on that role, and does it extremely well indeed—no doubt we will see some more Bills killed.

As legislators, MPs have the opportunity only on a Friday—on a private Members’ Bill day—to put forward their Bills. I should like to counter the view of the hon. Member for Warrington North. She said that only three Members put down private Members’ Bills on the days that we are discussing. In fact, on 9 September, my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) will promote the Consumer Protection (Postal Marketing) Bill and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) will promote his Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulation Bill. On 14 October, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) will promote the Police Terms and Conditions of Service (Redundancy) Bill.

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman will admit to slight support for the case of the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones). Of the 112 private Members’ Bills before the House, 51—nearly half—are in the names of the hon. Members who are signatories to the amendment. In fact, their legislative programme is about twice the size of the Government’s.

[Mr Bone]

There are two things wrong with that. First, when Front Benchers agree on something, it is almost certain not to be the correct way forward. Secondly, the alternative Queen’s speech proposed by certain Members had a reason behind it beyond thinking that all those Bills would be debated.

There are three ways in which private Members’ Bills get debated. Most people think that that happens only through the ballot, but there are also ten-minute rule Bills—they must be debated in the Chamber, when they get an opportunity for Second Reading as a private Member’s Bill—and, of course, presentation Bills. I shall not speak to my amendment, which was not moved because of all the wonderful things that the Deputy Leader of the House said. That is a shame, because I could have quoted what he said in his previous guise as an Opposition spokesman. I will not do that, but he was certainly much more in favour of additional days then than he is now that he is in the Government.

[Mr Hollobone]

In his intervention, the Deputy Leader of the House seemed to imply that the large number of private Members’ Bills was a bad thing, but actually, it is a very good thing. Parliamentarians are coming forward with proposals for legislation to improve our country and the way of life of our people. Having only four days in the extended programme in which to cram all those Bills is a totally inadequate allocation of parliamentary time.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend puts that argument much better than I could have done.

I want to go back to the list of Bills, to give the House a flavour of the matter and to show that it is not just three or four Members who are involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who has not been mentioned so far, has a non-controversial Equality and Diversity (Reform) Bill before the House on 21 October. The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) has his Master’s Degrees (Minimum Standards) Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) has his Waste Recycling (End Use Register) Bill. I could go on and on, but my point is that these Bills are important to the Members concerned, and they might well be important to their constituents and to the country. They should be heard, and we should not try to restrict debate on them.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I hope that my hon. Friend will be good enough to note that if a Member introduces and prints a presentation Bill, that will demonstrate to the country what they intend to do. My Prevention of Terrorism Bill, for example, would unwind the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 and give us a proper terrorism law. Does he also appreciate that it is possible to attach signatures to such Bills by tabling an early-day motion? On one occasion, there were as many as 350 signatures attached in that way. That provides ample evidence of the support that a Bill has, even though the Government, by their continuous diminishing of the opportunities for the House to vote on matters that are important to the people at large—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Just to cheer him up, I can tell him that if Friday 18 November had been one of the days selected by the Government, there would have been a Referendums Bill introduced by hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, which he might have been interested in.

Sometimes, private Members’ Bills serve the purpose of getting the issue discussed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) has just demonstrated. They also serve the purpose of getting the matter into law. There are a great deal many difficulties involved in getting a private Member’s Bill through the House, and that is why we should not reduce the number of days available on which to debate them. I shall give the House an example of someone who knew how to do all this. Anthony Steen, the former Member for Totnes, got his Anti-Slavery Day Bill through in the dying days of the last Government when no one was watching what he was up to. That was a very important Bill, and we now celebrate anti-slavery day on 18 October. He has changed the national law, and well done to him, but that was only possible because he used the procedures. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) will agree that this is all about knowing the procedures, and that that is what we, as parliamentarians, should be doing.

I must tell the House why I have a problem with the Deputy Leader of the House. He knows of my admiration for him. We have, in the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House, two superb parliamentarians, supported by an equally superb Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell). Selfishly, I hope that they will remain in their posts on 6 May, or whenever the next reshuffle is going to be. We are lucky to have them, and that is why I am slightly disappointed. I cannot remember what the Deputy Leader of the House did before he came to the House. I had the unfortunate problem of being a chartered accountant, and I am therefore used to adding sums up and getting wrong numbers. I think that the hon. Gentleman might have been a chartered accountant, too, because he has added the sums up and got a wrong number. Standing Order No. 14(4) clearly states:

“Private Members’ bills shall have precedence over government business on thirteen Fridays in each session to be appointed by the House.”

There is no question about that.

Now this is where I was a little disappointed by the hon. Member for Warrington North, who I guess is shadow Deputy Leader of the House. In the last Session of the last Government, there were only five private Members’ days. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady mutters—she could have acted properly and intervened—that that is because it was a short Session. She well knows, however, that that is not allowed for in the Standing Orders. We must have 13 days.

If I were to be generous to the last Labour Government, as I always am, I would say that they quite properly argued that the eight days lost because it was a short Session should be added on to the longer Session that would run from the election in May—not to the November of that year, but to that of the year after. I am happy to accept this argument, which gives us eight more days for a start.

The Government have given us the 13 days that we would normally have in a Session—there is no argument about that; they are absolutely correct—but there are, of course, the eight that have been missed. That takes us up to 21 already. Because the Government are moving towards a five-year, fixed-term Parliament, which I agree with, and there will be one-year parliamentary Sessions, they have added from November 2011 to May 2012—I reckon that is six months—and assumed that to be half a year. What we need, the Government have said, is half of 13, which seems to come to four.

Now I reckon half of 13—as an accountant, I have to round up—comes to seven. What we should have, then, are the 13 days the Government have given us, the eight that the previous Government took away, plus the seven for the additional term. If I add seven and 13, I get 20 and if I add eight, I get 28. This is my problem; I think we should have 28 days.

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

My hon. Friend is, as ever, making a very powerful speech. Does he agree that, on that basis, the amendment—I fully understand the reasons why it was not moved—is a compromise? It might almost be described as the third way.

[Mr Bone]

As always, I was trying to be helpful and considerate towards the Government. In fact, on the day before yesterday, I had a fine meeting in private with the Leader of the House. After our conversation, he was very clear. I had impressed him so much that he said, “Peter, I have not given you a wink, nod or any indication that the Government have moved from their current position”, which is, of course, exactly what happened. They did not move and they slapped this motion down for tonight.

Let us get back to the number of days: the 13 plus the seven that we should get under the Government’s own very generous thought, as they are extending the Session. If we add the eight, we get 28 days. I would have accepted 28 days, but I thought, “Let us look at it another way, as accountants always do it twice”. If we are moving towards one-year parliamentary Sessions—from May to May— we are going to have 13 private Members’ Fridays in each year. That is very clear, and that will kick in in May 2012. From May 2010 when this Parliament started—on 18 May, I think—to May 2011 would provide us with 13 days. From May 2011 to May 2012 would provide another 13, making 26. As a chartered accountant, I have done the sums and come up with two different answers. We should have either 26 days or 28 days.

Unfortunately, when the Deputy Leader of the House came up with his calculations, he came up with 17 days, which is the 13 days that we had to be given, plus the extra four. That is why I wonder whether he is another chartered accountant. He has clearly come up with a completely different result from that most people expected.

On a serious note, I just think that this was a great opportunity to fix broken promises. I re-read the Prime Minister’s excellent speech of 26 May 2009 when he said he wanted to return powers to Parliament and to Back Benchers. He wanted MPs to be independent. I have taken that to heart and tried to be independent and tried to be a parliamentarian, but the lack of days will restrict my ability to do that.

I encountered another difficulty today when I received a text message from a constituent saying “If you do not get this amendment through, it will mean that you will be at home more often.” I want to know what the Deputy Leader of the House will say to Mrs Bone about that, because it seems to me that parliamentarians should be here scrutinising the Government. The provision of a private Members’ day once a month—which is what this amounts to—is surely not a problem, and I feel that we have missed an opportunity.

I know that there are pressures on those in government, I know that the Executive want to control everything, and I understand that that is the old way. I also know that the Prime Minister wants to get away from that, and wants a new politics that will make the House of Commons more important. I did not move my amendment for precisely the reason given by the Deputy Leader of the House: we are moving towards the establishment of a Business of the House Committee, and once we have such a Committee, none of these problems will arise. Everything will be sweetness and light, because Parliament rather than the Executive will allocate the days.

I was so encouraged by the fact that reform of the private Members’ Bills procedure was being considered seriously that it would have been absurd for me to argue for the provision of 13 extra Fridays. In a few months’ time the Leader of the House will stand at the Dispatch Box, announce that private Members’ Bills will be debated on Wednesday evenings, and say “We have thought about this, and we are going to grant such-and-such a number of extra days.” I see this as a holding debate in anticipation of those reforms. I am encouraged by what has happened today, and I will therefore support the motion in the hope of seeing the reforms introduced a little later.

19:51

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I am disappointed by what the Government have done tonight. My starting point is to ask why they are doing this at all. Why is this something that we had to let the Government propose? It seems to me that it is a matter for the House—that the House should decide how many days it will devote to private Members’ Bills. I should have thought that a sensible discussion between the Leader of the House’s office and the Backbench Business Committee would have come up with a far more sensible procedure.

The way in which time is allocated for private Members’ Bills has serious implications for the Backbench Business Committee. Despite the best efforts of the Deputy Leader of the House, who is doing a very good job in the absence of the Leader of the House—I am disappointed that the Leader of the House is not present, given that he told us that this was such an important issue that it had to be debated tonight—we have not heard how he calculated the four extra days. We heard a superb analysis from my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) of how the Government might have arrived at that figure, but that is only the best estimate of my hon. Friend. It is not actually the process employed by the Government, and it is the Government who allocate time to the Backbench Business Committee.

I should like to know whether the same process of calculation, which is so obscure and opaque that none of us knows what it is, will be applied to the allocation of Back-Bench business time. The Backbench Business Committee, and, I would hope, all Back Benchers, will be extremely concerned if, in an extended parliamentary Session that is the equivalent of two normal parliamentary years, Back-Bench time is not also equivalent to two full parliamentary years. I should welcome an intervention from the Deputy Leader of the House if he wishes to reassure me that my fears are unfounded, but I fear that we could be running into trouble.

The other thing that we have not heard from the Deputy Leader of the House is why he has chosen these particular Fridays. What is special about 9 September, 21 October, 25 November and 20 January 2012? Why have they been chosen rather than any of the other Fridays? I would have hoped the Deputy Leader could give us an explanation for that.

The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) criticised those of us who have tabled quite a large number of private Members’ Bills, and she was generous enough to mention in passing myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough. She might find reassurance in the fact that none of the Bills my hon. Friend or I have tabled has reached the top of the list for discussion in this parliamentary Session. Despite our best efforts, we have not had the opportunity of parliamentary time to test our ideas in the Chamber. I do not believe we should be criticised for trying, however; we are doing our best on behalf of our constituents to put forward ideas to improve our nation, and that is entirely laudable.

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

I have a lot of time for the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), but I, too, was a little disappointed in her statement that Members who thought they had no serious chance of making progress with their Bill should just withdraw it.

[Helen Jones]

I did not say that.

[Mr Bacon]

The hon. Lady did say words to that effect, as the record will show. I have paraphrased, but that is essentially the meaning of what she said: that Members who thought they had no serious chance of making progress with Bills should withdraw them. I have been trying for seven years to get food labelling legislation on to the statute book. The fact that I have now had to introduce a Bill four times, and that at each stage people have said I have very little chance of succeeding, has never stopped me trying.

[Mr Hollobone]

I commend my hon. Friend for his efforts with his private Member’s Bill, and I am delighted that this coming Friday it is listed fourth on the Order Paper. I hope that by some magical intervention it might rise further up the Order Paper and we therefore get a chance to debate it, scrutinise it and vote on it so that it can make further progress in this place. I will be making a special effort to be here on Friday to hear my hon. Friend discourse on his Bill, and I know other hon. Friends will also make a special effort. I do not share the view that being here in the Chamber on a Friday is not an appropriate use of a Member of Parliament’s time. I do not know where the idea that every Friday has to be a constituency day came from. I think it is probably a new Labour invention. They tried to persuade Members of Parliament not to turn up to this place so we did not scrutinise the Government and instead let the Executive get away with quite a lot.

[Mr Cash]

A number of incredibly important private Members’ Bills have got through in the teeth of Government opposition, such as those on the abolition of capital punishment, the beginnings of the whole of the suffragette movement—that can be read about in the Library—the removal of obstacles preventing women’s enfranchisement, and at present, of course, the United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill. The important point is that these Bills were proceeded with in the teeth of Government opposition. That shows why we need to have this time.

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend is a far greater expert in parliamentary affairs than I will ever be, and I would willingly give all 13 days in a parliamentary Session to him so he can bring forward sensible legislation to improve the life of our nation. The point he makes is incredibly powerful.

I am a bear of little brain—I am not, I am afraid, an accountant or a lawyer—but I believe that there are 52 Fridays every year, while 13 Fridays are normally listed for private Members’ legislation. Members therefore have plenty of Fridays to devote to tending to the needs of their constituents. The idea that we have to sacrifice a large proportion of those 13 Fridays to enable more constituency days is misguided. The real reason for this is that the Executive do not want Members bringing forward ideas that the Government do not control, and which, according to them, might possibly get out of control. That is a big mistake.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Surely for those people introducing Bills and legislative change the proceedings on Fridays are an extension of representing their constituents here and making the changes they want.

[Mr Hollobone]

Those wise words from across the Irish sea are extremely welcome, and it would be great if more Members of this House thought that way. I know that the hon. Gentleman is an assiduous attender, who stands up and speaks up in this place on behalf of his constituents. He is not frightened of scrutinising legislation, and private Members’ Bills are all part of that parliamentary process. Each of us, no matter what party we represent, is the only person from our constituency entitled to sit in this Chamber and speak up on behalf of our constituents. If we can do that to good effect on those 13 Fridays, more power to our elbow.

Mention has been made of the late, great Eric Forth, who was an outstanding parliamentarian. One of Eric’s great attributes was that although he did try to scrutinise private Members’ Bills in great detail, he would not have been in favour of reducing the number of parliamentary Fridays. He would have said that it is everyone’s right to try to introduce legislation, but that legislation must be scrutinised effectively in this place. We heard a comment earlier about the difficulties of Bills making progress, but the point of this place is not to make progress with Bills: it is to scrutinise them and to allow their passage once they are in a fit and proper shape. I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) will demonstrate that to good effect this Friday, given the years of work he has put into honing his legislation in fine detail, and ensuring that every nook and cranny has been explored and every possible difficulty ironed out. If Parliament did not exist, we would not be able to scrutinise legislation in that way, which is why these private Members’ Fridays are so important.

[Mr Nuttall]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one way in which good ideas in private Members’ Bills reach the statute book, even if they are not successful in reaching it on a Friday through the normal procedure, is by being adopted by the Government and, on occasion, by being fitted into Government Bills?

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend speaks wise words, and I can give him an exact example of what he describes from this very week. I have sponsored the non-controversial Face Coverings (Regulation) Bill. It is one of my Bills that has not reached the Floor of the House, but on Monday the Home Secretary stood at the Dispatch Box and said that the Government were looking into the difficulty of controlling all the yobs in these riots who cover their faces. My Bill would make it an offence for someone to cover their face for the purpose of obscuring their identity. I was pleased to be able to draw that to the Home Secretary’s attention this week, and I very much hope that she will look at my Bill and see how it might be best adapted to meet the Government’s needs. The quickest way to facilitate any advantage to this country in that becoming law would be to introduce the Bill in Government time in this place.

However, in response to my hon. Friend, may I say that I have a feeling that one reason why the Government are nervous about granting too many private Members’ Fridays is because they have recently had a bad experience in this place with the Daylight Saving Bill? Lots of hon. Members were determined to see that Bill make progress and they gave up their Friday to attend in numbers to ensure that its Second Reading passed, despite Government opposition. Governments do not like getting their fingers burned, which may be one reason why they have, in effect, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough said, reduced the number of days to which this House is entitled.

I am sorry, but the House of Commons does not exist for the convenience of Her Majesty’s Government. The House of Commons exists to hold Her Majesty’s Government to account, because without Parliament the Executive would be able to run amok. On these Benches sit centuries of tradition and scrutiny of the Executive, and the private Members’ Bill process is part of that process of trying to improve the life of our nation. I am disappointed that the Government are being so mean as to allow only four extra private Members’ days, because at the very least the number should be 13. I very much hope that when the House Business Committee is up and running, we will have a proper sensible allocation of days for private Members’ Bills.

20:05

[Mr Heath]

With the leave of the House, I should like to respond. I am grateful to hon. Members who have contributed to the debate and particularly to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) for the way in which he approached it. I know from having argued this case with him, often in similar terms, that it is something he cares passionately about and feels should happen.

I have indicated that a number of things will affect how the House deals with this matter in future, such as the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, which will bring more certainty and uniformity to parliamentary Sessions. Also, as the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) said, there is the prospect of the Backbench Business Committee being evaluated and the Government are committed to bringing forward proposals for a business of the House Committee, which will take on the difficult role of making sure that the interests of all Members are properly taken into account, as far as possible, given that some of them compete. That seems proper.

We also have the Procedure Committee doing something that the Wright Committee suggested but did not have the opportunity to see through. The Wright Committee recognised that there was a problem with how we deal with private Members’ Bills, but it could not come up with a solution in the tight time scale within which it was operating. It therefore suggested that this Parliament should look into the matter, which is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House asked the Procedure Committee to look at the process for private Members’ Bills. We look forward eagerly to its report.

Various things are in motion and we have attempted to respond to the legitimate request for more time. Let me emphasise that this is the first time that a Government have provided more time for private Members’ Bills in a long Session to enable those who have been successful in the ballot and whose Bills are receiving consideration in Committee to make progress if that is the will of the House—it is the House that decides whether that should be the case.

[Mr Hollobone]

Is the Deputy Leader of the House going to enlighten us as to the calculation by which he arrived at four extra days?

[Mr Heath]

It is a matter of balance. It is about looking at the time available and the competing pressures on Members. We came up with a proposal that the House could consider this evening and that proposal is certainly a lot better than anything that has been suggested before. I think the hon. Member for Wellingborough accused me of being an accountant, but I really am not.

[Mr Bone]

You might be a lawyer.

[Mr Heath]

Neither am I a lawyer—that is even worse. I was formerly an optician, which is perhaps why I want to focus on the interests of all Members of the House in finding what suits them best.

Let me deal with an issue that the hon. Member for Kettering raised, which is not directly related to private Members’ Bills but is within the same context—the time allocated to the Backbench Business Committee. He said there was some arcane or obscure formula, but there is not: the formula was determined by the Wright Committee. The Government were committed to introducing the reforms proposed by the Wright Committee and that is exactly what we did. We have been clear throughout that we will continue to allocate time to the Backbench Business Committee to enable it to do its work and to provide time for Back-Bench Members of the House. We have done so throughout this Session on the basis of about one day a week. We will continue to do exactly what we have done, and most people believe that the allocation is fair and has been used sensibly.

[Mr Nuttall]

rose—

[Mr Heath]

This is the last time that I shall give way, because I was about to conclude.

[Mr Nuttall]

Is there any particular reason why no Fridays have been allocated in February or March 2012?

[Mr Heath]

We must remember the interests of Members who have been successful in the ballot and want their legislation to proceed. If they are to succeed in putting something on the statute book, they need time at the end of the process. This is a bicameral Parliament. The Commons must do its work, but another place must scrutinise and revise legislation. It does not make sense to have days for private Members’ Bills abutting the end of the Session, effectively preventing worthy pieces of legislation that have completed scrutiny in the Commons from making further progress. There is a rationale behind the proposals, but that is a matter for the House. I hope that the House will take a view on the matter. I am satisfied that we are making another significant reform to the way in which the House works, again taking time away from the Executive and giving it to Back-Bench Members, which is right, proper and proportionate. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

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

Immigration

That the draft Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (Remedial) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 20 December, be approved.—(Stephen Crabb.)

Question agreed to.

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

Customs

That the Export Control (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2011 (S.I., 2011, No. 580), dated 2 March 2011, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2 March, be approved.—(Stephen Crabb.)

Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

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

Annual Growth Survey

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 18066/10 and Addenda 1, 2 and 3, relating to the Annual Growth Survey: advancing the EU’s comprehensive response to the crisis; supports the Government’s objective of promoting strong, sustainable and balanced economic growth in the EU, with particular regard to EU-level actions aimed at strengthening the single market and trade, enhancing innovation and ensuring smarter EU regulation; welcomes the Commission’s new Annual Growth Survey and its focus on the urgent need for the EU and its Member States to promote economic growth and employment; and urges the EU to ensure that policies align with the need for EU growth and jobs and the need to reduce deficits.—(Stephen Crabb.)

Question agreed to.

Delegated Legislation (Committees)

Ordered,

That the Measure passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, entitled Care of Cathedrals Measure (HC 868), be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.—(Stephen Crabb.)

Ordered,

That the Measure passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, entitled Ecclesiastical Fees (Amendment) Measure (HC 870), be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.—(Stephen Crabb.)

Ordered,

That the Measure passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, entitled Mission and Pastoral Measure (HC 869), be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.—(Stephen Crabb.)

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Motion made,

That, for the purposes of its approval under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government’s assessment, as set out in the Budget Report and the Office for Budget Responsibility’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook, shall be treated as if it were an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).—(Stephen Crabb.)

[Hon. Members]

Object.

Development (Luton)

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

20:12

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I wish to present this petition on behalf of Mr Pat Conway, No-to-North group co-ordinator, of 407 Turnpike drive in my Luton North constituency, and 947 other signatories. The petitioners oppose development to the north of Luton, and have set out the reasons for their objections, believing that there are better alternatives for growth that should be considered instead. The petitioners therefore request that

the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Luton Borough Council to consider alternative sites for development in and around Luton.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The Petition of residents of Luton,

Declares that the Petitioners strongly object to the Strategic Specific Site Allocation to the North of Luton, to the employment sites at Sundon and beside the A6 and to the proposed Luton Northern Bypass; notes that the Petitioners believe that the location for development is wrong because of the distance to Luton Town Centre, the limitation to increase capacity on the existing roads like the A6 and B579, the impact on schools and other local facilities, its poor location in relation to public transport, the direct impact on Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the negative social and economic impacts on the nearby residents and the costs to the taxpayer; and further notes that the Petitioners believe that there are better alternatives for growth instead.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Luton Borough Council to consider alternative sites for development in and around Luton.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.]

[P000911]

Community Facilities (Flitch Green)

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

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

20:13

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

My first preference was to entitle this debate “The Battle of Flitch Green”, but I was advised against doing so lest a Defence Minister be sent to the Dispatch Box. Nevertheless, a long drawn-out battle has taken place over this community.

Once upon a time, there was a sugar beet factory on the site of what is now the parish of Flitch Green. That, after it ceased operation, remained a monument on the landscape for quite some time, but in the wake of the Stansted airport inquiry in the 1980s, when sites were being considered for what was termed airport-related housing, the site there became one of those eventually selected and was then given the title Oakwood Park.

There were 485 houses in the original allocation, although that had been increased to 655 by 2001, and not many bricks had been placed on bricks before a further 160 were added, bringing the total to 815 houses. The original application was granted on appeal in 1998. The provision of social and community facilities was regulated by a section 106 obligation imposed by the planning directorate. There were specified a multipurpose community hall, a village car park, sports pitches, a local equipped area for play and a neighbourhood area for play. These were meant to be provided by the time the 501st house was completed. None was.

Not part of the obligation, but glowingly described in published literature, no doubt designed to arouse interest in the village, were locations for shops, a surgery and a pub, as well as a landscaped area. The brochures stated:

“Shops including a small supermarket will be provided to serve the local convenience needs of the new residents”,

and

“A pub/restaurant with dedicated parking is proposed for a site overlooking the village green”.

The brochures went on to say:

“The village green will be of traditional form surrounded by avenues of large trees . . . and will be of a size to accommodate a cricket pitch and junior soccer pitch and could incorporate a small pavilion.”

Picture the scene; it might even have come from one of my books! However, there is no need to imagine, because there were colour illustrations in the brochures showing an idyllic village in a rural setting—but before my hon. Friend the Minister is tempted by my words to ring a local estate agent and ask about vacancies, he should beware. If he were to go there, he would not find any of the facilities that I have just described.

The good news—the only good news—was that the development company, Enodis, has built a community hall and laid out a young children’s playground. The bad news, however, is that the hall was only very recently adopted because, in the words of the planning authority, Uttlesford district council,

“its appalling construction required a great deal of remedial work to make it acceptable.”

That is the limit of what has been done at Flitch Green. Not even the roads are of adoptable standard.

The technique employed by the development company to delay the provision of facilities which, if not legally bound, it was honour-bound to provide, was to put in a fresh planning application for additional houses. In those circumstances, it seems that the court would not grant the planning authority an enforcement because it would theoretically be possible that some change might be made in the layout of the plans for the village.

The application would be refused by the district council, it would go to appeal, it would be turned down on appeal, it would go to judicial review, it would be turned down again, and then the process could recommence. Another planning application could go in. That is how the time has been spent—going to court, going to inquiry, and not providing facilities that people were entitled to expect. Enodis could fairly be called a sort of corporate artful dodger.

I make allowance for the fact that the contractor, Colonnade, which was to have built the village centre, went into liquidation, which has caused a separate hold-up. The district council has also given approval for another 98 homes, which brings the total to well over 900.

There are currently three planning applications before the council. First, there is an application for a village centre adjacent to the one that has fallen foul of the collapse of Colonnade. Secondly, there is an application for a sports field. It is not the original sports field, but a much better one that has apparently been given approval by Sport England. Unfortunately, it is not in the parish of Flitch Green, but in the neighbouring parish of Felsted. Thirdly, an application has been made for a further 107 houses. Even if Uttlesford district council were minded to approve the applications, Enodis, on past form, would probably build only the houses, as it would be under no obligation to implement the planning permissions given for the village centre and the sports field.

There we have it. Some of my constituents have been living in Flitch Green for 10 years, but there is still no sign of the shops, no sign of the pub or restaurant and no sign of the village green. In 2008 a leaflet was circulated by Enodis stating, “We want your views.” Of the then 650 households, only 18% responded—I suspect that most were completely feed up with Enodis by that time. To the question, “Do you want the playing field and large area of play the other side of the Stebbing brook?”, meaning in Felsted, as shown on Enodis’s latest planning application, 121 people said no and 34 said yes. Enodis took the number of abstentions to mean approval, and of course the people of Felsted were not asked. However, when views are expressed by the elected parish councils of Flitch Green and Felsted and the elected district council of Uttlesford, Enodis simply does not listen.

Enodis’s latest line is to say that there are deficiencies in Uttlesford district council’s five-year housing supply chain and that that should be a factor in determining the application for the final phase of Flitch Green. That would mean another 107 houses on the site that was designated as the sports field in the original master plan. The parish of Flitch Green would like the sports field to be in that original position. It does not approve of the line of Stebbing brook being crossed and the playing fields put on the other side. The parish of Felsted certainly does not approve of that, because it fears that in-filling would follow between the sports field and the present boundary of buildings in the parish.

What worries me is that, were the Government prepared to go along with the argument being put forward by Enodis, Uttlesford district council would be denied the ability to make its own plans for housing provision for the future. That would certainly flout the opinion of the two parish councils. In those circumstances, one would be tempted to ask, “What price localism then?” I say to the Minister, after this appalling history of manipulation, that Enodis’s disgraceful and contemptuous attitude shows that this is a battle it should not be allowed to win.

20:24

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) on securing this debate and on the powerful way in which he has put forward his constituents’ concerns. I am sure that everyone who has listened to the debate will understand why those concerns have been raised.

The debate raises important issues about the provision of community facilities, the planning process, the operation of section 106 agreements and the means by which planning gain—as it is often referred to—is captured for the benefit of the community. Those are important issues of policy that the Government are determined to address, because often it is the failure to give communities a tangible benefit from development and growth that makes them wary of growth and creates opposition. The Government, on the other hand, are keen to encourage sensible and sustainable development in the right place and with the support of local residents.

My right hon. Friend naturally and rightly concentrated on the battle of Flitch Green. Earlier, when we were unsure when we would reach this Adjournment debate, I would have been grateful for his having secured the debate on the battle of Flitch Green, so that one of my hon. Friends from the Ministry of Defence would have had to reply. As it is, however, I am glad to be able to respond while it is still today. He has set out in detail the history of the matter and difficulties faced by residents in securing the facilities that they were anticipating as part of a broader development. He pointed out that extant planning applications are under consideration, so he will understand why, owing to the responsibility of my Department and the Secretary of State in the planning process, I cannot comment in detail on the facts of the matter.

I hope, however, that I can assure my right hon. Friend that the Government are seized of the policy issues of concern that he raised. It seems that what has happened falls within permitted conduct under the law as it stands. That highlights the fact, however, that there are some deficiencies in the legal framework. Planning obligation is a well established concept and a valuable one. Planning obligations are legal agreements between developers and local authorities, and deliver what is necessary to make a development acceptable in order to obtain planning consent. It is necessary for planning obligations to meet clear policy and statutory tests to be acceptable considerations in the grant of planning permission.

Fortunately, the data that our Department have show that generally planning obligations deliver many millions of pounds worth of community facilities, affordable housing, open spaces, education facilities and other benefits each year. In by far the majority of cases, those obligations are delivered successfully. I am sorry to hear the history of my right hon. Friend’s case, where that does not seem to have happened, but generally they are a useful tool. Of course, there are always exceptions—and they are to be regretted—but I cannot say more about that.

It is worth setting out the current policy and legal position. Where developers have breached their legal obligations in this regard, the planning authority has powers to take legal action to enforce them, and that is done through the courts. The local authority also has the right to carry out the obligation itself and then recover any expenses incurred from the developer in question. As with any enforcement decision, there are resource implications, and the local authority has to weigh up the best course of action in each case. I am sure that Uttlesford council, as a responsible local authority, has done that.

We are seeking to revisit the approach through which we capture this planning gain. As my right hon. Friend rightly said, it seems that the situation in his case relates to section 106 agreements, which, although well established, have grown in their extent. It is the Government’s intention to seek an alternative route to capture the majority of planning gain.

We will give incentives and benefits to communities through the new homes bonus, which will enable councils to benefit financially from granting permissions. However, alongside the new homes bonus, we also intend to retain and reform the community infrastructure levy, which we envisage as the principal vehicle through which planning gain will be secured for the benefit of a community in future. That will enable a local authority to levy a charge in relation to development. We are determined to ensure—this is in the Localism Bill, which is currently before this House—that a meaningful proportion of the levy will be returned to the benefit of the community in the area of the development concerned.

Compared with the use of section 106-type planning obligations, the community infrastructure levy—or CIL—provides a fairer, and more transparent and predictable mechanism for raising contributions to the sort of facilities that we have been talking about. That will enable section 106 planning obligations to be scaled back and focus more on the site-specific issues that are necessary to enable the development to be granted planning permission, such as providing screening to protect existing houses, access roads to the site and so on. The CIL will remove much of the uncertainty around section 106 contributions. CIL rates will reflect development viability and—importantly in this context—there will be a mandatory up-front charge.

The developer will pay the CIL, so some of the difficulties with enforcing the obligations that my right hon. Friend mentioned will not arise. Our proposal will be much more straightforward for both the charging authority and the developer, because the responsible developer will know the cost of their planning obligation—a cost that can be paid up front—and the local authority will know how much it will receive, will receive it and can then disburse it to the benefit of the community. That will have significant benefits, avoiding both the need to go through the convoluted procedures for enforcing a section 106 agreement and the possibility of applications being made to vary it, which can take a long time and be the subject of lengthy disputes—I am not entirely sure whether that occurred in this case, but it seems that it may have done.

The situation in my right hon. Friend’s constituency has to be dealt with under the law as it stands, so I regret that that legislation, which is currently before the House, may be of only limited comfort. However, I hope that it is of some comfort for the future that lessons can be drawn from how section 106 agreements work. I would not want anyone to think that section 106 agreements do not work properly in the majority of cases. However, we believe that a revised CIL will be a fairer and better means of dealing with the problem and will, I hope, give residents greater certainty that if they move into a development, the sort of developments for which they hope will, in fact, take place.

Finally, my right hon. Friend’s point about the views of the parish council and the neighbourhood is also important, and is a further part of the Government’s reforms—in the Localism Bill and our allied planning reforms—which will involve creating neighbourhood planning. Once those reforms are in place, parish councils in areas such as Flitch Green will be in a position to develop their own neighbourhood plans, which will be able to specify exactly those sorts of issues, such as where playing fields or community facilities might be. Subject to the support of the community in a referendum, that plan will be incorporated into the district council’s local development framework and its development plan. In the future, therefore, communities such as Flitch Green and Felsted will have the real and genuine ability to control where development goes.

I am afraid that that is a promise of better things for the future, rather than something through which I can offer immediate comfort to my right hon. Friend, but I know that he has done his constituents a great service by raising this issue in his trenchant and characteristically eloquent way. I hope that he will at least be able to say to them that the Government are taking steps for the future to make sure that planning obligations are delivered in an appropriate, effective and transparent way that is to the general benefit of communities. I am grateful to him for raising those issues with me, and I am sure that the House will appreciate it.

Question put and agreed to.

20:34

House adjourned.

Division 241

Ayes: 297

---

Conservative: 250
Liberal Democrat: 43
Independent: 1
Alliance: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 187

---

Labour: 178
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Green Party: 1

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 30 March 2011

[Mr Graham Brady in the Chair]

Children with Special Educational Needs

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Westminster Hall

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

09:30

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

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I am delighted to have secured this debate on provision for children with special educational needs. The Table Office has advised me that at the outset I should declare an interest: my wife is a lawyer who specialises in educational matters, particularly in representing children with special educational needs. It was her frustration and my outrage, on hearing reports from parents, that sparked my personal interest in this subject, many years ago. The Government’s Green Paper on special educational needs prompted my request to the Speaker for this debate. I hope that it will be the first of many held in the House before the publication of the White Paper.

I welcome the approach taken by the Minister, and was fortunate to receive a briefing on her intentions a couple of weeks ago. She and her colleagues have a genuine passion to make a difference on this issue, and acknowledge the waste, delay, frustration and anger that is often felt about the current system. The Green Paper underlines the Government’s wish to develop a less adversarial approach, offer a greater choice to parents, and encourage and facilitate better working and co-operation between schools, local education authorities, health bodies, the independent sector and parents. A multi-agency approach up to the age of 25, with more support from the independent sector and increased opportunities for free schools, will offer choice and continuity. The Green Paper outlines how early identification can make a significant difference to outcomes for individuals, and says that teachers need to be better qualified in identifying special educational needs.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He alluded to the importance of teacher training; does he agree that one of the great strengths of the Green Paper is not just the emphasis it puts on initial teacher training, but the opportunity for teachers to develop their professionalism throughout their careers? He talks about frustration more generally, but there must be frustration in the teaching profession with the fact that they have not been given the tools to deliver the kind of education that he and I want to see right across the board.

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining an important point that is acknowledged in the Green Paper and, I think, far and wide. Teacher training is extremely important in the initial stages, but so is continued professional development. That is particularly important in relation to school exclusions. Evidence from Mencap suggests that 72% of pupils who have been excluded have special educational needs. I believe strongly that lack of support for a special need is often the cause of disruptive behaviour, and in view of the Government’s plan to change the school exclusion legislation, I hope that changes to SEN policy and teacher training will help reduce that percentage. The exclusion of those pupils is our fault, not theirs, if their needs have not been addressed. The Green Paper also considers how the statementing process should be changed so that resources are used in a more efficient way. That is the area on which I wish to focus today.

I was delighted to see that the Green Paper proposes maintaining the principle of a statement of SEN. It aims to reform the process, so that there is a single education, health and care plan, but still recognises the need for statutory protection for parents and pupils with regard to the provision of SEN support. That is great comfort and reassurance to all parents. The current system is cumbersome, costly and inconsistent, and is seen as being used by some authorities as a delaying tactic to frustrate the wishes of many parents.

In spite of that flawed process, the system is seen by parents as the back-stop that can guarantee a level of provision. If a parent can find their way through the maze, a statement can deliver what they want and what their child needs. Clearly, all sides are spending significant sums of money considering and discussing the matters. The money spent on advocacy and the challenges involved would be better spent on delivering provision. The new approach aims to make the process swifter, simpler and more efficient, but I have some questions and concerns about how and whether all aspects will work, so I want to talk the Chamber through the current process and compare that with my understanding of the proposals in the Green Paper.

The starting point is typically a parent or teacher identifying, or raising a question about, a child’s special educational need. Once the request for assessment has been made, the authority has six weeks to decide whether to assess the child. That will lead to a 10-week period in which the assessment is conducted. If a local authority questions or objects to the need for a statutory assessment, a parent will have to follow a cumbersome process to appeal via a tribunal; that comes with a significant delay. I am aware, for example, of an appeal just to obtain a statutory assessment that was registered on 10 August 2010 and not heard until mid-January 2011.

After the assessment, a decision will be made on whether a statement of SEN is needed; if it is, a proposed statement must be issued within two weeks. The parents are given the proposed statement and an opportunity to make representations within two weeks. After a further six weeks, the local authority will present its final statement.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this very important debate. In my constituency, there are a number of schools with children who have special needs. According to the Library research paper, on 9 March 2011, The Daily Telegraph stated:

“Thousands of children will be removed from school ‘special needs’ registers under Government plans to stop teachers over-diagnosing behaviour and learning problems.”

The parents whom I speak to have a real difficulty with that; does the hon. Gentleman agree with them?

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. That is certainly an issue that causes worry among many parents. However, we need to recognise that the school funding formula almost leads to a perverse incentive for schools to classify children as having SEN. Very often, what is needed is additional support in the classroom, rather than a classification of SEN. It is the perverse incentive that is the root of that problem, but I accept absolutely that the issue needs to be teased out and clarified while the White Paper is being drafted.

The whole statementing process is meant to take 26 weeks, but we need to add in the delays due to the tribunal, which I have mentioned. If a parent is dissatisfied with a statement, they can appeal to the tribunal again. Delays such as the August-to-January delay that I mentioned earlier in relation to the assessment appeal will also be incurred in the case of a statement appeal. Parents who have to go through two appeals and the 26-week statementing process can therefore be left waiting for a total of 16 months to get a statement confirmed. That delay in securing the right SEN support can be damaging, particularly to a young child of four, five or six, as 16 months is a significant percentage of a child’s life.

The Green Paper highlights the Government’s will to speed up the process, and proposes cutting the 26-week period to 20 weeks. That is welcome, but the wait for the tribunal hearing also needs to be addressed if we are genuinely to speed up the process from start to finish. The Green Paper, however, talks about a mediation requirement. In principle, I can see the attraction of that, but I question its merit in practice because of the new delay that that could introduce. An insistence that mediation should take place before the right to appeal would be detrimental due to that delay, and I ask the Minister to allow mediation to take place in parallel with the wait for the tribunal hearing. In reality, discussions already take place right up to the day of the tribunal. It is most frustrating for an authority to agree to something on the morning of a hearing when the parents have been asking for it for the previous six to eight months.

Furthermore, I am not wholly convinced that mediation will work in practice. Parent partnerships already exist to allow for mediation, but few people take up the option because the relationship has usually broken down. We need to consider the pressure on the parent of an autistic child who has to battle month after month with a school and a local education authority, and then face a tribunal.

The Green Paper highlights extended choice for parents, but we need to recognise that legislation already offers parents significant choice. It is often the disagreement caused by the difference between the wishes of parents and the offer from the local education authority that leads to tribunal proceedings.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Might not the term “mediation” often be used to talk the parent out of getting their child statemented, and to let the school authorities off their responsibility to ensure appropriate education for the child?

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It underlines a point that I plan to make later about the support that parents need. Mediation could possibly work, but we need to understand the breakdown in relationships and the support that parents therefore need.

I turn to the statement itself and the issues that can lead to disagreements and appeals. More often than not, draft statements are vague and imprecise. Parents will seek to make changes in order to gain an appropriately detailed statement that guarantees the provision that they need. Let me offer an example relating to the provision of speech and language therapy. A poor statement would read, “The child will have access to a communication programme,” whereas a well-prepared statement would record, “The child will have direct speech and language therapy with a therapist once a week for a period of 30 minutes.” That detail is important because if the speech and language therapist is sick for a period or goes on maternity leave, a local authority will rarely move to reappoint a suitably qualified individual, even if they can, given the shortage of therapists. If the provision is specified in a statement, parents can demand it, even from the private or third sector, if necessary. Clearly, it is in the interest of the local education authority to draft a vague statement to prevent such demands reaching the High Court.

That leads me to the backdrop of the tension that develops between parents and local authorities. Parents want a detailed, appropriate statement. They sometimes request that support be given more frequently than is offered, or seek a placement in a specific school, possibly out of county, and that has financial consequences. In a small number of cases, an independent special school is requested. Parents may even press for one-to-one support in a mainstream school. Those demands, which stem from the choice already afforded to parents in current legislation, will always have cost implications. That is usually at the core of the differences between the two parties.

Section 86 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1988 states:

“The duty imposed”—

that is, the duty on the authority to comply with parents’ preferences—

“does not apply…if compliance with the preference would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources”.

A similar term is used in the Green Paper, which states on page 17:

“unless it would not meet the needs of the child”

or

“would be incompatible with the efficient education of other children”.

It is obvious why such clauses and statements need to be included in legislation and Green Papers, but as long as they are, we will always end up with parents rightly demanding more for their children and local authorities seeking to reduce provision on the basis of cost. I do not see how legislation could be drafted without such a clause to protect the public purse, but it will always be the point on which disagreements will arise.

One option could be a better definition of what a parent can expect, but that focuses on inputs rather than outputs and runs against the principle of facilitating the best outcomes possible, which is at the core of the Green Paper. I have no doubt that many measures in the Green Paper will make a significant difference in supporting children with special educational needs. Early identification, a multi-agency approach, and assessment by health visitors in particular—the number of health visitors is to increase—are extremely welcome. The simplification of school action and school action plus is welcomed by parents, because they are often seen as a delay to the statutory assessment that I referred to earlier.

[David Simpson]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the shortage of speech and language therapists. Would he agree that that is a key component of all this? There is a major shortage of therapists across the whole of the United Kingdom, and the Government need to do something to encourage young people into that profession.

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful for that intervention. Without a doubt, the shortage of speech and language therapy is a significant difficulty, but as I highlighted earlier, if need for it is recorded in the statement of special educational needs, parents can rightly demand it, and can even go to the High Court to secure it. I am familiar with some cases where that has been done. However, I worry about those pupils who need speech and language therapy support but who do not have a statement. The shortage of such support does not make things easy for local authorities, assuming that they have the resources to provide it, and it naturally drives up costs. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point.

Improved training of teachers will make a positive difference in reducing special educational needs later on. The point about speech and language therapy is particularly relevant, because if support is provided early on, soon after screening at the age of two and a half, which is mentioned in the Green Paper, that can save significant sums later. I would like to believe that the Minister recognises the importance of that issue.

Budgets for parents to buy services directly will also help significantly. That is the principle of choice. One example that I can offer relates to sensory integration therapy, which local education authorities fail to recognise but the parents of autistic children value hugely. That service is provided by specially trained occupational therapists.

More explanation is needed of how budgets will be allocated, so that parents can exercise the choice and freedom that we want to give them. Will it be on a banding basis? If so, it will lead to further challenges and appeals aimed at moving the child to a higher band that would give greater access to resources and better provision. The new assessment regime and joint working with various agencies will simplify the process, but there needs to be clarification on whether there will be a single assessment regime as well.

Finally, I want to underline my concern for parents who do not have the capacity to challenge the system. This point was made earlier in an intervention. To get the best chance of securing provision, a parent may employ an advocate, independent speech and language therapists, occupational therapists and educational psychologists to give evidence to challenge the local authority’s case. After all, the local authority has ready access to such services. Clearly, that would be a significant expense for any individual or family, but if their call is that an independent special school costing, say, up to £100,000 a year is the only way to secure provision for their child, paying such experts at the appeal stage could be seen by them as an investment.

My worry is that the parents of some children with special educational needs will not have the necessary capacity; many may have special educational needs themselves. It angers me that those with the resources and the capacity who can work their way through the system will get what they need, but the children of parents who cannot afford it or cannot work their way through the system will be left without appropriate provision. I am sure that the Minister will agree that stopping those who can is not an option, and that the challenge is to deliver a system that provides the right support at the outset to those who cannot.

I am grateful for the support that I have received for this debate, and for the interventions that have been made. I hope the Minister will accept my comments as a positive welcome for the Green Paper.

09:49

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I am pleased to speak in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns). He is a compassionate Conservative, and he has demonstrated that today. I was astonished at the level of expertise he displayed, and I learned a lot from his speech.

As a candidate and now as a Member of Parliament, I have been very pleased to speak to Harlow parents whose children have special needs. I am a supporter of the Harlow Parents of Autistic Children Together, or PACT, and I have often met its chair, Sam Fancett, and vice-chair, Wendy Merry, and others. They are very IT friendly, and we usually speak via Blackberry messenger. I want to raise on their behalf some problems that are sometimes thought to be little things, but actually make a big difference.

First, parents believe that it would be helpful if more special schools could specialise—for example, in autism therapy—instead of being just an alternative to mainstream schools when children can no longer cope. If that is impossible, more mainstream schools could develop a specialised autism unit on site, or a unit could be shared between several schools. At present, I understand that, if a parent chooses a school that is more suited to their child’s needs, but is outside their catchment area, they must provide their own transport, and sign a disclaimer saying that they will never request transport in future. We all know that funds are limited, but there should not be a postcode lottery in such cases. As the free school reforms come through, I urge the Government to look at home-to-school transport and access to expert special education.

Secondly, why are parents of children on the autistic spectrum, especially those with severe difficulties, unable to get a blue badge to park their car? Parents of those children struggle daily, sometimes in extremely difficult situations. They have told me that parking a car when a child is having a meltdown can be highly dangerous. The Government are cracking down on people who abuse blue badges, but will the Minister do what she can to nudge local authorities to make blue badges more available to those with autistic children or children with significant special needs? It is worth taking much stronger action against those who wrongly park in bays for disabled drivers, because that causes incredible difficulties for those with severe disabilities.

Thirdly, on special educational needs, there is a question about arbitrary limits. A constituent of mine, Jackie Stedman, has suffered a constant battle to get a good education for her two children. Again and again, she has run up against problems due to random limits on financial support, which are tied to age rather than to need, or to children’s potential to learn. I accept, of course, the overall need to cut the deficit, and to be careful with our finances, but the sums involved are not significant in the context of the overall budget—in this case, that of Essex county council.

The context is that the council pays for home-to-school transport for Jackie’s two children, who both travel in the same car to the same school, but the council is now saying that, according to the rules, it can pay for one child, and not the other, even though the car will have to make the journey anyway. The absurdity is extraordinary. That is unaffordable for the family, and it feels like a “Little Britain” sketch, when “the computer says no”, just because one of her children is now 16.

I understand the need for local government to set criteria, but the rules sometimes seem arbitrary, and hurt decent families who simply want a good education for their children. A similar problem is seen with therapies offered by local primary care trusts. Sam Fancett gives the example that not all children are offered sensory integration therapy or auditory integration therapy. It depends on their PCT, but those therapies can transform children’s lives, and drastically improve behaviour at an early age. She also queries why speech therapy seems to finish at the end of year 7. Again, that seems to be an arbitrary limit, which does not relate to children’s needs or potential.

A potential casualty of the difficult economy was going to be a Thursday evening session of respite care in a Harlow community centre called Sam’s Place. Thankfully, the council worked hard to rescue it, and I congratulate the leader of Harlow council, Andrew Johnson, Councillor Joel Charles and council officers on their hard work in achieving a solution. One of the lessons that came out of that was that most parents are happy to take on the responsibility of running services for their children, but we cannot ask them to take on legal liabilities, compliance duties and other red tape. Parents with children with special needs have enough to worry about without having to do all that. I know that the Government are looking at such matters in the context of the big society reviews, and I would be grateful if the issue could be specifically considered.

As I have suggested, the solution must involve the big society. At the moment, if someone with an autistic child wants to talk to the local education authority or PCT, it is like trying to get through to a mobile phone company with instructions to press 1, press 2 and so on. Parents need a much more personal service. That may cost a lot of money, but a reduction in the number of appeals and complaints might save money in the long run. Essex county council has been moving towards that, but the results are patchy, and I urge it to use its back-office savings to hire more, dedicated, proper relationship managers—human beings—who would understand the issues and liaise directly with families such as those in the Harlow PACT.

Another problem is that the computer always seems to say no. Why should it say no to parents who are struggling against the odds? Decisions are arbitrary or tied to arbitrary age limits and catchment areas, which are largely random or created for bureaucratic convenience.

[Alun Cairns]

My hon. Friend is making some extremely important points about the arbitrary limits. My understanding is that the legislation does not provide for such arbitrary limits. We need to provide for the child, but local authorities use the system to prevent a child from gaining access. If a parent battles through the maze of the statementing process, they may win, but bearing in mind the delays to which I referred, very few, sadly, have the resources or the capacity to do that.

[Robert Halfon]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. My point is that given what parents must face, and their difficulties with special needs children, why should they have to battle? Mrs Jackie Stedman has spent years battling with the courts and relevant authorities to try to obtain proper treatment for her children. She has often been successful, but why should she have to go through that in the first place? To borrow a phrase, our public services need to speak “human”, and that means looking at each individual case on its merits, and talking to the parents and children involved.

[Mr Mark Williams]

Perhaps I should have declared an interest earlier, Mr Brady, as a former teacher and still a member of the NASUWT. Does my hon. Friend agree that schools find themselves in the middle of a conundrum? Teachers may see the problem of children on the autistic spectrum or with dyslexia and make a diagnosis, but they are frustrated because the resources and support that parents rightly demand are also lacking for teachers. They want to get on with the job. They may have identified the problem and know the direction of travel, but LEAs are often lacking resources.

[Robert Halfon]

My hon. Friend is right. If the teacher is well placed to understand and diagnose the problem, the matter should be sorted out from there. However, they often have to wade through relentless bureaucracy. It does not matter which local authority is involved, it is always “rule this, regulation that.” That is what makes lives difficult.

Parents are used to fighting to get a fair deal for their children, but we must not burden them with tons of forms, legal liabilities and compliance. We have to make it easier. I know that the Minister is looking into the matter, and I would be grateful if she reassured my constituents about the direction of Government policy.

10:00

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I did not plan to speak in the debate. Many hon. Members take a strong interest in this subject, but there are undoubtedly other meetings and Committees sitting this morning that have prevented them from attending the debate. I anticipated contributions from some of those hon. Members to whom I have often listened when they spoke about this subject. Since I have the opportunity to speak, however, I would like to raise one or two issues.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) on securing the debate. It is an interesting time for such a debate due to the publication of the Green Paper and the consultation. If we return to the subject in a few months, I suspect that we will have heard more from our constituents who are beginning to engage with the process and to look at the issues set out by my hon. Friend the Minister in the Green Paper.

If we look back at educational experiences over the generations, it is clear that there is now—thankfully—more recognition of the needs of pupils. Rather than seeking to exclude or blame pupils for the challenges they face, usually with huge courage and fortitude, there is now more recognition of those problems. Strategies have been developed to support pupils who face those various challenges and experiences.

Of course there is an issue of resources, and the challenge set out in the Green Paper to bring different agencies together and to come forward collectively with solutions is crucial for a number of reasons. As hon. Members have pointed out, families going through such problems often have to pursue multiple challenges with different agencies working alongside each other. Given how the system is currently configured, they have not only to fight with the local authority or even the school, if things have reached that stage, but to take on the local health trust to receive the provision that they need.

During my time representing the larger constituency of North Cornwall, as it was then constituted, I was involved in a fantastic campaign run by a wonderful woman called Sandy Lawrence. Sadly, the boundary has changed so I no longer have the benefit of her experience as a constituent, but she continues to work across Cornwall for children with Down’s syndrome. She brought to my attention the ludicrous provision in place for providing mobility aids for children who are perhaps slow to develop with walking, and pointed out the rather strange rules put in place by the primary care trusts that are split up across Cornwall.

A contract was provided by a neighbouring health trust to supply those pieces of equipment, but the commissioning was simply not up to the job or robust enough. When I, together with Sandy whose campaign it is, began to probe that situation, no one was able to say how much of a service and how many pieces of equipment had been provided for the money handed over by the local PCT, and over what period that had happened and for what purpose. The management information was dreadful. Sandy was going through that experience on behalf of a child who was approaching school age, and that equipment was crucial for engagement and moving into school. That fight was completely separate from anything to do with education, but it is crucial to bring those things together so that collaborative approaches can be drawn up.

Such an approach would also make it harder for different agencies to hide from each other. As we know, when resources are at stake, there is a tendency to say that it is someone else’s problem. If there is any opportunity to pass things on to someone else’s budget, people will grasp that opportunity. That is done not out of a sense of malice, but because people are under pressure. If we could develop a more collaborative approach, we will come up with solutions that will work better for families and children. That would be the case in the sort of situation I have outlined, which has improved drastically.

We know that child and adolescent mental health services are patchy across the country, and in a rural area such as my constituency it is challenging to provide support. The hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) described the support network of parents in a more urban setting. Such things exist in rural areas, but for all the reasons outlined, there are challenges in getting together because of difficulties with transport that can be acute. The determination to bring health providers to the table for debates and discussions is crucial, and I pay tribute to the Minister for the work that she has done in securing that initial collaboration with the Department of Health. I look forward to working with other hon. Members to ensure that that collaboration is delivered and becomes the reality.

I want to pick up on the point about providers of education that offer an inclusive model. That has been a subject of much debate, and it is right to ensure that special schools exist for those families for whom that is the right solution. At times, however, we do not give enough recognition to those schools that have determined to offer an inclusive programme of education. I recently met with Mr Ewan Murray, the head teacher of Robartes junior school in Bodmin. He spoke about some of the pupils in the school who were let down by other educational environments but who are now thriving. They travel past several other schools in order to get to his school because it specialises in ensuring that everybody works together and provides support.

I sit on the Committee that is considering the Education Bill currently going through the House. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan mentioned the approach taken to exclusion, but the other side of the coin is to ensure that we have confidence in early intervention so that exclusion is a last resort. Head teachers get frustrated if the situation reaches a point at which they need a permanent exclusion but know that an appeal could overturn that and put the child back in the school. There may have been earlier failures, and the Green Paper needs to look at that to identify those problems and to ensure that the situation is dealt with at an early stage.

Under the current system, which is due to change if the Bill is enacted in its current form, if the current appeals panel puts someone back in a school, the relationship with that school has often broken down and can be difficult to rebuild. The measures in the Bill concerning schools retaining an involvement and a responsibility for that pupil, and the provision they receive elsewhere, is a useful model. I welcome the work that will be done on that through pilot schemes and so on. Crucially, we must deal with problems early on so that the situation never gets near exclusion.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan on securing this debate and raising this issue at the time of the consultation. I suspect that we will return to the debate as other hon. Members get more involved and wish to contribute to the process. The determination set out by the Minister in the Green Paper to bring agencies together, particularly those in the health sector, is crucial, and I hope that it comes to fruition. It can make a huge difference for families and children who have been let down in the past.

10:08

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I thank the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) for bringing this very important subject to the Chamber. I was a little hesitant—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) felt the same—about taking part in the debate, even though I have a passion for the subject, because there is a difference between the arrangements in our part of the United Kingdom under the devolved Administration and those on the mainland. However, we can learn from each other’s experiences, and it is vital that we do. The devolved Administration should examine the current proposals and see what can be taken from them and what can be learned from them.

Some of the statements made by Ministers on this subject are certainly helpful. According to the pack prepared by the Library for the debate, the Government say that they will tackle the problem, which has never been addressed before. It then mentions a number of things that the Government propose. This Minister—the Children’s Minister—says:

“We have heard time and time again that parents are frustrated with endless delays to getting the help their child needs and by being caught in the middle when local services don’t work together.”

The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), who is responsible for public health, says:

“It is vital that children, whatever their needs, get the best possible start in life.”

The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning says:

“This Government wants to do more to help people overcome barriers that hold them back.”

All those statements are grand, but quite often we have had fancy statements from Ministers in the past. We will judge them by what they do, because statements of special educational needs will, without adequate finances, just be statements.

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about statements by Ministers and politicians. Many parents are concerned not only about the statement of special educational needs that their child receives, but about the quality of the education that their child receives. That is about the way in which their child is able to learn and whether their school, whether it be a private school—an independent school—a school in the voluntary aided sector or whatever, is able to assist them. The issue is more the help that is provided, rather than the statement for the child.

[Dr McCrea]

Yes. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The statements by Ministers that I read out contain fundamental principles that the Government are setting down. There is a review of this area, and the Government intend to make progress. All those fundamental statements by Ministers are important. All I am saying is that we will judge them by the actions thereafter, because the statements by Ministers will amount to nothing but air if they are not followed through and action is not taken to give the best possible educational opportunity to children with special needs.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann, I have special needs schools in my constituency and I know that many parents are battling for their children. When it comes to the statementing of children, my experience as a Member of Parliament is that my constituents have great difficulty in getting help when they really need it. Let us be honest: there are parents who do not have a great interest in the educational attainment of their children. Every parent should have a great interest in that, but not every parent does. Not every parent has the capacity to understand the great need for education for their children and how to get the best possible education for their children with special needs.

There are other parents, who have a real concern, yet they come up against walls, barriers and obstacles, which in the past they were not able to get over. We must ensure that we give the best possible advice and help to parents at what is a critical time, because many of the children whom we are talking about are losing years of their lives educationally that they will never be able to get back. It is vital that parents get the best advice at the right time and that therefore the child gets the best possible education, because that sets the stage not only for their educational attainment, but for their job prospects and everything else. It is vital that parents get help at the appropriate time. If that is what the Minister is setting her mind to, that will be of great help.

The Government also propose to ensure that assessment and plans run from birth to the age of 25. If I may, I will relate some of the experiences that I have had. In Northern Ireland, when children in special schools turn 18, they go outside the education system. They may have a mental capacity of seven, but they have a birth certificate that says that they are 18, and they leave their special school and go outside the education system. I am passionately angry about that, because what other child stops their educational attainment and advancement at seven years of age? No other child is allowed to stop at seven. Because the person has a birth certificate and a body that say that they are 18, they are moved aside. They have very special educational needs, but those needs are not being met after a particular age. That is a disgrace and an indictment of any society that allows it. I have in the past begged Ministers to intervene in this matter; I believe that they must tackle the issue. I trust that we will get answers on that.

Many parents are frustrated when it comes to getting statements for their children. Many do not have a sufficient understanding of what they need to do to get their child statemented and they come up against an education system that fights against that. There is a constant battle and, to be honest, many parents give up. The only person who loses is the child. We are talking about children and young people who need our help. That is where we as politicians come in. We set the guidelines.

[Mr Mark Williams]

Coming from one of the devolved nations as well, I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. There are lessons to learn from those of us in Wales. I am glad that the Minister is to have a meeting with my colleagues in Autism Cymru to talk about some of the issues; we have managed to fix up a meeting. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the corrosive effect on young people. There has been a lot of talk in this debate about the rights of parents, and I absolutely concur with that, but we are also talking about the rights of children. That is why early diagnosis and follow-through are so important. We are stacking up huge problems for children from key stage 1 right the way through the education system and into young adulthood, as the hon. Gentleman said, if we do not address these issues at the earliest opportunity.

[Dr McCrea]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I wholeheartedly agree with what he said. May I draw attention to this issue? We have talked about parents battling, but why should parents alone have to battle on this issue? Many do not even know how to battle, and parents should not have to know how to battle. We are putting the responsibility on the parent, and if the parent does not battle, the child loses out.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent contribution. I was one of those parents who battled through the system, as I will say in my contribution. Does he agree that more should be done to help to support parents? Often, parents feel that they are the only ones who have ever been through this experience. There is no signposting; it is almost as though the provision that is available is a big secret. Should local authorities provide more information to parents on what is available and how to find their way through the system?

[Dr McCrea]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I wholeheartedly agree. Many parents are in a panic because they do not know at all how to surmount the barriers that are put in their way. They want to do the best for their children—I am speaking about those who want to do the best for their children—and want to battle for their children. Parents have come to me in tears. They say, “I’m fighting for my child, because I will not always be here. Therefore, I want to give my child the best opportunity.” Parents have come to me who are broken mentally because they have tried their best, but it seems that obstacles and barriers are always placed in their way. That is not what our society should be doing. We should be signposting the way. When we come to a barrier, there must be a way over it, if we are to have the best education for our children, and especially those with special needs.

In conclusion, I once again thank the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan for bringing this important issue before us. I am delighted that the Government have identified some of the issues and have proposed measures, but the proof of the pie will be in the eating.

10:20

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) on securing this important and timely debate. He is a passionate and assiduous advocate for his constituents, and especially for children and young people with special educational needs, and his contribution this morning further underlined that. He showed his expertise and wide knowledge, and I am confident that he will go on to make a name for himself on this issue; indeed, he probably already has this morning. I also pay tribute to other hon. Members for their excellent contributions and interventions. I welcome the fact that we have had some new faces and some new voices on this issue.

As hon. Members will know, I have responsibility for this issue as shadow Children’s Minister, but I also have a personal interest in improving provision for children and young people with special educational needs, because my son is one of those people. He displayed delayed speech development and did not utter his first word until he was three. Then, learning to read just did not happen. Despite the fact that he was obviously very bright and able, and despite my constant appeals to his teachers to help him, he was 10 years old before one amazing teacher, who understood SEN because she happened to have a son with SEN herself, eventually helped. My son was diagnosed as severely dyslexic, although highly intelligent, and he was eventually statemented.

My son missed out on six years of learning because none of his teachers spotted that he was dyslexic until he was nine, when the statementing process began. I did not spot that he was dyslexic, because I had never had a dyslexic child or come across anybody with dyslexia. Even though I was constantly asking what was wrong with my son, it was not until I met the teacher I mentioned and explored the problem with her that he was diagnosed by an educational psychologist.

My son is now thriving, having done well in his GCSEs. He got more than five grade Cs and above, but he would not have got the English baccalaureate, because dyslexics do not do foreign languages, as Members may know. At the moment, he is at college, studying a course he loves, with aspirations of going to university and taking up a career in digital games design. That shows the difference that good provision can make, but I cannot say that we got there without a fight, and hon. Members have already discussed the battles parents face. For too many children and their parents, fighting the system becomes a daily struggle.

Having had those experiences—good and bad—of the current system, I was as pleased as anyone when Ministers announced that they would review it with the intention of removing at least some of that struggle. Having finally seen the Green Paper earlier this month, I am pleased to say that I can, in principle, agree with a lot of the proposals it contains. Many of them have already been discussed, and the expansion of Achievement for All, improved teacher training and a simplified and more holistic assessment process will be positive steps, as long as the new education, health and care plans have the same legal rights as statements with regard to health and social care and not just education. I also broadly support the introduction of personal budgets, provided that there is adequate local commissioning to ensure that there is a choice of services for parents and children and specialised support to help them make their choices. In addition, those who do not want to make a choice, but want it made for them, should not be forced to make one.

Unfortunately, while the Green Paper was being consulted on and drafted, the Government’s policies across the board started to alter the landscape for SEN provision. There are now real concerns right across the sector—I have had been told about them in the numerous briefings I have received, as I am sure other Members have—that the positive proposals to come out of the Green Paper may not work in practice. For example, the Government want schools and the NHS to work more closely together at a local level, yet Ministers are forcing through legislation that will make that much more difficult.

The Government also want children’s centres to be hubs where parents can access specialist help and support for their toddlers, yet they have cut and destabilised the fund that pays for those centres. As we have heard, research by the Daycare Trust estimates that up to 250 centres will close in the coming year, with a far greater number looking to reduce opening hours or services.

In addition, the Government highlight the importance of skilled specialists such as educational psychologists and speech and language therapists, yet councils up and down the country are being forced to lose those professionals right now because of the large, top-heavy funding cuts forced on them by the Minister’s colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government. Unfortunately, the Green Paper does not address those realities, which will make it much harder to implement any of the positive proposals in it.

Last week, the Minister told me across the Dispatch Box that she acknowledges that councils have tough decisions to make, and we all know why that is. She said, however, that she hopes the Green Paper will improve provision across the board. I always thought that the point of being a Minister and making policy was to take decisions and make things happen, not just to hope that they do. In this case, unfortunately, I fear that the Government are intent on leaving things to chance and that a system already criticised for being a postcode lottery could become even more of one.

There are real concerns that the Government are ending the assumption of inclusion in favour of an assumption of segregation. Parents should have a choice of school based on which will be best for their child, but what choice will there be if mainstream schools are stripped of the resources to provide for varying levels of need to fund the establishment of academies and free schools?

Given that secondary schools are to be ranked according to the narrow and prescriptive requirements of the English baccalaureate—as I said, no dyslexic child will be able to achieve it, because of the foreign language element—and that the contextual value added measure will be dropped, there is a perverse incentive for head teachers to turn away or put off pupils they know will be more difficult to teach. The admissions and exclusions reforms in the Education Bill, which is currently in Committee, will make it much easier for head teachers to do that. Cuts to legal aid will leave parents struggling even to appeal such decisions.

We know that children on school action and school action plus are already 20 times more likely to be excluded than those with a statement. We know that because having that status means that the needs and progress of such children are recorded. If the support they currently receive is reduced, they will be even more vulnerable to exclusion. I therefore share many parents’ fears that the abolition of that system of recognition could mean many children with real barriers to learning finding that they are no longer able to access specialist support, with the result that they fall further behind in school or are excluded. Effectively, they will be swept under the carpet in terms of the monitoring provided for in the Special Educational Needs (Information) Act 2008. As Members may be aware, I introduced that legislation as a private Member’s Bill so that we could better monitor the progress of all children with SEN. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan tried to introduce a similar Measure in the Welsh Assembly, and I was disappointed to learn that he was not successful in that endeavour.

There may well be over-identification in some instances, but it is clear that there is a lot of under-identification in others, as we have heard. We have only to consider the fact that at least 60%, and sometimes up to 80%, of young offenders are identified as having undiagnosed speech, language and communication difficulties to realise that lots of kids going through the system need help but are not being identified at all. More worryingly, they are more likely to have self-fulfilling labels slapped on them and to be told that they are naughty or lazy.

A greater focus on early identification is bound to throw up a much bigger case load, so how can the Government talk about making arbitrary cuts to the numbers of pupils receiving help? As for those pupils who would benefit from better-trained teachers and programmes such as Achievement for All, how would the Minister ensure that sufficient training and programmes are in place in every school, before sweeping away school action status?

From the feedback I have had from the sector, I could go into minute detail on many points, but I will save that for another day, because I am sure that hon. Members want to hear from the Minister. We actually have more time than usual and I want to ensure she has her full allocation.

I think we can all agree that every child deserves all the support they need to access the curriculum and develop into a capable and well-rounded adult, whether that means complex care packages, adapted teaching or an hour a week with a specialist dyslexia tutor. Whatever comes out of the consultation on the Green Paper, a promise that every child gets the support they need must be central to it.

10:30

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady; I think it is the first time I have been able to do so. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) on securing the debate. I am grateful to have this opportunity so soon after we published the Green Paper. It is useful to learn what hon. Members think and hear the feedback from their constituencies. The hon. Gentleman said he hoped there would be other opportunities; I do, too. As hon. Members are able to go into their constituencies and use the consultation to talk to their local groups, they will have the opportunity to bring that feedback to the House, so that we can discuss it.

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has a long-standing interest in the subject. He also mentioned his wife; that is a real power partnership. We are grateful for the expertise he and other hon. Members brought to a good-quality debate—Members including the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who spoke of her experience of battling to get support for her child.

As hon. Members will be aware, the core of the reform that we are trying to bring to the system is quite radical, and it will take time to bed down and to get it right. Unfortunately, I am not able to promise that overnight we will be able to transform the experience radically for every family who has a disabled child or one with special educational needs. In some of the things that we are doing, it will take time to change attitudes and mindsets. That is why we are taking the approach of using pilots—so that we can begin to roll them out and learn from the experience.

Core to the reform is the change to a nought-to-25 system that is more continuous. I want the system to be more focused on outcomes, rather than focusing just on inputs. A lot of the tension arises partly because people get hung up on the question, “How many hours?”, rather than thinking about where we want the child and family to be in 12 months’ time. We should have that type of conversation from the outset. We should look at the child and family and ask: what are the realistic goals? Where do we want to be next year? What are the realistic goals, long term? We should then put in place the right kind of support to get children and families into that position for the long term.

[Alun Cairns]

I recognise the focus on outcomes, but does the Minister also recognise that parents can only guarantee the inputs to deliver the outcomes through a statement of special educational needs? Of course, it will be called something different and will have a slightly different form if the Green Paper becomes a White Paper. As I tried to highlight, if a therapist is sick or on maternity leave, provision is rarely replaced during that period. We will not achieve the outcomes unless there is a guarantee of the inputs.

[Sarah Teather]

I will come to the specifics of the statementing process. The hon. Gentleman’s contribution on that was helpful. It is about getting the detail right and ensuring that the system works.

I have mentioned that I want a nought-to-25 process, and that it should be more outcomes-focused. It also needs to be a joint assessment process. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) said that the current system was too costly, often because people go through it several times—something that the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan also mentioned. It is very frustrating for families if they have to go through multiple assessments, telling the same story over and over again to professionals. That wastes their time and the professionals’ time. When I have listened to families speaking about their experience, I have been struck by how traumatic it is; they relive the grief they experienced when they first had the diagnosis of the disability or special educational need. Every time they tell the story, they are effectively reliving that initial trauma. When that is combined with the frustration of feeling that nobody is listening to them, it is incredibly stressful for families.

We have to streamline the assessment process, so that families go through fewer hoops, we come up with one plan into which everybody is tied, and people know who is responsible for paying for what, rather than there being an endless fight over where that responsibility sits in different sections of the statement. That picks up the point on which the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan ended his contribution. At the moment, unfortunately, one needs to be highly articulate and, too often, financially able, in order to get the best out of the system. That is simply not good enough. We have to make the system simpler and more straightforward, so that every family can get what their child deserves: the best possible support and care.

As a number of hon. Members have said, the current system is cumbersome, costly and inconsistent. The first thing we have tried to do is take some of the adversarial nature out of the process. Again, I cannot promise that we will never have tension between families and services providing for their child; that is not realistic. However, there is a lot we can do to reduce that, so that it does not come immediately, and so that we change the nature of the conversation from the outset.

We want to begin with the idea of a local offer, so that when someone first encounters the local authority or health service, they are not told: “Prove that you need help.” Local services should be coming to parents and saying, “This is what we normally provide; now let’s have the discussion about how we tailor that, and what we need to do for you in your situation.” That should change the relationship from the beginning. That again was a point made by the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan. The attempt to get people to talk at the end of the process can be unsuccessful if trust broke down right at the beginning. That was highlighted for us by the Council for Disabled Children, which spoke passionately about the need for a local offer. In areas where that has been developed, it has changed the relationship from the beginning. That has been much more fruitful; even if parents decide to go all the way through the special educational needs and disability tribunal, the nature of the conversation can be much better from the beginning.

Mainstream schools need to be clearer with families about what they would normally provide for children with a range of learning difficulties, disabilities or additional needs. At the moment, there is great inconsistency. It can be difficult for parents to work out whether their child’s needs are greater than those normally provided for in a school—the legal definition of special educational needs. As a consequence, local authorities complain that the tribunal will often make inconsistent decisions about whether a statement is required. It is not in anyone’s interest for all that to be so cloak-and-dagger. Much more can be clearer from the beginning.

The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan said that a lot of the detail did not work. He mentioned the tension between outcomes and incomes-focused criteria. I recognise his point, but if we begin with outcomes, it changes the nature of the discussion. We sometimes hear that families will cling to a statement that may not be suitable for their child’s needs, as those needs have changed. That is not in the interests of the family. If we can focus more on the outcomes and the support that we need to provide for a family as we move to an agreed set of goals, families are less likely to cling to unsuitable provision, and more likely to be willing to accept changes that might be right for their child. Focusing on outcomes rather than inputs requires a huge change of mindset. As I said earlier, of all the things that we are trying to do, that will probably take the longest to bed down.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall said that going around the loop repeatedly is often expensive. If we do not get children the support that they need early enough, that is also expensive; a greater, more serious intervention might be needed later. Many of the families that we spoke to, and the voluntary organisations that we worked with when drawing up the Green Paper, told us that parents use the expensive independent school not always for the education that it provides, but often because it has therapists on tap, particularly speech and language therapists. As a result of the frustration of not being able to get speech and language therapy through other means, some parents will push all the way through the tribunal for the expensive independent provision—but that, of course, comes out of the local authority’s budget, and not the health service budget. In the end, there is no incentive for local services to work together, or to provide a plan that should be paid for jointly. There would be significantly less cost to the public purse in the long term if we could get it right from the beginning.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan spoke about delays in the system. It is clearly ridiculous for small children to have to wait six months for the necessary support, because they are at a critical period in their development. Anything that we can do to speed up that process is important. I hope that the joint process, the single assessment process, will remove some of the delays. Many delays are the result of local authorities having to co-ordinate the expertise of various professionals; that is particularly so with professional input on health.

One of our first priorities, even before we get to the joint process, is the statementing process; we want people to contribute sooner, more quickly, more rapidly and more efficiently. It is not good for families to have to wait. The nub of what we are doing is reducing delay in the short term. As for the longer term, I hope that the pilots will show that having one process speeds things up. That is a key objective in getting people to work together.

[Alun Cairns]

The Minister rightly focuses on the cut proposed in the Green Paper from 26 weeks to 20 weeks. I referred in my speech to a delay in a tribunal taking place; it took from 10 August last year until mid-January for the case to come to the tribunal. That was far longer than it took to get the published statement. We should not forget that a case could be taken to tribunal twice—once regarding the statutory assessment, and once regarding the statement. What consideration has the Minister given to that? It would be a significant step forward if that wait was curtailed to a reasonable length.

[Sarah Teather]

The hon. Gentleman need not panic; I wrote everything down. I may not be able to cover every point that he raised as I cannot scribble that quickly, but he raises the very point that I wanted to deal with next.

I turn first, however, to what the hon. Gentleman said about mediation; he asked whether it would introduce extra delay. That is absolutely not the intention. When we roll it out, we want to make it clear to local authorities that the addition of mediation should not delay the process of going to the tribunal. The quality of conversation ought to be better from the outset, so I hope that the process will be more successful.

The other key point to make about mediation is that it needs to be high-quality. If people are simply going through the motions, it will add extra frustration for everyone concerned. In the Green Paper, we point to some examples of good practice, particularly in the west midlands. Independent mediation there has made a real difference to the solutions that parents are being given, and people have not had to go through the tribunal process. Parents were happier because they had much better conversations with local providers.

I turn to tribunal delays. I was concerned to hear of the example given by the hon. Gentleman. The tribunal in England aims to hear cases within 22 weeks of the appeal being registered. We regularly meet the tribunal at an official level and raise the matter with it, but we will raise the specific point that the hon. Gentleman makes. It would help to know whether the case was in England or Wales.

[Alun Cairns]

It was in England.

[Sarah Teather]

That is helpful. We will raise that case with the tribunal. Personal budgets were alluded to by a number of Members, particularly the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon). I hope that they will cut some of the frustration for families. They are a choice, not an obligation; families will not be obliged to take up personal budgets. We realise that not every family will want to do so, but some will believe that they would be better able to make choices about how family life was run if they had the freedom to decide how to care for their child. That needs to be trialled. Some small-scale pilots have been run for disabled children in recent years with some elements of the health budget, and we will build on that.

In the Green Paper, we are consulting on what should be included in the scheme. One suggestion is that we include school transport, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Harlow. I hope that will give families more freedom to decide which school their children could attend. The obvious thing to include in personal budgets is key equipment such as speech and language aids, which were mentioned earlier, and wheelchairs. I have experience of this as a constituency MP, and I know from being involved with the Green Paper that delays in the provision of wheelchairs are unfortunately extremely common. Indeed, the wait can sometimes be so long that children have grown out of the wheelchair by the time it arrives. That is utterly ridiculous. It is a waste of public money, and the impact on the child can be considerable. Indeed, one child in my constituency was not able to attend school while waiting for a new wheelchair because the old one was the wrong size and was giving him sores. That is not good enough.

Another obvious candidate for a personal budget is therapy, particularly speech and language therapy. That raises the subject of adequate provision, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Harlow. I have no doubt that the joint strategic needs assessment process needs to be better at picking up needs, from the ground upwards. The Green Paper commits the Department of Health to ensuring that the needs assessment is done in a way that responds to the needs of families with disabled children in the area. I hope that that deals with the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.

[Dan Rogerson]

That point is crucial, and it could represent a huge step forward. We are obviously focusing on younger people, and my experience as a constituency MP is that direct payment with personal budgeting has worked for social care; there is often an element of health care as well, but at the moment that cannot be provided through primary care trusts with a direct payment model. That is incredibly frustrating, and it is a barrier to getting a package that works for families. I have had that experience with families who are caring for older people, and I believe that lessons can be learned right the way across.

[Sarah Teather]

Absolutely. We intend rolling that out as a legal entitlement, and that will bite on local services. Local authorities are going to have to budget, rather than agreeing to put something in a plan and then dodging the responsibility for paying for it. If parents are legally entitled to request provision—local services will not know which parents will request it—local services will have to budget for that. We expect that services will be provided on the ground, but we need to test the system with pilots to ensure that there is a bite on all services. We want to ensure that all families get the services that they have been promised, and do not find themselves in the same position as before, where something would be written in section 3 or 5 of a statement but not be provided by local health services.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) has spoken on a number of occasions about the frustration of teachers. He said that it is not only parents who are frustrated; teachers often feel inadequately prepared to work with children with a range of additional specialist needs. However, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West told us that one inspirational teacher made the difference for her child. That is the point. We hear many fantastic examples of professionals who lead practice, but even one professional who believes in a child and who takes responsibility can make such a difference. They can be teachers or other professionals with whom the family come into contact. That kind of practice needs to be much more common, which is why we propose improving initial teacher training. We will use both special and mainstream schools for teaching purposes to ensure that professionals learn from the good practice of others. We will also focus on continuing professional development, using both online specialist material, some of which was launched last week, and scholarship funds to ensure that teachers and teaching assistants have access to funds to gain a greater specialism.

The point about teaching assistants is new; we have a new way of thinking about their role. As many families know, teaching assistants often have more experience than the classroom teacher of working with children with additional needs. By giving them an opportunity to develop their career, we may well bring to the teaching profession many more individuals who have a real background, interest and focus on this subject.

Let me touch on the issue of choice, to which the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West and my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall referred. The point about trying to reverse the bias is exactly about choice. If there is currently a bias in one direction or another, that is not about choice. The focus of our Green Paper is on improving choice for families, so that they can make decisions about what is best for their child. Too often, however, it ends up being Hobson’s choice, because they feel that the mainstream school does not have the capability to support their child. That is why we want a focus on teacher training and the Achievement for All pilot.

I want to focus on Achievement for All and to pick up the point about over-diagnosis raised by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea). Achievement for All is a pilot programme that ran in 10 local authorities and 450 schools. Schools and parents found that it substantially increased the attainment of children in schools. That was true in special schools, in which children might have highly complex needs and a statement, and in mainstream schools, in which children might be on school action or school action plus. The improvement in attainment stemmed from the quality of the interaction between the school and parents, and between teachers and the child.

Under the pilot, there is a greater focus on setting goals, on monitoring the attainment of those goals and on sharing information with families and making sure that they are involved in their child’s attainment. Head teachers said that when they used the programme it changed their mindset; it was about not money, but attitude. That attitude affected not just the children with whom teachers were working on the SEN register, but all the children in the school who had additional needs.

Some Members implied that we were arbitrarily taking children off the SEN register. Though the powers of Government are great, they are not great enough to mandate the press to report what we say accurately. Unfortunately, the press like to write about numbers. They multiplied our figures and came up with a large number that may or may not be our target. I was very clear with them at the press briefing, as I have been clear with them since, that the Government do not have a target for the number of children they want off the SEN register. What we want is schools to work with children to ensure they fulfil their potential.

When Achievement for All was rolled out in some schools, it was found that the increase in attainment was so great that children no longer needed to be on the SEN register. Surely that should be welcomed by everybody. This is not about arbitrarily reducing numbers.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I am listening with great interest to the Minister. She has clarified many of the points that have been raised. The media may have come to their conclusions because they felt that the figure of 21% of children being diagnosed with SEN was too high. I definitely read that in the media.

[Sarah Teather]

Unfortunately, I am not in control of what the media write. Ofsted said that too many children are diagnosed with special educational needs; it said the number could be as high as one in four. Let me repeat that we are not setting a target for the number of children we want off the SEN register.

We have changed the school action and school action plus criteria because schools said that they were bureaucratic and not very helpful. At the start of this debate, there was an exchange about whether there is a financial incentive for schools to use school action and school action plus. There is no financial incentive, because in most cases the funds are already delegated to schools. We have got rid of contextual value added, which Ofsted said was an incentive, in terms of league tables. The issue is much more complex. Teachers will sometimes label children as having SEN because they think that that is the right thing to do; we should not always assume malicious motives. Teachers believe that the right thing to do is to label a child as having SEN, whereas what they probably need to do is work closely with that child, raise their attainment, and work out what the barriers are that are preventing them from moving forward.

It is important to identify need at an early stage. This morning, Dame Clare Tickell launched her report on the review of the early years foundation stage. It will take us some time to go through the detail of her recommendations, but one of the things that she has picked up—this was also picked up in our Green Paper and by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) in his review a few months ago—was whether we could make better use of the two-and-a-half-year-old check and link it with the early years foundation stage, so that we pick up need at an early age. That is particularly important for speech and language issues. Dame Clare has recommended that the new foundation building blocks of the EYFS be focused particularly on communication needs, personal, emotional and social development, and physical development. I hope that the suggestion will help improve the system for professionals working in early years.

[Robert Halfon]

I realise that there is very little time left. Will the Minister comment on my remarks about the blue badge issue?

[Sarah Teather]

I was concerned to hear the hon. Gentleman’s point about the particular difficulties that families with autism face. Families with a disabled child face complicated and diverse barriers to living a normal life, and that is an issue that should not be addressed by the Department for Education alone. I will take up his point with the Department for Communities and Local Government.

In the last couple of minutes that I have left, let me pick up on as many points as I can. The Department of Health is considering the future training and development of speech and language therapists as part of its wider consultation on the work force.

Exclusions were referred to by a number of hon. Members. The proposals laid out in the Education Bill and in the schools White Paper will substantially improve the situation for vulnerable young people because it will make schools responsible for what happens to them after they leave that school. The other proposal that we have put in our Green Paper is that if a child’s behaviour is not responding to normal behavioural management techniques, or if they are being repeatedly excluded on a short-term basis, schools should, as a matter of course, do some kind of multi-agency assessment, which could be done through the common assessment framework. They should use their local multi-agency assessment process as a system for questioning why a child’s behaviour is out of control. I hope that will reduce the number of children who end up being excluded. More importantly, we need to ensure that we put in place the right kind of support for a child, whether it is helping with a situation in their family, or with a mental health problem.

I thought that I would have loads of time to cover all the points, but that is clearly not the case. There is a long consultation period now of four months, and a long period of implementation. I am grateful to hon. Members for their points and I will ensure that they are fed into our formal consultation process. I encourage hon. Members to engage with their local parents’ forums and groups to ensure that, when we respond to the consultation, we really take into account what families and children want. It is important that we get this right because the care of those children really matters.

Squatting

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Brady.

I will start this debate with a quote:

“This place isn’t nice enough for me. I want somewhere posher, with a swimming pool if possible.”

Those are not the words of someone complaining about the gym facilities at the House of Commons. They are the words of one of London’s most prolific squatters about his latest free home in Hampstead, as reported in the Evening Standard last week. We are all covering his council tax contributions, his electricity bills and his gas bills, and we are all paying for the police to investigate each time a new break-in is reported.

As my hon. Friend the Minister stated in a recent letter to me, squatting is

“the unauthorised occupation of property belonging to another person and amounts to trespass on land”.

Some forms of trespass are criminal, such as those that take place on licensed aerodromes and railways, but I am focusing today on all the other forms of squatting. They relate to offices, flats and houses; to empty and occupied buildings, and to private and public property. These forms of squatting are unlawful but not criminal.

Squatting is a huge problem in Hove and Portslade and I have been campaigning on the issue since I was elected to Parliament. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister and our right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government have made joint announcements on the issue. I am also grateful to the organisations, such as Landlord Action, that have helped me to raise awareness of this issue around the country.

The Ministers’ announcements will be widely welcomed by those who have been adversely affected by squatters. I will make the case today that time is of the essence. The problem is getting worse, not better. However, there are two sides to this story and getting to the crux of the matter is not just about cracking down on trespassers themselves.

I wish to dispel the myth, once and for all, that squatters and homeless people are one and the same. My constituency has both wealth and deprivation. It is a Mecca for every character imaginable, which makes it such a wonderfully diverse place to live in. Homelessness is an issue locally, but we have a fantastic support network of local charities, including Emmaus, Brighton Housing Trust, Off The Fence and the YMCA, which look after a great number of vulnerable people. It is our duty to look after such people and I fully support the excellent work being carried out in this area.

Tackling homelessness is also a high priority for Brighton and Hove city council. The council is working hard to reduce the number of empty properties in the city and last year alone 168 long-term empty properties were brought back into use. In 1997, 200 council-owned properties were long-term empty but that figure is now down to just 28.

However, putting considerable resources into removing squatters and paying for the damage that they inevitably cause places a strain on council services. In the past 18 months, there have been 10 instances of squatting in council-owned properties in Brighton and Hove, which has cost local people more than £30,000 in legal bills alone. The repair bill for one particular property was £40,000, which again had to be picked up by the residents of Brighton and Hove. Squatters are damaging buildings that are in the process of refurbishment, which only exacerbates the housing shortage.

In my experience, squatters do not fit the profile of the kind of vulnerable people that we should be looking out for. I am generalising of course, but for the purpose of this discussion I want to make the point that serial squatters know the law. They submit freedom of information requests to councils to find out where there are empty buildings; they are “web-savvy” and highly resourceful; they run rings around the law, and what these professional squatters lack in respect for other people’s property they make up for in guile and tenacity. They are organised and frequently menacing.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware of the Shelter website, which I was quite horrified to read? As he knows, my constituency has a persistent problem of squatters. But Shelter has a guide to squatting, about how to keep on the right side of the law, on its website. Does he agree that it is reprehensible to encourage people in this illegal activity?

[Mike Weatherley]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I very much agree with him. I will go on to make some specific points about “The Squatters Handbook” shortly.

I said that squatters know the law well but the absolute opposite is true when it comes to the public in general, who would be shocked if they knew just how powerless they are to take on squatters. Many members of the public do not find that out until it is too late. Section 6 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 makes it an offence to use violence, or threats of violence, to gain access to premises when

“there is someone present on those premises…who is opposed to the entry”.

That section is what is usually referred to as squatters’ rights, but I do not believe that it exists to assist squatting. It is in place to prevent unscrupulous landlords from using violence or intimidation to evict legitimate tenants. Squatters, therefore, have such rights only by accident.

A local resident asked me a question in my local paper, The Argus:

“If squatting is a practice that is socially unacceptable, how is leaving a property empty for more than a year any more acceptable?”

My answer is simple—it is not acceptable at all. I have contacted my local council on a number of occasions about the issue of empty buildings belonging to exploitative developers. We should be careful, though, not to embrace squatting on the principle that “our enemy’s enemy is a friend”. We must get tough on bad landlords—and soon—but buildings can be temporarily empty for all sorts of reasons and many of those reasons are entirely acceptable.

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

One reason why a house remains empty is the death of the occupier. Such a house can very often lie dormant for months, sometimes years, while the family and the executors sort out probate, and it can be very worrying and distressing if squatters move in during that time.

[Mike Weatherley]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Squatting can be very distressing for those who are affected by it.

Let us take the case of 40 Wilbury Villas in Hove. As I have said, Brighton and Hove city council is carrying out a huge refurbishment project on a number of properties. Those properties are public assets, which should be in use and let to those who have been deemed to be most in need of them. No. 40 Wilbury Villas is one such property and work on it was planned. However, when a particularly vigilant neighbour spotted the locks being changed, he knew that something was up. Straight away, a notice appeared on the door listing the rights of squatters. It was downhill from then on, as an endless stream of professional squatters turned up for their share of the spoils.

It is interesting that the notice on the door was selective about the laws that it mentioned. Many of the crimes that go hand in hand with squatting were conveniently left off that notice. There was nothing on the subject of breaking and entering; nothing on breach of the peace; nothing on the misuse of drugs; nothing on criminal damage; nothing on antisocial behaviour; nothing on non-payment of council tax; nothing on arson; nothing on robbery; nothing on unauthorised works to listed buildings; nothing on using utilities without contacting the suppliers, and there was certainly nothing on fly-tipping.

I have discussed the issue of squatting with Sussex police, and its powers are limited. There are not always witnesses in cases of squatting, so arrest is often difficult. Protected intended occupiers and displaced residential occupiers have some protection, but not enough. Incidentally, members of the same group of squatters that took over 40 Wilbury Villas then took over another property nearby, Park House. Once again, a historic building was damaged and as a result refurbishment of the property will now be more expensive.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Is there any way that the local authority could cut off the services to a property occupied by squatters and not reinstate those services? I understand that, such is their knowledge of the law, squatters are able to phone up and have the services reconnected. Is there not a position within the law whereby the services can be cut off right away because a payment has to be made?

[Mike Weatherley]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. However, I believe that local authorities cannot cut off services. If the squatters contact the electricity suppliers legally and use the electricity legally, the police are powerless to go and arrest them. There might be some other points about non-payment that could lead to services being disconnected, but I do not believe that services can be disconnected on other grounds. However, I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that point.

Mr Brady, please forgive me when I say that I was sceptical when I read that my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government had jointly released the guide, “Advice on dealing with squatters in your home”. The guide is actually very good and to the point, and I recommend it to anybody who owns a property that has been invaded by squatters, or to anybody who is a neighbour of a property with squatters. Squatters themselves will not need to read it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) mentioned earlier, they have their own guide, “The Squatters Handbook”. Like the notice on the door at 40 Wilbury Villas, that handbook is sadly very selective, both when it comes to rights in the law and in its morality.

As I alluded to earlier, I have little sympathy for landlords who use loopholes in the planning system to run down buildings or for landlords who simply do not care that their properties are in a poor state. Compared to other countries, however, the UK has very few empty buildings. In Spain and Italy, more than 20% of the sorts of properties that we are discussing today were empty in 2009; in Germany, the figure was 8.2% and in France 6.1%. The current UK figure is between 3% and 4%. Among comparable countries, only the Netherlands and Sweden had lower figures, at 2.2% and 1.7% respectively. We can do better, of course, but the problem is not one of empty buildings. Business rates, council tax enforcement and compulsory purchase are all deterrents to leaving properties empty, but there is some scope for improving the system.

My recent early-day motion 1545 calling for squatting to be criminalised has attracted cross-party support. Members of the public are getting tired of hearing that squatters are getting so much for free when they themselves are struggling to get by. They are also fed up with the antisocial behaviour of, and general mess caused by, squatters. High-profile campaigns run by The Daily Telegraph and the Evening Standard are certainly helping to highlight what is really going on.

The extent of the problem was highlighted in a parliamentary question that I recently asked to determine which Departments had been affected by squatting. A number of Departments have fallen foul of squatters, including the Ministry of Justice, one of whose buildings was occupied by squatters twice in one year, with interim possession orders being sought to remove the squatters on each occasion. If the Ministry of Justice has problems, what chance have the rest of us got?

Fortunately, we do not need to look far for a solution. In Scotland, this form of trespass is already a criminal offence. I am aware that the Government have the matter under review, but I am concerned that the proposals will not go far enough. I welcome the announcement that squatting is likely to be criminalised, but the devil will be in the detail. Properties can be destroyed very quickly, and it should be possible to remove squatters instantly, as any delay results in further damage and destruction. There should be tough penalties and a criminal record.

I will end, as I began, with a worrying quote from our friend in Hampstead who wants a free swimming pool:

“Law changes will never stop us. The Government can say all they want but squatting will still go on…There is nothing they can do.”

I hope that he is wrong.

11:10

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) on securing this debate on a very serious issue. Like him, I have become increasingly concerned about the distress and misery that squatters can cause to commercial property owners and home owners alike. In his excellent contribution, he identified the costs not only to individuals but to wider society, including the costs associated with enforcement by the police, and with all the public agencies that have to clean up after squatting incidents, either through the legal process or literally, when properties have been invaded. There should, therefore, be no doubt about the seriousness with which the issue is taken and the perniciousness of the crime.

I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend’s compliments about the guidance issued by the Minister for Housing and Local Government and me. My hon. Friend came to it with a proper degree of scepticism about whether it would be of any use. I am extremely grateful that, having examined it, he has referred to its utility. That is only the first stage of the process, so let me take Members through the further action that we are contemplating.

My hon. Friend has not been alone in raising the matter, both directly with me in questions and publicly, with this debate. He is joined by our hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) who came to see me before Christmas to discuss the damage that squatters caused to commercial buildings supervised by one of her constituents. The extent of the damage and the cost to her constituents are appalling. She was accompanied by Steve Cross, head of security for a development company, who made it clear that squatters were costing his company many thousands of pounds because of the direct damage to the buildings, the problems caused to neighbours with loud parties, litter and rubbish, and the amount of time it takes to sort things out—sometimes six to 12 weeks for a court order to be granted and then finally enforced. We all know that the legal process is tricky, particularly for someone coming to it for the first time, and it is almost inevitably expensive, with court costs to be borne as well.

Since Christmas, we have seen a succession of newspaper reports about squatters occupying high-value residential properties in London, and there have been reports on the consequences of squatting in local papers all around the country, including, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hove has said, in his constituency. The situation is not confined to the capital, and I suspect that the picture is similar in other large towns, but we do not have a precise idea of how many squatters there are nationwide. We do know, however, that 360 applications for interim possession orders were made in the civil courts last year. An interim possession order is an accelerated process, specifically designed for evicting squatters. It provides an indicator of how many households are blighted by squatting each year, but that figure is probably only the tip of the iceberg.

It is because we are aware of the misery that squatters can cause that we intend to strengthen the law, and consider how to strengthen its enforcement. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me, however, because we are yet to complete the cross-departmental process of analysing our own Ministry of Justice internal suggestions before publishing a formal consultation. We are going through the internal agreement processes. Nevertheless, I would like to leave him with a clear steer on our approach.

[Jim Shannon]

Is there a role for the UK Border Agency here, alongside the police? I am not saying that this is always the case, but I am aware that in some cases squatters might be in the country illegally.

[Mr Blunt]

I certainly hope that if there were any reliable evidence that the people involved were in the country illegally, the UKBA would be engaged in initiating appropriate proceedings to remove them from the United Kingdom. I had not considered that angle in preparing my remarks for the debate, but the obvious answer is yes, one would expect the appropriate authorities—in this case the UKBA—to be properly engaged in exercising their responsibilities, in the same way as they would be in any other circumstance.

We will want to examine the existing squatting laws to see whether they can be appropriately strengthened because, having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove, the issues that were raised at Justice questions yesterday, and the conduct of the whole public debate, it is pretty clear to me where the public are on this issue and I am confident that measures to strengthen the law would have significant support.

[Mike Weatherley]

Is the Minister considering full criminalisation of squatting as part of those measures? In my constituency and elsewhere, there are serial squatters who just move from one property to another when they are evicted. In one instance in my constituency, they kicked a hole in the wall and moved next door. The police are powerless to have any damages or continuing action taken out against the squatters. Without the criminal process, they are just moved on and then do it again.

[Mr Blunt]

That is, of course, one of the things that we are considering, and it has been pointed out that in Scotland squatting is a criminal offence. That offence, however, is extremely widely drawn and for that reason the tariff of punishment is extremely low. It is at the very bottom of the scale—a level 1 offence—with a fine not exceeding £200.

[Mike Freer]

Perhaps I could help the Minister on that point. I understand that squatting is a criminal offence under the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865, which states that the maximum penalty is a fine or 21 days’ imprisonment. That is a slightly firmer penalty than in the information the Minister has, and I urge the Government to adopt it.

[Mr Blunt]

That might have been the position in 1865, but I am afraid that the Criminal Justice Act 1982 restricted punishment to a fine not exceeding level 1, which is currently £200.

[Mike Weatherley]

It is important to establish that penalties in Scotland are too lenient. The fine is indeed £200 for an offence. The penalty for non-payment of that fine is 21 days.

[Mr Blunt]

I am grateful for that clarification.

Squatting is almost inevitably accompanied by a series of criminal offences, such as criminal damage or breaking into the property in the first place. The improper use of utilities was discussed. Using someone else’s electricity is theft, subject to a maximum sentence of seven years. The unlawful abstraction of electricity is also a criminal offence, with a maximum sentence of five years. There are numerous avenues.

To lay out the picture in the time that I have left, the main criminal law provisions on squatting are set out in sections 6 and 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. I will deal with section 6 first, as it has given rise to the popular notion of squatters’ rights. Section 6 of the 1977 Act states that it is an offence for a person to use violence to enter a property where someone inside is opposed to their entry. The offence was designed to stop unscrupulous landlords from using violence to evict legitimate tenants, but its existence has led some squatters to display so-called section 6 notices on the door of properties notifying the property owner that it would be an offence for him to break back in.

The offence does not apply to displaced residential occupiers who break back into their own homes, but it prevents commercial property owners from breaking back into their commercial premises when someone inside objects. One option that we have been considering, therefore, is whether section 6 could be amended to give non-residential property owners the same rights as displaced residential occupiers to break back into their property. We think that that would effectively render section 6 notices meaningless. After my discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford, I am strongly attracted to that option.

Section 7 of the Act includes an offence that is committed where a squatter refuses to leave a home when required to do so by a displaced residential occupier or a protected intending occupier of the property. Under the current law, the squatter has a defence if they can prove either that they did not believe that the person requiring them to leave was, or was acting on behalf of, a displaced residential occupier or a protected intending occupier, or that the premises were not used mainly for residential purposes and that they were not on any part of the premises used wholly or mainly for residential purposes.

Another option that we are considering is whether that offence could be strengthened to protect other types of property owner, so that owners of non-residential property would have the same protection as displaced residential occupiers. At present it is an offence, for example, for a squatter to refuse to leave somebody’s home, but it is not an offence for them to refuse to leave a person’s place of work. I appreciate that the actions of squatters may cause serious financial hardship in either scenario and am considering whether the law should apply equally to both.

We are examining internally the potential consequences of the available options to ensure that they do not overlap with other areas, such as landlord and tenant matters. The public consultation will give us another opportunity to ensure that our proposals work as we would all wish. The necessity of ensuring that we get it right and of engaging in a proper consultation process means that we will not be able to move as swiftly as I suspect my hon. Friend the Member for Hove would like. We must also identify the appropriate legislative vehicle if legislation is required. No doubt we will hope for right hon. and hon. Friends’ assistance in getting any required legislative changes on to the statute book as soon as is practicable, but that is all for the future and depends on our conclusions.

Each option that I have described could have an impact on the criminal justice system. For example, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service might incur additional costs if asked to enforce new offences. The criminal courts might have to process a greater number of cases, although the impact might be partially offset by a reduction in civil claims. Depending on the penalty imposed for any new offence, there might also be an impact on the prison population. In the current economic climate, we must ensure that such impacts are carefully assessed and shown to be affordable. As I have said, a consultation would assist us in that process. We should be in a position to announce our plans in more detail soon.

Regardless of whatever changes we make to the law in future, we must work closely with enforcement authorities to ensure that existing offences are enforced as effectively as possible. In addition to the offences under the 1977 Act that I mentioned, the police can arrest squatters for offences such as criminal damage, burglary, theft or the unauthorised use of utilities if there is sufficient evidence of guilt. The offences all bear a maximum sentence of imprisonment. The offence of criminal damage has a maximum sentence of three months in less serious cases, rising to 10 years in the most serious cases. Burglary carries a maximum sentence of 14 years for dwellings and 10 years for other properties. For theft, the maximum sentence is seven years, and for the offence of abstracting electricity, the maximum sentence is five years’ imprisonment.

There is another offence that applies to squatters. It is an offence for a squatter to fail to leave a property within 24 hours of being served with an interim possession order and to return to the property as a trespasser within one year of the order. Interim possession orders were introduced in 1995 to make the process of gaining possession of one’s property easier and quicker. They are civil orders, but as I said, they are backed up by a criminal sanction with a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment. My officials are in discussions with the police to ascertain whether there are specific difficulties in enforcing those offences and how any potential barriers might be overcome.

We must also ensure that property owners have the information that they need to get squatters out of their properties as quickly and painlessly as possible. That is why we have published new guidance on the Directgov website outlining the circumstances in which squatters should be reported to the police. As my hon. Friend will have seen, the guidance also includes advice on how to apply for a possession order in the civil courts, a process that is alien to many people until they are confronted by the appalling situation of finding their property improperly occupied by squatters.

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this issue to our attention. This debate is only the latest emanation of concern about it. I have written to many hon. Members from all parties who have raised it with me in correspondence, a series of oral and written parliamentary questions have been asked and hon. Members have sought meetings with me about it, so I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the debate and to make it clear that the Justice Secretary and I are determined to tackle the issue and to bring relief to the victims of this particularly distressing and pernicious crime.

11:28

Sitting suspended.

NHS (Public Satisfaction)

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Hugh Bayley in the Chair]

14:30

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

I would like to thank the Speaker’s Office for selecting the subject of public satisfaction with the NHS for debate. I will focus on three pieces of research, and on the Government’s attempts to prevent information getting into the public domain, to prevent scrutiny of policy and to cut funding for future sources of information, all while failing to inform Parliament. The three surveys are “Public Perceptions of the NHS and Social Care” by Ipsos MORI from March 2010, the general lifestyle survey by the Office for National Statistics, and the British social attitudes survey by the National Centre for Social Research.

The first survey, “Public Perceptions of the NHS and Social Care” by Ipsos MORI, has been carried out every six months since 2000. It recently emerged that the latest results, from last year, were being withheld from the public domain. Ministers were accused of burying good news because the information clearly shows increasing levels of public satisfaction. On 22 March 2011, the Secretary of State was questioned about that by the Select Committee on Health, and particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz). The Secretary of State’s defence was that as previous surveys had not been released, he would not release the information from March 2010. The reality is that the previous data were only ever released following questions by the Opposition. From March 2007, the then Opposition stopped asking for the information, and we can only assume that that was because the level of public satisfaction was increasing, and it did not exactly serve their purpose to draw that information into the public domain.

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

I want to emphasise what my hon. Friend says. I can recount a conversation I had with a local general practitioner, who told me that in the 1980s, a constituent of mine in need of a hip replacement came to see him. He could not get her a place anywhere within the health service. My constituency is deprived, and it was impossible for her or her family to get treatment privately, so she had to suffer in silence. That would not happen nowadays. My GP, who represents my constituents, told me that that has not happened to him since the early 1990s. Is that not the evidence we need to show that the health service has improved significantly in recent years?

[John Cryer]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I have had exactly the same experience. We were both elected in 1997, and when I became an MP, I regularly had people come to see me with orthopaedic problems who had been waiting for operations for two to two and a half years. Some of them were in serious pain and unable to work. In the past few years, the complaints I have been hearing are that people have not had an operation for four or six months. It is a completely different world.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

May I put the hon. Gentleman out of his misery before we start the debate on a false premise? He is absolutely right: the previous Government did not publish the 2008, 2009 and 2010 surveys, to which he refers. It may be of interest to him to know that the 2010 report was published following a written answer by the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) in December 2010, and placed in the Library.

[John Cryer]

If the Minister will calm down a bit, I will come to that. After the Secretary of State appeared before the Health Committee, it emerged that data until 2010 had been placed in the Library, and the results until December 2009 are on the Ipsos MORI website. I was granted this debate on 24 March and the data were released the following day, Friday 25 March, on the Department of Health website. Previously, the data had not been on the Department’s website. It might be a coincidence, but it struck me that that was a fairly good time to bury good news: it was the day before 500,000 people tramped through central London on the TUC march in opposition to the cuts. The fact that the data were not initially released is unsurprising, given that polling showed a 72% satisfaction rating. Ipsos MORI concluded in the report:

“This level of satisfaction has now been recorded for over a year…suggesting that there has been a…positive shift in the public’s perceptions of the NHS. Pride in the NHS also continues to climb and is at its highest recorded level”.

Pride in the NHS is at its highest ever recorded level—an interesting statistic. We might hear a comment from the Minister about that.

[Mr Love]

The report has some very good news about public attitudes to the NHS. Why would Government, who are in control of the NHS, not want to publish such a report?

[John Cryer]

I will leave that to the Minister to answer, because I have not finished my comments about the suppression of statistics.

My story does not end with the original survey on public perceptions of the NHS. The second of the three surveys is the general lifestyle survey, carried out every year by the ONS on behalf of Government Departments, but that has had its funding withdrawn by the NHS information centre, for reasons best known to the Government. However, Sir Michael Scholar, head of the UK Statistics Authority, has warned that the decision may break the Government’s rules on consultation. I should point out that the general lifestyle survey provides statistics on public health and does not involve NHS satisfaction rates. It produces figures, information and statistics for testing Government policy and holding Governments to account; it is important that the information be available for holding Ministers to account. If the decision to withhold funding for the general lifestyle survey stands, the information will not be available to us in future.

The Department of Health also intends to withdraw funding for health and NHS satisfaction questions in the British social attitudes survey. The survey will be familiar to many Members. It is carried out annually by the NCSR, which is a pretty respected body, both nationally and internationally. The withdrawal of funding was not announced to the House of Commons, but was leaked over the weekend to Health Policy Insight, which published an interesting editorial that condemned the decision to withdraw funding in fairly colourful language.

The British social attitudes survey charts how NHS satisfaction started at 55% in 1983, which was the year the first survey was published. That plummeted to 35% by the time the Conservative Government left office in 1997. The latest satisfaction rate is 64%, which, according to John Appleby from the King’s Fund, is the highest level of satisfaction since the survey began in 1983, and part of a continuous upward trend since 2002. He said:

“The NHS must have been doing something right to earn this extra satisfaction”.

There is also an interesting quote from the director of the Nuffield Trust, Jennifer Dixon:

“I suspect that public satisfaction will decline because the pressurised financial climate will result in staff unrest, cuts, and the spectre of rationing but also because of the relaxation of some of the process targets that the public hold dear, such as waiting times.”

She continued:

“To overload reform on top of that is the problem and to do both at the same time is very risky.”

I emphasise “very risky”.

The reason for killing off such research is fairly clear. The aim is to obscure the results of Government policies so that they cannot be exposed to the proper scrutiny that we all want, and to prevent comparisons with the records of previous Governments—Labour and Tory. If the information is not available, the records of previous Governments cannot be compared with the record of this Government.

There are a number of questions that I should like the Minister to answer. Will the “Public Perceptions of the NHS and Social Care” survey by Ipsos MORI continue to be funded and to be reported on? If it is not to be continued, will the research be replaced? The research is very detailed and heavyweight. I can provide it to the Minister, although I assume he already has it. I do not intend to imply that Ministers intend to cut funding for that research, but because of other decisions, we start to wonder whether that might be the conclusion.

The Government have decided, apparently without telling Parliament, to axe funding for two other crucial pieces of independent research: the British social attitudes survey, which I mentioned, and the general lifestyle survey, conducted by the ONS, which I also mentioned. Ministers have sneaked out the information that funding is to be cut in a fairly underhand way. Many Labour Members suspect that it is being done so that we cannot draw comparisons with previous Governments. The information will not be available to allow us to say, “Government policies were working but funding has been cut, which is having an effect on public perceptions and services.”

Public perception is crucial. My impression and that of piles of research is that public perceptions are improving and are at an all-time high, but that does not satisfy Ministers, who are engaging in the biggest reorganisation of the NHS since Nye Bevan created it in 1947. If information is in the public domain showing that the public are very happy with the NHS, particularly acute and GP treatments, it does not serve the purposes of a Government who are committed to the wholesale reorganisation of one of the most beloved institutions of British society. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)]

Five Members wish to speak and we have about 50 minutes for debate; they can do the calculations for themselves.

14:43

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) makes his own points in his own way. Both my parents started to work for the NHS on the day it came into being: my father as a doctor and my mother as a nurse. Throughout the 60-plus years of its existence there has been enormous pride in the NHS, among those who work in it and among the community as a whole.

The interesting notion advanced by the Opposition is that because people are generally satisfied with their doctors, all is well with the NHS. Of course people are overwhelmingly happy with their GPs. By and large, we have freedom of choice over our GP, and if we are not happy with services we change our GP. It is of concern that a recent survey of NHS users found that one in five failed to get a prompt GP appointment when they asked for it, but that notwithstanding it is not surprising that nine out of 10 patients are satisfied with their GP surgeries. That is not the point. The point is that we have an ageing and more complex population who will rightly make increasing demands on the NHS. Unsurprisingly, most people have greatest contact with the NHS in the last years of their lives.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

I do not want to put the hon. Gentleman off his stride, but is he not slightly missing the point made by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), which was not simply that people are satisfied with the NHS but that they are progressively more satisfied, which is a more surprising finding, is it not?

[Tony Baldry]

I have not missed the point at all. The point being made by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead is that nine out of 10 people are satisfied with their GPs, so somehow all is well with the NHS and nothing need change. If my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) had read the report of the Public Accounts Committee, chaired by the former Labour Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), he would know that it concludes that although the previous Government increased the amount of money going into the NHS that did not lead to greater outputs. The report makes sobering reading, and I am concerned that more parliamentary colleagues have not read it and that it has not received the attention in the House that it deserves.

[John Cryer]

The point effectively made by the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) is that satisfaction rates are not remaining level but climbing markedly. The British social attitudes survey shows that in 1983 satisfaction stood at 55% and plummeted to 35% in 1997. It is now up to 64%. According to Ipsos MORI, 90% of outpatients, 88% of inpatients and 81% of accident and emergency patients are satisfied—the highest levels ever recorded.

[Tony Baldry]

The hon. Gentleman, again, makes his own point in his own way. He says, and I understand him, that members of the public are satisfied with the NHS so nothing need change. I am not sure whether he has read the unanimous PAC report that was published only weeks ago, but I remind Members that it says:

“The level of hospital activity has not kept pace with the increased resources as hospitals focused on meeting national targets, but not on improving productivity, and productivity has actually fallen over the last decade…Though the increased money going into the NHS has helped to reduce waiting times, improve facilities, and deliver higher quality care, the Department promised at the same time to improve productivity. It failed and, in future, the Department needs to have a more explicit focus on improving hospital productivity if it is to deliver its ambitious savings targets without healthcare services suffering.”

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

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is notoriously difficult to measure productivity in crude terms—activity, outcomes and so on—and that the quality of the output, which perhaps reflects the greater investment of resources, is not included in the survey?

[Tony Baldry]

I am sorry to hear the apologia of Opposition Members, who are confronted with concerns about what is happening in the NHS. I commend to the hon. Gentleman the National Audit Office report published on 17 December 2010, “Management of NHS hospital productivity”. The NAO has no difficulty in measuring NHS productivity, and neither does the PAC. Before Opposition Members jump up, they should remember that the Labour party left the NHS with a huge, unpaid overdraft of £60 billion. It is a staggering fact that of the £65 billion of hospital building works carried out in the 13 years of the Labour Government, only £5 billion was paid for. Despite a number of very generous private finance initiative projects, the NHS still has an overdraft and must pay for £60 billion of hospital building works. The previous Government, while they may have put more money into the NHS, saw no improvement in outcomes and have left the NHS with a substantial overdraft.

As the Chair of the Health Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell), has observed, even if, as intended, the Government manage to ensure that spending on the NHS is ring-fenced and runs ahead of inflation, the NHS, in the next few years, has to become substantially more efficient in how it uses its assets, and treats and looks after patients—hence the need for reforms. Let us be clear. The reforms are about cutting bureaucracy and improving patient care and have been proposed by the coalition Government to improve the NHS and to ensure that we maintain public satisfaction and support for the NHS. We need to ensure that the Health and Social Care Bill, which is going through Parliament, delivers those reforms in the best possible way.

I have no doubt that Ministers will give proper attention to the report next week of the Health Committee and that, in due course, the Government will have regard to any constructive suggestions from the other place to ensure that the Bill is as clear and effective as possible. In any health system, however, difficult decisions have to be made about how one best utilises finite resources. However much money as a country we commit to the NHS, that money will be finite. Choices will have to be made about how that money is best spent: at one end of the spectrum, about whether and in what circumstances people get treated for varicose veins; and at the other end of the spectrum about when, and how often, major and significant, complex and expensive invasive surgery takes place. It seems to me that it makes extremely good sense for those decisions to be made in a collegiate manner, on behalf of their patients, by GPs. It seems to me to make very good sense to allow GPs, individually and collegiately, to make value judgments about the quality of services being provided by individual hospital providers for their patients.

As the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead made clear when introducing this debate, patients trust their GPs and I see no reason why we should not, collectively, trust GPs to commission the best available services in the NHS. Critics of the reforms have sought to present them as something that they are not. However, as the Prime Minister has made clear on a number of occasions:

“we have ruled out price competition in the NHS.”

He went gone on to make it clear that

“we must avoid cherry-picking by the private sector in the NHS.”—[Official Report, 16 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 292.]

[John Cryer]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tony Baldry]

I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I would just make the observation that I suspect that quite a number of his colleagues wish to contribute to the debate, and that every time I allow an intervention it probably reduces the time that they have.

[John Cryer]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, both for giving way and for his valuable advice that I will hold dear to my heart.

May I just point out that, although the exposure to EU competition laws—he is referring indirectly to that—is not in the Bill, primary care trusts are officially regarded as state enterprises? As state enterprises, they are not exposed to EU competition law. The new consortia that will replace them, because they are not state enterprises, will be exposed to EU competition law, and will therefore expose the NHS, generally, to EU competition law. Does he support that?

[Tony Baldry]

Again, that is a slightly bizarre argument from the hon. Gentleman. There has been much talk about competition in the NHS, which is surprising as the Labour party appeared to be in favour of competition in its own election manifesto. The coalition Government have made it clear that the only competition that will exist in the NHS is competition on quality, not price. The Secretary of State could not have made that clearer in the House when he said:

“At the point when a patient exercises choice or a GP undertakes a referral, the price of providers will be the same. By extension, competition must be on the basis of quality.”—[Official Report, 16 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 387.]

To deal with another misrepresentation, EU competition law already exists and the health reform proposals do nothing to change that. They do not, in any way, extend competition law. The Bill makes it absolutely clear that any competition can only be on quality, not on price. In any event, I find it strange that the Labour party and others suddenly seem to be coming forward to express concerns about the private sector in the NHS, when it was the previous Labour Government who, for example, in Banbury set up a privately run, privately managed, privately owned independent treatment centre and a privately managed, privately owned independent Darzi GP centre. The previous Labour Government, bizarrely, gave the private sector—because their contracting was so poor—some £250 million for operations that were never carried out. However, given that they have left the NHS with an overdraft of £60 billion, I suppose that they would consider £250 million thrown away on operations that were never actually carried out as, possibly by their standards, small change.

We have to realise, with an ageing population, more extensive treatments and new drugs becoming available, that we have to tackle bureaucracy in the NHS. We need to reform the NHS to make sure that it is as efficient and as effective as possible. We are ensuring that patients have choice—choice based on quality and from whom they receive care. There is simply no issue on this, in that the Labour Party said in its manifesto at the general election, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead has read it:

“Patients requiring elective care will have the right, in law, to choose from any provider who meets NHS standards of quality”.

We have made it absolutely clear, under the coalition Government, that the NHS will remain free at the point of need, paid for from general taxation, and be based entirely on need, not on the ability to pay. Those are fundamental principles of the NHS. They have been fundamental principles of the NHS ever since it came into being, and the coalition parties are, I am sure, determined not to undermine, in any way, any of the rights in the NHS constitution. Indeed, the coalition Government are seeking to protect the NHS, throughout the duration of the Parliament, by increasing NHS funding by £10.7 billion. A substantial number of GP groups, all over England, have volunteered as pathfinders to demonstrate how GP commissioning can work. GPs throughout Oxfordshire are coming together to form a suitable GP consortium.

Let me tell the House what is being said by those in my constituency who are involved in the GP consortium. Local GP Dr Judith Wright, who is co-ordinating the north Oxfordshire GPs, has said:

“Andrew Lansley’s proposals will give power to local GPs to decide how that budget should be spent to meet local health needs. Priorities will be decided by doctors through a process informed by patients, local authorities, public health and secondary care”.

Dr Wright went on to observe:

“I believe that GPs are best placed to be able to meet this challenge. Collectively they know the health needs of their local population. They can act as a catalyst for change. They will have a role in deciding the destination of local services and the route to get there.”

Andrew McHugh, who is the practice manager at Horsefair surgery in Banbury, observed:

“The health budget is a finite resource. Andrew Lansley’s proposals will give power to local GPs to decide how that budget is spent in order to meet local health needs. Priorities will be decided by doctors through a process informed by democratically accountable public and patient involvement. We need to be looking for innovative ways of spending the health budget wisely.”

In a recent issue of Prospect magazine, Ali Parsa pointed out that, as a nation:

“We used to spend 3 per cent of our GDP on healthcare in the 1980s…6 per cent in the 1990s, 9 per cent now and on our way to 12 per cent.”

In the current financial climate, that is unsustainable. Business as usual is not an option. We need to review what treatments are provided to ensure they are clinically effective and cost-effective—in other words, evidence-based practice. I think that Dr Judith Wright and Andrew McHugh’s comments are extremely balanced and sensible.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I just came from a meeting of the British Medical Association about two hours ago. Its members asked me very clearly to pass this message on to the party on the Government Benches: will they please stop using the fact that GPs are becoming involved to suggest that they support the moves? They see becoming involved in terms of having no alternative—they say that it is being forced on them and that they are becoming engaged in the interests of their patients, not because they believe in what is being done.

[Tony Baldry]

May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman and to others that they actually start listening to what is being said? They might start by noting what was said in their own election manifesto. They might start listening to what the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are saying on the Floor of the House of Commons, and the hon. Gentleman might as well do them the courtesy of just listening to what GPs in my constituency are saying on the record. It is clear that he is not listening. If he wishes to have a dialogue of the unlistening, that is a matter for him. The changes that the NHS needs are straightforward: less waste, more involvement, power to GPs and front-line doctors, nurses and other health professionals, and putting patients first. There is not really an intellectual divide on this matter. Indeed, the shadow Secretary of State earlier observed:

“The general aims of reform are sound—greater role for clinicians in commissioning care, more involvement of patients, less bureaucracy and greater priority on improving health outcomes”.

I could not have put it better. As for less bureaucracy, ever since the coalition Government came to office, one of the things they have cut in the NHS is bureaucracy. That has resulted in 2,000 fewer managers since the general election, but, interestingly, 2,500 more doctors.

I have every confidence in the Secretary of State for Health. He and his ministerial team, while we were in opposition, took considerable efforts to visit Banbury on a number of occasions to understand the challenges being faced by the Horton general hospital and to meet with GPs. As he observed to local GPs before the general election, GP commissioning will enable those GPs in north Oxfordshire, south Northamptonshire and south Warwickshire who wish to send their patients to the Horton hospital to do so, confident that the money will follow the patient.

Again, I do not think it surprising that the shadow Secretary of State should have observed:

“No one in the House of Commons knows more about the NHS than Andrew Lansley—except perhaps Stephen Dorrell. But Andrew Lansley spent six years in Opposition as shadow health secretary. No one has visited more of the NHS. No one has talked to more people...in the NHS…these plans are consistent, coherent and comprehensive. I would expect nothing less from Andrew Lansley.”

If Opposition Members are not willing to listen to me, perhaps they would be willing to listen to the shadow Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State, when in opposition, visited my constituency at least three times, and I believe I am correct in saying that every member of the Government ministerial team in the Commons visited my constituency at least once, to understand the challenges and needs of hospitals such as the Horton. The Royal College of General Practitioners said that it believes that there should be more clinical commissioning. Even the British Medical Association has confirmed that it believes that GP-led commissioning is the right way forward. Indeed, the only opponents to the proposals appear to be the Labour party and the trade unions, but, given what the Labour party did when it was in office, and what it stated in its manifesto and even more recently, one can only conclude that, now that it is in opposition, it seeks to jump on every passing bandwagon, feels obliged to say whatever will keep the trade unions happy and seeks to block every sensible reform.

The views of the trade unions on all of this are as depressing as they are, perhaps, predictable, and in the category of trade union I also place the BMA. It is right to recall that the BMA opposed GP fundholding, longer opening hours for GP surgeries, which clearly would have been for the benefit of patients, and foundation hospitals. In fact, I cannot think of a single NHS reform over the years which it has not opposed, or a single one on which it has been in the vanguard.

No one pretends that health care systems around the world are facing anything other than enormous challenges. That is no less so in the UK. We need to be sure that patients and taxpayers get the best value possible for every pound spent in the NHS. We need the best possible outcomes in the NHS, whether for stroke victims, heart attack victims or those who have long-term medical conditions. The reforms are about building on the strengths of the NHS, improving it and making it better able to tackle the challenges of the 21st century. That is how we will ensure that people will rightly continue to be supportive of, and satisfied and happy with, the NHS, which we all want to be the best possible health service in the world.

15:00

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) on introducing a debate on such an important subject, and on the balanced way in which he opened it. I should declare that I am the co-chair with Lord Rix of the all-party group on learning disability. It is on that subject that I wish to speak in the five or six minutes that I hope to take.

I would like to make it clear that although I shall make several criticisms of aspects of the national health service, I stand second to no one in my regard for it or, as a GMB member, in my respect for those who work for the NHS, including the trade unions. They are helping to create their big society—a meaningful society—and making the NHS something of which we are all very proud.

The learning disability group has been helped considerably by Mencap. Today, I shall rely on its research and the many conclusions that it has reached. It published “Death by indifference” in 2007. Indeed, I had a debate in this Hall when the Labour Government were in power, so I hope that I will not be regarded as party political.

The report highlighted the tragic consequences of deep-rooted institutional discrimination in the NHS against people with a learning disability. In many cases, NHS staff did not know about the specific needs of people with a learning disability and did not take the time to understand and meet those needs. People with a learning disability are some of the most vulnerable members of society and have some of the most profound health care needs. Although the Government investigated the issue in the independent inquiry led by Sir Jonathan Michael, in a poll conducted on behalf of Mencap, almost one half of doctors, or 47%, and one third of nurses, or 37%, said that people with a learning disability received a poorer standard of health care than the rest of the population. In the same poll, 39% of doctors and 34% of nurses went as far as saying that people with a learning disability were discriminated against in the NHS.

I want to deal with the NHS complaints system. The unnecessary deaths—sadly, that has been the case—of people with a learning disability do nothing to increase public confidence in the ability of the NHS to give effective care to those vulnerable members of society who are most in need of it. However, that is compounded by the malfunctioning NHS complaints system which, as a result of being time-consuming, defensive and too heavily weighted in favour of health professionals, refuses to learn from previous mistakes in order to drive up standards and increase public confidence.

Following its “Death by indifference” report, Mencap has helped a number of families through the complaints system. It is revealing that not a single family has ever said they felt that justice had been achieved through the local complaints procedure. That is due to the overwhelming desire of NHS trusts to stand up for their staff, the potential conflicts of interest when NHS staff investigate complaints made about people working in the same trust, and a fundamental lack of understanding about what learning disability is.

The same issues are evident when the complaints are escalated to the parliamentary and health service ombudsman. NHS trusts have disproportionate access to support, in comparison with the families going through the complaints process. In addition, the time scales given for complaints to be dealt with are usually longer than expected and only succeed in drawing out a family’s grief.

I would like to conclude with a few comments on this theme. In light of tragic cases of misunderstanding in administering health care to vulnerable people, public confidence in the NHS understandably has been undermined. The defensive nature of the NHS complaints system, however, means that the NHS does not learn valuable lessons which could help prevent unnecessary deaths from occurring in the future. Public and patient confidence in the NHS will be improved only with greater accountability and transparency so that people can see that efforts are being made to drive up standards. The complaints process is central to that and therefore requires a fundamental overhaul to make it a more impartial and reflective system. That is necessary to drive up health outcomes across the NHS and to increase public confidence in it.

15:09

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

Putting aside his conspiracy theory, I congratulate the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) on initiating this important and timely event. I say that it is timely, but it is not timely for the poor Minister, who was unwell yesterday, and who does not look too good today. I understand that his colleague, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), is now also smitten, so the casualties from the Committee considering the Health and Social Care Bill are on the increase.

There may be good reasons for substantial change in the NHS, and one of those that has been given is not that the public are not satisfied with the NHS, but that they should not be satisfied with it. It must be conceded, of course, that the case for radical change is lessened a little if the public are increasingly satisfied with what goes on. The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to, and put beyond all doubt, the fact that the public are satisfied with the NHS, and we should have that important truth out in the open. Whatever we do in policy, it is important that we are evidence-led, and a wanton disregard for evidence when making policy is wicked and morally irresponsible.

If we ignore the conspiracy theory aspects of the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, it is clear that he has done the House a service by drawing attention to the truth that the public are broadly satisfied with the NHS. We cannot be as confident, however, about the explanations for that. It is most unlikely that public satisfaction is unconnected with things such as decreased waiting lists and increased investment. It is also most unlikely that it is unconnected with the dedication and skill of NHS staff, which remain no matter what politicians decide in this place.

However, satisfaction can be linked to other things, such as sentiment. Some years ago, research into the NHS produced some rather puzzling outcomes. If people in general were asked about the NHS, they had a fairly negative view, but if they were asked about their personal treatment at the hands of the NHS, they were thoroughly satisfied. That was explained by the way in which the media portrayed the NHS and the way in which stories about the NHS appeared in the media.

Another interesting bit of data, which the hon. Gentleman did not allude to, indicates that we are talking not just about a switch in what the media, and therefore the public, are saying. Reports about the NHS by NHS workers themselves have been increasingly positive. Worryingly, there was a stage when a lot of them would give a rather bad account of what was going on in the NHS when they were asked about it. Recently, the data have shown quite conclusively that people working in the NHS speak more positively about it. Such people are more immune to changes in media tone.

The debate so far, however, has been not so much about whether people are satisfied, which we can all take as read, as about whether they should be satisfied. Clearly, that depends not on whether they are satisfied with the NHS, but on whether the NHS actually does its job, which is to make people more healthy, not more satisfied. To give an example, people often feel very satisfied and contented with small maternity units, but such units sometimes have higher infant mortality rates, and outcomes are actually less satisfactory.

Patient-reported outcome measures—PROMs—sometimes show a different picture from clinical outcomes. We have mentioned independent treatment centres, and a lot of evidence seems to show that people are very satisfied with them, although the satisfaction is more to do with the catering and reception arrangements than with the clinical outcomes.

The moot question, therefore, is whether patients have reasonable grounds for dissatisfaction or satisfaction with NHS, whether or not they actually express any—always bearing it in mind that what the public are reluctant to fund, they should not complain about. However, the real question, given the funding that the public have set aside for the NHS, is whether the NHS has delivered the outcomes that people could rationally expect.

When pressed on the issue, senior Government politicians, up to and including the Prime Minister, talk about three issues: cancer and heart disease outcomes, bureaucracy and unimpressive productivity, which are presented as legitimate gripes. It is sometimes tempting to believe that politicians need to find faults in public services because they like reforming them, and I am sometimes inclined to think that we should redefine public services as anything a politician wants to reform. However, there is a need to find out whether there are any real grounds for dissatisfaction with the service we currently have. Unless we can find genuine grounds for people to be dissatisfied, whether or not they are, we should not have overly radical disturbance or upheaval in the system.

Can we make a case for public dissatisfaction? Let me briefly take the three issues I mentioned in turn. We certainly should not bang on about the cardiovascular field. I had the unnerving experience the other day of listening to the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions tell the House how poor our outcomes were when set against those of comparable countries. Later, I attended an event organised by the British Heart Foundation to celebrate world-beating progress. That was a very puzzling experience. The King’s Fund has adequately exposed the myth about heart disease outcomes, and no one in the Department of Health should embarrass the Prime Minister any longer with briefings that disappoint and depress those who are better informed on this issue.

Last week, the Prime Minister notably stuck to the safer ground of cancer outcomes. To be fair, despite sharp falls in mortality among males and excellent progress on breast cancer treatment, we do not seem to excel our peers, and there is clearly work to be done. When looking at the issue, however, we should not use just the old research done by Professor Coleman 10 years ago, because the data on the issue is quite weak. If there are poor outcomes on cancer, however, it is not obvious why it therefore follows that structural and organisational upheaval is the solution, particularly as the prime cause of poor cancer outcomes, as far as I can tell, is late referral by GPs, and the prime solution is a more integrated service and strong regional clinical networks. It is a fact that we spend less on the treatment of cancer than the countries we compare ourselves with.

Turning to the other flaws, there are legitimate objects for criticism from time to time. On bureaucracy, I assume that everybody here understands that the administrative costs of running the NHS compare very favourably with those of running health systems in other parts of the world; that is not a debateable point. Even if those costs are higher than we would wish, they certainly compare favourably.

It is quite true, as the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and the Public Accounts Committee have said, that productivity has not increased linearly or proportionally with investment, but that is true of business sectors, too. That is a common phenomenon; every extra pound does not give us the same amount in increased productivity. The wonder is that people expect life to be that simple. If that is a real problem, however, it is a poor argument for giving GPs all the money to spend, especially when the National Audit Office research, which has been quoted, shows that giving GPs extra money under the contract would not necessarily give us a vast increase in overall productivity. If we drew a graph showing the rise in income and the outcomes at GP surgeries—I can give hon. Members copies of the PAC report—we would find a phenomenon similar to that described by the hon. Member for Banbury with respect to hospitals. There does not, therefore, seem to be quite as clear-cut a case as one might wish to justify a case for public dissatisfaction, and the public might have a case for not being as dissatisfied as all that.

I want to refer Members to an excellent document from the Commonwealth Fund, which contains up-to-date research on many health systems across the world that are comparable to that in the UK. The research includes a number of indicators that are very favourable to our system, and this is copper-bottomed research. It shows that the UK has lower than average spending; that, according to UK citizens, our system needs less changing than those of our peers—that is what people in our country say and what people in other countries do not say to the same extent; that it inspires the greatest confidence in terms of effective treatment; that it requires the citizen to fork out the fewest additional payments; and that it is among the best for quick appointments, access and diagnosis. It is not perfect, and I have not undermined the case for all sorts of changes in the NHS, but as we say in Lancashire, “Mustn’t grumble.” There is a case for looking at what we have delivered and perhaps celebrating it.

As Government, as parties and as politicians in general, we can certainly make a case for reform, and that case can be made independently of this debate. What I cannot convince myself of at the moment—indeed, none of us can—is that the public are dissatisfied with the NHS. They are not. Nor can I convince myself that they have grounds for dissatisfaction that go beyond those one would find in any health service, anywhere in the world at any time.

[Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)]

It might help Mr Anderson and Mr Morris if I say that the two Front Benchers have each agreed to speak for 10 minutes, which leaves a further 20 minutes for debate: 10 minutes for each of you. Mr Anderson.

15:20

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) on getting this debate. Like the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), I stand here as the son of a nurse, though she stopped work before the NHS was created. Through her lifetime she saw the improvements in the NHS. I also stand as a man whose niece is fighting for her life in intensive care in the Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle. She is a young girl of 40 years old. I call her a girl because from the day she was born she has been hit by muscular dystrophy. She has needed the NHS from the first minute of her life. It has been there for every moment, as it was for one of my sisters, who sadly died at 53 of the same disease. The NHS was always there for them, never perfect, but second to none when compared with health services around the world. Those of us fortunate to have better health have always been prepared to pay to ensure that those who need help were able to get it.

Due to my experience with muscular dystrophy, I have the privilege of being the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on the subject. That group has shown what we as parliamentarians can do together. We have come together, across the parties, and made huge improvements in the past few years in ensuring that specialist commissioning groups have worked with the all-party group here and with PCTs on the ground, making real improvements in the lives of people suffering from muscular dystrophy. We had a meeting about a month ago in this House. People came from across the country and across the political spectrum, and there were also professionals in the health service. They were all concerned about the direction of travel on which the Government are bent. Their concerns are: will they still be able to access the things they need? Will specialised commissioning groups still be able to work together to deliver the services they want? They have genuine concerns that the all-party group will take forward with the Minister as the debate continues.

This debate is about satisfaction. Why is satisfaction up? There are a number of reasons. Although I have some issues with the hon. Member for Banbury, I agree with him in that I have campaigned against the private finance initiative since before the previous Government took office, since the early 1990s, when the idea was first floated by the former Secretary of State for Health and now Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). I opposed it back then, and I have thought it the wrong direction for my Government to take over the past 13 years. The truth is that my Government had to do something.

The hon. Member for Banbury hit the nail on the head when he said that spending on health was 3% of GDP in the 1980s. We know it was 3% because people were being looked after in Victorian hospitals. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) regularly says, in his area people were being looked after in an old workhouse. That was not good enough for the Labour party, and it was not good enough for the people of this country. That is why we decided that over the period we would increase investment in the NHS, and we increased it by 300%. The people of this country went along with that, including when we put 1% on national insurance contributions. People supported that move because they believed in the service that the NHS delivered. We should never forget that.

During discussions on developing a more capital-intensive NHS, into which a lot of money went, we saw real moves on staff harmonisation, recognising the roles of staff and increasing the responsibilities of people at different levels in the health service. A huge amount of work went into that. While that was happening, other work was being done on improving public health across the board.

The hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) raised the issue of productivity. It is strange how he defined productivity. I would be interested to read the report from the NAO on defining it, and I am glad that he has brought it to my attention. Productivity used to be measured in the health service by recording when an episode concluded. An episode could be concluded when someone died. A hospital where more people died was more successful in terms of productivity than one where somebody kept coming back and that episode was not concluded. That is a perverse way to look at productivity. The real measure of productivity is that there are twice as many people alive at 85 and over than there were 20 years ago. Should we not celebrate that? Is that not a productivity increase of which we can all be proud? That is the result of the work done.

I am not going to pretend the NHS is perfect. We know it is not perfect; every one of us as constituency MPs will have dealt with issues.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

It is not a question of not thinking that it is perfect, but one of wanting constantly to improve it. The hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) offered a view, with which I concur, that an individual’s experience of the NHS is different from their broad view, based on what they read in the press. The personal experience of the vast majority of people is either positive or very positive. The broad view is less so, which is hardly surprising, since the vast majority of editors of news journals in this country do not regard good news as news at all. It is also true that many people have a positive view of services they perceive to be under threat. Take the example of a local school. There is always a more positive view if it is under threat. The problem in this country is that millions of people, sadly, believe the NHS to be under threat.

[Mr Anderson]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour: I will discuss that with him later.

As a constituency MP, I have had three cases over the past six years of supporting people making complaints against the NHS. We took them as far as we could, trying to raise resolutions. However, none of those people opposed the NHS as an organisation; it was the specific treatment they had received that they were complaining about. There have actually been hugely improved outcomes, as I know from talking to thousands of ordinary folk across the constituency. How happy they are that we built—thankfully, before this Government got in—a new health and leisure centre in Gateshead. Unlike the Building Schools for the Future money, that was not stopped. We got it built before 7 May last year: thank God for that. The real people who matter—the public—are concerned about where we are going.

We should be thankful for the people who work in the NHS. I get really frustrated and annoyed when I hear coalition Members and the Secretary of State, who seems to take real pleasure in denigrating trade unionists, as if trade unionists were removed from this. The vast majority of trade unionists who represent health workers are hands-on professionals. They are not sitting in an office all day; they are at the coal face. They are not just talking about representing people; they are doing it, day in, day out. It is a disgrace that a party pretending to be the party of the big society should denigrate the people who are part of the largest voluntary group in the country. They stand up for people day in and day out. At the same time as standing up for their colleagues, they work in the service, they represent the service and they fight for the people they take care of. Their voice is important; their voice is informed and should not be ignored.

What do we see? We see Ministers refusing to listen to groups within the health service. I just picked up a report of the Second Reading, when I referred to one of those groups, the King’s Fund. Others include the Ministers’ own colleague, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston); the British Medical Association, denigrated here by the hon. Member for Banbury; the Royal College of Physicians; the Royal College of Nursing and the head of Arthritis Care. Every one of those has been ignored by the Government, on the basis of “We know best.”

Most Conservative Members have had a degree of education way beyond mine. However, in this debate, the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) should be heeded, when he said that a lot of them have been “educated beyond their intelligence”. If this debate does not show that, nothing else does. The truth is that constantly over the past 13 years, health professionals have said to us, “Let us get on with the job.” The promise the Conservative party gave in opposition was that it would do exactly that; it would let them get on with the job, because there has been far too much meddling in the health service. I agree with that but, now, instead of letting them get on with the job, the Government are turning the health service upside down. Not only will it not work, it will make it much worse. It is a disgrace that it is happening.

15:29

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) for securing this important debate on public satisfaction with the NHS. Some important issues have been raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends, but I will not rehearse them. Suffice it to say that we are having this debate because information has been released as the result of a debacle in the Department, and I am delighted that the information is now available. There may be a good reason for the Secretary of State wanting to keep the contents of the satisfaction report under wraps. It confirms the outstanding NHS legacy that Labour passed to the Health Secretary in 2010. He inherited a national health service that was rescued from 18 years of Tory mismanagement, and now enjoys the highest rate of public satisfaction in its history.

The Ipsos MORI survey, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead referred, states:

“Public satisfaction with the running of the NHS remains very high at 72%. This high level of satisfaction has now been sustained for over a year making the public’s perception of the NHS a real success story.”

The real reason why the Health Secretary hoped that his Department had not published that report is that it shows him to be completely out of step with the British public. He cites his former boss, Lord Tebbit, as his political hero, but he does not understand what the public so value about the NHS. Instead, he is doing to it exactly what he did to the utilities in the 1980s, when he was working for his hero, Lord Tebbit, by applying 1980s privatisation principles and policies to the health service.

Current polls of public satisfaction with the NHS are all the more important when we consider that the revolution—that is what it is—now under way in the NHS was not described or set out for the British people until some months after the general election. The Conservative manifesto said the Conservatives would

“defend the NHS from Labour’s cuts and reorganisations”,

yet the Government are delivering a real-terms cut in spending, and a radical reorganisation that will undermine the NHS.

Nowhere did the Health Secretary explain his plan to apply 1980s-style privatisation mechanisms to the NHS; to create an economic regulator for health in the form of Monitor, costing upwards of £500 million over the lifetime of this parliament, an issue that was raised by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) in respect of the Government’s commitment to reduce bureaucracy; to expose the NHS to European competition law, which also applies to our utilities; or to handing the £80 billion NHS budget to private bodies with GPs as figureheads, but to which freedom of information provisions will not apply.

Instead, the Health Secretary spent the previous six years as Opposition spokesman doing everything possible to avoid giving any indication of his plans for radical change for the NHS. I am sure that there was no mention of removing the private patient cap to allow uncontrolled focus on profit-making in hospital trusts, a mechanism that will push NHS patients to the back of the queue.

The Secretary of State’s coyness had paid off, because the public, who are overwhelmingly satisfied with the NHS service that Labour had rebuilt over 13 years in government, did not suspect a thing. Health was not raised once in the last prime ministerial debate before the general election.

I want to focus my remarks on how public satisfaction, and in some areas dissatisfaction, might apply to the Health Secretary’s proposals in the Health and Social Care Bill. Now that the Ipsos MORI survey has found its way into the public domain, we may consider its implications for the current upheaval planned by the Secretary of State. Three specific polls in the survey give a clear indication of public preference for the future of the NHS, with between 63% and 65% agreeing with the following statements: first, the

“NHS provides good value for money to taxpayers”;

secondly, the

“NHS provides patients with the best treatment possible”,

and thirdly,

“people are treated with dignity and respect when they use NHS services.”

In-house NHS provision of a high quality is favoured by the public, but the Tory-led proposals in the Health and Social Care Bill threaten that. Over time, as the private sector wins contracts from NHS bodies, the NHS provider that is displaced will have to close, and there is a risk that we will be left with private companies competing with one another for multi-million pound contracts. That is the Lansley vision of the NHS, and it is completely out of step with British public opinion.

[John Pugh]

People were asked whether major changes or only minor changes were needed in their local health system. The figures for the UK show that 62% believe that only minor changes are needed, which is by far the highest figure on the graph of most of the comparable systems.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. His point is a good one, and was well made. There is no need for the revolutionary change that we are facing.

Time is limited, so I shall conclude. Without polling and without understanding the facts, the Government would take a reckless step in the dark. If they do not consider public opinion in their annual surveys, they may end up with a shock in the biggest survey of all—the one planned for May 2015.

[Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)]

I shall call Mr Dromey to order at 3.40, so he has a few minutes in which to speak.

15:36

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. Unaccustomed as I am to being brief, the national health service is the jewel in the crown of public service provision. It was one of the greatest achievements of the post-war Labour Government. It has served this country well for two generations and, as with the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), my mother was a nurse who came from County Tipperary to train in a hospital here in London.

The national health service was on its knees in 1997, and was proudly rebuilt by a Labour Government. I see the benefits of that in my constituency and Birmingham as a whole in the magnificent Queen Elizabeth hospital, the health centres such as that in Stockland Green, and the walk-in centres such as those in Kingstanding and Erdington high street. They are served by outstanding staff whom I cannot praise too highly. They range from Erdington consortium of 17 doctors who are deeply committed to the NHS—my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon is right—staff at all levels of the NHS who are a credit to this country

The problem is the Government’s two fundamental broken promises. They promised to protect spending on the NHS, but in fact there will be real-terms decreases in 143 of the 151 primary care trusts this year. The Government promised no more top-down reorganisation. Instead, they have embarked on the most radical and reckless reorganisation possible, which will have serious consequences for the NHS, and will inevitably see the national taken out of the national health service. The Government should think again about their friendless proposals, and I welcome the expressions of concern from both sides of the Chamber about the ill-thought-out, deeply damaging proposals.

It is not just the NHS that will suffer. So too will some of the most vulnerable groups in our society. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon, I have been a strong supporter of the muscular dystrophy campaign, one of many organisations which has pointed out that, at the moment, because of economies of scale organised through PCTs, we can count on specialist services that those who suffer from this dreadful wasting disease and their families badly need. It asks what will happen in future if we move to GP consortia and a complete change in the nature of the national health service. It believes that it is being let down by the Government, who are making a fundamental mistake, and I hope that they will think again.

15:39

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

It is an essential truth that there is mounting satisfaction with the national health service, just as there was during the Labour Government’s entire period in office. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) for securing a debate on this important subject. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley, for the first time.

It has been interesting to hear the different views expressed in this debate. We heard some interesting views from the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), and I am glad to hear that his GPs are still speaking to him. Perhaps he should listen to a larger group of people who work in the national health service, because he will find that at the moment it is the NHS versus the Government.

I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), and perhaps we should also put on the record the interest shown by Labour Members. Attending the debate are my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), for Edmonton (Mr Love), for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), for Leyton and Wanstead, for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby), and for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke). I shall give an honorary mention to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), too. I believe they would all speak with one voice: the national health service is popular. It is not perfect, but it is doing a good job. Leave it alone and do the right thing.

In 1997, only 35% of people were very satisfied with the national health service. According to the survey of British social attitudes, that figure rose to 60% under the Labour Government. The NHS became a non-political issue. The Ipsos MORI poll consistently showed that seven out of 10 people described the NHS as a key issue, but by 2009 only one in 10 people felt the NHS to be one of the most important issues for them. As a result, the Conservatives changed their strategy and tried to make the NHS a non-political issue. They tried to adopt it; I remember they did the same with green policies. I was working in the Department of Energy and Climate Change at the time, and for every new idea we thought of, the Conservatives would say, “That is a very good idea; we thought of it first.” They did practically the same thing with the health service.

The Prime Minister led the charge and spoke about the support that his family had received from front-line NHS staff. People wanted to believe him and felt sympathy for him. They understood what he was saying and wanted to believe his promise to protect the NHS. In fact, analysis has shown that attitudes to the Prime Minister changed fundamentally. He went from being seen as an ex-Bullingdon boy and a shadowy ex-adviser to Lord Lamont—

15:41

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

15:54

On resuming—

[Emily Thornberry]

Before the Division, I was talking about the way in which the former Bullingdon boy and shadowy ex-adviser to Lord Lamont was transformed by his seeming commitment to the national health service. People wanted to believe that he wanted to protect public services. When the Prime Minister summed up his priorities as N-H-S, people wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Before the last election, the Conservatives made two promises about the NHS. First, they promised to increase spending year on year. Secondly, in November 2009, the Prime Minister told the Royal College of Pathologists:

“With the Conservatives there will be no more of the tiresome, meddlesome, top-down re-structures that have dominated the last decade of the NHS.”

They have broken both those promises. Although we have heard them claim that the Secretary of State for Health talked about his proposals on a wet Wednesday afternoon in Wimbledon, the people do not believe it; they were not there to hear it, they do not believe that they voted for it, and they certainly did not vote for it when they voted for the Liberal Democrats, because they believed that they were voting for elected primary care trusts when they voted Lib Dem.

The Conservatives are taking a huge risk by undermining the NHS. Nigel Lawson has said that the NHS is

“the closest thing the English have to a religion”.

People meddle with it at their peril. Going into battle with it, as the Government have done, will be toxic for them.

The Conservatives are at long last realising that they have made a profound mistake, but it is too late, because people know that introducing competition into the heart of the national health service is completely at odds with the NHS ethos of equality and co-operation. That the Conservatives are doing all this without a mandate from the people makes it even worse. Their reforms are causing profound unease among health workers and the public.

The Conservatives are so desperate to cover up and to counter opposition that they have been trying to manipulate public opinion with false statistics. To hear the Prime Minister claim that we are behind the rest of Europe on heart disease and cancer was appalling. He was corrected by Professor John Appleby, who has already been quoted. It is simply inaccurate not to put into the mix the fact that the UK had the biggest fall in heart-attack deaths between 1980 and 2006 of any European country. At that rate, we will have one of the lowest death rates for heart disease. It is a similar story for lung cancer and breast cancer—two of the other main killers. That is, of course, as long as standards continue to improve and the NHS is not distracted by things such as a major reorganisation of the entire NHS.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting on the record some of the real health outcomes in this country. The hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) summed it up when he said that even if those health outcomes were not improving, there is no causal link between that area and the reforms that the Government propose; does my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) agree?

[Emily Thornberry]

That is right. It is a little like saying, “There are some difficulties with the national health service, so let’s change it,” without looking to see whether those changes will actually attack the problems. None of us says that the national health service is perfect. More things need to be done, but instead of building on our achievements, the Government are undermining the national health service by taking it by the ankles, turning it upside down and shaking it hard. People do not support them in doing that. Some people even heard the Prime Minister say on the “Today” programme that the national health service was second-rate. However, the penny has finally dropped for the Conservatives and they realise that they are not bringing public opinion with them when they seek to undermine the national health service in this way, so instead they have tried to suppress the information that proves that there is huge public support for our NHS as it is now, fundamentally. That is the story of what has been happening in the last few days.

To begin with, we have the unedifying spectacle of the Secretary of State saying that he will not give out certain information about what the public feel about the national health service. Then he discovers that in fact it has been given out. It is wrong of the Conservatives to suppress information about what the public think about the national health service—information that the public have paid for. It shows what their views are, and gives us a baseline before this forthcoming major trauma for the NHS. Then the Secretary of State says, “Actually, I’ve made a mistake. I gave out the information in any event.” That is the other big concern about the present Government. Not only are their reforms fundamentally driven by their ideology, but they are incompetent. There is much criticism of that.

The bottom and top of it is this: the Conservative party can do whatever they want with statistics. They can spin as they wish with whatever they want. They can say black is white until they are red—or blue—in the face, but the truth will out. The truth is that the public love their NHS. Labour gave the Government the national health service on trust. They should work on what we have achieved and tackle any outstanding problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington gave me this quote because he did not have time to use it, but it needs to be said as often as possible. Bevan said:

“The NHS will last as long as there are folk left with the faith to fight for it.”

The NHS does have folk willing to fight for it.

16:00

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

As others have said today, Mr Bayley, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

We have had an interesting debate. Some speeches were a continuation of what has been said in the Health and Social Care Bill Committee, and they bordered on fantasy. Other speeches were extremely informative. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) was in the latter category, and my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) made a reflective and interesting speech. I listened with extreme interest, as I always do, to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke), who made a typically thoughtful speech about an area of health and social care on which he is an acknowledged expert. I listened to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), as I often do these days, and to the hon. Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and for Blaydon (Mr Anderson). It was rather like a curate’s egg—parts of it, depending on which hon. Member was speaking, were all right, and other parts slightly broached on to fantasy island.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) on securing this important debate. He may be surprised to hear that I am in considerable agreement with him on certain areas. I wish to clear up a number of his questions about the surveys. In an intervention on the hon. Gentleman, I alluded to the Ipsos MORI survey. There is something slightly ironic about claiming that we refused to publish it because of its content, given that the previous Government failed to publish similar surveys in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. To say that they did not publish it because the Opposition did not table parliamentary questions asking for it to be published shows breathtaking gall.

The fact is that we published the March 2010 survey following a written answer in December from the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), who is responsible for social care. It was placed in the Library, but it was not placed on the Department of Health website, for which I offer an apology. Some Members referred to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Those statements were made in good faith but he was given the wrong advice. That is unfortunate, but he made that statement some three months after the results of the survey had been published.

The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead asked whether we will continue with the survey. I can tell him that a further survey has been done. It has not been completed, in so far as it has not yet been given to the Department, but that will happen in due course. What happens in future remains to be seen, as no decision has been taken on future exercises. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the general life-style survey. Again, no decision has been taken. In light of that information, it is incorrect to say that we will not allow it to proceed.

On the question of the British social attitudes survey, things are a little more complex. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Department of Health is not the only Department involved; it is a cross-Government survey, and the Department of Health has some interest in it, but not exclusively so. Again, that is being considered, so I cannot give a definitive answer as to what will happen.

Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead, pointed out that the last survey published by Ipsos MORI said that public satisfaction with the NHS was relatively high. That is self-evident, and I suspect that all hon. Members, as constituency MPs, will be aware of that from their constituents, their correspondence and just talking to people. As we heard, the most recent research puts overall satisfaction rates at 72%.

If we were discussing the future of any other public service, perhaps the debate would end there. However, we are not here today to discuss other public services, such as local bus services or rubbish collections, vital as they are. We are here to discuss the national health service, which for the public is literally a matter of life and death, and they have a high regard for it. People expect the NHS to be there when they are at their most vulnerable, or when their family members are in greatest need.

One cannot quantify what the NHS means to the people of this country with a smattering of national statistics, however comforting they might seem. The public have never been over-inclined to set great store by the pronouncements of politicians about the brilliance of the NHS, however familiar such pronouncements might be. However, people do not live their lives through the monochrome of MORI’s painstaking statistical analyses. They do not judge the NHS on the numbers. They judge the NHS on their experience of it; it is the NHS staff that they meet, and what they say and do, that ultimately informs their opinion.

The fact that satisfaction rates are relatively high is without doubt a tribute to the fact that those staff treat thousands of patients every day. I am sure that Members on both sides of the Chamber are united in their admiration for the work of staff across the board, and we should congratulate them on doing it day in, day out, when looking after our constituents, ourselves and our families. They do a fantastic job. We should never forget that we owe them a debt of honour and gratitude.

[Mr Anderson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Burns]

No. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I do not have much time.

We should not kid ourselves that that is the whole story. Although some may be only too content with the fact that three quarters of people are happy with the NHS, I am not. High levels of public satisfaction are a genuine compliment to the work of NHS staff, but they do not undermine the case for modernisation or imply that the NHS is perfect or should never change. There is plenty of room for improvement, building on the high satisfaction rates that we already enjoy, as shown by the various surveys mentioned today.

The House will know that although the money going into the NHS has dramatically increased over the last decade, which I welcome, productivity has not. In fact, it has fallen by 0.2% every year since 1997. In hospitals, it has fallen further—by 1.4% a year between 1997 and 2008. However, such statistics can sound quite abstract. We should think about what they actually mean for patients.

Some of the targets and incentives in the current system are simply perverse; far from promoting good-quality care, they encourage poor care. Take maternity services. With antenatal care, the more visits or scans providers can record, the more they are paid. It is in the financial interests of the hospital to provide care on a purely reactive basis, dealing with problems as they arise, rather than preventing them from happening.

The result is poorer health outcomes for the mother and child and a bigger bill for the taxpayer. No midwife or doctor would ever organise the system in such a way. No doctor or nurse working in acute care would design a system in which a hospital would be paid for a mistake rather than be penalised for it. For example, would they pay if a patient were discharged from hospital only to be bounced back into A and E a week or so later because they were not properly treated? No health professional would choose to work in an environment in which they and their colleagues are rewarded not for how well they treat patients, but for how well they process them through the health system.

Hon. Members claim that there is no rationale for our reforms, but they are wrong. I do not claim that the NHS is failing; there is much that is good about it, and much of what it does is internationally acclaimed. None the less, if hon. Members were honest they would accept that there is room for improvement, as was shown by the Ipsos MORI poll.

I do not think that it is right that pensioners over the age of 75 in the primary care trust that serves the constituency of the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead are almost twice as likely to be admitted to hospital in an emergency than those over the age of 75 in Devon or Cornwall. I do not think that it is right that, in some parts of the country, people are more than five times more likely to die of heart disease.

In its current form, the NHS cannot hope to cope with the rising demand from our ageing population and the relentless rise in the cost of drugs and treatment. Our health system is no longer battling with infectious disease. The typical patient is not a young man with TB or polio, as it might have been in the 1940s, but someone who is over 75 with probably two, if not more, long-term conditions and social care needs, too. It is a very different problem that requires a very different kind of health service.

Even more importantly, as a nation, we should be aspiring to be as healthy and to live as long as our European neighbours. A recent OECD report found that, if the NHS were to perform as well as the best-performing health systems, we could increase life expectancy by three years. The argument for change could not be clearer.

The ultimate objective of modernisation is to ensure that the quality of care that people receive is on a par with the best available anywhere in the world. To do that, we need to make fundamental changes to the NHS. For example, we need to ensure that it is the GP and not a manager or civil servant in Whitehall who determines the needs and requirements of their patients. A radical extension of patient choice would allow patients to choose not only where they are treated, but which consultant-led team will treat them. Patients could choose their GP and even, where appropriate, their treatment.

There should be greater accountability and transparency in the NHS to give patients the information that they need to make choices and to drive up quality. As the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery said only last week, publicly reporting on the performance of hospitals and surgeons treating patients with heart disease can improve mortality rates by 50%.

There should also be more independence and freedom for clinicians, so that if local health and social care professionals think that they can deliver better services to support stroke patients, they can set up a social enterprise that will do that. We will give genuine freedom to foundation trusts, so that they can strive to provide the best possible outcomes for patients.

In conclusion, there have been a lot of disingenuous statements about privatisation of the health service and the quality of care. If hon. Members are prepared to listen, I will assure them that we have no intention of privatising the health service. We just want to improve patient care.

Foreign Fishermen (Visas)

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Westminster Hall

16:14

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This issue is important to my constituency and many other constituencies across the United Kingdom. Along with being in the armed forces, commercial sea fishing represents the most dangerous occupation in the United Kingdom—a fact that would be confirmed by our fishermen and those who represent them. The programme “Deadliest Catch” and the film “The Perfect Storm” illustrate very clearly the issues that fishermen face each and every day.

A combination of increasing regulatory burdens and decreasing financial returns, compounded by the antisocial nature of the job, has led to local UK share fishermen drifting away from the occupation. Although there is a method in place to address the problems, we need some help moving things along, which is why I sought this debate. Although the drifting away is not a universal trend within the industry, the larger part of the fleet, comprising those trawlers targeting certain species such as cod, haddock, whiting and nephrops, has been particularly vulnerable to the trend for the past decade and more.

The take-home wage is a key concern of the fishermen. It does not always reflect the nature of the work, which has been brought into our homes by the TV series “Trawlermen”. Figures from the Sea Fish Industry Authority’s regular economic surveys of the fleet show that the average gross annual wage for a Northern Ireland-based share fisherman works out at approximately £15,000, less their tax and stamp. Other hon. Members will speak on behalf of their areas, but I suspect that the wage will be similar. Given the salaries available in other sectors, it is no wonder that many share fishermen have chosen to leave the industry.

There is a perception that share fishermen are mainly unskilled or unqualified workers, but that is not the case. Regrettably, fishermen’s skills and the qualifications that they are required by law to possess go largely unrecognised outside the fishing sector. The sea fishing industry has changed dramatically over the past few years to become a multi-million-pound industry. Skippers and their crews work on modern, sophisticated vessels and are expected to be highly skilled technicians who are able to act as efficient harvesters of the seas and to operate a range of electronic instruments for safe navigation and for finding fish. Gone are the days of throwing a net over the side of a boat to catch fish; it is much more sophisticated now.

Share fishermen in the UK are self-employed, so they have the option of looking for alternative employment in either the marine or onshore sectors. Trawler owners, on the other hand, still have a business to manage and bank loans to repay. They have a choice. Of course they will pursue every opportunity available to them to enhance the value of their catch or reduce their overheads so that the profit and consequently the crew share can be maximised. I can cite several examples from my constituency of Strangford where trawler owners are working collectively to bulk-purchase fuel and promote the local consumption of their catch. They are doing everything practically and physically possible to improve their profit margins. Despite taking such actions, crewing problems persist. Consequently, trawler owners are forced to look for alternative crewing arrangements.

The European Union and its common fisheries policy possess few positive aspects for our fishing fleet. One such aspect has been to increase the labour pool. With the expansion of the EU eastwards, many citizens of the independent Baltic states have found their way to the periphery of the Union and have been able to secure positions as crew members on board UK-based trawlers. Many of the new recruits to the UK’s fishing industry had previous fishing industry and merchant navy experience. However, they lacked the recognised qualifications required by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. That obstacle, compounded by language difficulties, was largely overcome. None the less, significant investment was required on the part of the trawler owners, as interpreters were drafted in to assist tutors in delivering the courses that resulted in the mandatory qualifications.

Let me set out where we are, and then I will outline how we can move forward.

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

The hon. Gentleman has laid out very well the situation of the share fishermen. People come in from other countries to do the work of a share fisherman, and there are many jobs onshore that are dependent on their work. Barratlantic in my constituency has told me that if it loses its three overseas fishermen, it will have to lay off members of staff at its fish factory, because fewer fish will be landed. That underlines how important it is that we manage to keep those skilled men working on our boats in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The wonderful thing about being an MP—apart from the privilege of being here—is that the issues that are prevalent in the area that I represent are the same as those in Scotland, England and Wales. They are not specific to my constituency alone, which is why we need the help of Westminster, the Government and the Minister.

Despite the difficulties, the first wave of immigrant fishermen addressed many of the crewing problems. However, the economic factors, which are well known to many of us across the UK, meant that many of the immigrants began to return home. UK trawler owners almost found themselves in chapter two of the crewing crisis, and that is where we are today. Consequently, trawler owners and their agents began to look further afield. In 2006, the first Filipino fishermen began to appear in fishing communities around the UK, and particularly in Scotland. The trend started in Scotland and then made its way across the rest of the UK, to England and Northern Ireland.

Filipino fishermen are different from their UK colleagues, in that they tend to be employed. In addition, as the Philippines, like the UK, is surrounded by sea, all the new recruits who came over to the UK tended to have seagoing experience, and indeed fishing experience, with qualifications that on the most part were recognised by the UK, including by the MCA. Furthermore, as I have heard for myself, their knowledge of the English language is impressive. I have spoken to some of these Filipino fishermen in the port of Portavogie, and I must say that they are very clear in what they are telling me.

The first Filipino fishermen arrived in Northern Ireland in 2007 and their numbers in the three ports along the County Down coast increased quickly. They filled, and continue to fill, an important void in trawler crews at a critical time for the industry. Access to the UK was achieved through transit visas, an important condition of which is the requirement that the vessel to which they are attached spend the majority of its fishing time outside UK territorial waters. In fact, these fishermen were not permitted to live on shore. That was probably quite a strict condition, but they none the less tried to keep to it.

As I have mentioned, the primary difference between the Filipino fishermen and other immigrant fishermen from outside the European economic area on the one hand, and UK share fishermen on the other, is that the former group are employed. As such, they have a contract of employment with the trawler owners, and those contracts carry with them obligations for the owners—obligations to do with pay, insurance cover and travel costs. The take-home pay of a British share fisherman varies from trawler to trawler and from week to week, depending on the weather and the danger that they face. Their pay is based on a share of the trawlerman’s profits. If a trawler makes no profit, then the crewmen get no salary, so it is clear that the Filipino fisherman has an advantage that the share fisherman does not. Employed crew members’ contracts stipulate a minimum weekly wage, and bonuses are then paid, which differ from trawler to trawler. Overall, however, when all the costs are accumulated, the share of the profit and the salary paid to any crew member are very similar.

However, a big difference is the fact that, from the outset, the transit visa required non-EEA fishermen to live on board the trawlers. Although their living conditions are no different from those of UK fishermen, the non-EEA fishermen do not get a break from those conditions during their contracts, which can last for several months.

In many of the ports where the Royal National Mission to Deep Sea Fishermen has a presence, immigrant fishermen have availed themselves of the mission’s facilities. Indeed, in some ports, such as Troon and Kilkeel, the mission opened mini-centres to provide rest and relaxation facilities for visiting UK fishermen and immigrant fishermen alike. As always, the mission needs to be commended for the Christian service that it provides, and the Christian witness that it bears to fishermen all over the UK. I pay tribute to it.

Unfortunately, there have been occasions when owners have been accused of abusing crew members. I will put this on record: some crew members have made certain claims. However, I met Filipino fishermen no more than a month ago in Portavogie and spoke to them, basically through an interpreter. I know that some people in this Chamber have difficulty following my accent, so I suspect that the Filipinos in Portavogie probably had even more difficulty. Fortunately, however, we had a translator, and I was able to convey to them that I would be bringing this matter to the House within a short time.

[Mr MacNeil]

As somebody else who causes some difficulties for Hansard—I am quite proud of that fact—I would like to back up what the hon. Gentleman is saying and talk about another aspect of the issue. In my experience, fishermen who have lost a man because he has returned to the Philippines have not sought to replace him with another Filipino. They have been quite specific in wanting to get the man who they have got to know to come back and work with them. That shows the building of personal relationships, and indeed friendships of a certain kind, between men when they are out fishing together. I find that quite heartening, and it is quite the opposite of some of the scare stories. That has been my experience in this field.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman again for his contribution. There is a very strong bond of friendship, loyalty, togetherness and comradeship that comes from being together on a small boat. I do not know if other Members have ever had the chance to get out on a fishing boat. If they have not, they should take the opportunity to go out in one. They would see the small section of the boat that the fishermen sleep in. If they were not claustrophobic before, they certainly would be afterwards, because it is almost incredibly small.

Whenever I have met the Filipino fishermen in Portavogie, an area that I represent back home, I have seen their commitment. When they were wanted at 4 am down in the harbour, they were there. In fact, they were there perhaps half an hour before they were going out on the boats. They were always on time and they worked hard all day. That is how they did things. As the hon. Gentleman has said very clearly, the Filipino fishermen have a strong commitment to work.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. To back up what he has just said, one fishing boat skipper told me that if he goes to sleep at night, he wants to be sure that the person at the wheel is somebody in whom he has complete trust. The bond and the trust that are built up over a number of years are very important, and that is why there is a desire to retain these employees.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which highlights the fact that, right across the UK, the same issues apply to us all. It also highlights our knowledge as elected representatives of immigrant fishermen, and Filipino fishermen in particular, and the need to have them retained in the fishing industry in the areas that we represent.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman has been very kind in giving way and sharing his time. One of the difficulties that the people and the companies that want these men to return have raised with me is the cost involved. There are legal fees of £1,250 plus VAT; there are the Home Office fees of £1,000; and there is a further fee of £170 for every sponsor’s certificate issued. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that, especially at this time, those are costs that businesses should not really be facing on an almost continual or cyclical basis? Perhaps the Migration Advisory Council should seek to reclassify these fishermen and put them into the specialisms that they are quite clearly and patently qualified for.

[Jim Shannon]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman about the costs involved. Those costs seem to increase every year, and continuously throughout the year. I am also concerned about them.

Filipino fishermen have had Filipino consular staff down to see them and speak to them about the matters that affect them. I have discussed the issue of the Filipino fishermen with the UK Border Agency on two occasions, and I had occasion to table a question for the Minister for Immigration on the subject just last year. These are important matters for us as representatives of the fishing industry, but I must say that they are even more important for the Filipino fishermen and the trawler skippers for whom they work.

During 2008 and 2009, there were extensive consultations between the UK Border Agency, industrial representatives and others. The UK Border Agency became aware of just how valuable both the non-UK fishermen and the non-EEA fishermen were to the continued safe operation of the fishing industry. That point about safety backs up the points that the hon. Members for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), and for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), have made about the safe operation of boats. Whenever the skipper goes to sleep at night, he wants to be sure that the person in charge of the boat knows what they are doing. That is exactly the issue that we are discussing.

The transit visas that I mentioned were due to last some 18 months, expiring in September 2011. That is why we are having this debate in Westminster Hall today. Perhaps we can get an extension to those visas, or some concession or help from the Minister’s Department.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman has made a very good point about safety. Earlier, I talked about people getting to know each other and forming a bond. I have been told that one of the reasons why the trawler owners do not want just anybody is that it takes a person time to get used to each individual boat and to know exactly where certain ropes, anchors, grappling hooks and other pieces of equipment are, or where the hauler is controlled, on each individual boat. That is a genuine reason for keeping a man who has experience of a particular boat on that boat, rather than just seeking anybody. I have had fishing employers come to me to ensure that an individual who is skilled and trained on their boat remains on their boat. I wonder if the hon. Gentleman finds exactly the same thing in his area.

[Jim Shannon]

The area that I represent is exactly the same. The knowledge that is earned on one boat is perhaps slightly different to the knowledge earned on another. It takes time to get used to a boat. I mentioned that earlier, when I said that today’s fisherman has so much more to learn than his predecessors of 10, 15 or 20 years ago.

[Mr Reid]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so generous in giving way. I want to back up the point that he made. This is a highly skilled job, and it should be put on the list of occupations for which employers should be able to get work permits, as long as employers can demonstrate that they have made every effort to recruit fishermen from within the EU. In those circumstances, they should be allowed to obtain visas, particularly to retain the staff whom they already have and in whom they have trust and confidence.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point, because it is the crux of the issue, and of our requests to the Minister and the Department.

Of the 1,500 visas that were allocated, only 70 were taken up. That might prompt the question, “If only 70 people took them up, do we really need them?” but the fact is we do. It was not that the interest was not there. The key experience and skills of the people involved is very important, and those who were able to fill the void before the Filipino fishermen came have now, by and large, gone back to eastern Europe. There have been, and still are, experienced and qualified fishermen working on the trawlers, and the issue today is that fishermen and employers do not want to lose that expertise come September 2011, which is what they say will happen.

[Mr MacNeil]

On a point of information, the period when only 70 applications were taken up was before the last election, when the hon. Gentleman was not in the House. I can remember it clearly, and people came to see me on the subject. The problems were those of bureaucracy, often in Manila. What with the employment agencies and the visa-issuing authorities in Manila, it was difficult to get people out and across. Had it not been for those bureaucratic hurdles, a lot more than 70 people would have arrived.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. Yes, that was before my time. He is absolutely right that there was a pervasive level of bureaucracy that prevented people from applying.

I am conscious of the time, and intend to bring my speech to a conclusion. It remains the case that most people signing on for the dole are dissuaded from seeking a job in the commercial fishing fleet because of the long hours, the low wages, the uncertainties of the weather and the dangers of the job. There is also the question of the investment that trawler owners need to make to train fishermen who might then choose not to stay in the job. Consequently, there is a need for non-EEA or immigrant workers to fill the gaps in onshore occupations, and a clear need for us to retain the fishermen, particularly the Filipinos.

The Migration Advisory Committee recently launched a consultation to update its shortage occupation list, and I encourage the UK fishing industry’s representatives to make representations as part of that process. That would, in basic terms, entail the monetary reward that is available to share fishermen reflecting the sacrifices they make and the skills they have. We need a long-term solution to the crewing problems that the fishing fleets face, and I encourage the UK Border Agency, together with the other agencies involved, to instigate discussions with fishing industry representatives soon. I also call on the Home Office and the UK Border Agency to review the situation regarding the temporary visas that they issued early last year. I am aware that the non-EEA fishermen to whom the visas were issued, together with the trawler owners who employ them, have acted responsibly and sensibly, and I suggest that that could and should be reflected in an extension to the September 2011 expiry date.

In Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the UK, commercial sea fishing is a valuable industry, often based in remote coastal communities. It employs highly qualified technicians, whose skill, and indeed bravery and courage, in harvesting the seas around our islands must be acknowledged. Many of our fishermen’s management responsibilities have been mistakenly surrendered to the EU, but that is a different debate for a different day. Assisting with employment in the sector is, I suggest, a small but very important way in which the House can help the industry.

16:30

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)]

It is a pleasure to be before you this afternoon, Mr Bayley. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the debate, and on drawing our attention to what is a very important issue in an industry that is very important to the nations represented by Members at the other end of this room. I know that he has tabled many questions, had many meetings, and has an honourable track record in raising the issue of staff who work on these boats, and in presenting the problems that he has encountered.

The fishing industry has had to face many challenges over the years, and those challenges will continue. Non-EEA ship crews travelling to UK ports to join vessels sailing into international waters do not fall within the normal immigration rules. They enter on “to join ship” visas, which allow fresh crews to arrive in the UK and leave on the ship. As many international-going vessels may leave port with no stated destination, awaiting orders to pick up new cargo, “leaving the UK” is defined as sailing beyond the 12-mile territorial limit, and that has been exploited by the fishing industry.

In some instances such exploitation has been permissible when the vessels involved are those that traditionally fish outside the limit—the deep sea fleet. However, inshore fleet vessel owners, who fish within the 12-mile limit, have wrongly taken advantage of the loophole to illegally employ the same cheap foreign labour as their deep sea fleet counterparts, resulting in many of the 1,000 to 1,500 non-EEA fishermen in the UK fishing fleets being employed illegally on very low wages and accommodated in unacceptable conditions while in port. That led to the tragic death of two Filipinos and one Latvian in a fire on a fishing boat in 2008. Although it is right to highlight the pressures on owners in finding crews to operate their vessels, it is simply not acceptable for there to be a race to the bottom, in terms of pay and conditions for those working in the industry.

The previous Government introduced a concession to address the situation with the inshore fleet, agreeing to a quota of up to 1,500 non-renewable fisher visas, to allow the industry time to adjust. There was an 18-month period, which comes to an end in September. Visas were issued on the condition that non-EEA fishermen were paid the minimum wage, and suitable onshore accommodation was provided while they were in port. As has been mentioned, fewer than 70 applications were received before the concession closed, and I note what the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) said about that being due to bureaucracy in the country of origin.

Both Her Majesty’s Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly Government are clear that people who come from overseas to work within UK territorial waters must enjoy the protections of the national minimum wage, and safe and proper accommodation. The minimum level of pay for skilled workers is £20,000. The minimum wage is circa £13,000. From what has been said, the industry believes that £13,000 is too high. In terms of having a certain standard of living and proper accommodation, the view of the Philippines Government in respect—

[Mr MacNeil]

I do not think that anyone is saying that it is too high. What we are saying is that there are a number of jobs on land that depend on these people. I know of some men in the Philippines who have been almost in tears on the phone saying that they cannot go back to Scotland because they missed the date on the paperwork. They have lost quite a lot of money. They have been saving up and sending money to their families. They have missed an opportunity. It is a double hit for individual human beings: the people who work ashore in processing factories when product is not landed, and the individuals in the Philippines who are not getting the standard of employment that they might otherwise get.

[Lynne Featherstone]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I also heard the hon. Member for Strangford praise the work and the ability of the Filipino workers. I understand that, but it has been said that, were it not for the concession, applications would be made under tier 3 of the points-based system for non-skilled workers. There are high unemployment levels in those areas, and the hope and expectation was that, during the 18-month concession period, work would be done to encourage—

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Lynne Featherstone]

Time is short, and I need to make a bit of progress in addressing some of the points raised.

The hon. Member for Strangford raised the issue of the Home Office fees being set at £1,000. The Home Office visa fees were £470, and the legal fees were a decision for the owners themselves. Holders of concessionary visas are not required to sleep onboard the fishing boats, and should be accommodated safely onshore. The concessionary visas would not be allowed under the points-based system. As I said, they fall under tier 3 for non-skilled workers, which is now closed as a point of entry due to the situation in the local area. The Migration Advisory Committee determines the levels and advises Her Majesty’s Government. If there are skills arguments to be made, as hon. Members know, they must be made to the committee, as fishing and skills are devolved to Northern Ireland and Scotland. One key issue is that unemployment remains high across the United Kingdom and in fishing communities. It is for the industry, not Government, to work with the devolved Administrations to increase local engagement in the industry.

[Mr MacNeil]

Those arguments were outlined by the Minister for Immigration in the previous Government. However, on reflection, he saw that the numbers were small and that the potential loss of employment onshore was great, so he reconsidered and introduced the 18-month intermediate scheme. I make a plea to the Minister to understand that the situation is, unfortunately, still with us. If we lose those men, unemployment on land will increase. As the Member of Parliament for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, the outer Hebrides, I know that it will happen. That is why I make the plea to her to reflect as much, and have as much understanding as the previous Minister for Immigration, who certainly surprised me by changing his opinion remarkably quickly to be practical and sensible. I praise him for that, as I did at the time.

[Lynne Featherstone]

I give way to the hon. Member for Strangford.

[Jim Shannon]

I am conscious of the time. What we have is a skilled work force. We need a concession for them, and we are asking the Minister to use her position within the Department to ensure that we get it. People have tried hard to get workers to take those places. It has not worked, but we have a skilled work force. There is a spin-off onshore. If we do not catch fish at sea, we cannot do further processing on land, and that is what leads to job losses.

[Lynne Featherstone]

In my understanding, the reason that that is not possible is that the work force are designated as non-skilled. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says about the skill of the Filipinos, who are seafaring folk and understand the business, but in terms of the normal visa applications, they would be made under tier 3. The reason that people do not want to do the job is that it is cold, wet and nasty and does not pay brilliantly, not that they cannot learn the skills needed. I assure hon. Members that I am listening to their passionate pleas. I am not standing here like a stone wall; I hear the case being made. Nevertheless, I must push back a bit because of the levels of unemployment in those areas and because there has been the need for a concession.

The UK Border Agency is considering ways to ensure that all UK-based crew, including those whose journeys take them beyond the 12-mile territorial limit but not to foreign ports on a routine basis, will be properly paid and accommodated. Tier 3 of the points-based system for low-skilled labour remains closed, however. As I said, the case for changing that must be made to the Migration Advisory Committee. It is important that that case is made, as the Government can go only so far.

I recognise that the requirements of the concession may have created anomalies between the levels of payment of different fishing fleets and contracted foreign fishing workers working on the same vessels. Foreign fishers have a defined income, as was described, and certainty about income for the period of their contracts, which was obviously a difficulty, but that is coming to an end. The Government’s job—

[Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)]

Order. We must move on to the next debate.

Motor Sport (Public Highways)

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Westminster Hall

16:44

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Mr Bayley. British motor sport is Britain’s great sport success story. We often hear much about football and other sports, but British motor sport undoubtedly leads the world. One need only look at the first round of this year’s Formula 1 championship to see that although a German driver crossed the finish line in the fastest car, the car was managed, designed and built in Britain, and the team was based here. Eight out of 12 Formula 1 teams are British, as are most F1 drivers and designers. Even some of the lead designers for Ferrari, the bastion of Italian motor sport, are more often than not British.

Our great teams—Williams, McLaren and now Red Bull—have proved on the world stage not only to be forerunners of new technologies and innovators in motoring but developers of British talent. Other companies such as M-Sport and Prodrive support not only Formula 1 but rallies and many other types of sporting activity on the road. Britain is and has been a world leader in motor sport, and I hope that it will continue to be one.

Motor sport is often left behind in the great sports debate. The first few sports pages of our newspapers are often taken up by football, even when the teams are full of overseas players, managed by overseas managers, owned by overseas owners and, often, languishing in the bottom of divisions after millions of pounds spent. I hope that the Government will consider my proposal to help motor sport build on its success and go forward.

We should not forget that 95% of most motor sport is amateur and consists of people participating. It is not just about the glamour and glitz of F1 or world rallying; it is about normal rallying, hill climbing, classic cars, trailing and historical cars. Anyone who lives near or visits a motor race circuit will see that sports go on there all year round, from karting to high-performance sports. Hundreds of thousands of people enjoy motor sport in Britain.

The governing body of motor sport is the Motor Sports Association, the successor to RAC MSA. It has 200,000 members and 750 affiliated motor clubs, and every year it hosts 4,500 events. The industry that feeds into that motor sport has an amazing record, with a turnover of £6 billion a year, only £2.6 billion of which is exported. Some 4,500 companies support the sport. The research and development spend—the spend for the future that trains tomorrow’s engineers and scientists—is 30% of turnover. The aerospace industry, from which I come, would be proud of such a figure, and we should do more to encourage that.

The industries on the back of motor sport—public relations, marketing, sports industry, event management—employ 38,000 people, create another £1.7 billion in turnover and involve 25,000 engineers. That is an incredible asset for this country. Some of those engineers come from my constituency, having gone to Myerscough college, which has its own team and trains young men and women to support motor teams. Some of them have gone on to work in the top flight of world motor sport.

What is wrong with motor sport? Nothing, except that we could do more for it. We could do more to allow events to take place. The problem in England and Wales is that if we want more events, and more diverse events, to take place, we cannot use the roads and highways in the same way as the Isle of Man or Northern Ireland. To do so would mean suspending numerous provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1988. We have a midway point. Something called a traffic regulation order allows access to a road to be suspended, but the provisions of the Highways Acts still apply. Drivers must still average 30 mph on the area of road closed to the public, and rights of way still exist, meaning that unless a uniformed police officer is there to prevent Mr and Mrs Smith from carrying on their business, no one is empowered to prevent them from using it.

That is why we cannot have a Grand Prix in London or a circuit around Birmingham, although other countries can. We should do something about it. That is also why, when Birmingham did have an event, sponsored by the noble Lord Rooker, it took an Act of Parliament to suspend some of the relevant provisions. Amending the 1998 Act or building on a traffic regulation order would fit with the Government’s agenda of empowering local authorities, encouraging tourism and events and putting people in charge of their communities. Perhaps we should look at something along the lines of a traffic suspension order or something that devolves the powers to a local authority.

I am not here to ask that motor sport be allowed to impose itself on communities that do not want it or that the Government give power to an unelected governing body to decide that it wants motor sport when the local community does not. I am here to ask the Government to devolve power to local authorities, so that they can decide whether they want to host an event. That could be in Brecon, north Lancashire, where I am, or north Yorkshire—anywhere they want a rally. It is about places with rarely used lanes and roads, which desperately need inward investment, tourism or to kick-start the season, perhaps, at unfashionable times of the year. Let us empower our local authorities to do that.

I hope that local authorities will realise that they are not on their own. The governing body, the MSA, issues licences for events. In motor sport, one cannot have a race without a licence from the governing body. Along with that licence comes liability cover and all the protection from being sued or from worry about not being experts in the field that my constituents and the local authority would need. I want the Government to empower local authorities to seek events when they want to and to be able to suspend aspects of the 1988 Act, but to do so in conjunction with the people who know about motor sport. I want them to be guided and provided with liability cover, so that we can, perhaps, reap the benefits.

A change would apply not only to motor sport, but to cycling. It is bizarre that some stages of the Tour de France could not happen here if the bikes averaged more than 30 miles an hour. One might deliberately create a race on a road and that in itself could break the current highways law. Therefore, a change is also about empowering local authorities to give cycling events a proper go and getting Britain to the forefront of that sport. We need only go out on a Sunday to realise how big cycling has become. I took a Boris bike out for the first time yesterday, which is the closest I get to it, but I could not find a rack when I got to the other end, so it was a bit of disaster—I digress.

We should seek a change. It is easy and the benefits are clear. On tourism, as we can see with the Jim Clark rally in Scotland and motor sport all over the country, if we bring thousands of tourists into parts of the country that do not normally get them, it is a great thing. On the spend, Lancashire has a great link to the Isle of Man and the tourist trophy—TT—race. Every summer thousands of people pour over to the Isle of Man to see that great, historic race, and they help that island with its tourism very much. We could really benefit from that.

On promoting motor sport, we have to keep recruiting the engineers and drivers of the future. We have to remind people that motor sport is not only about Formula 1, but about local teams, local rallying and local engineering. It reminds people what can be done with engineering. People do not just have to build bridges, but can invent some of the very best in motor sport, materials and so on. It is also about community involvement, such as marshalling, and people getting involved in their area and taking part in a great event. We should not forget the circus coming to town. It is a great unifier in parts of the country.

I understand that people have sought this power since 1928. If the Government support them, and I hope they will, it will have been a long time coming. The previous Labour Government were supportive and never objected in any of my discussions with Labour Ministers, but we have not finally done the deed. I hope that we will. The First Minister of Scotland has spoken up in support of the change—no doubt eying the potential opportunities for the forests in Aberdeenshire and the Western Isles. We cannot take current venues for granted. Forestry Commission charges have a prohibitive effect on some rallying. The British leg of the world rally series is under threat due to some very prohibitive charges. We need to ensure that we are always able to offer alternatives.

I hope that the Minister gives us some good news and realises that the House has been supportive of a change, so it has cross-party support. It is a simple issue and would require bureaucratic measures. It is not a great ideological argument about policy and it is not about imposing our will on different communities. It is about giving power to local authorities, where it suits them, to engage with a successful British sport, promote it and allow all those followers of motor sport and cycling up and down the country to finally get out and race. If they cannot afford a Formula 1 car, they can still get out and race.

Let us not forget education. We can teach young men and women to drive responsibly and learn to drive high-speed performance cars, while teaching them that there is a time for racing and a time for driving on a normal road. That will have a lot of benefits. Perhaps we can divert some of the boy racers away from racing though my village at 2 am and away from tragic accidents, and encourage them to get involved in a motor sport that perhaps becomes more affordable and accessible to a lot of them. They could all play a part in it.

I look forward to the Minister’s response. I have spoken to him in the past about a change, and the Government have been supportive. It would fit with our localism agenda, the big society and with rewarding one of Britain’s great sports and industries.

16:56

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

I believe that this is the first time I have served under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley, since I became a Minister of the Crown, and it is a pleasure to do so this afternoon. I congratulate my hon. Friend and former colleague from the Household Division, the Member for Wear and Preston. I am disappointed that he is not wearing his regimental tie today. [Interruption.] I am sorry, I am not used to his new constituency name. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) on securing the debate and on the lobbying he has done for several months on behalf of the industry and his constituents. I hope that I have come to the debate with good news on how we can progress an issue from 1928 into legislation as soon as possible. We can tinker around the edges, but this will require primary legislation.

I would like to touch on the background. My hon. Friend is right to say that motor sport in this country has a proud history. At a recent event, which my hon. Friend attended, I had the honour and privilege to sit next to Nigel Mansell. He is a great hero in our country, who people look up to and aspire to be like. We saw what can be done in the grand prix this weekend. I was proud to be listening to the commentary of a constituent of mine, Anthony Davidson, the former driver. He is still racing, but not in Formula 1 now. It was good to hear him on the radio.

As my hon. Friend said, looking at the history, it is not only about winning, but about the teams that put together the technology and about where that technology is often applied after its use in Formula 1 and the other types of racing around the world. We talked about disc brakes and the anti-lock braking system, both of which come from Formula 1, and were not used in modern vehicles before that. The many safety features that have stemmed from Formula 1 have led to this country having the safest roads in the world.

I am very proud to be the Minister responsible for road safety, as well as for motor sport, and to be able to say in 2011 that we have the safest roads in the world. We will not be complacent, but will continue to drive down the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads, because 2,222 deaths, by the last count, are too many. At the same time, I am proud to represent this country at road safety meetings I attend around the world, where often people want to know how they can achieve the same safety record. They look up to our record, some of which is due to the excellent education work we have done over the years on drink-driving and the wearing of seatbelts—we need to work on drug-driving—but a huge amount of it is down to technology. Many of the safety features in the vehicles we drive on the roads today come from racing and the investment made in research and development by the great manufactures of this country. That is particularly true of cars, but also of motor cycles, for which, sadly, the safety trends are going in the wrong direction.

My hon. Friend is right to touch on the fact that this is a deregulation issue. I am also Minister responsible for deregulation for the Department for Transport, as well as being the shipping Minister, the devolution Minister, the roads Minister and the roads safety Minister—I could go on. We are trying to empower local communities, not just councils, so that they can say to their council, “Look, we would like to have some sort of event in our patch next year or next week.” It is not all about having Formula 1. That event took place in Birmingham and it had to go through a complicated process, because every time such an event is proposed, an Act of Parliament has to be passed to allow it to proceed. That may have been right and proper in 1928—although I doubt it—but it certainly is not right in 2011.

Let us consider some of the events that could take place. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North talked about rallying as well as cars and Formula 1. When one of my constituents heard that I was responding to this debate, they reminded me that they want to have kart racing in my constituency on an empty industrial estate that has very little traffic at the weekend. We are world leaders in karting—in fact, this year’s runner-up in the British karting championship lives in my constituency. We can also consider other things, such as rallying.

I will speak to my colleagues in other Departments about why we have so much difficulty with regards state ownership—as is the case with the Forestry Commission, before it moves into whatever its future capacity will be in terms of charitable status. State ownership is impairing investment and competition in the UK. The MSA is not proposing that our streets are closed down every weekend in every town, but we have to make sure that there is confidence out there that that will not happen. We are world leaders in motor sports and in cycling. Indeed, the cycling world championships have just taken place. We might not have done as well at those as we did in the Olympics, but I am sure we will do well in 2012.

We should not create a bureaucratic hold-up for such things; instead, we need to ask how we can empower local communities to go forward. With that in mind, I am today announcing a public consultation on how we will amend the legislation, in which we want as many people as possible to participate, so that we can establish how we can deregulate the matter from central Government bureaucratic control, while ensuring that local communities do not have such things imposed on them. Those involved can perhaps come together in a consortium with the MSA, which will issue the licence for any motor sport activity. We are in a very exciting situation. The consultation, which will last for three months, will proceed from today, and I hope that many different people from across the motor sport and other racing industries come forward with innovative ideas. This country is fantastic at innovation, not just in manufacturing but in terms of ideas about how the exciting events that we see around the world can take place in this country.

I spoke to former Ministers for transport about the matter, who said that they would have liked to have dealt with the issue. I think it was on their agenda towards the end of their Administration. It is not a difficult matter, but I have to be honest and say that it will not get into this year’s legislative programme. By the time I have finished consulting, we will have to ensure that we do not interfere with local election issues or with the associated purdah. I am sure that that will not happen because it is not a party political issue; it is simply a case of how we empower local communities to do something that they want to do.

Although I wish it could be a one-clause Bill, some technical issues surround the legislation. My hon. Friend knows, because he has done his homework, that there is no point deregulating to allow races to be held when a 30 mph speed limit is still in place and so on. The right of way issue has been touched on, but, sadly, there are several other issues to consider. In such a positive debate, I do not want to bring up a load of negatives about why such races cannot take place, and I have asked my officials to consult on how we can do it. That is the reverse of what has happened since 1928.

Such an approach will be popular in some areas, but the road safety community has some proper concerns, and I understand that. All events based around racing will be licensed by the MSA, which has a fantastic track record in making sure that such events take place efficiently and safely. If what we are doing is a success—and I am sure that it will be—the biggest thing I need to convince people about is having a structured programme, so that one community that agrees early on does not have a disproportionate number of events imposed on it. We also need to ensure that the motorist, who predominantly pays for our roads, is not inconvenienced too much. That balance is something the Isle of Man has addressed very well. I have been invited to the Isle of Man TT this year but, sadly, family commitments mean that I cannot be there. I would have liked to take my Triumph across the water and, if not raced on the circuit, perhaps been pro enough to drive it, even if I would have been somewhat slower than the racers.

There are some strange legal anomalies regarding motor sport. Technically, the London to Brighton rally is not a race. If it were, we would have to pass an Act of Parliament every year so that it can take place in November. When we are proud of our heritage, that is a ludicrous situation to be in. I have not discovered why, over the years, subsequent Parliaments of all political persuasions have not dealt with the matter. I use this terminology all too often, but doing so is a no-brainer. As long as we have control and are happy that the community is the driver for this, why should Government hinder such an event? With that in mind, as I say, the consultation will last for three months.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

I welcome the consultation and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) on securing the debate. I am very interested in classic cars. From a historical vehicle point of view, will the Minister look at examples overseas? A great historical vehicle event called the grand prix of the ramparts takes place in Angoulême, France. Although our villages might not look exactly the same as those involved with that race, there are areas where similar events could take place. That would be a great bonus to the historical vehicle owners who would enjoy such an event.

[Mike Penning]

My hon. Friend makes a sensible point. This is not about one type of vehicle; it could involve any type of vehicle. It would be up to the MSA and the local community to decide to go ahead. I have already announced that a consultation will take place on whether we can remove classic and vintage vehicles up to a certain age group from the MOT test. The MOT testers do not want to deal with such vehicles because they are trying to test modern vehicles. However, under law, they have to do an MOT test. I was in a 1911 Rolls-Royce the other day that belongs to Lord Montagu. How on earth could an ordinary MOT station dream of doing an MOT on such a vehicle? I have had the honour of being invited to drive the Mille Miglia in Italy this year, which I have to do in a British Jaguar XK150.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

Is there any chance that the Minister might need someone to join him and carry his bags because my name is at the top of that list.

[Mike Penning]

I am afraid that my hon. Friend might have to speak to my wife, who has very kindly allowed me to go as long as she is with me.

On a serious note, the debate has been very useful. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North not just for securing the debate, but for being informative before it took place. That meant I had the chance to do my homework and listen to representations from the MSA and many people in my constituency. I represent one of the most socially deprived wards and one of the most affluent villages, so there is a good spectrum in terms of the excitement about such an event taking place.

[Mr Wallace]

Does my hon. Friend agree that what is amazing about motor sport is that the supporters are often low profile? It is only when there is an event such as this, that one receives dozens of e-mails from constituents who come out of woodwork and who one never knew were keen supporters of the sport. Such people take part in club events every weekend.

[Mike Penning]

I never cease to be fascinated by how many people get up in the very early hours of the morning on a weekend to watch Formula 1, like we all did last weekend. We were even up for the practice sessions, which I am sure makes us complete anoraks, but we were up and so were millions and millions of other people. This is not a class issue. This is not about the affluent. One of the reasons why the younger chaps in my constituency tell me that they are always out and about in their go-faster cars is that they do not feel that they have an outlet. I am not saying that they are bad guys—they are not. They are just frustrated. They would like to have an outlet to give them an opportunity. This measure, especially if it is done properly—

[Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a Division in the House. If the Minister feels that he can finish in two minutes, I think we could run on. If he wants his full four remaining minutes, we should adjourn.

[Mike Penning]

Mr Bayley, I can always take a hint, so in the space of 90 seconds I will sum up.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North yet again on securing the debate and giving me an opportunity, on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, to wipe out, in a short period of time—a bit of patience will be needed to get the legislation right—the anomaly that has existed for so many years, since 1928. I hope that local communities will take the opportunity to work with the MSA as a licensing authority to come forward with plans. If they do not, I think everybody would understand, but I suspect that this will be a very popular measure throughout the country. I hope that we can introduce the legislation that will enable local authorities to exercise those controls.

Question put and agreed to.

17:11

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Written Statements

Wednesday 30 March 2011

Companies House

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)]

I have set Companies House the following targets for the year 2011-12:

National Measurement Office

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)]

I have tasked the National Measurement Office (NMS) to provide policy support to Ministers on measurement issues and a measurement infrastructure which enables innovation, promotes trade and facilitates fair competition and the protection of consumers, health and the environment.

I have set the National Measurement Office the following targets for 2011-12:

Improve performance of the NMS programmes over the corporate plan period.

Ensure 93% of meter examiner appointments, manufacturer authorisations/consents and modifications to meter approval and decisions are made within five business days.

Achieve 90% of the planned income growth for certification, calibration and quality management certification.

Generate a positive net contribution to consumers, the environment and the low-carbon economy through the activities of the enforcement authority.

Reduce administration costs by 14% in cash terms over this corporate plan period.

These targets will be assessed on the following bases:

Target 1: The use of a scorecard technique across all programmes is being developed for use in 2011-12 to provide a basis for measuring this improvement.

Target 2: This will be measured from the time that all necessary documentation has been received and should ensure a timely metering service.

Target 3: The planned income growth is that shown in this plan representing the totality of the income streams expressed.

Target 4: This will be measured by comparing our cost base against the value of products made compliant, withdrawn from the market or affected by a formal business improvement plan.

Carbon Price Floor (Government Response)

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Written Statements

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)]

The Government have today published the Government’s response to the consultation document on the carbon price floor.

The consultation document “Carbon price floor: support and certainty for low-carbon investment” set out the Government’s proposal to provide greater support and certainty to the price of carbon in the power sector to encourage investment in low-carbon electricity generation.

Budget 2011 announced the introduction of a carbon price floor from 1 April 2013. The floor will start at around £16 per tonne of carbon dioxide (tCO₂) and follow a linear path to target £30/tCO₂ in 2020 (both in 2009 prices). The carbon price support rates in 2013-14 will be equivalent to £4.94/tCO₂.

The consultation sought views on how best to implement the proposal. A number of issues were raised by respondents throughout the consultation. These are addressed in the Government’s response.

The Government intend to introduce legislation for the proposals in the 2011 Finance Bill (and subsequent secondary legislation) and to bring the proposals into effect from 1 April 2013.

Copies of the document have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and are available on the Treasury website at www.hm-treasury.gov.uk.

ECOFIN

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Written Statements

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

The Economic and Financial Affairs Council was held in Brussels on 15 March 2011. The following items were discussed:

Economic Governance

The Council agreed a general approach on the package of six legislative proposals aimed at strengthening economic governance in the EU, particularly in the euro area. This agreement respected the provisions in the UK’s protocol to the treaty. The UK negotiated a UK opt-out on the articles in the fiscal frameworks directive pertaining to fiscal rules and won a recital making clear that medium-term budgetary objectives referred to in the directive would not apply to the UK. Negotiations with the European Parliament will now take place with a view to finalising legislation by the summer.

Climate Finance

Ministers adopted Council conclusions on climate finance, which welcome and reaffirm the commitments on climate finance agreed at the UN negotiations in December 2010. The Government support these conclusions. ECOFIN will revisit climate finance following further work by the Commission, Economic and Financial Committee and the Economic Policy Committee. This work will set out the key elements of the mix of international and national, public and private finance instruments needed to deliver scaled-up financial flows after 2012.

Stability and Growth Pact Implementation

Hungarian and Polish Ministers informed the Council of measures they are taking in order to reduce their deficits below 3% of GDP, and an exchange of views followed. The Council called on them to ensure strict compliance with the recommendations it issued under the excessive deficit procedure. The Government agree that member states need to have credible deficit reduction plans in place.

Short Selling and Credit Default Swaps

The presidency updated Ministers on ongoing work on the draft regulation on short selling and credit default swaps. The intention of the regulation is to harmonise short selling requirements across the European Union and harmonise the powers that regulators may use in exceptional situations where there is a serious threat to financial stability or market confidence. The Government’s position is that proposals should not impact market efficiency and liquidity, in particular in relation to sovereign debt. Further work will continue on this regulation before returning to ECOFIN in May for general approach.

AOB

Reform of financial regulations

The Council took stock of progress in the area of financial services regulation following a presentation from Commissioner Barnier. The Government are pleased with the progress which has been made since the financial crisis. However, it is critical that any proposals going forward have a clear evidence base and that thorough, objective impact assessments are carried out, along with extensive consultations.

G20 ministerial meeting in Paris

French Finance Minister, Christine Lagarde, informed the Council of the outcome of a G20 meeting of Finance Ministers and central bank governors held on 18-19 February. The Government believe that the G20 meeting was productive, and it was significant to reach agreement on a set of indicators for assessing external imbalances that threaten the world economy.

Educational Bodies (Oversight as Charities)

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)]

The Under-Secretary of State for Education, the Minister responsible for schools, my noble Friend Lord Hill of Oareford and I are today announcing proposals for the oversight as charities of academies, sixth-form colleges and foundation and voluntary schools. In my capacity as Minister for civil society, I have day-to-day responsibility for the legal framework for charities in England and Wales. I believe that the measures I set out here will continue to ensure the appropriate and effective regulation of charities and therefore help maintain public trust and confidence in the charitable sector. The Department for Education, the Welsh Assembly Government and the Cabinet Office have worked closely with the Charity Commission to agree these proposals and the commission is content for the Secretary of State for Education to fulfil the principal regulator role in England, and the Welsh Assembly Government to fulfil the principal regulator role in Wales.

Under the Academies Act 2010, academy proprietors will be “exempt” charities. Exempt charities are not registered with, or directly regulated by, the Charity Commission. Instead the aim is, wherever possible, to appoint an existing regulator to be their principal regulator, with the additional duty of promoting charity law compliance. The objective of this approach is to ensure that there is oversight of exempt charities as charities, while shielding them from unnecessary or duplicative regulation.

It is proposed that the Secretary of State for Education is appointed to be the principal regulator of academy proprietors under the Charities Act 2006. It was originally proposed that the Young People’s Learning Agency be appointed as the principal regulator as it currently undertakes much of the day-to-day work of funding and regulating academies on behalf of the Secretary of State. However, following the review of public bodies, the YPLA will, subject to the will of Parliament, be succeeded next year by an Education Funding Agency, an Executive agency of the Department for Education. Therefore, it is now considered more appropriate to appoint the Secretary of State for Education as principal regulator, because he has the existing roles of funding and regulating academies. In practice, the YPLA (and its proposed successor the EFA) would carry out much of the necessary information gathering which would then be used to report to and advise the Secretary of State. This arrangement will not impose any additional burden on academies or on the YPLA, and academies will no longer be required to register with the Charity Commission.

Sixth-form colleges which are charities (there are 94 in England) had their exempt status removed by the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. We propose to re-confer exempt status on them and appoint the Secretary of State for Education as their principal regulator. As the YPLA already regulates the funding of sixth-form colleges by the Secretary of State, this is considered to be a more appropriate and proportionate approach to promoting their charity law compliance than requiring them, in addition, to register with and report to the Charity Commission. This arrangement will not impose any additional burden on sixth-form colleges or the YPLA.

Foundation and voluntary schools (there are over 8,100 in England and 175 in Wales) were, until April 2009, exempt charities. They are currently treated as if they are exempt charities under transitional provisions which will expire on 31 August 2011. The proposal is to re-confer exempt status on these governing bodies and appoint the Secretary of State for Education to be their principal regulator in England and the Welsh Assembly Government to be principal regulator in Wales. This was the preferred option on consultation in 2010, and is also considered to be more appropriate and proportionate than requiring them to register with, and report to, the Charity Commission in addition to the Department for Education or Welsh Assembly Government. Again, the arrangement will not impose any additional burden on foundation and voluntary schools.

There are safeguards which we will put in place to avoid any potential conflicts of interest and ensure that, as principal regulators, the Secretary of State and the Welsh Assembly Government will be able to maintain the integrity of charitable status. There will be memoranda of understanding between the principal regulators and the Charity Commission setting out their respective roles, how they will work together and the circumstances in which the principal regulator would refer issues to the commission. The appointment of a principal regulator does not diminish the commission’s role in preserving public confidence in charities. If a principal regulator felt that there was a potential conflict of interest, it could seek the commission’s advice on handling it. In addition, if the commission felt that a regulator had a conflict of interest, it would raise the issue with the regulator concerned and/or with the Cabinet Office.

Draft secondary legislation to make these changes will be laid before Parliament in due course.

Future of Local Public Audit

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Written Statements

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

On 13 August my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced plans to disband the Audit Commission, transfer the work of the Commission’s in-house practice into the private sector, and refocus audit on helping local people hold councils and local public bodies to account for local spending decisions.

Since the announcement, my Department has worked closely with other Government Departments, the Audit Commission, the National Audit Office, the accountancy profession, local government and health sectors and other partners to design the new framework. I am now publishing, for initial consultation, our detailed proposals, which are a continuation of the Government’s desire to increase the independence of local public bodies and their accountability to local people, while maintaining clear accountability, through Ministers, to Parliament. I have placed a copy of the consultation paper in the Library of the House.

Our proposals follow a set of design principles: localism and decentralisation; transparency; lower audit fees; and high standards of auditing. We have also been guided by the established principles of public audit, including the independence of public sector auditors from the organisations being audited and the wider scope of public audit.

The new framework mirrors that already in place for the audit of companies. If audit firms wish to become statutory local auditors, they will need to fulfil the rules and arrangements of the professional bodies that are designated as “Recognised Supervisory Bodies” by the Financial Reporting Council. They will therefore be mainly self-regulated.

The overarching issue is how to ensure levels of assurance are maintained in the new framework, without creating a complex bureaucratic system which places additional costs and burdens on councils. Strong accountability to Parliament through accounting officers will be retained, while decision making on auditor appointment’s selection will be decentralised.

The Department of Health is considering the governance and accountability arrangements for the new health landscape and these will help determine the appropriate audit arrangements. The local public bodies referred to in the consultation paper do not, therefore, include local health bodies. However, I will be undertaking a further consultation on the arrangements for the audit of all local public bodies for which auditors are currently appointed by the Audit Commission, including health bodies, when I publish my draft Audit Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny. The Department of Health will publish a paper summarising its proposals at the same time.

Smart Metering

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)]

I am pleased to inform the House that the Department of Energy and Climate Change, with Ofgem, is today publishing the response to the prospectus consultation on the smart metering implementation programme.

The Government’s vision is for every home in Great Britain to have smart energy meters, giving people far better information about, and control over, their energy consumption than today. Businesses and public sector users should also have smart or advanced energy metering suited to their needs. The roll-out of smart meters will play an important role in Britain’s transition to a low-carbon economy, and help us meet some of the long-term challenges we face in ensuring an affordable, secure and sustainable energy supply.

I have deposited copies of “Smart Metering Implementation Programme—Response to Prospectus Consultation—Overview Document” and supporting materials in the Libraries of both Houses.

The documents are also available on the Department of Energy and Climate Change website at:

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/consultations/smart_mtr_imp/smart_mtr_imp.aspx

New Waterways Charity

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Written Statements

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

On 21 June 2010, Official Report, column 4WS, I made a statement about inland waterways policy for England and Wales. I said that we were considering the appropriate civil society model for British Waterways, including the possible inclusion of the Environment Agency’s navigations. On 14 October, the Government subsequently announced their intention to move British Waterways in England and Wales from being a public corporation to a New Waterways Charity—subject to parliamentary approval.

On February 28 I announced that I wished to take a phased approach to the delivery of my vision for a “national trust for the waterways”. In phase 1, the liabilities and assets of British Waterways in England and Wales will transfer into the new charity, alongside an “endowment” consisting of the property portfolio owned by British Waterways in England and Wales. In phase 2, the EA navigations would transfer to the new charity, if sufficient funding can be found in the next spending review to enable the charity to take on the liabilities associated with them, and subject to the agreement of the charity’s trustees.

Today, I am announcing the publication of the Government’s consultation on the New Waterways Charity, which is available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult

This consultation document puts Government’s commitment to localism at the centre of plans for the New Waterways Charity. Moving the powers, functions and assets of BW to civil society through the creation of a “national trust for the waterways” will allow stakeholders the opportunity to play a role in the governance of the waterways and to bring their expertise and passion to the operation of the organisation. The transfer will also promote greater engagement of local communities, leading to a range of enhanced public benefits including amenity, green travel to work, health and well-being and support to inner city and rural regeneration.

This proposal will also enable the waterways now owned and run by BW in England and Wales to be placed on a more financially sustainable long-term footing. The New Waterways Charity will have access to new sources of income from both commercial and private sources, including legacies, donations, increased borrowing and fundraising, as well as the chance to grow a volunteer base.

This consultation will consider the charity’s scope, governance, the charitable constitution, sustainable business model, as well as the process for managing the transition. The consultation will close on 30 June 2011.

Japan Earthquake (Government's Response)

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Written Statements

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

I would like to update the House on the Government’s response to the earthquake and tsunami which struck Japan on 11 March, and the consequent events at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant.

In doing so, I wish to express our profound sympathy to the Japanese Government and people for the appalling loss of life in the disaster, and to pay tribute to the courage and resilience of the Japanese people.

In the immediate aftermath of the disaster we set up an emergency helpline for those concerned about British nationals in the affected areas. As of 27 March, we have received over 9000 calls to our helpline and can confirm that some 970 people reported to our missing persons hotline have been confirmed safe. There are, to date, no confirmed British fatalities. We continue to work to locate British nationals whom we have been unable to contact. There are now a small number about whom we remain very concerned. We are making every effort to track them down. It is important to stress that in these difficult circumstances, it is likely to take some time for the Japanese authorities formally to identify those who may have lost their lives or been injured and to notify next of kin.

Within 48 hours of the earthquake and tsunami, our ambassador to Japan led the first British team deployed to Sendai, one of the main cities affected. In the following days, we deployed over 60 specialist consular staff, drawn from across the FCO’s global network, to north-east Japan to provide consular assistance and established a 24-hour consular response centre in Sendai. Our rapid deployment teams visited reception centres, hospitals and other locations to trace British nationals. They assisted more than 170 British nationals.

We reinforced our embassy in Tokyo, which worked around the clock on the crisis response including the provision of consular assistance to those in need. We stationed staff at both of Tokyo’s airports, provided consular help at our consulate general in Osaka, and staffed a temporary desk at Kansai International airport. We continue to provide assistance from our embassy in Tokyo and our consulate in Osaka.

In light of the severity of the disaster, the Government decided to provide a higher level of consular assistance and support for those directly affected. This included help with transport out of the immediate danger zone, from Sendai to Tokyo, financial support for people who needed essentials such as food and clothing, telephone calls home and accommodation in Tokyo. This support was delivered by the FCO’s consular teams on the ground in north-east Japan and Tokyo. We supplemented the available commercial capacity with charter flights to help those British nationals leave Japan who wished to do so.

The Government are also providing humanitarian assistance to supplement the efforts of the Japanese Government, and stand ready to do more. A 63-strong DFID-organised search and rescue team arrived in Japan on 13 March and made a significant contribution to the Japanese recovery operation in the affected area of Ofunato. The UK rescue team and medical advisers worked alongside US rescue workers and together cleared a large industrial district and residential area. The team returned safely on 19 March. In response to a Japanese request, we are providing 100 tonnes of bottled water to Mito City in Ibaraki Prefecture, one of the worst affected regions, which is hosting evacuees from Fukushima. We have also offered other forms of support to the Japanese Government including nuclear expertise. Through the Department for Energy and Climate Change the British nuclear industry has also provided radiological equipment to assist the Japanese as they work to bring the situation at the Fukushima nuclear plant under control.

Events at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant have been of serious concern. On Thursday 17 March, we advised British nationals currently in Tokyo and north-east Japan to consider leaving the area. We also joined the US in advising nationals to remain outside a broader 80 km zone around Fukushima. As a precautionary measure, we also began issuing iodine tablets to British nationals from locations in Sendai, Niigata and Tokyo. We are now distributing iodine tablets solely from our embassy in Tokyo. We have explained the circumstances in which people should take this medicine, who are the priority recipients (children and pregnant and breastfeeding women), and how we will advise people further on this if the situation changes.

The Government chief scientific advisor (CSA) and the Scientific Advisory Group in Emergencies (SAGE) have been engaged in detailed scenario planning for dealing with the ongoing events and we have contingency plans in place. The CSA has briefed the British community in Japan three times by telephone conference. Even in a worst case scenario, SAGE’s advice is that the risks to human health beyond the exclusion zone set by the Japanese authorities could be managed by precautionary measures, in particular, staying indoors to avoid exposure.

We continue to update our travel advice to advise and inform British nationals in Japan as the situation evolves.

We in Britain will continue to do all we can to speed Japan’s recovery from the earthquake and tsunami. Europe has made that same pledge. That is why the Government believe that one of our highest priorities must be to invite Japan to enter into a free trade agreement with the EU. At the European Council on 25 March the Prime Minister led calls for the EU to open negotiations for a free trade agreement (FTA) with Japan, subject to Japanese movement on non-tariff barriers. An ETA could boost Japan’s trade with the EU by €54 billion and EU trade by €43 billion and would send a strong signal of EU support for Japan.

Right to Provide Initiative

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

Today I am formally launching the Department’s guidance to support the Government’s new right to provide initiative and can announce that the Government will be investing at least £10 million through the Social Enterprise Investment Fund (SEIF) in 2011-12.

The new right to provide guidance “Making Quality Your Business” sets out the Department’s guidelines to support public sector employees who are thinking about taking up the right to provide. The guide sets out a process for people working in NHS trusts who have the right to propose the development of a staff-led enterprise.



The right to provide programme will enable staff across health and social care to explore setting up staff-led mutuals to take over and run services. It builds on the successful right to request scheme for community health services, which will see almost 25,000 community NHS staff set up social enterprises to take over the services they provide. Right to provide extends the opportunities provided by right to request to others working in health and social care.

We are committed to the big society approach, making public services answerable to the people that use them. Right to provide devolves power to front line staff at a local level who know how things can be done better and gives them the opportunity to put their ideas into practice. Employee ownership, combined with strong staff engagement, has demonstrated that it can deliver successful enterprises in a commercial context; we believe it can do as well in public service.

The Department’s Social Enterprise Investment Fund invests via loans and grants in new and existing social enterprises operating within health and social care. In the last year alone the fund has invested over £40 million in social enterprises in the health and social care sector, including support for community healthcare services through the transferring community services programme, and since its launch SEIF has supported over 450 social enterprises,

I am pleased to announce the investment of at least £10 million in the SEIF in 2011-12, which will demonstrate our continuing commitment to support the social enterprise sector and new organisations being created through the right to provide.

The Department’s guidance has been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.

Legal Services Board Chairman

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Written Statements

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

Prior to the enactment of the Legal Services Act 2007 and many of the key provisions contained within it, this House was informed that David Edmonds had been appointed inaugural chairman of the Legal Services Board, established under the Act. The LSB is the over-arching regulator of legal service providers.

I am pleased to announce that following consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, David Edmonds has been reappointed in his role as chairman of the LSB for a second and final term of appointment to commence upon expiry of his current term on the 30 April 2011. His appointment will be for a fixed period of three years.

Bribery Act 2010

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

The Bribery Act 2010 is an important piece of legislation which seeks to tackle the scourge of bribery in international commerce.

Last year, as part of the preparation for implementation of the Act, we consulted on statutory guidance about procedures that commercial organisations can put in place to reduce their exposure to bribery and understand the Act. The guidance cannot of course change the substance of the Act, but the consultation did yield a large number of practical suggestions for its improvement, some of which I have taken up.

I am now confident that the guidance will prove a useful tool which will help prevent businesses from going to unnecessary lengths to comply with the law, and having consulted the Scottish Ministers, I am publishing it today under section 9 of the Act.

The guidance remains centred on six key principles and is intended to assist businesses of all sizes and in any sector or market. In particular it makes it clear that anti-bribery procedures should be proportionate to the risk of bribery and to the size and structure of an organisation. I am also publishing a much shorter guidance document which summarises the key principles of the guidance and which sets out essential messages about the Act. This is designed to be of assistance to smaller businesses in particular.

Both the section 9 guidance published as “The Bribery Act 2010 Guidance about procedures which relevant commercial organisations can put in place to prevent persons associated with them from bribing (section 9 of the Bribery Act 2010)” and the shorter guide published as “The Bribery Act 2010 Quick start guide” will be posted on the Ministry of Justice website today along with a Government response to the consultation. Copies will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

In order to allow a period of three months for businesses to familiarise themselves with the guidance before the Act comes into force I intend to commence all the provisions of the Act that are not yet commenced on 1 July 2011.

The Government have also decided that a conviction of a commercial organisation under section 7 of the Act in respect of a failure to prevent bribery will attract discretionary rather than mandatory exclusion from public procurement under the UK’s implementation of the EU Procurement Directive (Directive 2004/18). The relevant regulations will be amended to reflect this.

The implementation of the Bribery Act 2010 will ensure that the United Kingdom is at the forefront of the battle against bribery, allowing the country to tackle corruption without being burdensome to legitimate business.

Office of the Public Guardian

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Written Statements

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

The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) supports the Public Guardian in discharging his statutory duties under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The OPG business plan 2011-12 will be published today, The business plan will be available on the Ministry of Justice website and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

The following are the significant impact indicators that have been set by the OPG for the year 2011-12.

The percentage of lasting and enduring powers of attorney being registered within 11 weeks.

Upon receipt of an application to register an EPA or LPA, the OPG will process the application and register the instrument within 11 weeks. This includes the statutory waiting period of six weeks during which people entitled to notice can lodge objections to the registration.

The number of case reviews of deputyships.

We will review a proportion of total case load in 2011-12. Case reviews help us to ensure that our supervision of deputies is operating effectively and in the best interests of the client.

The number of visits undertaken.

As the main means of face-to-face contact with customers, visits are a useful tool in assessing how a deputyship is operating in practice, and what support deputies and clients want to receive from the OPG. Visits also support compliance investigations.

The number of investigations concluded within three and six months.

When an investigation into the actions of an attorney or a deputy is commenced, timely conclusion is an important safeguard for the client and provides assurance to whistleblowers and families that we are acting on their concerns.

Cost-recovery percentage.

OPG operates on a full cost-recovery basis through the fees it charges for services. The full set of indicators is published within the business plan.

Oral Answers to Questions (Order)

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Written Statements

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

A revised “order of oral answers to questions” rota has been issued today, to cover the period when the House returns following the Easter recess.

It includes the following changes:

Topical questions have been introduced for the Cabinet Office and the Department for International Development. There will be a seven-minute slot for topical questions within their current total allocation of 30 minutes;

The amount of time allocated to the Deputy Prime Minister for questions has been increased to 40 minutes and, consequently, the length of time allocated for topical questions within this slot has been extended to 20 minutes. There will be an increase to 20 minutes for questions to the Attorney-General; and

As a consequence of the changes above, the days on which some questions are answered will move. Time allocated to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been reduced to 45 minutes.

Departmental Expenditure Limit (2010-11)

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Written Statements

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

Subject to parliamentary approval, the Department for Transport departmental expenditure limit (DEL) for 2010-11 will be amended as set out in the following table:

Agency Business Plans

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

I am pleased to announce the publication today of the business plans for the Department for Transport’s agencies—the Highways Agency (HA); the Driving Standards Agency (DSA); the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA); the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA) and the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA).

The business plans set out the services each agency will deliver and any significant changes they plan to make; the resources they require; and a framework of measures by which their performance will be assessed.

The business plans will be available electronically on agency websites, and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Semi-trailers

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

The Department for Transport has today published a consultation on a proposal to allow a 2.05 metre increase in the length of semi-trailers and a maximum overall length for articulated heavy goods vehicles of 18.75 metres. The current maximum permitted length of an articulated heavy goods vehicle is 16.5 metres, and the maximum length of semi-trailer compatible with that overall limit is 13.6 metres. However, the current maximum permitted length for a rigid vehicle/drawbar trailer combination is already 18.75 metres, so the new proposed maximum length for articulated goods vehicles would not mean longer vehicles than are already circulating on Britain’s roads.

The proposal is based on research findings and an impact assessment. It would be a relaxation of the current regulatory requirement on the road haulage industry. The Government accept the research findings which show it could have a significant potential net benefit to road haulage, as well as wider benefits in terms of reductions in congestion, local air pollution, carbon emissions, accidents, noise and infrastructure costs.

In June 2009, following earlier work on longer, heavier vehicles, the Department for Transport commissioned a detailed study into the feasibility and impacts of allowing the use of longer semi-trailers in GB, within the existing weight limit of 44 tonnes gross vehicle weight (GVW). The primary objective was to establish whether the introduction of these high-volume semi-trailers would deliver overall economic, environmental and societal benefits or disbenefits.

The study considered two main possibilities: increasing the length of a semi-trailer by up to 1 metre, to 14.6 metres in total, or increasing it by up to 2.05 metres. The latter option would increase the maximum permitted length of a semi-trailer to 15.65 metres, which would provide the same loading length as an existing rigid truck/drawbar trailer combination.

The study also considered the possibility of increasing the overall maximum permitted length of an articulated lorry to 18.75 metres. This would enable the development and use of tractor units with safer, more aerodynamic, frontal designs in addition to high-volume semi-trailers.

Based on the findings of the study, the Government believe there is a good case for permitting both an increase of up to 2.05 metres in the length of semi-trailers, and an increase in the overall permitted length of articulated vehicles to 18.75 metres. The existing weight limit of 44 tonnes GVW will remain in force. The consultation will enable the Department to develop a better understanding of the practical implications on road users generally of such an increase, and to identify proportionate mitigation measures to minimise the risk of unintended adverse consequences. Depending on the outcome of the consultation, the Government will consider permitting the operation of high-volume semi-trailers on a trial basis pending the introduction of the necessary changes to current regulations. This trial could be helpful to determine whether or not mitigation measures are required.

The consultation will run until 21 June 2011. Copies of the consultation document have been placed in the Library of the House. Further copies are available on the DFT website at www.dft.gov.uk. Depending on comments received and the Department’s response, amendments may be made to regulations.

UK Aviation: Sustainable Framework

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Written Statements

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

My Department’s business plan confirmed the coalition Government’s decision not to support new runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. It also committed the Government to create a sustainable framework for aviation in the UK. This framework will replace the previous Administration’s “The Future of Air Transport” White Paper which, while recognising aviation’s economic benefits, failed to take sufficient account of climate change and the impact of aviation on local communities. Today I am publishing a scoping document which aims to define the debate as we develop a new long-term policy for UK aviation.

The Government are committed to returning the UK to sustainable economic growth. Aviation has an important role to play in delivering that growth. It makes a significant contribution to the UK economy and provides the international connectivity this country needs to thrive in the highly competitive global economy. This Government want to see aviation prosper. Aviation should be able to grow, but it must also play its part in delivering our environmental goals and protecting the quality of life of local communities.

The Government have made clear their commitment to meeting the challenge of climate change. Today, aviation contributes around 6% of UK CO₂ emissions but this share will increase as demand for air transport increases and other sectors of the economy reduce their emissions. The scoping document explores the most effective ways of addressing aviation’s environmental impacts, both global and local, and seeks answers to questions on both issues.

The publication of this scoping document represents the start of a dialogue to give a wide range of stakeholders an opportunity to contribute to the development of the policy framework. I expect the views expressed to be varied, and sometimes difficult to reconcile, but I want to move the aviation debate on from the polarisation which has characterised it in recent years, towards a consensus which balances the benefits that aviation brings with its impacts, both global and local.

We will publish a draft policy framework for public consultation in March 2012, and formally adopt the framework by March 2013.

EU Transport Council

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Written Statements

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

I will attend the first Transport Council of the Hungarian presidency, which will take place in Brussels on 31 March.

There will be a progress report and policy debate on the draft regulation amending Regulation 1406/2002, which established the European Maritime Safety Agency. The proposed amendment gives the agency several new, largely technical, tasks. In principle, the UK would be able to support the proposals, subject to the Commission delivering the additional funding required through a programme of reprioritisation of the current EU budget. It is also important for the UK to ensure that the extension of the agency’s marine pollution response capabilities, to cover offshore oil and gas installations, is at the request of an affected state only, and that any involvement in the analysis of the safety of these installations explicitly excludes activities or requirements related to the exploration or exploitation of mineral resources by means of a well.

There will be two agenda items on global navigation satellite systems (GNSS).

There will be a progress report and the Council will be asked to reach a general approach on a decision on rules for access to the public regulated service (PRS) of the Galileo system. I believe the text to be tabled for general approach addresses the UK’s earlier concerns covering costs, the framework for the manufacture of PRS receivers and associated material, and security standards.

There will be a policy debate and the Council will be asked to agree conclusions following the Commission’s recent mid-term review of the European programmes. The Government are deeply disappointed and concerned that the full Galileo programme cannot now be delivered within the budget or timescale agreed in 2007. A robust assessment of all options is needed in light of this. The Government consider that the programme should respect the 2007 budget by reducing its level of ambition. The draft Council conclusions do not prejudice the forthcoming negotiations on the next multi-annual financial framework for the EU and urge the Commission to continue its cost analysis in order to identify options for cost reduction. They go on to underline the Council’s wish that the cost analysis should result in cost savings. Accordingly, I expect to be able to agree to the conclusions.

The Council will be asked to adopt two decisions in the area of aviation external relations.

The first is a decision on the signature and provisional application of a memorandum of co-operation between the Community and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). I intend to abstain on this proposal as I consider that it is necessary to put down a marker that the UK is concerned about the principle of member state sovereignty in international organisations, and cautious about any proposals which could have the effect of enhancing the role of the EU at the expense of member states.

The second is a decision authorising the Commission to negotiate with Switzerland on an amendment to the existing air transport agreement. This will further remove barriers to market access on the basis of full application by Switzerland of the EU regulatory framework. The UK is supportive of the proposed negotiating mandate.

The Council may be asked to adopt a position on a decision concerning the accession of the EU to the protocol of 2002 to the Athens convention, relating to the carriage of passengers and their luggage by sea, 1974. A number of issues still need to be resolved. I will report to the House on this matter if it is considered at the Council.

I will be raising two issues under any other business. The first is the importance of ensuring that the forthcoming review of European air quality legislation takes full account of transport issues. The second is the need to make swift progress in delivering an enhanced regulatory regime for air cargo security.

If, as expected, the Commission’s new White Paper on transport policy is published before the Council, the Commission will give a presentation on it under AOB. A debate on the White Paper will follow at a later Council, when member states have given full consideration to it. Also under AOB, the Commission will report on the follow-up to the volcanic ash crisis of 2010, looking at the wider scope of crisis management and EU methodology.

Merchant Shipping (Ship-to-Ship Transfers) Regulations 2010

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

I wish to inform the House of a further development concerning the Government’s legislation to regulate, ship-to-ship transfers of oil carried as cargo.

In July-September 2010, a review of the Merchant Shipping (Ship-to-Ship Transfers) Regulations 2010, SI 2010 No. 1228, was conducted in view of concerns expressed about those regulations.

The Merchant Shipping (Ship-to-Ship Transfers) (Amendment) Regulations 2010, SI 2010 No. 1769, delayed the commencement provisions of SI 2010 No. 1228 for six months (ie. so that the earliest date any of its provisions would come into force was 1 April 2011), to ensure the provisions of SI 2010 No.1228 did not come into force before the completion of the review.

Amending regulations have been drafted, and work is in train to ensure that these amending regulations take account of representations made. However, consideration of the impact of these regulations on business will take time and is unlikely to be completed until May at the earliest.

Accordingly, I am laying before the House a Statutory Instrument which will delay the commencement provisions of SI 2010 No. 1228 for a further six months (until the next common commencement date, which is 1 October 2011), to ensure that the provisions of SI 2010 No. 1228 do not come into force on 1 April in their unamended form.